Slashdot Mirror
O2 Scraps Unlimited Data Usage For Smartphones
Jagjr writes with news that O2, a major UK wireless provider, appears to be following in AT&T's footsteps by scrapping its unlimited data plan for smartphone customers. New customers, or ones who upgrade, will be capped at either 500MB or 1GB per month. Reader Barence adds this excerpt from PC Pro:
In a blog post defending the new policy, O2's CEO claimed 0.1% of the network's users were consuming almost a third of the traffic, while the average O2 user consumes only 200MB of data. By PC Pro's calculations, that means those 26,000 heavy users are consuming an average of 65GB per month over a 3G connection. O2 had 26 million customer accounts at the start of 2010, so it has 26,000 heavy data users. 26 million x 200MB = 5,200,000,000 MB total data usage across the network per month. 5,200,000,000MB ÷ 3 = 1,733,333,333MB per month used by the 26,000 heavy data users. That means the average heavy data user consumes a staggering 66,666MB (so around 65GB) per month."
I'm sorry, I'm just too used to corporations lying and making shit up. Have a third party with no conflict of interest audit their numbers and then we can talk. Until then I'll just assume this is another "fuck the customer" move by a major corporation.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
While I'm not a fan of taking away things, in my mind having a fixed limit is better than having an 'Unlimited' plan, but having an unknown 'fair usage policy', for which there is no official policy.
5gb is reasonable.
At 500mb, there is no point in risking using the service.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
If users can get 65 GB in a month. But the überusage seems to be the hidden marketing cost of advertising an unlimited plan.
...a stunned silence fell upon the hall.
ironically, all the major monopolies which control the market are going that way, so your decision means squat. there is no 'competition'. the empty premise of the 'free' market.
Read radical news here
" 0.1% of the network's users were consuming almost a third of the traffic" ... "the average heavy data user consumes a staggering 66,666MB (so around 65GB) per month."
If this were truly the case, they could cap things at 5G at no extra cost and get back 90% of that 1/3, while only effecting a little more than .1% of their customers. Instead, they are setting the cap lower such that they get back maybe another 5% of that 1/3 (that's a gain of less than 2%) and screwing people only one or two SD from the mean. That's going to be a lot of people.
Every situation a telco sees is a new opportunity to try to screw their customers or a government out of more money. Every situation, without exception.
One might argue that every business should try to make as much money as possible. But businesses who screw their customers get dumped in favor of other, more customer friendly businesses fast, and therefor most successful companies try to take care of their customers.
This dynamic is completely absent in the big telcos. It's an entire industry of terrible companies run by lying bastards.
(Small telcos try harder, and attempt to take care of their customers, but small telcos don't have cell networks or access to most people's last mile.)
I used to be an O2 customer until about 8 months ago when they silently changed my (sim only) contract that I paid an extra £7.50 per month to get unlimited data. This was on top of the £15 pound I paid for calls and text messages. They silently amended the "fair use" policy from 4Gb per month to 500Mb. They did not reduce the £7.50. I immediately jumped to a different company and told them why after having been a customer for about 5 years or so.
There network in the UK has been hopelessly overloaded since they got the exclusive deal on the iPhone. In central London you would be unable to get a line quite regularly. They are desperately trying to keep their network alive without spending any money since they know most people will now be leaving them since the iPhone is available from other networks.
I dont read
So that would mean an AVERAGE of roughly 200Kb/sec non-stop all month long? Given this is a 3G connection we are talking about, that's either not possible or means they are pretty much saturating their connections all the time. Does it seem likely that there are 26,000 users who bought phones solely to dedicate to tethering and bittorrent (I can't think of any other application that would produce those results). Or maybe 26,000 people with malware infected phones sending spam all day long? Or maybe the carrier's stats are just shit? Or maybe "3G" means something different in the UK (where I'm at it means an average of 100-200Kb/sec depending on where you happen to be standing at the time). Feel free to correct any of my assumptions or my math if necessary:)
So, your position is that customers are "[ruining] it for everybody" because said customers are actually using what they are paying for? Do you realize how utterly stupid your position is? If someone purchases a home and uses every room, instead of only a percentage of room that the realtor believes is reasonable, then that customer is trying to "[ruin] it for everybody"?
The fact of the matter is that these companies advertised their product as "unlimited", then committed a violation of the law by falsely advertising to customer what "unlimited" means. The fact of the matter is that these companies are bringing in record profits, but refuse to spend some of those profits to build a network to support the product they are selling. These corporations believe they can do whatever they wish and then impose restrictions, after a contract is signed, because they believe that most customers do not have the financial means to fight for their rights.
I say fuck these corporations and fuck the pieces of shit that play us(the customers). I will use the service I pay for, to the fullest extent possible. If they(the corporations) do not like it, then I will see them in court.
we are indeed talking about wireless providers, not isps
Since when does "isp" imply "wired"? If a company provides Internet access, it is an ISP.
there are no handed out monopolies in this business.
Radio frequency spectrum is monopolized: only the FCC provides it.
second, tell me why the market is not free in sectors that does not have handed out licenses ? like, sports shoes ?
When did Payless stop selling sneakers?
That is a different issue, and it could be argued that it is an artificial one. Even if there were unlimited spectrum, it still costs a ton of money to wire the continent for service.
Airplane Photos, Airline News, Planespotting Guides
Maybe the FCC should handle the towers then (contract out the construction and maintenance, etc. to various subcontractors as needed), and charge for the usage of those towers. Or, the FCC should regulate the telecos in the same manner that other utility companies are regulated.
I mean, I'm paying all this tax money, I want to see it put to good use, not just to build bridges to nowhere.
As for all the anti-big government people, I'm not a fan of large governments either. But as there's a scarcity on this resource, the government is going to regulate anyway, so why not regulate properly.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
$20/mo to enable tethering?
People who tether transfer more data per month than people who do not.
AT&T is charging $20 for tethering and implementing bandwidth caps. So if you gulp down your bandwidth limit with your phone, it costs X. If you gulp down the same bandwidth with your computer, it's X+$20. There's a cap in place, so it takes the "uses more bandwidth" argument out of play (since the tethering plan doesn't increase your cap). There's no reason for it, it's the same bandwidth.