Slashdot Mirror
The Odd Variations On 3G Per-Megabyte Pricing
GMGruman writes "Carriers are increasingly charging for 3G mobile access by the megabyte, to prevent 'unfair' subsidies of heavy users by everyone else. So why does the price of a 3G megabyte vary based on the device used to send or receive it? Why is an iPad megabyte cheaper than a MiFi one? After all, a megabyte is a megabyte as far as the network is concerned. InfoWorld has a comparison of 3G pricing for the four major US carriers for their various supported devices, so you can see whose 3G pricing is out of whack for which devices."
The best way to undermine a broken, corrupt system is to draw attention to the inconsistencies in its operation.
Yet Another Tech Blog
(but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
that's the one that actually contain the table your are looking for.
http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobilize/the-strange-unpredictable-pricing-3g-data-plans-485?page=0,2
Transferring 1 1MiB chunk stresses the network a lot less than transferring 1024 1KiB chunks.
It makes sense to charge differently for devices with different usage patterns.
Can they not just charge you for WHAT YOU USE, WHEN YOU USE IT. It's fucking retarded.
In terms of PAYG mobiles they dont have these problems
Because you keep paying it. Next question?
What happens when all the carriers get together and say "I think a Megabyte is worth a dollar more?"
No, what we need is to standardize the technology used so customers can easily switch carriers, outlaw carrier locking of phones once the phone is paid for, and require carriers to sell transport to each other at reasonable rates. This would allow meaningful competition.
A megabyte is not equal to a megabyte, necessarily.
For instance, let's say I have a credit card processing server going across the same WAN link as web traffic ( for other workstations ). Obviously the web traffic is lower priority than the payment traffic.
As it applies to cell phones; maybe iphone users use their devices differently from other devices? Who knows, it's more likely cell phone companies bilking their customers ( as always ), but my point is that not all MBs are the same.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Supply and demand doesn't work when supply is constrained by the government and one sided contracts lock demand so that it can't chose another supplier if being taken advantage of.
Emphasis mine.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
In Germany a government body regulates the peering rates which recently moved from around 7c to around 3,4c a minute. Supposdly the rest of the E.U. charges similar rates. Does anything like that exist in the U.S.?
Not in the least.
Our system is totally to the benefit of the wireless carriers. We even have GSM and CDMA carriers to ensure that phone portability is as limited as possible. The only major carrier that offers to unlock phones once they are paid for is one you probably have heard of, T-Mobile.
When comparing regulation between two Germany and the USA it is always like this.
You have be brain washed into thinking that a consumer having a choice is the pinnacle of capitalism
No, Mr. Knowitall, a free market is where those who are selling a good have equal access to the market place, ie: a level playing field in which to participate, like I said. /me thinks you spent too much time in college and not enough time actually owning and managing businesses.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Now that's even more ridiculous. Once again pretty females probably get the best rate.
First they can go into a club when they don't meet dress code, and now they get a bigger discount depending on what they bare.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
That's called collusion and it is illegal in the US and EU.
Don't underestimate the marketroids. Most of them fully grasp that a flat rate would be more "logical" if their goal was to be fair. Their goal is not to be fair. Their goal is to extract the most money possible from you for the least possible cost. Making their plans simple and clear would be deeply, horribly illogical of them given their goal.
When I went to get my corporate Blackberry a couple of years ago, I had my choice of three models from Verizon and three from AT&T. Two of the models from each were equipped with GPS receivers and a bunch of nifty neato features. Both carriers claimed the phones were GPS-equipped. I did a little more research and my favorite Verizon model turned out to be delivered with the GPS locked to only their TeleNav service if you paid $10 a month.
I called a Verizon rep about this, and the conversation went sorta like this:
Me: I understand that you lock the GPS on your Curve 8300 units, is that correct?
Verizon Rep: Absolutely not! The GPS is fully available.
Me: So, I could download Google Maps for Blackberry and I'd have my location shown?
VR: Yes, location services are available in Google Maps. The location should calculate in seconds, and of course you need a data plan.
Me: What? GPS doesn't use data unless you enable Assisted-GPS. Can I use non-Assisted mode in areas I don't get coverage?
VR: No. You can't use the GPS with Google Maps, location services for that application are via cell triangulation.
Me: But, why can't it use the GPS?
VR: The GPS only works with TeleNav, our paid subscription service, which offers (blah blah blah more than Google Maps) all for only $10 a month.
Me: So if I paid the $10 a month for TeleNav, I could use the GPS built into my Blackberry with any application I wanted?
VR: Yes, I already said that location services are available to all applications.
Me: Great, so I don't need any extra hardware to unlock the GPS, just the TeleNav subscription?
VR: The GPS is not locked, sir. I told you that.
Me: Allow me to rephrase that. I don't need any extra hardware to use the GPS receiver built into my Blackberry to use, say, Google Maps or Blackstar, assuming I pay the $10 TeleNav fee?
VR: (sounding annoyed) Location services are availalable in all applications that support them.
Me: GPS-accuracy location services? As in approximately three meter accuracy with a good view of the sky under ideal conditions?
VR: (quite annoyed now) Of course you need extra hardware, you need an external bluetooth GPS puck to get the location from. We can sell you one with your phone for an extra $150.
Me: So the GPS itself can only be used with TeleNav, and no other applications, and only if I purchase TeleNav, right?
VR: (very piqued) I keep telling you, location services are available in all applications.
Me: Just not using the built-in GPS.
VR: Yes, the GPS works fine in all supported applications.
Me: Can you name a few of those supported applications, please?
VR: TeleNav.
Me: Any others?
VR: Location Services are available in Google Maps, Blackberry Maps, and a number of other...
Me: (interrupting) Please stop talking about location services, I want to know about the Global Positioning Satellite Receiver hardware built into my phone. Can I use that hardware with Google Maps, Blackberry Maps, or any application other than TeleNav, even if I purchase the $10 a month TeleNav subscrip...
VR: (interrupting) Of course not! The GPS is for TeleNav only. If you want a GPS of your own, you have to buy one. We won't just GIVE you one!
To me, this seemed a very illogical discussion. But to Verizon, this is a very logical conversation, because they wanted to get me into a two-year commitment with their phone so I'd be facing the decision
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
"Carriers are increasingly charging for 3G mobile access by the megabyte, to prevent 'unfair' subsidies of heavy users by everyone else."
No, they're not charging more in order to make the network "fair" for everyone. They're charging more because they can get away with it because there are no real alternatives for anyone to switch to (especially with the 2-year contracts they're allowed to lock everyone into).
It's just that saying "We're charging more money because we're a company that's driven by making more money" doesn't go over as well as saying "We're charging more money to keep the network fair".
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Pricing is a raise to break-even. It's inescapable, without the influence of government.
And with the customer having perfect knowledge, and with all possible suppliers having equal access to capitol and no artificial barriers to entry into the market.
Of course with any finite system, without some form of regulation to prevent it, the entity with the control of the largest amount of capitol always "wins" in any multi-round commerce game. Once a monopoly grows, they can almost always maintain and expand it into other areas. If nobody else can raise enough money to build the towers, you cannot start a new cell phone company. And how can you convince a lender to lend to you if you plan on competing based on price against an already established player who can easily drop their prices until you go bankrupt? Yes, someone else could come along again to try to compete on price but they will have a tougher time finding a lender (the last lender lost their shirt remember?) and meanwhile the established player has more money than last time in order to temporarily "compete" with the newcomer.
Don't get me wrong - "artificial" intervention is very often harmful, but in my opinion is also very often necessary to provide the type of ecconomic environment we want to live in.
ATT has unlocked phones for years. All you had to do was well ask. I worked in tech support there until 2006 and we we used to process requests and send out unlock codes on daily basis. In 2009 I moved to south america, and called ATT and requested an unlock code for my Samsung Blackjack, and they sent it out to me in two days via email. And if you had an contract phone, and an account in good standing for at least 90 days, you could request and get an unlock code if you were going to travel abroad. The only phone you could not get an unlock code in recent history was the Iphone.
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
The correct way to do it would be by using something like DNS. That way the number behind it all could change and no one would have to know about it
If we had it to do all over again with today's technology.
Area codes (and prefixes) were allocated based upon population and with respect to rotary phones and mechanical switching equipment. Areas with high population got area codes with the most small numbers (except for 0) because on a rotary dial phone, shorter numbers means that the call can be connected more quickly. Connecting a call more quickly means that the switching equipment is tied up for less time. That is why 0 wasn't used as much--it's the last number on the rotary dial, and thus takes the longest to use. And since high-population areas are expected to be called more frequently, it made a great deal of sense to minimize the connection time to these places.
The iPad (with 3G) is pretty expensive. $630 minimum (but no contract on the data.) The Tab is only slightly less without a contract, but is sold subsidized for, what, about $400? Of course, forcing the data plan on you (and they are expensive) means that it's probably quite a bit more expensive in the long run.
Frankly, I think that Apple saw a new market that they could outright create, and they jumped at it. They own the tablet market right now because they did it first, they did it well, and they started with something familiar. Other companies had tried tablets before, but they didn't get all three of those right.
As for price, lots of people complained about the iPad pricing at first. There were claims that Apple had priced themselves way too high and that no significant number of iPads would be sold. Of course, those were vastly incorrect predictions, and what we're seeing now is that no one else can compete at the same price. They all have to take shortcuts somewhere.
That said, I'd argue that anyone who can buy a tablet has money to spare. They're still all toys right now. The only two that offer any reasonable performance are the Tab and the iPad, and they're still both pretty much consume-only devices. Yeah, John Gruber likes to point out that people are creating with the tablets--and that's certainly true--but the way most people create on most computing devices is by typing, and that's still far and away a better experience on a computer.
However, according to the cult of the market, the "Invisible Hand" is supposed to push the retail cost down to the cost of production.
That tells us that the telecoms market is quite unhealthy in the U.S. OR that the theory of markets is wrong.
The problem has been around for as long as phones could actually use data and shows no signs of correction. If the market can't correct any faster than that, it's worthless.
the entity with the control of the largest amount of capitol always "wins" in any multi-round commerce game.
I assume you meant "capital", but "Capitol" is an apt Freudian slip given that once you have enough capital, you can buy legislators.
I'm surprised the iPad plan isn't more expensive - anyone who can afford an iPad obviously has money to spare, while those on tighter budgets waited for cheaper tablets to become available.
On the contrary; anyone who can afford an iPad probably has a well-paying job that they didn't get for being stupid. Or is really looking after his or her money and not wasting it on useless stuff, which is why they can afford an iPad. That kind of person doesn't waste their money on an overly expensive contract. You seem to be in that lower middle part of the IQ distribution where you think you have to be stupid to buy a product that is easy to use. Other people realise that buying a product that is easy to use is actually clever.
Anarcho-capitalists are basically anarchists who like money and all the fun things money can buy, like hookers and blow. I'm surprised you didn't infer that from the "anarcho-" prefix.
I write sci-fi for metalheads