Verizon, AT&T Made $600 Million in Overage Fees Alone in 2016 (dslreports.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Verizon, AT&T Made $600 Million in Overage Fees Alone in 2016 (dslreports.com)

Posted by msmash on Wednesday October 12, 2016 @04:50AM from the fool-me-once dept.

A new study claims that Verizon and AT&T made $600 million alone in 2016 just on overage fees. And while both telcos unveiled new plans that let you avoid $15 per gigabyte overages in exchange for just being throttled (Verizon's "safety mode" and AT&T's Mobile Share Advantage) the study by Nerd Wallet found that thanks to buried surcharges and other fees, users on these new plans may not save much money. DSLReports adds: That said, the report claims whether or not you save money under these new plans depends on your (or your family's) usage behavior. "If you're on an average-sized plan and your data overages exceed 8GB per year, choosing one of the new plans will save you money, according to NerdWallet and My Data Manager's analysis," says the report. "The individual Verizon Plan will save you money if you have an average plan, even if you never go over your data limit," it continues. "Otherwise, the new Verizon plans and AT&T's Mobile Share Advantage plans won't save you money. In fact, most consumers on legacy plans would be better off sticking to them and paying the occasional overage fee."

78 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

so....let's fine them $12million by turkeydance · 2016-10-12 04:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

they'll never notice
1. Re:so....let's fine them $12million by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 11:51 · Score: 0
  
  yeah, I've gotten a call from one of their accountants before about a total in a report of several billion dollars being off by less than 25 cents. Took all day to figure out.
Fee Subcription by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 04:56 · Score: 1

I'm paying so much I don't even remember what I'm paying for anymore...
1. Re:Fee Subcription by houstonbofh · 2016-10-12 05:09 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  If you understood your bill, there is no way you would pay that much. Confusion is intended. That way they can say $30 a month, knowing you will still pay the $70... ("It is all taxes and fees...")
2. Re:Fee Subcription by jellomizer · 2016-10-12 05:15 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The telephone tax is one example on where a Progressive Tax became a regressive tax over time.
  Back when the Tax was enacted Telephone service was only for the rich, however now it has became a necessary tool for operation in society. So the poor people need telephone service too yet they are paying extra taxes on it.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
3. Re:Fee Subcription by soapdude · 2016-10-12 06:34 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  Check out Google Fi. I switched to it 3 months ago and it's awesome. I pay $20/mo for unlimited talk/text + $10/gb data. No overages, just prorated. You use 1.002Gb? That's $10.02. Simple. Plus, if you are on WiFi, it just uses the Wifi for everything, including phone calls and text.
4. Re:Fee Subcription by movdqa · 2016-10-12 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  A friend switched to this recently and he's happy with the price and coverage. He used to be on one of the AT&T MVNOs.
Not Surprised by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 05:04 · Score: 0

The only time the telco's want you to switch is when it benefits them. They wanted you on tiered plans so they can rake in the money on overage fees. Sounds like they found a way to make "Unlimited" data as profitable as these tiered plans
Of course by somenickname · 2016-10-12 05:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

The options are A) Spend $600 million to upgrade the infrastructure so there is enough bandwidth. B) Gain $600 million by not upgrading the infrastructure and just charge more for people who try to use it. This seems like a pretty easy decision for a business and, as long as all competitors choose option "B", there is no real risk of losing customers.
1. Re:Of course by Jawnn · 2016-10-12 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  The options are A) Spend $600 million to upgrade the infrastructure so there is enough bandwidth. B) Gain $600 million by not upgrading the infrastructure and just charge more for people who try to use it. This seems like a pretty easy decision for a business and, as long as all competitors choose option "B", there is no real risk of losing customers.
  But, but the free market... (insert dipshit Rand fan-boy whine here). I think we can all agree that consumers are getting screwed here. The question is what are we going to do about it? Churn is part of their business model. We could all switch carriers and nothing would change, so STFU about competition. It doesn't exist. Next suggestion?
2. Re:Of course by number6x · 2016-10-12 05:46 · Score: 2
  
  The options are A) Spend $600 million to upgrade the infrastructure so there is enough bandwidth.
  I think the fact that the telcos are making so much money off of 'overages' proves that the bandwidth is already there and no infrastructure improvement is needed. If the customers were trying to go over the artificial limits imposed by their contracts and were unable to do so because the network infrastructure was so poor that their connections would never have the bandwidth to allow customers to exceed the limits, then we would need infrastructure improvement.
  Instead, we see that it is trivially easy for customers to exceed the artificial limits set by the phone providers. The network is more than able to serve up many more gigabytes of data. As things advance, we go beyond 4G networks and 4k video becomes a 'low-res' option, infrastructure will become more taxed and will need updating. For now I think most phone owners could hit their data limits very quickly if they tried. In much of the world the networks have bandwidth to spare.
3. Re:Of course by DarkOx · 2016-10-12 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  There is no free market when the government 'gets' to license spectrum. Quite honestly I think it should be all made to work CB like, there should be maximum power and set of rules that everyone must follow but anyone should be able to use the spectrum.
  That will give us lots of choice, but also will probably preclude the operation of a national network, and greatly reduce reliability. Oh well
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
4. Re: Of course by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 05:51 · Score: 0
  
  The solution was for consumers to refuse to support these practices with their purchases. That time has passed and now it's the accepted standard on a service we pretty much all use regularly and has become a societal requirement/expectation.
  The options now would be mass boycott (good luck convincing the same people who initially bought these practices to give up their mobile devices for months), governmental intervention (making the service a utility), or a new rising competitor breaking into the market (hahaha!!!).
  Collusion: when you can't monopolize (that's too obvious) but you can get close by sharing the pot with a few and is nearly impossible to prove without an obvious paper trail.
5. Re:Of course by swb · 2016-10-12 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it demonstrates the bandwidth is there for *some* customers. We don't know about the customers who heed warning texts and self-throttle.
  I'd be curious to know what percentage of customers who pay overages do so repeatedly (more often than not having them imposed) without doing anything about it, either moving to a higher tier plan or self-limiting their usage.
  I can see an argument where it's cheaper to pay an overage 1-2 times per year vs paying for a higher tier you wouldn't consistently need, but it doesn't seem to make much sense people would routinely pay overage costs without doing something to avoid them.
  In fact, I would generally expect most consumers to be risk averse and buy into higher tiers they don't need routinely to avoid overages. That was kind of what they did with text messages when it was a case of paying a lot for unlimited texts or buying a small amount and then paying per text when you exceeded your small allocation, even though the math said that unless you went over your allocation by a lot routinely, you were better off paying for small overages than for paying for a high tier you didn't use.
6. Re:Of course by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2016-10-12 06:04 · Score: 2
  
  There is no free market when the government 'gets' to license spectrum.
  And doubly so then they consider it "competition" when there are TWO suppliers:
  - With ONE supplier (monopoly) the incentive is to charge as much as possible - until you're driving away more in customer revenue from people who do without or with less than you gain from higher prices.
  - With TWO suppliers (duopoly) the market forces lead rational players to adjust prices to divide the market roughly evenly and continue to charge monopolistic prices. Price signals are enough, no forbidden collusion required.
  - With THREE suppliers you're starting to get instability. If the big two make it too hard on the little guy, he may cut prices to try to grab market share, leading to a price war that drives prices down toward cost-of-goods-plus-modest-margin. Or they may manage a balancing act and prices stay high.
  - With FOUR OR MORE suppliers the high-priced equilibrium is almost certain to collapse, and it gets progressively more unstable with more players.
  So government communications regulatiory policy - at least in the US - is explicitly encouraging duopoly markets and monopolistic pricing structures.
  
  --
  Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
7. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  There are times when it is in everyone's interest for we the people to mean we not the collected set of I the persons. We own the spectrum because anything else would make it worthless.
8. Re:Of course by DuckDodgers · 2016-10-12 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, competition does exist. I know I'm going to sound like a paid shill, but hell with it. Google has Project Fi, which only works with recent Nexus Phones but switches between wifi, the T-Mobile network, and the Sprint network based on connectivity. It's $20 per month plus $10 per GB, plus state and federal fees.
  
  I use Ting.com. Ting users can use Sprint or T-Mobile on a per-phone basis - one of my sons has a phone that uses Sprint, the other son and I have phones that use T-Mobile. The selection of phones is decent, you can get a Samsung Galaxy S-Exploder, iPhone 6, etc... and it's pay for what you use. Unless you use more than 6GB of data per month, it's cheaper than the big carriers. My wife's monthly Verizon Wireless contract for her work is $120. My sons and I together spend about $60 total per month.
9. Re:Of course by sootman · 2016-10-12 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  Luckily, not all companies choose Option B. (Or at least, not all at once.) This is the #1 reason I moved from AT&T to T-Mobile 3 years ago. On AT&T, if I went over, they charged a TON for the next small clump of data. I think my plan was $30/mo for X GB, and if I went over, it was about $15 or $20 for two-tenths of X GB more -- something ridiculous like that. And it wasn't optional -- if you went over, you paid.
  On T-M, besides giving me more data for less money in the first place AND including tethering for free (which was also $15-20/mo on AT&T), they have no overage charges. If you go over your allotment, you get throttled to 2G speeds for the rest of the month. (Not sure if that is still how they work for new accounts, but I still have the deal that I signed up for.)
  AND they were one of the first companies to make it easy to buy phones outright and not subsidize them, so if you can stand to use a phone for more than 2 years, you save money. AND they aren't jerks when you ask to unlock your phone. Etc etc etc.
  Other than the fact that actual phone calls get dropped a lot more (like, weekly or more, versus almost never on AT&T), I've been totally happy with T-M and I've saved a lot of money with them over AT&T in the last 3 years.
  
  --
  Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
10. Re:Of course by tlhIngan · 2016-10-12 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it demonstrates the bandwidth is there for *some* customers. We don't know about the customers who heed warning texts and self-throttle.
  I'd be curious to know what percentage of customers who pay overages do so repeatedly (more often than not having them imposed) without doing anything about it, either moving to a higher tier plan or self-limiting their usage.
  I can see an argument where it's cheaper to pay an overage 1-2 times per year vs paying for a higher tier you wouldn't consistently need, but it doesn't seem to make much sense people would routinely pay overage costs without doing something to avoid them.
  In fact, I would generally expect most consumers to be risk averse and buy into higher tiers they don't need routinely to avoid overages. That was kind of what they did with text messages when it was a case of paying a lot for unlimited texts or buying a small amount and then paying per text when you exceeded your small allocation, even though the math said that unless you went over your allocation by a lot routinely, you were better off paying for small overages than for paying for a high tier you didn't use.
  Well, for users, it's extremely easy to upgrade plans. In fact, once you go over, they will usually upsell you on the next higher plan.
  I suspect most of the overages are paid by business phones where the usage is not so controllable. I mean, we have users who make so much long distance calls it's in the mid 4 digits, sometimes 5 digits. No plan covers such high usage, and it varies - one month it may be barely $1000, other months it's huge. You also really can't buy a voice plan for such usage - you're bound to go over.
  Depending on the job, such usage may be unavoidable.
11. Re:Of course by avandesande · 2016-10-12 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  I've been using Virgin Mobile for years and it is 35$ month with 5GB. The only problem with VM is there aren't any family plans, so it's best if you just need a single phone.
  
  --
  love is just extroverted narcissism
12. Re:Of course by Grishnakh · 2016-10-12 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  You're leaving out an extremely important point about Ting: you don't have to use their phones. You can buy any Sprint or T-Mobile phone you want and use it. Personally, I like the Galaxy S4 and S5 phones (I now have an S5 as the prices are about $150 for a really nice used one; the S4s are now under $100 for nice ones); they're still getting updates and are flagship phones. They also have great Otterbox cases available at cheap prices (because they're several years old now).
  I have 3 phones on my Ting plan currently (3 users), and we pay about $50-55 per month total. It does help that we use WiFi calling apps while at home though. Ting is great because you only pay for what you use, so if your usage goes down, so does your bill. And there's no overage charges, you just pay more for more usage.
  The only thing that's not as great about Ting is that, unlike Project Fi you mentioned, it can't switch between T-mo and Sprint networks, even though the phones should be compatible with both. Hopefully they'll figure out how to do that eventually, but it's a small company it looks like, so of course their development resources are going to be limited. In spite of their size though, I've had very good experiences when I've needed tech support (which was all through online chat). It's also generally pretty easy to do stuff on their website, like switching phones, provisioning new service, etc. But yeah, I'm sure you're right: if you're a really heavy phone (or data) user, it'll end up being more expensive than one of the unlimited plans from the main carriers.
13. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 11:53 · Score: 0
  
  The options are A) Spend $600 million to upgrade the infrastructure so there is enough bandwidth.
  I'm extremely skeptical that that dollar estimate came from anywhere but one of your personal orifices.
14. Re:Of course by DuckDodgers · 2016-10-13 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for mentioning it. That's a better deal than Ting for someone that uses lots of data.
  
  I used Virgin Mobile about seven years ago, and at that time their smart phone selection was awful and the Sprint network they piggyback on was poor in my area. I see that today they have the iPhone 6 and 7 and the Samsung Galaxy S7, so the phone selection is no longer an issue. And Sprint cell phone reception has improved considerably in my area in that time, so that's not an issue either.
Not From Me. by zenlessyank · 2016-10-12 05:09 · Score: 1

I refuse to use either company. Suckers!!!
it's called upselling by known_coward_69 · 2016-10-12 05:11 · Score: 1

everyone does it. you pick 5% to 10% of your customer base and get them to pay more $$$ to you for some service
i don't use that much data so i don't really care about your right to watch youtube or netflix 24 hours a day everywhere you go
1. Re:it's called upselling by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  Even my dentist upsells. Go in for a $95 cleaning and get told you need laser gum treatment and fluoride rinse, leave with a $350 bill.
2. Re:it's called upselling by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 05:58 · Score: 0
  
  That's cheap compared to around here. I had a dentist office where I'd go in for a 100% paid-by-insurance cleaning, and they'd try to sell me the laser gum and antibiotic treatment shit for $1200 (and that's AFTER insurance paid their share). I refused. At that point, to continue CLEANING service they make you sign a fucking waiver basically stating you are taking your life into your own hands and were duly warned that by refusing the $1200 procedure you'll likely die a horrific, fiery death.
3. Re:it's called upselling by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 06:13 · Score: 0
  
  I was told almost the same thing... refusing the laser treatment would result in the dentist not guaranteeing their dental work. Scam for sure.
Republican Party dogma by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 05:12 · Score: 0

This is an example of the dynamic innovation you get with the free market: companies compete relentlessly to bring the best goods and services to market and win customers.
And if you lower the taxes on the corporations and their senior managers, we'll all get even more innovation and more good paying jobs.
1. Re:Republican Party dogma by known_coward_69 · 2016-10-12 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  so go to sprint or t-mobile
How much do all the ads on webpages cost? by Bruinwar · 2016-10-12 05:14 · Score: 2

When we were on vacation to a nice cabin on a lake that had no Internet, I tethered off my phone. Just my wife & I doing normal surfing in the evenings & yes I knew I would go over my 6 gig cap... It occurred to me that I am paying top download the ads on all websites.
While I understand websites aren't free & other than Google, no one is really making much money with these ads. But it appears I will have to go with a adblocker now. Fucking Comcrap starts their cap on us next month. I wonder how much data is being chewed up by advertisements?
BTW fuck them & their throttling plans.

--
SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
1. Re:How much do all the ads on webpages cost? by fahrbot-bot · 2016-10-12 05:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  When we were on vacation to a nice cabin on a lake that had no Internet, I tethered off my phone. Just my wife & I doing normal surfing in the evenings
  You were vacation with your wife, in a cabin by a lake and you both spent the evenings surfing the web? Dude...
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
2. Re:How much do all the ads on webpages cost? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 05:44 · Score: 0
  
  an ISP could get in our good graces by identifying the ad-serving traffic and throttle only IT / don't count it against your caps.
3. Re:How much do all the ads on webpages cost? by Calydor · 2016-10-12 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  In my experience, a good half of your total data usage goes to stuff like advertisements, Facebook buttons, Twitter links and the like. The net is full of so much crud because no one cares about bandwidth anymore, it's just something magical that is infinite and always there.
  When you start seeing people using 20 MB gifs as signatures on game forums, that's really a wake up call for how much bandwidth you're wasting.
  
  --
  -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
4. Re:How much do all the ads on webpages cost? by Not-a-Neg · 2016-10-12 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  It's worse than the obnoxious ad bars, just about every news website these days automatically plays embedded videos. If you check your browser cache you will find it having anywhere from 500MB to serveral GB of crap. AdBlock doesn't block it all either. I would expect that NoScript is your best bet, or using a text-only browser if they still exist. As for the Comcast data caps, I live in Illinois where they have been testing the caps for years now, only ever reached the old 250GB cap once back when I was downloading several Linux distros and had a Netflix subscription. With the new, higher, caps I have not come close despite using my Internet to mostly watch video (Twitch & Youtube.) They made it far easier to see how much of your allotment you are using when you login to their website now.
  
  --
  -==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
5. Re:How much do all the ads on webpages cost? by kruug · 2016-10-12 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  But it appears I will have to go with a adblocker now.
  Careful, most only remove the div/object from sight, they don't stop them from actually downloading.
6. Re:How much do all the ads on webpages cost? by avandesande · 2016-10-12 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  ... and carriers could start charging advertisers to let the ads go through for 'free'. I like it!
  
  --
  love is just extroverted narcissism
7. Re:How much do all the ads on webpages cost? by wasteoid · 2016-10-12 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  they were looking for new positions to try
8. Re:How much do all the ads on webpages cost? by Bruinwar · 2016-10-12 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  OK fine, good shot. But you understand, the mosquitoes were out in force do to recent rains so after sunset we were chased inside.
  The cabin was a payoff for computer repairs. A friend of mine has a few businesses & suffers from the usual computer problems & I've been fixing them for years. I used to get gym membership but he sold it.
  
  --
  SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
9. Re:How much do all the ads on webpages cost? by Bruinwar · 2016-10-12 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  But it appears I will have to go with a adblocker now.
  Careful, most only remove the div/object from sight, they don't stop them from actually downloading.
  Really, I did not know that. Do you or anyone else have any suggestions as to what to use? Does NoScipt block it all? I've seen some sites that won't allow you to see their content if you block their ads. As long as that does not proliferate, no big deal, I'll just not use those sites.
  
  --
  SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
10. Re:How much do all the ads on webpages cost? by fahrbot-bot · 2016-10-12 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  I get it, especially if you two weren't alone in the evenings. But I'd like to offer the following to remind you to always try and find special time together - and a cabin by a lake seems like a good place:
  Remember Sue...
  - Rick
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
11. Re:How much do all the ads on webpages cost? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 13:57 · Score: 1
  
  When we were on vacation to a nice cabin on a lake that had no Internet, I tethered off my phone. Just my wife & I doing normal surfing in the evenings
  You were vacation with your wife, in a cabin by a lake and you both spent the evenings surfing the web? Dude...
  Why would you take your wife on vacation?
12. Re:How much do all the ads on webpages cost? by Spazztastic · 2016-10-13 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  I would expect that NoScript is your best bet, or using a text-only browser if they still exist.
  NoScript is the only way to go. Lynx will just lead to frustration if you are to try to browse any modern page due to the amount of JS used to render.
  
  --
  Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
13. Re:How much do all the ads on webpages cost? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-13 08:40 · Score: 0
  
  This post is just as important now as it was 10 years ago and nothing got done then. Why do you expect them to do anything now?
14. Re:How much do all the ads on webpages cost? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-15 04:29 · Score: 0
  
  You could always use a hosts file.
  *ducks and runs for cover*
Good for you! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 05:21 · Score: 0

If I want internet service, I have to take it up the ass from those crooks. And the reason why I have to is because they bribed my state legislature - they just all it campaign contributions.
I think, those crooks should be taxed $600 million and it distributed to their customers.
But that's not going to happen because they own our government.
1. Re:Good for you! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 05:27 · Score: 0
  
  nah they will just spend 12 mil$ worth of free speech on your elected officials :)
2. Re:Good for you! by Grishnakh · 2016-10-12 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  WTF are you talking about?
  We're not talking about residential ISPs here, we're talking about mobile telcos. There's 4 main choices for that in the US: Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile. The article even mentions that AT&T's and Verizon's plans are a response to the unlimited plans that T-Mobile and Sprint offer.
  In addition to those 4, you can get phone service from myriad different resellers, which can be far cheaper than the plans the big boys offer, while still using their towers and networks. Personally, I have a Sprint phone that I use with Ting. I spend less than $20/month per person on my plan.
WRONG T-Mobile does not by SuperKendall · 2016-10-12 05:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

I left Verizon specifically because of the upsetting and ridiculous extra charges for things like simple use of international data.
T-Mobile really doesn't pull that crap. In fact once I ran out of tethering data allowance (even though I still had data left on the plan) and T-Mobile had no way to pay them more money to increase the tethering allowance... you can bet Verizon would have had $ome way to accomplish that (BTW that tethering portion thing seems to be gone now).
I can also use data roaming internationally with NO FEE WHATSOEVER.
The real test is in the bill though, and mine has stayed the same from month to month despite traveling, some international and some not...
On a side note T-Mobile seems to actually spend money on infrastructure as over time the reception across a number of locations has improved as has the network speed. Still not up to Verizon levels out East but not too bad either.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:WRONG T-Mobile does not by known_coward_69 · 2016-10-12 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  except the new monthly plans cost just as much as AT&T and verizon and t-mobile has said they are going to do away with the current plans in the next year or two
2. Re:WRONG T-Mobile does not by SuperKendall · 2016-10-12 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  I honestly do not care what the base rate is, what I care about is that I can expect to do a lot of things with he service and not have my bill fluctuate wildly. My Verizon bills could be 2x-3x what I was normally paying due to a variety of reasons.
  We'll see what they replace plans with but I don't see them nickel and dining customers the way Verizon did.
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
3. Re:WRONG T-Mobile does not by known_coward_69 · 2016-10-12 06:33 · Score: 0
  
  some of us have a life outside our phone and being able to pre-load facebook and instagram videos everywhere we go
4. Re:WRONG T-Mobile does not by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  T-Mobile doesn't own infrastructure, they lease from one of the others.
5. Re:WRONG T-Mobile does not by clonehappy · 2016-10-12 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  [citation needed]
  T-Mobile absolutely owns, maintains, and operates their own cellular network in the United States. Maybe in some other country they're an MVNO, but not anywhere I know of...
  What the hell are you smoking?
6. Re:WRONG T-Mobile does not by SuperKendall · 2016-10-12 07:27 · Score: 0
  
  Moron, I do have a life outside my phone as well (I'm pretty sure substantially moreso than you) which is why I like a plan I don't have to wonder about every month.
  To me a smartphone or data plan is not abut others reaching me, but about empowering me to find out anything I like at a moments notice. Sorry you can't make out the distinction and choose to live as a literal subhuman.
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That's all? by MasseKid · 2016-10-12 05:24 · Score: 1

That seems like a really small number on a per person basis. I'm guessing between them they have 60 million customers, so this is (average wise) less than a dollar a month for their average consumer.
1. Re:That's all? by Oswald+McWeany · 2016-10-12 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking something similar. It's a lot of money, but it's probably a small % of their annual budget.
  In context. $100,000 would be a lot of money to me, but to the US government budget it would be rounded down to $0.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
2. Re: That's all? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  $600 mil is peanuts, meaningless. I know one guy who lost way more than that in one year on real estate. That was a big loss, really the biggest.
Solution by The-Ixian · 2016-10-12 05:27 · Score: 1

Pre-paid plan.
It just makes so much sense. Pay up front and when your account runs out of money, the service stops. No overage. It's impossible.
I have gone to the same strategy with banking. I used a pre-paid account. It's impossible to overdraft.

--
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
1. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  Prepaid plans on T-Mobile don't cut you off when you run out of data. The service keeps on going at 128Kbps. So if you want unlimited data at 2G speeds then just switch to T-Mobile.
2. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 06:32 · Score: 0
  
  The laws here also state that re-occurring payment plans such as phone/gym/subscriptions etc can continue to be drawn upon even if the account is empty. Same goes for paying with credit cards at the pump. Even if the card had only 1 cent on it, for that single transaction the pump will accept any amount. Found that out the hard way once, but not only did the bank track it down with corrections, they actually caught the scumbags 5 states away who were stealing gas with the stolen cards #s.
3. Re:Solution by toddestan · 2016-10-15 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  The problem the gas pumps have is they authorize the card before they let you start pumping gas, but at that point they don't know how much the sale is going to end up being. So as long as the card is "good" (below the limit, even if only 1 cent) the credit card companies will authorize the card then allow the pump to charge anything against it.
  They used to authorize the card for some arbitrary high amount like $75*, then charge the actual amount to the card after the gas was pumped, but this ended up pissing some people off as the $75 authorization would sometimes stick for a few days, so they stopped doing it.
  * This was back when $75 would buy you a lot of gas.
legacy plans are great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 05:30 · Score: 0

until verizon switches you without your knowledge, or forces you ('you have to switch', which is complete bullshit) to switch... they really, *really* don't like the old legacy alltel plans with unlimited data and no caps or throttles.. i mean, really really hates them.. to the point they will do anything legal or illegal or in violation of service agreements and contracts to get people off of them.
1. Re:legacy plans are great by sims+2 · 2016-10-12 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  AFAIK nothing has been done to anyone with a UDP without it being attached to a T1114 or going over verizon's arbitrary cap on unlimited data that they won't tell anyone how high the cap is because people would use that information to stay under the usage cap.
  Otherwise unless you contact support for any reason, go to any verizon corporate store for any reason, or try and activate a sim card yourself you're fine.
  
  --
  Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
Article is misleading by movdqa · 2016-10-12 05:33 · Score: 1

I switched from a legacy Verizon plan to the new plans and got the same data for $4 less. I also have the Safety Mode and Carryover Data. So lower cost, more data, more flexibility. How you'll do with the new plans or the old plans depends on your usage and how their fees are structured. BTW, we're about 23 days into the cycle and we haven't used an data. I'm generally amazed at how much cellular data people use today.
1. Re:Article is misleading by Not-a-Neg · 2016-10-12 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  I called Verizon this past Monday and while discussing my desire to switch to the new plan the rep advised me that their is a $10 discount for the old plans if you are on a device payment plan which makes the old plan cost less than the new one. Difference of $5 less, if you don't have that discount currently being applied and are on a device payment plan then the new plan will appear to cost $5 less than the old one. I'm still going to switch to the new plan and pay $5 more to get the rollover data since I barely use half of my 1GB data as it is.
  
  --
  -==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
2. Re:Article is misleading by Not-a-Neg · 2016-10-12 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  *there, damn the lack of editing on Slashdot.
  
  --
  -==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
3. Re:Article is misleading by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  Preview, motherfucker.
How did they come up with these numbers? by sims+2 · 2016-10-12 05:34 · Score: 1

How did they come up with these numbers? Verizon charges $15/GB overage in 1 GB blocks a $26 overage is impossible 1.7GB overage would be 2 1GB overage blocks so $15 + $15 =$30

--
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
1. Re:How did they come up with these numbers? by by+(1706743) · 2016-10-12 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  This is one of the things I'm extremely happy about with Google Fi (just a user, no affiliation).
  
  At $10/GB, the data may be a bit pricey -- but all data is prorated. I don't use data much at all, so my $30/mo. plan (unlimited call, 1GB data) is almost always *less* than $30/mo. Plus, international data is the same price.
Semantics by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 05:53 · Score: 0

It's not really a fee, it's a service, they provide extra data to people that go over for a pre-approved price that you agreed to when you signed up. The only problem I see with any of it is the lack of an option to opt-out from automatically receiving the extra bandwidth. People that exhaust their data frequently have no excuse for not upgrading to a plan with more data.
let's modify that fine a little... by Lead+Butthead · 2016-10-12 06:29 · Score: 1

Have the fine deducted from officers' compensation packages.
I bet real money that'll change their tune REAL FAST.

--
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
I saved by switching by NoSalt · 2016-10-12 06:47 · Score: 1

My wife and I had the AT&T Family Share Plan with 2GB/month of data. Here lately, we came very close to to 2GB cap, and ran over a couple of times. So, after the AT&T Mobile Share Advantage plans came out, we switched to a 3GB/month plan and are saving $15.00/month on our bill. Say what you want, but this was a good, money-saving, deal for us.
I just use an MVNO by p51d007 · 2016-10-12 11:09 · Score: 1

FLAT fee including tax. Less than 48/month, unlimited talk/text, 6gb a month and I never use more than 4-5GB a month. No this fee, that fee.
neologism by sheramil · 2016-10-12 15:48 · Score: 1

because i'm familiar with the way americans mangle words, i understand "overage" to be a fee charged when someone goes over their bandwidth allocation. is that right? or is it a fee charged for being over the age of 18? perhaps they will eventually penalize users for NOT using their entire allocation each month. someone notify Chris Hansen, we've got underage criminals here.
My worthless comment by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-12 16:31 · Score: 0

I know I'm just yelling at the moon here, but overage charges should be commensurate with compensation for outages and bad service areas. If I pay 100x per gig of overage, then for every day I'm out of service, I should be refunded for 100 days of subscription fees.