Shamed In Super Bowl Ads, Verizon Introduces Unlimited Data Plans (theverge.com)

A surprise announcement Sunday revealed that tomorrow Verizon will begin offering introductory plans with unlimited data.*

* Customers "will get full LTE speeds until they reach 22GB of usage," reports The Verge, "after which they'll be subject to reduced data speeds and de-prioritization."

An anonymous reader writes: Other carriers have similar limits. "For Sprint it's 23GB. T-Mobile has a slightly higher threshold of 26GB... AT&T matches Verizon at 22GB," reports The Verge. Verizon says their cap is "to ensure a quality experience for all customers... While we don't expect to do that very often, network management is a crucial tool that benefits all Verizon customers." The $80-a-month plan also includes hotspot tethering -- up to 10 gigabytes -- and "includes 'HD' video as opposed to the 480p/DVD-quality video that T-Mobile One customers get by default."

In a Sunday YouTube video, the head of Verizon's wireless effort says customer interviews found "Some of the heavier users of data -- the power users -- had data anxiety." But it's still a surprising move. Engadget reports that in the past Verizon "frequently tried its hardest to discourage unlimited data users," but today is "facing stiff competition from T-Mobile, which engineered a dramatic comeback in recent years and upped the ante by making unlimited data standard through the One plan."
Verizon's pricing was also targeted heavily last week in a barrage of Super Bowl ads by both Sprint and T-Mobile just last Sunday. T-Mobile showed a masochistic woman calling Verizon just to enjoying hearing about the overages, taxes and fees she incurred by exceeding her data limit, while Sprint showed a man who was trying to escape his Verizon contract by faking his own death.

Comments

Theoretically

[rmdingler]

Competition in the free market is supposed to lead to better products and deals for customers.

Of course, this is only the case when absent government-created market distortions such as subsidies and ridiculous regulations.

Re:Theoretically

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, because without those subsidies and reugulations, coverage in areas with lower populations (much less landlines) would CERTAINLY be better and cheaper, because market forces.

TLDR: Shitfuck, Nebraska has services of most any kind because of government, not the free market.

Re:Theoretically

[Anonymous Coward]

And absent cartels and monopolies as well - the free market is essentially a prisoner's dilemma between corporations, where 'defecting' is 'cutting your price'. That means that the Nash equilbrium is low, but collusion and cooperation means the corporations can routinely get a better profit by agreeing to keep their prices high (at the expense of consumers).

Diamonds and oil are well known examples of large organizations being quite capable of agreeing to keep prices high, to avoid a competitive spiral.

Re:Theoretically

[rmdingler]

Customers on the veritable last mile should have essential services whether they are are profitable or not, but that would certainly fall far from being described as ridiculous regulation. Nonetheless, paying for additional towers in BFE and Shitfuck, NE so that people can download data to sketchy 3G service probably encourages companies like Verizon to attempt cap limits.

The free market keeps Verizon competitive when upstarts that do not cover quite as unprofitable rural area begin to cut into their bottom line.

Re:Theoretically

[stephenmac7]

You see, the free market fixes that too. Not having cell phone service would be a possible minus for people deciding to move out into the middle of nowhere; they might instead decide, "I want to live in civilization. Maybe I should pay slightly more to get a home somewhere a little more urban." Regulating cell phone companies to serve places with low population density is like telling restaurants, "If you're going to have a location in the city, we're going to require you to also build a location in every rural area within 50 miles." What do you think would happen? Your choice of restaurants would become very limited. Some would say "oligopolistic." That's what has happened to cell service. The government has created artificial barriers to entry and everyone (except those who are in rural areas and companies that can afford to comply) loses.

Re:Theoretically

[ArmoredDragon]

I dunno, it seems to me that at least in the case of the wireless industry, you have Verizon trying to make its services available where few people go in order to prove that it is providing a premium service for a premium price, while T-Mobile is trying to prove that it can provide the same services at a lower price.

Seems like good ol' fashioned competition to me.

Regulation, in many cases, does the opposite. Patents and copyrights are basically a form of regulation, with the former often inhibiting new, disruptive technologies hitting the market because somebody thought of a similar idea with a poor implementation.

Re:Theoretically

[Wrath0fb0b]

Diamonds and oil are well known examples of large organizations being quite capable of agreeing to keep prices high, to avoid a competitive spiral.

Except there's tons of evidence that OPEC members cheat on their quotas as soon as prices rise. This is pretty much what you would expect from greedy members: first lie to the other members' faces and then grab as much of the excess profit as you can.

I think this is what's mistaken about the modern claim that because competitive entities are sociopathic, they must be restrained from outside. The counter-claim is that multiple sociopathic entities competing against one another to satisfy demand restrain each other. The cheating among OPEC members is a nice manifestation of this counter-claim.

[ And, of course, in reality the truth lies somewhere in the muddle. But for phone carriers where consumers can switch relatively easily (and port their phone numbers), the latter seems to deliver. ]

Re:Theoretically

[willy_me]

Nice try, but the ideal market does not exist in the real world. Some markets are more "ideal" then others but none are perfect. As a result, government has to impose regulations to ensure the market is as close to ideal as possible. At this point capitalism can do its thing and optimize for efficiency. Without said regulations the market does not balance, corruption and/or monopolies emerge, and consumers are generally screwed.

Regulations should be minimized but never removed entirely. I personally support a system that regularly reviews regulations to ensure they still serve their original purpose. At times, updates will be required. So be it - regulations have to evolve with changing markets in order to ensure the market remains healthy. But any person (or organization) who claims that regulations have to be abolished is either horribly naive or has vested interests. All those lobbyists come to mind. Lobbyists are important because they inform government on the cost of regulations - but giving them all that they desire is never in the public's best interest.

Re:Theoretically

[Fire_Wraith]

The concept of a Free Market is a great teaching tool, but much like its counterpart, the infinite frictionless plain, it doesn't actually exist in reality in its theoretical form. That's because there is no free market where everyone involved has 100% access to all relevant information, and 100% freedom of action to buy or not, nevermind a complete absence of any consequence for behavior.

What is true, though, is that competition is a powerful force, and as long as that is kept reasonable/fair and free of anti-competitive forces, it can be harnessed to produce very positive results. Competition provides impetus for improvement and efficiency, where a noncompetitive market does not (and tends to lead to stagnation, arbitrary price increases, poor quality, and such).

Why this is important is that you need laws and regulations to make sure that the market is free and fair. Regulations can do things like make sure that weights and measurements are right (so you're not being cheated) or that companies aren't doing underhanded things to try and force competitors out of business or otherwise conspiring to scam the consumer (price fixing, cartelization, etc). That doesn't mean that every regulation is good, especially if they're being written by the competitors (regulatory capture), but they're not inherently evil either.

Re:Theoretically

[Anonymous Coward]

Customers on the veritable last mile should have essential services whether they are are profitable or not, but that would certainly fall far from being described as ridiculous regulation. Nonetheless, paying for additional towers in BFE and Shitfuck, NE so that people can download data to sketchy 3G service probably encourages companies like Verizon to attempt cap limits.

The free market keeps Verizon competitive when upstarts that do not cover quite as unprofitable rural area begin to cut into their bottom line.

The part I never quite understood is why companies just ignore rural areas. I understand it is less profitable, but why not at least sell the service at a higher cost, such that profit is achievable in a couple years?

This seems hopelessly short sighted.

Re:Theoretically

[hairyfeet]

Nope sorry bullshit. If you had an actual free market (instead of the crony capitalism that passes for it in the USSA) then the people in those areas could form a co-op and pay for their area to have fiber and towers...but they will be crushed by lobbyists for the scumbag telecos that won't run out there but don't want any competition, no matter how small.

As long as you have corps big enough to buy their own laws you will have corruption and unfettered capitalism has been tried here before, it was called the age of the robber barons and ended up with corps having their own private armies and beating (and even killing) those that tried to unionize and blowing up rivals businesses...yeah lets go back to that, how about NO.

Re:Theoretically

[Anonymous Coward]

You miss the part where it's difficult to grow crops in places with high population densities. Some people live in those places because they, gasp, want to do that work and we all need them to do so so maybe forcing providers to allow them to live in 2009 is okay...

Re:Theoretically

[HiThere]

They probably actually *can't* make it profitable. If the raise the prices, fewer will be willing to pay for it.

The problem with this is that they accepted money to provide the services, and planned from the beginning to not deliver. So any argument based on the idea that they telecom companies are at all trustworthy is clearly flawed.

Re:Theoretically

[Dutch Gun]

Now, if you want to build a log cabin on the top of a mountain, fine, maybe you're fine with no connection to the modern world. But a number of people live out in the "middle of nowhere" because their work requires a lot of open space in the "middle of nowhere". You know... like farming. Those are the 1% that feed the rest of the 99%. I think we can reach some reasonable compromise that ensures reasonable free market competition while still ensuring our farmers and ranchers, and those that support them, have access to technology and services everyone else takes for granted without being bankrupted in the process.

Re:Theoretically

[Anonymous Coward]

There's some degree of cheating, true, but they aren't all producing at maximum capacity.

Re:Theoretically

[HiThere]

The problem with that is regulatory capture. It should be illegal for anyone who has ever worked for a regulatory agency to take money or other emolument in any capacity from those they regulated. Perhaps it would be reasonable to allow them to continue to collect a retirement plan that they had qualified for a few years before they became a regulatory, but I don't know....this whole area is so corrupt that even that smells like bribery to me.

Re:Theoretically

[HiThere]

But you also need enforceable and enforced anti-corruption laws on the regulators. And they should constrain what the regulators are allowed to do or accept after they leave office as well as while holding it.

Re:Theoretically

[Anonymous Coward]

23.. 22.. 26.. 22..

what 'free market'?

in what universe do the carriers' plans significantly differ from one another in features and/or price in an effort to stand out from the crowd and capture marketshare? if there was truly a free market, one of them would have the fucking balls to say "here's 100gb fast-as-we-can-deliver for less than the other guys' 10-25. enjoy!"

they all offer about the same "deal". they're all crooks.

it's fucking collusion, plain as day.

Re:Theoretically

[Anonymous Coward]

Flawed analogy. In this day and age basic telecommunication services are almost a necessity of life. Restaurants are not. People can cook their own food. They can't just up and for their own broadband and/or cellular service.

Re:Theoretically

[Anonymous Coward]

If an idea or technology is truly new then a patent won't hinder it.

Re:Theoretically

[dreamchaser]

I'm paying $65-$75 per month for two phones with plenty of data via Project Fi. So far the service is also excellent. You were saying something about all prices being the same?

Re:Theoretically

[Anonymous Coward]

So true. Without shitposting I don't know what I'd do.

Re: Theoretically

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what's funny? The right wing keeps crying for less regulation. Looks like they'll get their wish...

They won't be able to post their stuff of fb any more :p

Re:Theoretically

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, they wouldn't have otherwise as the expansion is now relatively cheap BECAUSE OF SUBSIDIES. You don't think they're paying 100% out of pocket for this shit, do you? Even the Berniecrats are more pragmatic than you Paultards.

Re:Theoretically

[Dog-Cow]

Surely they should be called Paulicans, no?

Re:Theoretically

[pthisis]

I'm paying $65-$75 per month for two phones with plenty of data via Project Fi. So far the service is also excellent. You were saying something about all prices being the same?

I have Fi and love it, but it's not in the discussion for the level of data usage people are discussing here--your "plenty of data" is about 4GB/mo split between 2 phones ($20 for the first phone's voice/text, $10ish for the 2nd phone, leaving about $40 to reach your $70ish total).

The post you were responding to was talking about 100 GB plans to compete with the current 20 GB "unlimited" plans--even the latter would be $200/month on Fi, and 100GB at $10 each would be $1000/month at Fi's pricing.

Fi is awesome and cheap f you are usually on wifi at home/work and so don't really burn a ton of data on a regular basis, but it's not going to replace your wired network at home the way a cheap, fast 100GB/mo wireless plan could.

Re:Theoretically

[Anonymous Coward]

Hydroponics, moron.

Re:Theoretically

[elrous0]

ridiculous regulations

I hope you don't count "You can't dump toxic sludge from your factory into the local river" as "ridiculous."

Re:Theoretically

[jon3k]

It's about capital investment and the time to return a profit. You focus time and resources in the densest places so that your investment (loan) returns money as fast as possible so you have happy shareholders.

Re:Theoretically

[bluegutang]

People who live on a farm can buy satellite internet access. It's quite affordable. There's no reason for us to subsidize them.

Re:Theoretically

[mishehu]

Why yes, I'd love latency in excess of 800 ms! That works very well with real time protocols like SIP & RTP. And "affordable" for various values of "affordable" ($125 for 30 GB per month sounds "affordable to you?). Also, notice how you only said affordable, not "reliable", because that it most certainly is not.

Re:Theoretically

[TheRaven64]

In some cases, people aren't willing to pay the real cost. If it costs $20k in up-front investment per customer (laying fibre to every house can easily cost that, mobile phone masts can be cheaper) and will need that to be upgraded every 20 years, then you need to charge over $100/month to make up the up-front cost and the interest on the loan, before you factor in any running costs.

In other cases, it's because companies have finite resources. If you have $100K to invest in infrastructure improvements, do you do it in a place that covers 1,000 people and lets you charge them $30/month more, or in a place that covers 500,000 people and lets you charge them $10/month more? Companies spend money in order to earn more money.

Re:Theoretically

[bluegutang]

Of course that's affordable! If it's to be considered a cost of living in the boondocks, then the prices of your fruit and vegetables will have to rise a tiny bit to pay for it. But the average family farm probably earns $5000/month if not much more, so $125 extra would increase food prices by at most ~2%, and probably much less. Whatever the effect, the market would take care of it quite nicely, with no need for special government subsidies and the corruption that frequently comes with them.

Re:Theoretically

[Anonymous Coward]

Waahbuuulance, my son, mother, father, brother don't owe your or your family anything!!! Your choices, you live with them!

Re:Theoretically

[avelyn]

Satellite internet access is so shitty. It goes out constantly, doesn't deliver on promised speeds, and has ridiculous data plans. I had one of the largest data plans at 10 GB a month. I had hunted to find the best satellite provider and got Wild Blue. The customer service, ugh, that was the worst. They knew you literally had no other options besides dialup so I would get charged with random shit and have to spend 5 days on the phone trying to get my money back. Eventually I had my internet cut off because they said I downloaded the Matrix (?) and demanded $200 as a settlement offer and I told them to duck off.

Re:Theoretically

[mishehu]

You sidestep the issue that really is at hand: that the last mile is completely and utterly mismanaged in this country to the detriment of the populace. And I live in the "boondocks" just a few miles out of a metro area, and that's far enough to put you into "Hughes only territory". A fiber run here would be $750/mo for 10/10 mbps, for a term of 3 years. 30 GB I can blast through in a couple days being that I work in voip, and that would probably put me, with overage charges, up in the $500+ range per month. I don't have acres of vegetable to sell - in fact, this area isn't even remotely prime farming land. Now, if on the other hand the last mile infrastructure was open for municipal handling, and having the service running on top of it handled by any number of companies allowed to peer, then that would be a boon to both dwellers of the big expensive city as well as those who live in areas that are ignored by the incumbents because they won't make back enough profit in their 2-3 year ROI projections. But we can't do that here, not even the electric company (we have a law on the books that specifically forbids that for gawd knows what reason other than $$), and certainly not the residents of my area banding together to build a muni fiber network (again, the law...).

Re:Theoretically

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, so glad we have the EPA on the job!

-

In an event that has led to health warnings and turned a river orange, the Environmental Protection Agency says one of its safety teams accidentally released contaminated water from a mine into the Animas River in southwest Colorado.

The spill, which sent heavy metals, arsenic and other contaminants into a waterway that flows into the San Juan National Forest, occurred Wednesday. The EPA initially said 1 million gallons of wastewater had been released, but that figure has risen sharply.

"The EPA now estimates 3 million gallons of wastewater spilled from the mine into the Animas River. They also confirmed lead concentrations had spiked over 3,500 times historic levels just above the town of Durango.

Re:Theoretically

[nine-times]

Also, it just doesn't make sense to have "free market" infrastructure. Free markets imply a low barrier to entry, allowing new upstarts to compete. Now think about roads, for example. How many different roads systems does it make sense to have? And no, I'm not asking how many different roads we should have, but different road systems. To make it more clearly, how many different roads should you expect to connect directly to your driveway? The answer is "one", at least under most circumstances.

You can say the same thing about water, electricity, or whatever else. I guess you could say it makes sense to have multiple sources of power generation, but it only makes sense to have one set of electrical cables connecting your apartment to the grid. It only makes sense to have one set of pipes connecting your apartment to a water source.

And Internet is infrastructure. You're never going to have real competition, so a free market can't be the solution.

Re:Theoretically

[MooseTick]

"if there was truly a free market, one of them would have the fucking balls to say "here's 100gb fast-as-we-can-deliver for less than the other guys' 10-25. enjoy!""

Do you think there is no cost to offering 100GB plans? Do you think they are holding back because they don't like you? With that logic, you might as well say the car companies are screwing us by not offering brand new $500 Cadillac. Or Starbucks sells us coffee for $5 that is a penny's worth of water. If you really believe that, but stock in Telcos or whoever and be on the winning side of the equation.

Re:Theoretically

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, this guy I know who lives in a small rural town in Poland can get 100/100 fiber for 30 euros a month. During offpeak hours, he gets 300/300.

The fact that people are stuck on DSL is a national disgrace.

Re:Theoretically

[JesseMcDonald]

I hope you don't count "You can't dump toxic sludge from your factory into the local river" as "ridiculous."

The enforcement of property rights is not regulation. You have every right to use your own property as you please, but others have exactly the same right—implying that you do not have the right to use their property without their permission. If you dispose of your pollutants in such a way that they end up harming others' property, including but not limited to their bodies, then you have infringed on their property rights and owe the victims redress. This is not some arbitrary regulation regarding how you may use your own property, but rather the natural consequence of others' rights to determine the use of their property.

As a term of art in political discussions, the term "regulation" refers to a restriction above and beyond simply respecting the property rights of others. Some regulations are indeed "ridiculous", but most are simply wrong, a product of politicians making a nuisance of themselves in situations where they have no standing to interfere.

Re:Theoretically

[farble1670]

You know... like farming. Those are the 1% that feed the rest of the 99%. I think we can reach some reasonable compromise that ensures reasonable free market competition while still ensuring our farmers and ranchers

And you know? With the property taxes I pay for my urban home, you'd think that the farmers and ranchers could set aside some of their land for me to hike and fish and swim and ride motorbikes on, huh?

Re:Theoretically

[Anonymous Coward]

The market is not "free" if only a few companies are able to join the party and they must comply with bazillions of requirements. When anyone can operate their own "virtual" or physical operator (paying a standard connection fee when using someones infra-structure, that is equally the same for EVERYBODY), than you have a free market and than you can actually have competition.

Today's america is all about crony capitalism.

Re:Theoretically

[farble1670]

And I'm sure your property value and property taxes reflect your access to services. If they don't, then you overpaid for your home. I live in literally the most expensive home market in the US and have the taxes to go with it. I have reasonable access to broadband and wireless. You want to switch?

This isn't rocket science. It's why homes in urban areas cost more, and why the property taxes in urban areas higher. You are paying for the infrastructure offered by the urban area. And yeah I know this isn't the only factory in home costs and taxes, but it's a big factor.

Re:Theoretically

[mishehu]

Again, this sidesteps the issue. Yes, you typically *expect* more infrastructure in an urban environment, and you expect some things to cost more than if you bought 1000 acres out in the middle of the Arizona desert or the Alaskan tundra. But what Chattanooga, TN, did isn't even an option here because the laws have all been bought by the incumbents who don't want to invest but also don't want to have anybody else invest. If the law wasn't in my way, my only real obstacle is getting enough neighbors to agree to put into the investment, and maybe convincing the county to issue a bond for the infrastructure. Sure we'd pay a bit more in taxes until retirement of the bond, but then we'd have the infrastructure. Oh and on a side note, this area won't remain rural for much longer. The metro area is heavily expanding, and 5 miles away is a neighborhood of cookie-cutter McMansions starting at around $450,000 with about 1/5 acre lots. That may not be expensive in Silicon Valley standards, but it is expensive in this state. (And my ad valorem taxation is at 2.29%, with some of the more expensive areas nearby going as high as 3.3%.)

Re:Theoretically

[ArmoredDragon]

Please, they wouldn't have otherwise as the expansion is now relatively cheap BECAUSE OF SUBSIDIES. You don't think they're paying 100% out of pocket for this shit, do you? Even the Berniecrats are more pragmatic than you Paultards.

And where do these subsidies come from? Oh that's right, they tax it from the carrier. Sure, the carrier passes that cost on to you, but ultimately what's the difference? Every company ultimately passes its taxes on to its customers.

Re: Theoretically

[Anonymous Coward]

Truly new things are super rare, so patents hinder most things

Re:Theoretically

[Anonymous Coward]

The concept of a Free Market is a great teaching tool, but much like its counterpart, the infinite frictionless plain [dafuq?], it doesn't actually exist in reality in its theoretical form.

When designing an air hockey table or other slippery surface designed to mimick a frictionless [b]PLANE[/b], you do the best you can. One is not going to achieve complete frictionlessness despite the use of high quality materials (smooth wood/plastic, UHMWPE, air because air-hockey players need to breath or what-have-you). None of this supports the notion that design ought to be accomplished with sandpaper and/or insufficient air flow (or you need air to raise the puck, but air also causes friction ... and it's nice to breath!).

You're EXTREMELY unoriginal argument sounds like because we can't have some notion of perfection, we'll instead have a cheesegrater raked across our nutsacks.

Absolutes exist in physical reality both concept and sometimes in perfection (to the best of our ability to measure). Absolute zero. Perfect vacuum. Pure crystals. And if not ... most of the time 90-99.999% is sufficient regardless. The lack of perfection on that last 0.001% in no way whatsover contradicts the reality of the underlying physical concepts.

I'd love a free market with respect to health care (100%) - by way of example - but I might settle for an end to the war on drugs and medical freedom in general (90%). "free market" doesn't need to exist by you misunderstanding of perfection, it needs to be sufficiently free so that 10X more of our population is NOT carted off to jail or economically depressed.

Does that make sense ... to you?

Didn't think so.

Re:Theoretically

[poofmeisterp]

Customers on the veritable last mile should have essential services whether they are are profitable or not, but that would certainly fall far from being described as ridiculous regulation. Nonetheless, paying for additional towers in BFE and Shitfuck, NE so that people can download data to sketchy 3G service probably encourages companies like Verizon to attempt cap limits.

The free market keeps Verizon competitive when upstarts that do not cover quite as unprofitable rural area begin to cut into their bottom line.

I think you've got it but you're missing a leg to the logic... The up-front cost(s) of getting land allowance, setting up a hut, raising a tower, and getting electricity to it are the costs that are set at whatever they are (unless negotiable). Allowing for more bandwidth requires (possibly, depending on the installation) more panels on the tower, more bandwidth delivered by directional beam from another location or utility-based landline upgrade of speed, or both. The cost is usually fixed per month on the second part of it, after the basic location layer 0 setup. Installation charges vary. Here's the kicker: if they get a shit ton of business in a city nearby, the net profit (financially-speaking) offsets the cost of the "BFE people". Those people may move. Whether or not Verizon keeps the networking (wireless or wired) at the level it is with less people (due to move) is their choice. In the mean time, those that move may keep their service if they're happy with it and be sucked into the massive black hole of city-level service. The costs offset. Population and housing will increase; it's a given unless there's a war or disease outbreak, natural disaster beyond comprehension, etc. Population increase would fit better into an enabled network, meaning the upgrade costs for the layer 1/2 services don't have to be constant costs with installation/service charges from the provider/contractors/etc - it's in place and requires only maintenance like any other site.

This is the thinking from someone who has suggested this as a business model, but the idea was rejected because the up-front costs and lower net profit were overriding the decision-makers' minds. Once service increased at an exponential rate, clients (customers) got pissed at the shitty service and the cost to upgrade to make them happy was higher than the overall cost over time because it was an "immediate need" and rushed. The amount of service increase was also a good guess and not set in stone, so there was over-provisioning, leading to removal of components. Then, the removal was enough to piss people off and require more installation at a high cost to compensate, but this time they weren't taking growth into mind. It's stupid in my opinion. Just create a wonderful thing up front where the gross profit is less and the net profit is way less, but watch it spike over time. I was fired from that job, BTW. "Higher-ups" and decision-makers hate having someone around that makes them not look like the center of the Universe of best practices. Anyhow, it isn't about me, I'm just sharing that to paint the story clearly.

Re:Theoretically

[poofmeisterp]

You see, the free market fixes that too. Not having cell phone service would be a possible minus for people deciding to move out into the middle of nowhere; they might instead decide, "I want to live in civilization. Maybe I should pay slightly more to get a home somewhere a little more urban." Regulating cell phone companies to serve places with low population density is like telling restaurants, "If you're going to have a location in the city, we're going to require you to also build a location in every rural area within 50 miles." What do you think would happen? Your choice of restaurants would become very limited. Some would say "oligopolistic." That's what has happened to cell service. The government has created artificial barriers to entry and everyone (except those who are in rural areas and companies that can afford to comply) loses.

You are very right but that also, on the other side of the proverbial coin, allows another company to set up service in that area and nab all of the business, creating a mental image in peoples' minds that the company providing the service is the "savior". Even if their service sucks, it's more than nothing. That company wins all business in an area. If another competitor moves in, they can offer an upgraded service that is beyond the competitor's "we're here" snatch'n'grab of previously "enslaved/trapped" customers. As long as you aren't raping a customer for high profit in an area with no competition, your increased cost will benefit in the long-run.

In this context, Verizon and AT&T get the overall award because they are the buyers of one of the two "Initial A/B Cell Service Companies". Their lack of service in an outlying area just makes them look bad to anyone with a brain because it's not hard to do basic business math. I have lovely ATT service everywhere, except where I travel to visit a relative. The "WTF" enters my mind every time because there is a big old 200-500 foot tower on a nearby hill (hard to tell because that hill is so high) and the company that built that tower has the working business (Verizon, it's called these days). Another company was also given allowance to install on that tower (T-Mobile). ATT either decided not to pay the rape pricing for colocating or Verizon somehow kept them out. I'm not up to speed on the laws governing usage of existing tower/rack space in wireless telecom and government intervention to the same (if there is any) so I have no idea why ATT decided not to provide. This area is by a big lake, BTW. This lake sees heavy "business" all year 'round. I'm not sure how other ATT customers feel about having no service in this wonderful lake area while on a rented houseboat, while someone's talking on their mobile in the houseboat right next to them...?

Anyhow, the point is that lack of service provision, or provision of shitty service in an area with other providers with better service is stupid. It will hurt in the long-run in many ways. Just fucking provide up-front and watch your profits climb slowly over time. Wait, what am I talking about? That's not "today thought". Heh.

Re:Theoretically

[poofmeisterp]

And I'm sure your property value and property taxes reflect your access to services. If they don't, then you overpaid for your home. I live in literally the most expensive home market in the US and have the taxes to go with it. I have reasonable access to broadband and wireless. You want to switch?

This isn't rocket science. It's why homes in urban areas cost more, and why the property taxes in urban areas higher. You are paying for the infrastructure offered by the urban area. And yeah I know this isn't the only factory in home costs and taxes, but it's a big factor.

You're doing "that thing". I don't think that someone who is looking for a home, given the situation they're in or what's going on at the time, always thinks to call telecom companies to ask if service is prime in their area or not. Besides, companies lie to get your business.

Related to that, if I were to call ATT and Cincinnati Bell (the providers I use), they can both say they have service in the area. Caveat - it's hilly and ATT has four towers within range of the home I live in. It can barely find a stable signal from any of the 4, depending on where I am in the house, and if it does find one it's minimal data speed (below a megabit) and choppy voice. One of those "stand an inch to the left... now kneel down 5 inches...one more.. okay now I can understand you" things. Cincinnati Bell says there is "fioptics available" to the home. They leave out the part that the it is within a 1 block area of a medium density living area (not rural, not urban) where there is no fiber run. Literally, five houses up the street and I can get fiber with gigabit service. This home, I can get 30mb/s max via copper from the nearest FDH (can look at it from the house, less than a block up the road). For some reason they decided to run fiber up one side of the street and from the other side (east-west and west-east), but leave out a block. What the hell?

Also, what world are you living in where utility poles and what's run on them, by whom, are paid for/subsidized by taxing? I haven't seen one place where that's the case - the utility companies have the right because they purchased said right and pass that cost on to their customers. The city and taxes have absolutely nothing to do with it, "it" being the directly relational cost to the homeowner. It's the provider that passes their fees on, and BTW I also know people that work for the telecom company that can't explain why they didn't include my block in the fiber build-out, and those people have had conversations with me where I pulled a bit of info and they say laughingly that the cost of heavily dense areas is so much lower because the build-out and equipment generate loads of income for them, versus a non-dense area where said build-out generates little income.

These aren't things that you can expect every home buyer to check out in detail before they purchase a home, and their financials could even be a limiting factor. Availability of open homes might be a factor. Sure, I look at things like this when I'm considering moving, but they don't affect the decision; the cost of the place to live and other taxes (meaning $$$) determine the decision. If I were a multi-billionaire, then it wouldn't matter because I could be picky and choosy, but I could also pay the telecom and utility companies to build whatever I want them to to get what I want at my home. I'm not, you're not, mishehu is not.

Re:Theoretically

[farble1670]

I guess I don't have a good idea whether you are an anomaly or whether the problem is generalized. I'd like to see a broadband speed vs. property tax / home value chart.
 

Re:Theoretically

[stephenmac7]

I never claimed that the USA has a free market. It's been falling on economic freedom rankings for the past 15 years. Heck, Chile has more economic freedom than the US. My point was that regulations create barriers to entry by favoring established companies. These barriers to entry result in worse service for higher prices. You proved my point: the "lobbyists for the scumbag telecos" use the government to stop people from "pay[ing] for their area to have fiber and towers." That's pretty much the definition of crony capitalism. However, you seem to conflate crony capitalism with "unfettered capitalism" (which, by the definition of unfettered, much mean without government intervention). You can't have corruption if the market is "unfettered." When the government is not involved, how can you claim crony capitalism? I obviously support a free market, not the corporatism we currently have the United States. We agree there. Either way, I'll read the FEE article, but as that's a site I read daily, I'm pretty sure we're already on the same page.

Bull shit

[fnj]

So the unlimited plan is NOT unlimited. Filthy lying bastards.

Re:Bull shit

[MightyYar]

It's unlimited, but once you hit the threshold of 22GB, they throttle your speeds. Same as T-Mobile, and a huge improvement over the overage charges.

Re:Bull shit

[Anonymous Coward]

My thought exactly. This reminded me of a conversation I had last week with an Uber driver, a woman who told me she keeps her old-time T-Mobile unlimited data account open, even though at times she can't get enough decent reception to make a phone call in Los Angeles, because she needs that data (like me, she never has a problem with finding a T-Mobile data connection, only with actually making phone calls) to make a living and support her family. She told me that if her data were to be slowed down, de-prioritized (she didn't use that word, I got it from the article) or cut off completely, she wouldn't be able to do her job. Waze, GPS, communicating with Lyft and Uber. So I agree with you. Unlimited really should be that, unlimited data.

Re:Bull shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Not exactly. With T-Mobile (and all the carriers), once you hit the threshold (which is 26GB on T-Mo, 22GB on VZW and AT&T, and 23GB on Sprint) AND are on a congested cell site/node, you can be rate limited until the cell site becomes unloaded or you travel onto to another uncongested site. It's not just 25.9GB = full speed, then 26.1GB = unusable slow data. I've seen many users on the various unlimited plans that are still using hundreds of gigs per month because they spend most of on uncongested cell sites.

This is network management, no more, no less.

Re:Bull shit

[unixisc]

Wouldn't that depend on what it was slowed down to? Like if your plan is 40Mbps, and the terms are that when you reach 20GB, the speed falls to 20Mbps, it's still pretty good for the Uber/Lyft/Waze to run. So this 'slowdown' doesn't sound so major at all.

Re:Bull shit

[ShanghaiBill]

It's unlimited, but once you hit the threshold of 22GB, they throttle your speeds.

Then it is not unlimited. The FTC really should ban these companies from using such blatantly misleading terms.

Re: Bull shit

[Anonymous Coward]

The data is unlimited, not the speed. No FTC required here.

Re: Bull shit

[ShanghaiBill]

The data is unlimited, not the speed.

That is sophistry. If the speed is limited, then obviously the data is as well.

No FTC required here.

The word "unlimited" has a common, everyday meaning that is understood by nearly everyone. Advertisers should not be allowed to make up a new meaning that is basically the opposite.

Re: Bull shit

[hawguy]

The word "unlimited" has a common, everyday meaning that is understood by nearly everyone. Advertisers should not be allowed to make up a new meaning that is basically the opposite.

Exactly, I don't see why the FTC allows carriers to advertise limited plans as "unlimited".

Let them call them "high-limit plans", like they are. They can even call it "Super-mega-ultra limit" if they want to, but letting them advertise "unlimited" plans that have limits just dilutes the word "unlimited", and it will spill over into other areas.

"Unlimited miles with every car rental! (limited to 100 miles at full speed, afterwards car will be limited to 15mph unless customer pays 25 cents/mile "full-speed" surcharge)"

"Unlimited gym visits! (limited to 4 gym uses, subsequent visits may only be to our gym store)"

"Unlimited Coffee Refills! (limited to one coffee refill, subsequent free refills will use muddy water)"

Re:Bull shit

[SpiritualRemains]

This FTC? They're not doing anything about this in the next four years.

Re: Bull shit

[Anonymous Coward]

"Unlimited Coffee Refills! (limited to one coffee refill, subsequent free refills will use muddy water)"

Zomg free muddy water!! I was so thirsty!!!

Re: Bull shit

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most people understand that unlimited means within reason. Unlimited coffee refills doesn't mean it's served from a firehose. And even if they did you'd complain that it was being served from a 1.5" hose instead of 2", because 1.5" is still limited!

Re: Bull shit

[KiloByte]

If the speed is limited, then obviously the data is as well.

The word used is "unlimited", not "infinite". Obviously, you can't use more than (line speed * time). This means roughly ~31TB monthly on a 100Mbit connection.

Anything below that, allowing some natural congestion, is an artificial cap, and thus shouldn't be labelled as "unlimited".

Re: Bull shit

[Highdude702]

Well in that case unlimited wouldn't exist. Unlimited as you're describing would obviously mean unlimited speed.. What if i wanted to use 100000000000000tb this month? Well with your service i couldn't do that and you told me unlimited with no throttling. I'm going to make the FTC shut down your company.

Either understand what you're buying, or don't buy it. If you don't understand it shut the fuck up and don't try to regulate it.

Re:Bull shit

[Anonymous Coward]

They reserve the right to throttle your speeds. It's not guaranteed they will.

Re: Bull shit

[Dog-Cow]

Ultimately, there is a limit imposed by physical laws, but we don't ban anyone from using the term unlimited due to such restrictions. Similarly, in this context, the amount of data transferred is only limited by speed, and not by any inherent limit in the amount itself. The term is perfectly fine for those who understand English.

Re: Bull shit

[Anonymous Coward]

How in anyway is it unlimited? Your speed is limited, when data cap is reached. So you are limited in speed and data compared to what the nominal values of the service.

Obviously we are talking about the nominal values, not fucking infinite speed and data.

Don't be a fucking smartass. If you don't fucking understand that much, STFU and keep your "free market" crap to yourself.

Re: Bull shit

[squiggleslash]

Then what would qualify as "unlimited"? Because LTE speeds aren't infinite either. No mobile phone technology has the ability to provide unlimited bandwidth?

I think a reasonable criticism is that they're not using the word "unlimited" in the same sense that T-Mobile is (who will allow LTE access over the soft-limit, but will deprioritize your data when the tower is congested), and perhaps there needs to be a common definition. But it is unlimited in the consumer sense of "I will always be able to use data, and not worry about overages."

Re:Bull shit

[jjhues7676]

I remember about 6 years ago, Verizon was told by the FCC that their contract with each other does not allow "Throttling" and that the definition of "Unlimited" means unlimited.

Re:Bull shit

[Kitano123]

If they limit you after 22GB then by any definition of the word it isn't unlimited.

In the UK we sorted this out years ago. ISP's used to call there limited plans unlimited but customers rightly complained and because we have real competition in the market as soon as one ISP created an actually unlimited plan all other ISP's where forced to follow suit or be left behind.

The US has been left behind when it comes to internet connectivity compared to virtually every other first world nation, how did you let this happen?

Re:Bull shit

[MightyYar]

If they limit you after 22GB then by any definition of the word it isn't unlimited.

Only if the context of the "unlimited" claim includes "unlimited bandwidth". Which, of course, is absurd because of technological constraints. Since bandwidth is inherently limited, some kind of rationing needs to be applied. "Unlimited" clearly refers to total bytes transferred, and the claim is completely true. We don't know how Verizon will market this, but T-Mobile is very transparent about how the bandwidth is rationed.

ISP's used to call there limited plans unlimited but customers rightly complained and because we have real competition in the market as soon as one ISP created an actually unlimited plan all other ISP's where forced to follow suit or be left behind.

Not true. From the "3" website:

Are there any restrictions?

Data use can be capped at around 1000GB per month. This cap is used to identify inappropriate use of the service, such as commercial use, which isn’t permitted. However for non-commercial use it’s very unlikely that you’ll ever get anywhere close to the cap, even if you use your phone as your main or only internet device.

So your carriers are also selling "truly unlimited" service that is in fact capped.

Re:Bull shit

[bluefoxlucid]

With T-Mobile, I was paying $69/month for unlimited voice and text, including a $5/month add-on for 2GB high-speed data.

I switched to Ting, which bills by usage, and frequently paid $40/month for using more than 100 minutes and text messages. Used 375-900MB of data (data saver was off on that last one) so paid $10 for data. Still cheaper than T-Mobile directly.

I recently switched to Mintsim. $199/year plus 3% regulatory fees ($6) means I pay $205 each year up-front and get 12 months, unlimited voice, unlimited text, 2GB data, throttled after using 2GB. $17/month and I don't get to half my data usage.

You're all ridiculous. $80/month cell phone plans, what the hell? I have Spotify and I'm approximately never on Wifi when I use it; I don't watch 4K netflix shit from my phone over LTE+ because I have wifi when I'm not driving.

Re:Bull shit

[MightyYar]

T-Mobile also sells pre-pay. I'm an anti-social nerd so I have the "Walmart" $30/month plan that includes 5GB of 4G data (unlimited 2G), unlimited texts, and only 100 minutes of talk. I typically spend an additional $5-$15/month on minutes for a total worst-case of $45/month + tax. My wife uses hardly any data, but does a lot of talking. We avoided smartphones and did the unlimited talk and text plan for $35, but last year her old flip phone died and I couldn't find a decent replacement so we got her a Moto G and upgraded to the unlimited talk and text with 3GB of 4G data (unlimited 2G) for $40.

I never heard of Mintsim, I'll have to check it out. I'm always on the lookout for deals.

In defense of people on Verizon with their sky-high prices, Verizon really does have a solid network and if I depended on my phone for business it would be money well spent.

Re: Bull shit

[bluefoxlucid]

They're "unlimited" plans. This started in a time where many plans would charge you $50 for going over your data limit--and many still do throw $10 or $30 charges at you the minute you go a byte over your limit. These plans let you run data forever, but will throttle after exceeding a high-speed allotment.

If they say "unlimited high-speed data", they're lying unless you can run at max 24/7.

Re:Bull shit

[bluefoxlucid]

The Mintsim 5GB plan is $300/year or $25/month. It's not that much more, although you're sucking extra minutes. I bought into the 3-month deal to save money and to test if I wanted to keep this carrier first, because I'm not investing in a year if it's going to be shit-quality; so far it's been as decent as Ting or T-Mobile.

Verizon has a network just as good as T-Mobile's. Some areas of the country are absolute shit on Verizon; others are absolute shit on T-Mobile. The carrier of choice depends on where you are. AT&T and Sprint have less-built-out networks and more deadspots, although if you live in a Verizon-T-Mobile deadspot with AT&T service for 100 mile radius you probably want AT&T anyway.

Re: Bull shit

[Anonymous Coward]

It's unlimited data. Accept it.

Re:Bull shit

[MightyYar]

Verizon has some frequencies that are lower and penetrate obstacles better. In urban areas and on highways everything is about equal, but if you end up even slightly out in the country (and in the Philly area that happens surprisingly fast... Amish in no time), Verizon ends up being much more dependable. I personally don't care, but I could not recommend T-Mobile to my contractor friend, who frequently ends up in basements and travels outside of urban areas to pick up supplies (quarries, reclaimed wood, etc). On Friday I was at a friend's house which is in one of the oldest and most densely populated suburbs in Philly - should have great service. But it's an old stone house and I had no service on T-Mobile. This happens frequently to me.

Re:Bull shit

[bluefoxlucid]

I've frequently suggested people buy a GSM repeater for about $250 if they have that issue, largely because it's happened to me in situations where I can sometimes flicker Edge on and off and catch LTE+ for 1 bar in the right spot. Paying $200/year versus $800/year kind of makes that economical.

You would think HOAs would want to add on-pole towers for major carriers so as to maximize cell phone signal, but mostly they just all buy Verizon or AT&T or whatever already works there. Weird because the carriers will often pay a substantial fee to maintain a tower (as high as $800/month in some areas, depending on how much coverage they can get out of the tower) and that can offset HOA fees. Thus you get things like flat areas of DE being Verizon territory even though you can drop in a $250 repeater and boost the (barely-usable) signal in your house, or any of the 40 HOAs in the area can get $3,600-$9,600 out of T-Mobile and Sprint to host their towers.

If I were a contractor able to get "barely-any" service in basements on job sites, I'd bring a GSM repeater and plug it in on the floor immediately above--or run the antenna up there and have the transmitter in the basement. Think about it. $15/month versus $80/month. That thing's paying for itself in 4 months.

I've seen those repeaters as high as $3,000, but you really can get them for pretty cheap. Looks like the price has gone up a tad, though.

Re:Bull shit

[MightyYar]

"Hi I'm Bob your contractor, can I just plug this contraption in upstairs since I'm too cheap to have a phone that works?"

Yeah... I don't think that would work for him. He writes it all off anyway.

For your own house, sure. But plugging it in at clients' houses is not really practical. Plus it doesn't fill in the dead spots on the road.

Re:Bull shit

[bluefoxlucid]

"Writing it off" means you pay 70%. You tell the IRS that's not income, and they don't tax you on it.

Contractors show up with shitloads of equipment, and they want to plug it in all over the house. What's one more piece of equipment?

Re:Bull shit

[MightyYar]

Why are you fixated on one relatively small part of the problem? Even if he were comfortable asking homeowners to let him plug in network devices in areas of the house he's not necessarily working in, it still wouldn't help the rural/industrial area coverage problems.

Re:Bull shit

[bluefoxlucid]

The stated problem was that the contractor goes into a basement and signal goes away, whereas Verizon has frequencies that penetrate better. That problem is actually understated: modern building practices for new and retrofit construction are using up to 8 inches of insulation cladding, often foil-faced, along with radiant barriers in the roof; these can be effectively opaque to cell phone signals, and so the problem will likely increase in the future.

If you live in an area where T-Mobile doesn't have dead spots, then this is a viable consideration. If you end up in a building where you have a 3/8 inch bubble wrap roof component reflecting Verizon signal, this is also a consideration.

As for "comfortable", it's gear. A contractor came into my house and plugged some giant tank in on one floor, then ran a hose up to the other floor. They didn't explain what it was; it's equipment.

Re:Bull shit

[MightyYar]

The stated problem

That was only half of the stated problem. The other was coverage in remote areas.

But I'll try again to help you understand why plugging in an adapter wouldn't be practical. For his work crews, sure, maybe one of the guys could bother the homeowner with a doo-dad. For his work crews, the guys frankly don't need to be using their phones very much - they are on the clock. But for "Bob", he's popping in to the various crews over the course of the day. He needs to be reachable by clients at all times, and he isn't going to set up hot spots at every little stop. He doesn't even have electricity available at every job site. Even if he never went to rural areas to pick up supplies, losing his phone signal would not be acceptable.

Re: Bull shit

[poofmeisterp]

Ultimately, there is a limit imposed by physical laws, but we don't ban anyone from using the term unlimited due to such restrictions. Similarly, in this context, the amount of data transferred is only limited by speed, and not by any inherent limit in the amount itself. The term is perfectly fine for those who understand English.

Thus, unlimited = unlimited speed (-natural congestion and system load) and volume of data transferred, until data transferred > $LIMIT; then unlimited = limited speed (-natural congestion and system load) and volume of data transferred

Understood, and us techies get it. To the commoner, though, it would seem that they have word play to work with and DO (probably just to win, even though they don't need to).

When they get unlimited = unlimited speed and data transferred (-natural congestion and system load), they'll do it for a day or two, maybe a week. Then, they'll realize they don't need it and back down.

The exception are people who want to eliminate the charge of their cable co/telecom co/etc for Internet access and use a repeater to set their phone up as a wifi hot spot, repeated for all devices in the house to access the Internet through it. If 10% of the customers did that, the network would be congested to the point of nearly unusable daily.

Re: Bull shit

[poofmeisterp]

Then what would qualify as "unlimited"? Because LTE speeds aren't infinite either. No mobile phone technology has the ability to provide unlimited bandwidth?

I think a reasonable criticism is that they're not using the word "unlimited" in the same sense that T-Mobile is (who will allow LTE access over the soft-limit, but will deprioritize your data when the tower is congested), and perhaps there needs to be a common definition. But it is unlimited in the consumer sense of "I will always be able to use data, and not worry about overages."

Agreed. It would be nice for everyone to hear "limitation = lower priority when tower is congested, but not all of the time". Then they have nothing to bitch about unless they have a problem with heavy data usage, which we would all love to hear an explanation of. :)

Re:Bull shit

[bluefoxlucid]

You're doing a lot of "why you can't," and I do a lot of "how do we get around that?"

As I said: for those areas where you actually have coverage, the basement thing is easily-resolved by a repeater. When Bob pops in to see his work crews, there will be a repeater if they've set up a repeater, so proposing that they could do that but then that he won't have signal when he gets there is ludicrous.

Further, work crews working in areas without electricity use air or electrical tools powered by a portable generator. There's always electricity; and repeaters use watts of power. They're not multi-amp devices and they can be driven for a couple hours off a small, consumer-grade UPS; if you need comm, you can add comm without adding to the load of the system. If there's no comm there because you're in the middle of nowhere, then your phone's not going to have signal anyway; but I assume you mean the house is unplugged from the grid or whatnot, not that they're off in the desert 100 miles from civilization and cell phone service.

You're so focused on why it can't be done that you made an internally-inconsistent scenario (work crews have comm, but Bob doesn't have comm when he visits work crews).

Re:Bull shit

[MightyYar]

so proposing that they could do that but then that he won't have signal when he gets there is ludicrous.

Depending on the work crew to have the same repeater that you need is what is ludicrous. Roughly a 1 in 3 chance - and that's assuming that they'd even be bothered... I've never been asked to hang a repeater and I suspect it is not a very common practice. He's not supplying his crews with phones and he's sure as hell not giving them all $300+ repeaters just to save $30/month on a phone bill. Payback period of 30 months or so is not very cost-effective.

Further, work crews working in areas without electricity use air or electrical tools powered by a portable generator.

They often use batteries now. If they do have a generator, there isn't exactly a ton of surplus sockets, it's on-and-off, and a terrible source for sensitive electronics.

(work crews have comm, but Bob doesn't have comm when he visits work crews).

I never said his crews had communications, and if they do it's because they have Verizon or are stepping outside to make calls. He needs to be continuously reachable, not them.

You also still haven't addressed how repeaters would solve his rural/industrial coverage problem when he's on the road or between sites.

Re:Bull shit

[bluefoxlucid]

Depending on the work crew to have the same repeater that you need is what is ludicrous

Each repeater unit works with Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, T-Mobile, and several other carriers. They generally work across the entire GM spectrum with all carriers simultaneously. You don't get a repeater that works with one of the carriers and not all of them; they generally don't exist, except that some don't cover a portion of Sprint's GSM band and so some Sprint phones will get voice but not data in some areas if trying to use those repeaters.

I've never been asked to hang a repeater and I suspect it is not a very common practice.

In 1920, using wooden shipping pallets wasn't common practice. What's your point? If you're at a job site and your boss expects your cell phone to work when he calls you and it doesn't, then you have a problem.

Your real problem is you have an uncertainty, and so you're scared. "This is new and wah wah I'm scared I'm scared!" So you take another uncertainty (Verizon phone might not work in the basement--it doesn't work in the office I work in unless you go upstairs a floor) because it's a more-familiar uncertainty.

That is, it's more-familiar unless you live in one of those locations where Verizon is spotty and frequently loses coverage for mile-long stretches of road and in some residences and offices. Then maybe you need Sprint or AT&T or T-Mobile--except when you're in a building that shields part of the signal and causes your phone to drop. Then you need a repeater, and we're back to square 1.

He's not supplying his crews with phones and he's sure as hell not giving them all $300+ repeaters just to save $30/month on a phone bill. Payback period of 30 months or so is not very cost-effective.

Actually, compared to $80/month Verizon, $16/month Mintsim is saving me $768/year. Compared to $69 T-Mobile, it's saving me $648/year. Repeaters last years, although when you're dealing with large numbers of crews you're multiplying the cost yeah.

I never said his crews had communications, and if they do it's because they have Verizon or are stepping outside to make calls.

Which doesn't help for incoming calls. Verizon doesn't work in this basement in the heart of Baltimore--12 feet of dirt and 4 feet of concrete and steel with 2 feet of steel overhead, good fucking luck.

He needs to be continuously reachable, not them.

I didn't understand this part of the problem. I guess if you learn of a change in the job you don't have to send that message reliably to your work crew. One-way communication seems strange to me, but fair enough.

You also still haven't addressed how repeaters would solve his rural/industrial coverage problem when he's on the road or between sites.

They won't. On the other hand, if you're running Verizon and you expect coverage... lol, hahahahahahahhahhahahahaha, I hope you're in a New England state... coverage on the roads with Verizon, that's rich. Once you get West of Ohio, it's Sprint, AT&T, or T-mobile, depending on where you are; T-Mobile is a little less reliable than Verizon in New England.

Then again, even Verizon drops on the light rail and metro here, as well as the tunnels (well, we knew that was going to happen). I don't spend much time outside the city; my parents have a house in PA, and they bring a back-up phone on Sprint's network when they go there because Verizon doesn't fucking work despite having a visible tower right fucking there on top the next mountain. OTOH Verizon has a tower near their HOA in Delaware and T-Mobile doesn't.

It's been spotty even here in the heart of Verizon's best coverage area. They can't even make a repeater work for VZ in PA; there's simply no available signal at their house. Works for T-Mobile in Delaware, although there's 2-3 bars of VZ signal t

Re:Bull shit

[MightyYar]

You must be the world's shittiest engineer; didn't you ever learn to solve problems instead of giving up and taking the path of least resistance?

Well, this stopped being a fun discussion.

Re:Bull shit

[Anonymous Coward]

This. I'm a delivery driver and my phone's important in case I can't find a customer's home. I used to do customer service for Verizon, so I knew exactly what sort of BS I was getting into, and dodged most of it. In my experience, Verizon is no different from other carriers in that they want your money and will throw in extra charges in order to get it. If you manage your account squeaky clean, you can avoid overage charges and other tack-on fees. The worst part is the first one: sales. Never go to a third party retailer. They get commission on sales and will set you up with equipment you don't need. Every time I've been to an official Verizon store, my shit was handled without question.

That said, they're still politically crooked and are still behind the times on data. Caveat emptor and all that.

really $85, not $80

[Anonymous Coward]

I just gave up my UDP for the new $70/7GB plan in order to get tethering so I checked the price on this most carefully.

The advertised $80 price for this new deal includes a temporary discount off the full price. To get that temporary discount you have to sign up for auto bill pay and paperless billing ... and nobody knows how long the temporary discount will last.

Re: really $85, not $80

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it, first you AC's complain about contracts and how abusive they are.. Now you're complaining that you don't have a contract and companies can change your service. If you want a contract, go find a provider that offers one.

Re: really $85, not $80

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with our "free market" is that there is so much trickery and outright fraud, that actual quality companies stand little chance of succeeding. Instead, the best liars or the company which can trick the largest number of people with unilaterally-changeable "contracts" or pre-checked boxes generally get the spoils. Then, all of their competitors follow their lead, and before you know it, advertised prices mean nothing, because the true costs are buried under too much deception that the final price ends up being anybody's guess.

We're the USA to outlaw fraud, and enforce it, our economy would colllapse within months.

Give us dumb pipes!

[IGnatius T Foobar]

Carriers just don't get it (or they do get it and won't admit it). All we want is for them to be a dumb pipe. Connect us to the network and then GET OUT OF THE WAY.

Re:Give us dumb pipes!

[Anonymous Coward]

This and also with the operating system. I don't need Siri, or Cortana, or Lexi, or Clippy telling me what to do. Load the OS, run the windowing system, give me one button, and maybe a file manager, and get the fuck out of the way.

(ok, I will take Lexi if her last name is Love or Belle - otherwise no)

Re:Give us dumb pipes!

[alvinrod]

No, they understand it perfectly. Why have a highly competitive market where each carrier rushes to sell consumers low-cost access to the information super highway when they can trap people on their own private dirt road with toll booths every 200 feet? At least with the cellular carriers its possible to have some choice in provider whereas with cable companies have a government protected monopoly in most locations leaving almost no alternative.

Re:Give us dumb pipes!

[phantomfive]

Verizon does absolutely everything within their power to keep from becoming a dumb pipe. Sprint would be happy to do nothing but be a dumb pipe, which is why they have such lousy customer service (maybe their new CEO changed things, I don't know).

Re: Give us dumb pipes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you have two commercial OS offerings with a greater than 2% adoption, so, you know, free market and all or write your own OS while building your own mobile phones while creating your own broadband carrier. You're in the land of opportunity, so get off you lazy ass already.

Re:Give us dumb pipes!

[Anonymous Coward]

'dumb pipe' is the exact terminology they use. VZ wants to be a media streaming, netflix, amazon, google, IoT, thing. Thing is they are really good at being a dumb pipe. Everything else is 'meh' to 'do not use this'.

using a lot of cell data

[Anonymous Coward]

still trying to understand how anyone can use so much cell data. isn't wi-fi available where you live/work/study?

Re:using a lot of cell data

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's wifi? And the "free" wifi often data mines your connection. Some places its the only game in town unless you want dial-up or satellite.

Re:using a lot of cell data

[Anonymous Coward]

And I still can't believe you continue to spread the myth of a distinction between data and wi-fi. I'm using a verizon mobile broadband hotspot right now. Verizon is my wi-fi.

Re: using a lot of cell data

[Anonymous Coward]

Rural America has nothing available except cell phone data!!!

Re: using a lot of cell data

[Anonymous Coward]

Like you, I can't image anything I don't do myself. Abstract thinking, which is required for that task, behins at an iq of 110 or so, and mines about 95. Frankly, people who don't do what I do kinda suck because they're not me. I think that guy who uses a lot of data should get a haircut too. How much you want to be that he's gay? Freaking gay hippies and their data slurping gay hippie porn. There's no legitimate data that would take that much bandwidth. He's looking at fannies all day. Men's fannies. If we just imprisoned them all, the world would make a lot more sense to us.

AD shaming

[_xanthus_47]

I always thought it was interesting that you can mention another product by name in a TV spot here in America. It is actually illegal in some other countries. You can't name a competitor directly. So most of the time you are left with references to a white box with a generic label like"Product X" or similar. The way they talk about it though, usually makes it clear which other company they are referring to. American advertisers do not have to go through such a loophole.

Re:AD shaming

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea its great. Even with this magical power it took Christen Schall rubbing one out during the super bowl to get verizon to change.

Re:AD shaming

[rmdingler]

Hmmm. Formerly, US cigarette and liquor companies could advertise using television commercials, and lawyers were forbidden from using the media. Now the reverse is true, but there was a time in America when commercials were prone to compare their products to Brand X.

Some of these anomalies are in the public interest, but others involve the rather fascist activity of powerful corporations lobbying the government to do their will.

Re:AD shaming

[Anonymous Coward]

It is actually illegal in some other countries.

It isn't actually illegal in most countries, advertisers just avoid it because if you do it, you can guarantee your competitor will go through that ad in detail looking for any dubious statement to sue you over.

Re: AD shaming

[Anonymous Coward]

As an attorney, I'll note the laws regarding attorney advertising vary from state to state, and have been a source of considerable litigation on matters of free speech. Some states allow different advertising media, not all allow all forms, and not all allow the same claims.

Re:AD shaming

[sims 2]

A few years ago it wasn't very common but in recent years they they have started doing it all the time I suppose to begin with they were concerned about being sued but then after they started doing it they just had so much fun everyone else joined in.

Probably about 15 years ago.

Re:AD shaming

[Anonymous Coward]

But, how would McDonald's sarcastically wish Burger King a merry Christmas if they couldn't name "Burger King"?

Re:AD shaming

[interkin3tic]

If you think that advertising thing is weird, the US and New Zealand are the only countries that allow drug companies to advertise to consumers.

"Your doctor went to school and trained for an absurdly long time and will know a lot better than you what meds you need, but fuck him! This is America! You want alexetrolium damnit! Look at how happy these people walking in slow motion are! That could be you! Tell Dr. Asshole you want alexetrolium now!"

And then we wonder why we pay so much for healthcare...

Re:AD shaming

[phantomfive]

They still do sometimes. It's risky to name your competitor in an advertisement, because you might accidentally advertise for the other company instead of for yourself.

Re:AD shaming

[eWarz]

No? What you described and what is allowed in the US are vastly different versions of each other. Drug companies ARE allowed to advertise their offerings, but they aren't allowed to claim they are recommended by doctors and must include all of the side effects, etc. Most drug commercials ere are depressing reminders for those of us who don't suffer from such conditions.

Re:AD shaming

[sysrammer]

I think you've got it. I remember a lot of "Brand X" advertising, esp'ly detergents & other commodities that are all more or less the same. Tide doesn't want to mention, well, any other brand. And it works. ATM I can't think of another brand.

So, I don't think it was ever a gov't regulation. Also, I would imagine mentioning a specific brand could open a company up to litigation in some manner.

Re:AD shaming

[sysrammer]

Yep. I've discussed similar with people, and seen comedians incorporate that stuff into their acts. The malady that is being treated must be a real sob to deal with to put up with the side effects.

Re: AD shaming

[Anonymous Coward]

Your mother told me to remind you that you have a dental appointment tomorrow at 3pm.

Re:AD shaming

[jittles]

I always thought it was interesting that you can mention another product by name in a TV spot here in America. It is actually illegal in some other countries. You can't name a competitor directly. So most of the time you are left with references to a white box with a generic label like"Product X" or similar. The way they talk about it though, usually makes it clear which other company they are referring to. American advertisers do not have to go through such a loophole.

If you pay attention, most of those US commercials that compare Brand A to Brand B are actually comparing two products owned by the same conglomerate. They get a double bang for their buck on those kinds of ads because it tends to make people think that their only two options are A and B and either way that conglomerate picks up a sale. At least this is the case with household chemicals, diapers, etc

Re:AD shaming

[interkin3tic]

That's looking at it logically. But advertising works because people are not logical. You remember the drug and the happy people, you forget the side effects mention.

And, I mean, if you don't suffer from the condition, of course you're not going to be susceptible to the ads.

Look, if the ads didn't really work, why the hell would big pharma be running superbowl ads? They hate money?

Re:AD shaming

[Anonymous Coward]

The "Brand x" comparisons are more to avoid being sued for liable by making claims that were slated against the "Brand X". An example i can think of recently, i was in Auto Zone and they had a sign next to their batteries touting their super awesome battery grid (tm). They had diagrams of "real batteries after 10k miles", the auto zone one was complete the "normal" one was all broken to hell. However, there was no claim that this was normal usage, just that one battery was like this after 10k miles. If you have millions of batteries to chose from you can prove anything with that logic. Also, it seems to me that miles is a poor metric to use for comparisons, i would expect age or # of starts would be more reliable.

Re:AD shaming

[bluefoxlucid]

Detergents aren't all more-or-less the same. Powdered detergents clean better than liquid; liquids have more fragrance, but less color-safe bleaching agent and brightening agents. Gain's powdered detergents significantly out-perform every other well-known detergent on the market, and Tide holds a place above Arm and Hammer and other cheap generics. The new pod-style detergents are high-performers, with Tide frequently leading that particular market: they can incorporate powder and liquid in one pre-metered unit, allowing for complex and unstable combinations and thus getting clothes cleaner and fresher by bringing fragrant liquids along with liquid enzymes that would affect the shelf-life of a liquid detergent, and capping it all off with dry color-safe bleaches and brightening agents.

That doesn't even get into specialized detergents like Woolite Black, which contain fewer brightening agents and help protect the color-fastness of dark clothes (Woolite doesn't clean nearly as well as Tide or Gain). Then you have the fabric softener industry, which is a huge clusterfuck of variability.

Then you have things like water hardness. Dropping any generic water softener in-line with your washing machine immensely boosts the performance of your detergent, cutting back on how much you need to use for an equivalent cleaning. That's generic: salt is salt, and the only question is how much impurity is in the salt (which, for most tablet salt or sun-dried salt, is under 0.01%), if it has iron binders (may wear your softener faster, but do remove iron), and whether it's sodium or potassium. Performance is otherwise identical for a dissolved amount of salt (meaning tablets vs crushed vs blocks matters, and otherwise just use the cheapest stuff you can find).

Re:AD shaming

[bluefoxlucid]

So let's talk a little bit about psychiatric care.

I don't see a lot of TV ads, but I do read a lot of stuff online and try to probe my doctors and psychiatrists for information. They can tell me what's dangerous; I tend to target things I can use chronically and overdose on without harming myself as a matter of risk control, and otherwise have to be very clear on the proper protocol of handling e.g. amphetamine, Welbutrin, or Ambien because that shit's actually dangerous. For comparison: Amphetamine will fuck you up bad, and Ambien with alcohol will kill you; while 50x the standard dose of Modafinil will give you a bad day but not cause harm, and the 120mg off-label maximum dose of Atomoxitine is a lot lower than the 1,080mg doses given to volunteers who also showed no medical problems but didn't particularly enjoy the experience. "Safe" has a ... relative definition.

I wanted to avoid amphetamine, so asked my doctor for Modafinil. Turns out Modafinil works fucking fantastic; but I'm also an insomniac and didn't sufficiently understand sleep actigraphy, so thought I was getting 6 hours each night when really I get about two. Tip: don't use Modafinil to stay awake for 4 weeks straight. Considering I hadn't slept in like a year, using Modafinil for ADHD had ... undeclared side-effects. It caused suicide-grade depression, which I found enlightening--also I'm 100% compensated for depression, I respond to stress by dissociating (yeah I'm not in one piece up here), and any kind of strain (especially emotional strain) causes me to sleep better and so I slept pretty god damned solid for the next 6 days.

After that I was interested in Atomoxitine. We tried amphetamine instead. Psychiatrist's reasoning was sound: I have an anhedonia problem--one I'm aware of largely because I avoid any negative stimulus even to full sacrifice of positive rewards (no reinforcing behavior), which swiftly reverses if I take a low dose of phenylpiracetam (that kind of disturbs me--behavioral change, alters judgment), and turns into mild euphoria and a very different experience of life (anything that's supposed to be "pleasurable" is ... did you know there's an actual feeling associated with things that make you laugh or smile, instead of just a reflex? I didn't; I thought I was just really, really high). The logic was that I need more dopamine, and amphetamine is a dopamine releasing agent; too bad it actually made me depressed.

It took another month for me to realize I was lying awake in bed at night for several hours during which my Fitbit read me as asleep. I adjusted it to use the Sensitive setting and it correctly measured my time. I read some research papers on sleep actigraphy and it turns out actigraphy can come within 93% of a polysomnograph (which includes EEG) if it's less-sensitive to activity on nights where the user sleeps better and more-sensitive when the user sleeps poorly. I had it set to be less-sensitive while sleeping poorly, so it was all fucked up and claiming a lot more sleep than I was getting.

The psychiatrist recommended Belsomra (Suvorexant). This was actually luck; I had asked him to avoid GABA drugs because I don't like the risk of night-driving and other crazy Ambien shit. Suvorexant generally doesn't fucking work unless you take high doses--Merck asked the FDA to approve 20mg, 40mg, and 80mg, and was told 10mg, 15mg, 20mg; and 20mg is significantly-likely to cause you to be too groggy to drive. Turns out the stuff has no side-effects when I use it, and it cuts my sleep latency from 2-3 hours down to 15-20 minutes. Sleep is readily-identified as following the normal sleep cycle, but not as good, as if the chart's raised a bit so I don't get quite as far into deep sleep and raise to awake instead of REM; I sleep well for the first half of the night and poorly in the second half.

That drug costs $300/month, and insurance doesn't like it.

At my request to

Re:AD shaming

[dj245]

I always thought it was interesting that you can mention another product by name in a TV spot here in America. It is actually illegal in some other countries. You can't name a competitor directly. So most of the time you are left with references to a white box with a generic label like"Product X" or similar. The way they talk about it though, usually makes it clear which other company they are referring to. American advertisers do not have to go through such a loophole.

I don't believe there is any law, just a fear of lawsuits. It is risky but it depends on the context. Presumably Superbowl ads are vetted by an entire team of lawyers.

IIRC, one of the ads was along the lines of "99% of the coverage for significantly less cost". Hard for Verizon to find an argument worth litigating there. The difficult thing to prove (which network is superior) is admitted to be an advantage to Verizon. The claim is on the easier thing to prove (price). If Verizon litigated, they either be arguing that their network was inferior to the competition, or arguing an easy to check fact (price).

Re:AD shaming

[poofmeisterp]

I think you've got it. I remember a lot of "Brand X" advertising, esp'ly detergents & other commodities that are all more or less the same. Tide doesn't want to mention, well, any other brand. And it works. ATM I can't think of another brand.

So, I don't think it was ever a gov't regulation. Also, I would imagine mentioning a specific brand could open a company up to litigation in some manner.

I know, right? When I see commercials comparing their product to another, that's pushed rationalization. It makes me curious about this other product that they are trying to overcome because, hell, it takes at least a commercial to do it, right? I then want to check out this other product. I think that's Human. Reverse logic is only effective if the person is oppositional, and we haven't come out with multiple commercials tailored to each personality type yet. I trademark that, BTW. :)

Re:AD shaming

[poofmeisterp]

No? What you described and what is allowed in the US are vastly different versions of each other. Drug companies ARE allowed to advertise their offerings, but they aren't allowed to claim they are recommended by doctors and must include all of the side effects, etc. Most drug commercials ere are depressing reminders for those of us who don't suffer from such conditions.

I thought it was more of a "go see your doctor about product x", because the doctor gets a nice little bonus on the side (hush hush, you) for handing out samples and talking people into how great something is, until it's not so great anymore, then they can disavow all knowledge of their initial recommendation. Now I'm curious. I want to go to a slimy doctor who's in bed with the pharma, then check my records a few months later and see if they even mention the recommendation in them. *zips off*

Re:AD shaming

[poofmeisterp]

Yep. I've discussed similar with people, and seen comedians incorporate that stuff into their acts. The malady that is being treated must be a real sob to deal with to put up with the side effects.

I find it disgustingly humorous how every single medication to "help treat depression" has a known side effect percentage chance (per test group, of course) of development of suicidal tendencies. Well, I guess that gets rid of your depression..?

Re:AD shaming

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of issues surrounding side effects boil down to liability. Let's say a drug had a clinical trial of 10,000 people. If even one or two people experience a side effect that can be connected to the drug, it has to get listed. So amid a sea of side effects, there are generally a core 4-5 effects that are common. It's part of why doctors should be evaluating medicine instead of lay people; they have access to the literature and have the training to know which interactions will be most common.

Anti-depressants are a weird beast, because one of the first things they attempt to do is to get you up and moving around. In the early stages of treatment, you may feel more motivated to do things. This stage is dangerous, because the medicine takes a few weeks to start really kicking in. During this time, therapy/counseling is important to make sure the patient isn't experiencing anything that would steer them down the road to suicide. Encouragement to do your hobbies or reach out to others, etc is usually effective.

Once past that little window of "This person is depressed *AND* motivated", anti-depressants have the chance to make life easier for the patient. So in effect, it's not a specific side effect like dry mouth, but the result of brain chemistry helping you feel more motivated. It just so happens some feel more motivated to kill themselves than others.

Re:AD shaming

[sysrammer]

A lot of issues surrounding side effects boil down to liability. Let's say a drug had a clinical trial of 10,000 people. If even one or two people experience a side effect that can be connected to the drug, it has to get listed. So amid a sea of side effects, there are generally a core 4-5 effects that are common. It's part of why doctors should be evaluating medicine instead of lay people; they have access to the literature and have the training to know which interactions will be most common.

Anti-depressants are a weird beast, because one of the first things they attempt to do is to get you up and moving around. In the early stages of treatment, you may feel more motivated to do things. This stage is dangerous, because the medicine takes a few weeks to start really kicking in. During this time, therapy/counseling is important to make sure the patient isn't experiencing anything that would steer them down the road to suicide. Encouragement to do your hobbies or reach out to others, etc is usually effective.

Once past that little window of "This person is depressed *AND* motivated", anti-depressants have the chance to make life easier for the patient. So in effect, it's not a specific side effect like dry mouth, but the result of brain chemistry helping you feel more motivated. It just so happens some feel more motivated to kill themselves than others.

Thank you. Good post and helped explain to me "the why" on the suicide think.

Regarding side effects, I find the info sheets (when readable) contain useful percentages of the side effects. I believe that if they were presented to people properly most people would be able to make better choices on their own.

Eh sorta. No overage charges, not infinite speed

[raymorris]

Well sorta. I have a similar plan (though with much less than 22GB, and at much lower cost.) There is no "limit" per se - it won't stop working, and there will be no charge for going over. It does get slower if I use more than the x GB I get at high speed. It's NOT "unlimited high speed data", it's "unlimited data, and 22GB at high speed".

Half of this makes perfect sense. If you have a family-style dinner, everyone gets a plate before anyone gets "seconds". You don't take four or five pieces of chicken until other people have a chance to get one. Commercial data connections are similar - you're guaranteed a certain minimum share of the bandwidth (your "committed information rate"), and you can use more *if and when it's available*. That means if you and I both sign up for 100 Mbps CIR, and I want to use 150Mbps, I can use the extra 50 Mbps only when you're not using it. If you're only using 80Mbps, your traffic takes priority because we each paid for 100 Mbps guaranteed. Does that make sense? That, I believe, is what TFS means by deprioritized after you go over 22GB. If I've used 100 GB and you've used 4 GB, your traffic gets priority over mine so that everyone can have their fair share. That just makes sense.

If they are throttling it down to 3G speeds *even when extra 4G capacity is available*, that would be silly because it would be wasteful, leaving 4G capacity idle.

25GB of porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Downloading 25GB of porn tonight. Eager to see result.

Wired data transfer is cheaper than cell network

[Anonymous Coward]

In urban areas data transfer via wired connection is generally cheaper than through the cell phone network.

Net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

The $80-a-month plan also includes hotspot tethering -- up to 10 gigabytes -- and "includes 'HD' video as opposed to the 480p/DVD-quality video that T-Mobile One customers get by default

Why is it that Verizon, T-Mobile etc gets to dictate what proportion of the bytes you are paying for can come from a third device, and how many pixels per frame of video you are allowed to view?

Re:Net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Lazy people are always whining about how they can't see more pixels on their small screens. Verizon, T-Mobile etc are helpfully helping to reduce the number of pixels automagically.

Re:Wired data transfer is cheaper than cell networ

[sims 2]

Wired connections are cheaper and faster! But since they aren't available this is the best we can get!

Great Directing!

[Highdude702]

I personally thought both of those commercials were the best part of the first half of that game, and very hilarious. I hope I wasn't the only person that found joy in that.

Who is using the bandwidth anyway?

[uaru.pl]

Out of these 22GB, I suspect most of the traffic would be unwanted advertisement. Not very long ago I read seven articles in a newspaper, and watched 5 minute poor quality video on youtube. 330MB. That means, out of 330 MB 300 had to be commercials. Unbelievable. This is just circumstantial evidence, of course. However, long gone are days when it was expected from people to care about others, not to send large attachments. Netiquette is dead. BTW that is why the ad blockers are essential.

Re:Eh sorta. No overage charges, not infinite spee

[drinkypoo]

Half of this makes perfect sense. If you have a family-style dinner, everyone gets a plate before anyone gets "seconds".

If there's not enough for everyone to make a plate and get enough to eat, then it doesn't matter what rules you make. Ultimately, at least some people are going to go hungry.

Ha! Do you remember 2 years ago?

[Kludge]

Two years ago AT&T tried to buy out T-mobile for way more than the market value of the company. Why? To get rid of the competition of course! Who stopped them? THE GOVERNMENT.
Thanks to government we have competition!

Yes, resources are not unlimited

[raymorris]

True, there's no such thing as unlimited resources, but of course you knew that already.

As far as "go hungry", I see there are plenty of beans, potatoes, and 3G casserole left, so you don't have to leave hungry just because you would have preferred a (fourth) chicken wing.

Re: Yes, resources are not unlimited

[Anonymous Coward]

So, as long as they provide at least 1 bit per hour, they should be able to call it unlimited? Or do even you feel that there is a maximum amount that they can throttle while still calling it unlimited. If so, what would that amount be? Who should be able to decide that amount for 10 million other people?

Re: Yes, resources are not unlimited

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm actually okay with this. I wouldn't sign up for it, but I'm okay with it. Even in rural NH we have choices, and if Verizon tried this, we'd all be on AT&T very quickly.

In our neck of the woods, the majority of us use Verizon because they have the best coverage, and when you need to know where your kid is, coverage is important. We know they have the best coverage from talking to friends and family. If Verizon had 1bph speeds, we'd know that, too, and not sign up.

But I don't have a dog in this fight, I subscribe to the 2GB plan and my daughter and I usually have plenty left over each month.

If you say I'm too jaded and too willing to let companies get away with weasel words, I don't think I would disagree. I'm not going to run for the pitchforks because their unlimited means "we won't charge you an overage fee" and not "be a hotspot for your apartment building."

More specifically, radio channels have bandwidth

[raymorris]

It may be interesting to note here what one of the finite resources *is*, as it points to a clear solution.

Suppose a wireless carrier had unlimited money to spend running 10Gb fiber lines to each tower, so the wired infrastructure was unlimited. What *is* limited, if we're willing to spend unlimited money, to pay $5,000/month for LTE data service?

"Bandwidth" is a term that predates computers. It means literally the width of the frequency band a system operates on. For example, a particular wireless carrier may be licensed to operate in the frequencies between 1,000Mhz and 1,100Mhz. Their band is 100Mhz wide - 100Mhz bandwidth. (For reasons of RF physics, phones have to communicate with the tower using a radio frequency around 1 Ghz or so.) Anyway, the carrier has 100Mhz of wireless bandwidth.

90 years ago, a guy named Harry Nyquist did some math and proved that with 100Mhz of bandwidth, you can 200 ones or zeroes per second. In other words, 200 Mbps of ones and zeroes can flow over 100 Mhz of radio frequencies. That's called the Nyquist limit. (Purposely simplifying here by ignoring multiple-bit symbols because the point still stands, though the numbers change).

So we see that the carrier can move 200 Mbps using the radio band they are licensed for. If 200 customers are served by each group of non-overlapping towers, each customer can have 1Mbps. Math and physics are a bit stubborn on this point, though clever people have found ways to cheat a little bit.

Wow 1Mbps, but some people want to stream multiple HD Netflix movies simultaneously. What can you do? Well you can have fewer customers per tower. With 20 customers per tower, 200Mbps/20 is 10Mbps per customer. Kinda expensive to have a tower for every 20 customers, but we're pretending that customers, and carriers, are willing to spend as much as it takes. Still, 10 Mbps isn't quite enough for three simultaneous 1080p streams on your three TVs. So let's try installing a separate tower for each customer.

200 Mbps for each tower (actually each group of towers on non-overlapping frequencies) is enough if every customer has their own tower on their house (or in it). Let's do that! We'd need to write down some standard so that your phone or whatever device knows how to talk to the tower, a specification. That specification would probably best be somewhere under the data network section of the IEEE standards, the 802 section. Maybe we'll call it 802.11. Different versions can be 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g, 802.11n, etc. :)

Seriously the physics is such that if you want many Mbps for each house, and they are all going to be using it at the same time, you *have* to run cabling to a seperate tower for each house. That's called wifi. There's just not enough radio bandwidth available for hundreds or thousands of customers to transfer HD video at the same time if they are sharing a tower.

Just the other day, there was a story about a research team that set up a multi Gbps wireless data connection, and the summary pointed out that like all such efforts, it has a range of about 3 meters due to the extremely high frequencies required to have that kind of bandwidth. (Remember bandwidth is defined as the range of frequencies the channel covers).

UNLMITED* *limited

[Sarusa]

'unlimited' data plan.

This is especially bullshit because they HAD an unlimited data plan years ago and have spent the entire time since trying to kill it.

They're just freaked out that T-Mobile is now cheaper AND has a better network.

How much?

[no1nose]

ATT and tmobile ovver low cost unlimited plans what will Verizon charge?

Not unlimited

[Anonymous Coward]

Fail. Still not unlimited.

These companies are, still, clueless, as are many posters around here and other places, as to what unlimited is in this context.

Here are a couple of simple examples of what would be unlimited plans. Ponder them before responding, please.

High-speed plan: Up to 100Mbit/s, with transient periods of lower bandwidth according to overall network health. No cap.

Super-speed plan: Up to 400Mbit/s, with transient periods of lower bandwidth according to overall network health. No cap.

And so on.

Incidentally, for my fiber-based Internet connection at home, I have what corresponds to the high-speed plan above. As long as the rest of the network copes, I have 100Mbit/s. There is no artificial cap on the amount of data. I can max that line 24/7 if I want to. And that is what unlimited is. No nonsense related to infinite data or infinite bandwidth.

It's really quite simple. The only reason it's artificially and intentionally made non-simple by certain actors is in order to muddle the waters for business reasons. It's annoying and it needs to stop. We already have unlimited plans for wired connections. Just set the same things up for non-wired connections and be done with it.

Has slashdot been taken over by the poor?

[eWarz]

Honest to god. The people that USED to visit this site were developers...This clearly isn't the case anymore. I got into this industry making close to $100,000 15 years ago without even so much as a college education, I make far more then that now. I don't worry about the couple extra bucks a cell phone plan costs. I just want it to work. What happened to the developers of slashdot? Because pandering over dollars isn't what we have ever done. I am not defending Verizon at any rate. If a carrier actually had better coverage I would switch...even if they costed more than Verizon. I've tried. Multiple times. I always went back to Verizon. Yes, their plans are shit. Their data limits are crap, etc. At least I have internet when I'm on vacation in the middle of god knows where and need to know what restaurants are open. On the RARE off chance my work does follow me home, at least I can remote in and help them through some god forsaken emergency. I guess it's true, Slashdot really has lost it's target audience to Reddit.

Re:Has slashdot been taken over by the poor?

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't you been following the news? Slashdot's readership were introverted basement-dwelling linux nerds who didn't survive the social media revolution. They trained their h1b street shitting indo-chimp sand-n1gger replacements and then they were laid off permanently. Now they have loss prevention jobs at walmart, never to work in tech again. Yes, slashdotters have become poor beggars hoping desperately for universal basic income to save them from the drudgery of wage slavery. You think you're lucky, but you're next.

Re:Has slashdot been taken over by the poor?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are developing websites or services which many customers cant access or are scared to access because of bandwidth fears, you wont continue making money.

Re:Has slashdot been taken over by the poor?

[Voyager529]

It's not a matter of people being angry over a matter of $20 a month to get superior service. Here are some of the more rational issues...

1.) Instead of throttling once a data cap has been reached, Verizon does overage charges...except they changed that recently, but you have to ask for it...
2.) Verizon requires locked bootloaders to sell phones through their retail locations, and are the only provider with this requirement.
3.) Verizon is the slowest to provide updates to Android phones.
4.) Verizon installs more bloatware than any other carrier.
5.) Verizon heralds "moar speed!!11" while still having some of the most stringent data caps in the industry (XLTE, I'm looking at you...).
6.) On a number of devices, they indicate that they are SIM unlocked while also disabling the ability to manually add APNs.

Now, you're right, that in the middle of west bumblef'k, you'll have better luck with Verizon than T-Mobile when it comes to getting a signal. For those who live in those areas or travel there regularly, Verizon absolutely makes more sense for the reasons you specify. In my most commonly traveled 50 mile radius, however, T-Mobile actually has better coverage (I have both), and I've consistently seen better speeds and lower latency from T-Mo than Verizon. Thus, in my case, and in the case of about two million people who live in that 50-mile radius, Verizon isn't just more money, it's more money for inferior service.

Verizon has definitely improved from the days when they'd intentionally disable Bluetooth profiles and custom ringtones, and had terrible data speeds because they used CDMA. If you recall correctly, they did everything they could to weasel unlimited data customers out of their contracts, including making it so those plans died with the handset they were used on, even if they got the same handset through an Asurion replacement.

As an aside, T-Mobile has consistently been the most root/mod friendly carriers available, always willing to provide support even for rooted or modded phones.

Hopefully that explains a bit more as to why Verizon doesn't have much love.

Re:Has slashdot been taken over by the poor?

[Anonymous Coward]

Setting aside the tone deaf nature of the post, I think in a lot of cases people have just gotten fed up with the nickel and diming companies like Verizon are notorious for.

Once upon a time, Verizon only had one data plan, and it was unlimited. Then some bright spark at Verizon decided they could make money by implementing data caps, so they spent about half a decade trying to make it harder and harder (and more expensive) to maintain one of those grandfathered in data plans. Verizon, and all the other carriers, have admitted in federal filings, that the data caps have absolutely nothing to do with managing network congestion (where it's probably the least effective "solution" you could come up with) rather they are about making a few extra bucks off of people who might go over their cap for the month.

Worse, is that a lot of that money doesn't get plowed back into the company, such as putting up a new tower in a sparsely covered area, or improving the back end communications between towers or on frequently congested towers. Instead it winds up going into the pockets of the top execs in terms of bonuses or stock options.

Re:Has slashdot been taken over by the poor?

[Vitriol Angst]

I started on Slashdot many years go, back when I was making $100,000 a year and my IQ was 165. Now I make less and have started blogging on Reddit. Junk food and the stress of poverty have reduced me to taking fashion tips from Paula Dean, and cooking from Honey Boo Boo's mom.

By leaving Slashdot, I suppose I've lowered the quality on both websites. Until I make more money, I should probably stay away.

My sincerest apologies
That Guy

Re:Has slashdot been taken over by the poor?

[TrumpShaker]

got any change to spare?

Elsewhere

[terminal.dk]

I am in Denmark, and I have a $11/month subscription. This is a small subscription with limited 12GB data and 12 hours of outgoing calls to other providers (free within the provider). for $1.50 extra per month, I could switch to 20GB/10hours.

Since I am in Denmark, I do pay for my own phone (no contract can be longer than 6 months, so we pay full price for phones). And we actually have unlimited calls and data for DKK 119/month = $17. And I am pretty sure it is unlimited since it is $3 more expensive/mo than the 20GB.

Re:Elsewhere

[eWarz]

Denmark is smaller than even a single of the 50 states in the United States of America. This is not a comparison.

Re:Elsewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Denmark is smaller than even a single of the 50 states

Nor is it a fact... Denmark is larger than Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire put together.

Market Forces

[DaMattster]

This is capitalism at its very best! I'm happy to see that Verizon is being humbled. Still, it's no match for T-Mobile and MetroPCS. T-Mobile's network is getting better by leaps and bounds. Verizon's offer still isn't very compelling.

Re:Market Forces

[John.Banister]

Cool to hear that T-Mobile's network is improving somewhere. I'm a T-Mobile customer visiting my parents in West Virginia. My phone stopped connecting to a tower after the first of the year.

Re:Market Forces

[toadlife]

Still, it's no match for T-Mobile and MetroPCS.

No match in what regard? Both the T-Mobile and Sprint networks are still complete shit in many suburban and rural areas.

Infinite speed? Advertised and/or merchantable

[raymorris]

It's advertised as not having a monthly data cap, nobody sais it's infinitely fast, that you can download the whole internet in less than a milisecond.

Would you propose that a cell phone which downloads at 10Gbps all month can't be advertised as an unlimited data plan?

Now that we've got two ridiculous ideas out of the way, what *is* the minimum speed they have to provide? There are three possibilities, depending on how they advertise it.

The simplest would be if they guaranteed a certain speed. Of course they don't, but if they said "unlimited 10 Mbps data all month", they'd need to provide that. Wired providers can make that guarantee (at a cost of $5/Mbps), wireless carriers can't, at any reasonable cost.

The next possibility, which doesn't apply in this case, would be if they sold an "NFL Edition" phone and data plan, which includes a subscription to NFL Game Pass, and id marketed with phrases like "watch every game, every game, every week." In that case, they would need to provide enough data to watch all the games (or most of them). That's called "warranty of fitness for a particular purpose." If you advertise it as being designed to X, it needs to actually be able to do X.

Without specific advertising, what's left is "warranty of merchantability." That means it works well enough that some purchasers will want to buy it. Lots of people have small phones. I rarely watch video on my phone if I'm not on wifi. . My mom never watches video on her phone. She doesn't even know how. Therefore, we like to pay only $25/month, which of course gets us service that isn't super fast all the time. We don't watch multiple simultaneous HD streams on our phones, amd we don't want to pay for the ability to do so. Merchantability requires only that it's fast enough to keep people like us reasonably happy.

Articles should fix inaccurate titles.

[j2.718ff]

Thanks to a certain member of the US government, whose name I won't mention, the media is starting to realize they need to better fact-check the claims they are reporting. It's one thing to that someone said a thing. It's another to report that the thing is true (unless it's been verified as true). Fixing a headline doesn't require that much work. For example, instead of titling this "Verizon Introduces Unlimited Data Plans", it could be re-wored to "Verizon Advertises New Plan As Unlimited Data". There is a difference between the plan being actually unlimited, and Verizon advertising it as unlimited.

Re:Ha! Do you remember 2 years ago?

[Anonymous Coward]

They cause a problem, and then shout, look, we solved the mess we created. Big whoop

Internet as utility

[Tempest451]

As much as we as private citizens complain about the limitations of having to deal with ISP, imagine that all of your critical services have to deal with them as well. Although a higher priority, it's still leased through private companies. Any long-distance service is dependent upon private providers, even critical military communications. Let that sink in a second, even though encrypted, all military traffic eventually passing through a privately owned ISP. It's about time the monetization of a vital infrastructure ended and the internet is seen as the utility is should be.

The large print giveth...

[karlandtanya]

Wife and I live in the boonies; satellite is slow and unreliable--but we do get a Verizon 4G signal. So... cancel satellite and just tether the phone?...
They say 1 line $80/mo Unlimited...

But...then...they tell you a little more... [comments in brackets are mine].

4G LTE only. We may manage your network usage to ensure a
quality experience for all customers [we will oversell it], and may prioritize your data
[no net neutrality] behind some Verizon customers during times/places of network
congestion [we will oversell it]. Not available for machine-to-machine services [not clearly defined].
Mobile hotspot/tethering reduced to 3G speeds after
10GB/month [not really unlimited]; domestic data roaming at 2G speeds [not really 4G either]. If more than 50% of
your talk, text or data usage in a 60-day period is in Canada or
Mexico [also not unlimited], use of those services in those countries may be
removed or limited. Discounts not available.

$80.... only for new customers?

[RandySmith6424]

I just checked my data options and it is showing $110/month for the unlimited option. Im currently paying $50/month for 4GB, so I would no doubt switch ti Unlimited at $80...

Crazy peeling anyway.

[ukjoesaar]

I live in Baltic country and use Telia, not cheap operator, but better in rural area. We have 23gb/36â/month for fast 4G connection(300down/50up), all can be tethered. There are not any tethering tax. No limits on video quality.

Customer Lost to Project Fi

[Anonymous Coward]

Welp, I used to have unlimited data (gradfathered in) until I kept reading the articles about them pushing out customers and the final straw was increasing the monthly cost by $80 (used to be $60, was going to be $80 [what a coincidence]). So I switched to Project Fi and a Nexus 6P and haven't looked back. My monthly bill comes out to ~$30 (~1gb of data a month) because I'm now more conscience of when I use data. I'm on wifi 90% of the time. Plus, I enjoy being able to make calls and texts on my computer with it. If I ever go over seas, international plans are included for the same price for >100+ countries.

Truely unlimited

[bjoeg]

I am grateful that I live in a country where I pay $20 for a truly unlimited voice, text and data plan. And everything on 4G with HD videos and no other bullshit.