Why AT&T Should Dump the iPhone's Unlimited Data Plan 501
Pickens writes
"Farhad Manjoo has a provocative story at Slate asserting that while the iPhone has prompted millions of people to join AT&T, it has also hurt the company's image because all of those customers use their phones too much, and AT&T's network is getting crushed by the demand. The typical smartphone customer consumes about 40 to 80 megabytes of wireless capacity a month, while the typical iPhone customer uses 400 MB a month. As more people sign up, local cell towers get more congested, and your own phone performs worse. He says the problem is that a customer who uses 1 MB a month pays the same amount as someone who uses 1,000 MB, and the solution is tiered pricing. 'Of course, users would cry bloody murder at first,' writes Manjoo. 'I'd call on AT&T to create automatic tiers — everyone would start out on the $10/100 MB plan each month, and your price would go up automatically as your usage passes each 100 MB tier.' He says the key to implementing the policy is transparency, and that the iPhone should have an indicator like the battery bar that changes color as you pass each monthly tier. 'Some iPhone fans will argue that metered pricing would kill the magic of Apple's phone — that sense of liberation one feels at being able to access the Internet from anywhere, at any time. The trouble is, for many of us, AT&T's overcrowded network has already killed that sense, and now our usual dealings with Apple's phone are tinged with annoyance.'"
What uses so much data? (Score:5, Interesting)
I've had an iphone since June. Total data received is just a under 1gb, data sent is around 80mb.
cell towers or WiFi routers? (Score:3, Interesting)
Rollover Data Plan? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Invest (Score:5, Interesting)
That is the cruel truth of how ATT, and most carriers, operate. They won't lower the fees for light users, they will only add fees for heavy users. In fact, they would probably add a new fee to light users called "bandwidth usage monitoring recovery fee" to compensate themselves even more for the capability they already have. This fee will, of course, not be counted in the total fee for the remaining 23 months of a contract, just like they do with all the other bogus fees they try to mislabel as some generic 'government tax' like fee.
Fee Fi Fo Fum, ATT can kiss my bum.
Hey bucco (Score:1, Interesting)
I wish people like you would keep your stupid suggestions to yourself. My iPhone works just fine and I could give 3 shits about its reliability because it is so useful to me - I live in Silicon Valley and sure sometimes there is no bandwidth when in a huge crowd of hipsters but I DONT CARE I like my phone and dont have any trouble accessing services. AT&T needs to upgrade their system - that is all. I Already pay $150 a month for this phone... I dont need an extra teir of pricing... in fact I believe the phone should cost me $80 bucks a month max with unlimited everything. That seems fair - not your suggestion.
Go kick rocks!
Backward methodolgy (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Invest (Score:2, Interesting)
I've got a wild idea... (Score:3, Interesting)
Simply ridiculous.
"People are using the phone in a manner consistent with how we told them they could use it! Upgrade the network to meet our promises? Wrong. Change the pricing structure. This problem is clearly the consumers fault."
Automatic Throttling (Score:4, Interesting)
Back in the old days of dialup my provider offered an unlimited plan. Here is how it worked.
At the start of the month everyone started off with the same traffic priority. For the sake of argument, lets call that number 1.0
As you used more bandwidth your traffic priority dropped proportionately to other users on the system.
Those who used less bandwidth got higher priority when they did decide to use the system. Those who used more got bumped aside on the network.
Why not do this here?
Re:I will laugh when ATT's network collapses (Score:1, Interesting)
People need to think bigger. Much bigger.
Wireless spectrum is given out to the major wireless carriers so that they can individually implement their own technology and let the market sort it out what is best. It doesn't work. All the available technologies are adequate. It's time for a major overhaul in the structure of our wireless industry. Having multiple networks cover the entire country, a sizable region, with towers for CDMA and GSM towers is inefficient and partially responsible for the outrageous rates we all pay for wireless service.
Here's my plan for a radically more efficient, cheaper wireless industry:
1. Feds seize wireless spectrum for GSM and CDMA.
2. FCC mandates all wireless carriers switch to GSM.
2. Congress mandates all wireless telephone carriers in the US establish peering contracts, whereby there is no such thing as roaming anymore.
3. Feds establish rate limits for services. Data access would not be unlimited, but rates should be limited to $.05 per megabyte. Voice access rates should be capped to $15 per 1000 minutes per line.
The effect here is that networks aren't chasing each others tails to have the biggest networks or the best coverage. You never know whose network you're really using. This allows wireless networks to have a joint stake in the overall network access quality as well as any new towers will provide coverage for all GSM phone users, not just a subset of people.
Wireless carriers will still have the ability to use contracts for subsidizing phone purchases, which locks a person into service with that carrier for a period of time. With that, carriers will still have a lot of opportunity to provide profit bearing value-add services beyond the rate caps established by the FCC. This would also place the smallest wireless carriers on equal footing with the largest carriers with respect to access to the newest handset models.
Moving the entire country to GSM over a period of 2 years is quite feasible, since that's the average handset upgrade cycle for Americans. This is just one possible way to radically change the way the wireless industry works and remove the huge inefficiencies in the way the capital investment is spent.
Re:Sure.. that will build 1 thousandth of the towe (Score:1, Interesting)
You're ignoring the fact that the dense urban centers are already covered. And no, two cell towers in the same spot don't give you twice the bandwidth.
They're called "cell" towers for a reason...
400 MB? Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've had an iphone 3G since launch, I stream radio every day, I browse, have push exchange email, use a ton of data apps, even used PC tethering in a pinch, and I have never gone over 300MB/mo. I have a 6 GB/mo plan, so there's no reason for me to skimp. I just simply cannot break 300MB/mo no matter how much I use it.
How in the hell is everyone else going over 400MB/mo?
Re:Invest (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I will laugh when ATT's network collapses (Score:3, Interesting)
Our brains are geared to use visual clues in conversation and when you can't see the other person the brain over focuses on the audio clues and starts down filtering anything not related to the conversation.
If anything hands free makes it worse, because you THINK your being safer and not putting any extra effort into your driving.
On the phone OR on the road, not both.
Mycroft
Re:Invest (Score:4, Interesting)
There may be limits. It's possible that in some built up inner city areas, the limits are being pushed. But, as a nation, we are NOWHERE NEAR the limit. Rural America isn't even covered. Many small towns aren't covered. Even some medium sized towns lack coverage. To use her cellphone, my wife has to stand out in the yard, because there is a water tower between the house, and the single cell tower that reaches our property. Just north of me, there is a dead spot that NO ONE covers.
I am sympathetic to city user's complaints - but far to few people realize how many Americans have no coverage, or how many more Americans have shoddy, marginal coverage.
What I find astonishing... (Score:3, Interesting)
Are the wireless networks really so wimpy, or has the bandwidth just been massively oversold? OK, maybe it's both, and illustrates that wireless is not ready for prime time, as was mentioned here recently (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/10/08/2243242/FCC-Chairman-Warns-of-Wireless-Spectrum-Gap [slashdot.org]).
All wireless carriers need to get a grip... (Score:2, Interesting)
...on the future. This future is the fully connected device, whether it be a smartphone, netbook or something completely different. Now I'm not saying that all data will live in the cloud like many vendors do, but enough will that an always connected device will pretty much be a requirement. And these carriers are all very quick to sell high end packages and lock customers into long term contracts. They also want to partner with manufacturers and offer devices and services to sell even larger packages. Unfortunately, I think they are unable to understand data use trends and still think of mobile devices as having the functionality of the cell phones of the 90's.
Now I understand that AT&T may not have been able to guess at the popularity of the iPhone and how it would be used when they signed the original contract with Apple, but if I was a wireless carrier, I'd much rather have the problem of too much usage on my network than not enough (think Sprint).
My advice to AT&T: Get to work! And remember that if you are going to build out your network, don't build it for tomorrow, build it for the next decade.
Another failure to evaluate relevant concerns (Score:5, Interesting)
Look, I'm all for consumer fairness. It would be nice to get better prices. But the fact is, whether you have a 5GB plan or an iPhone unspecified/unlimited plan, your averages are still well within the range of limits experienced by both parties. It hardly makes a difference.
The article is basically making the argument that somehow iPhone users should be punished because they're actually using the service AT&T has been selling everyone for a long time. This is pretty asinine. The real issue here is entirely different and entirely AT&T's prerogative. Let me enlighten you:
AT&T's "3G" network, which is actually 3.5G, HSPA... is on the tail end of its lifespan. The technology in all of these handsets depends on it, of course, but it's done. It's over. There is only one last stage of improvement to GSM tech and it's a stretch as it is. Why would AT&T want to invest in expansion of a dead infrastructure? They don't. They aren't going to any more than they have to. They will expand to the last stage of 3G in the largest markets just as they prepare to roll out the same LTE based networks that every other carrier is supporting.
That said, there's no reason to think bandwidth consumption is the primary concern here. The primary concern is one of density. The number of users each relying on the same cell is too great. It's not a matter of how much data they are transferring on that cell so much as that there must be more cells, or cells must be able to handle more concurrent users. That's just a factor of the proliferation of cellular phones and devices. You can't blame the iPhone for this. It's a problem that would occur eventually anyway as the trend towards data enabled devices existed before anyone even knew about the iPhone. Maybe the iPhone accelerated it, but that is no reason to punish people who like a good user experience.
Of course, there's another concern not addressed and that is the exact same concern that effects cable internet subscribers. Cable internet actually works in a very similar fashion to cellular internet. In the case of cable modems, customers share a download node that has a set maximum bandwidth with its uplink. You are sold rates like 12mbps but there is only a maximum of 60mbps at each node. So if more than 5 people all try to use 12mbps at once you won't get what is promised. However, because most people don't use nearly the maximum pretty much.... ever... the cable companies overprovision the network. They get away with it because the statistics generally match up. However, if you're unlucky enough to live in a neighborhood full of download happy geeks, you're going to hate your internet connection.
The same issue exists in cell towers. A give GSM cell can handle a fixed maximum number of communication slots each functioning as a statically wide band of communication. When a device ramps up from basic voice to data, to higher speed data, it will consume more slots. Or it won't, if there are none available and it will just stay slow or not connect to data, or whatever. So basically if you have 1000 slots on a given tower, and full 7.2mbps hsdpa+ requires 12 of those slots, you can see that there's a fixed number of people who can possibly access the network at full speed. Add to this the already common problem of the actual backing internet connection experiencing the exact same kind of limitation and you can see that infrastructure is a problem of density, not of actual transfer totals.
So, the lesson here is that more uplinks are needed so that uplinks are not as central a point of failure as they are today. What you'll earn is that cells are relatively evenly distributed across all markets but not all markets have an evenly distributed level of usage from consumers. People in metro areas will note the worst performance because there's simply too many people in one place. You'll note the epic failure of networks during large technical conventions with a 1000+ simultaneous attempts at liveblogging the latest
Re:A better solution - Apple needs to open it up (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously, if the iPhone is causing so many problems with AT&Ts congested network - Apple needs to start offering it through T-Mobile, Verizon, etc. Share the network pain, er, load.
Of course I know a lot of iPhone users will then jump ship from AT&T - but the overall iPhone experience will improve (well, I won't assume that for Verizon customers, given what that company does to its phones' functionality), and I'd think that'd be Apple's primary goal. Plus the remaining AT&T iPhone customers will have a better experience.
I'm probably going to get modded down for this but you are a fucking moron. This is not simply an issue of a congested network but a problem of user behaviour and expectations. Placing some users on the shitty CDMA verizon network would just cause the Verizon network experience to suffer. Verizon continues to offer "unlimited" data because they know that none of their phones are useful enough to ever push their network to the limit.
Up here in Canada, we have some congested areas in cities like Vancouver and Toronto but the Fido/Rogers network continues to hum along because nobody has an unlimited data plan on any of the "real" smart phones like the iPhone. There are "unlimited" surfing plans for dumb phones or semi-smart phones but all smart phones like the iPhone and blackberries are on capped plans. I'm currently paying 30 CAD for 6 GB of bandwidth which I consider to be a better value than unlimited access to a network that is slow or unavailable.
Some of you might be tempted to feel sorry for me but I have a fast network on my iPhone that is typically around 2Mbits/sec down. I also have had tethering and MMS since 3.0 came out. Even with tethering a bit, I have never gone beyond 2GB of transfer in a month. Most months have been under 300MB.
AT&T should have launched with 6GB cap plans from the very beginning and explained to users that in exchange for a capped plan, they would be getting unrestricted access to the network including VOIP access. That would have been the sensible thing to do.
Re:Invest (Score:2, Interesting)
We've been asleep at the switch for too damn long, and now we're over the cliff.
Times like this, I so identify with the hauntingly beautiful, yet incredibly nihilistic song "Dead Flag Blues," by Goodspeed You Black Emperor.
Re:What I find astonishing... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that's absolutely true. If my ISP set a 100GB/month limit, then i'd make damn sure i used that each month. I'd probably finally get my crap together and find an online backups service and start streaming my 400 gigs of digital photos to somewhere else.
I suspect home users are quite similar, i'm sure plenty of cable internet users use less than 5 gigs a month. If they were to see a bill that showed them that they used 5% of their available capacity that month, they'd probably consider downgrading.
Re:I will laugh when ATT's network collapses (Score:3, Interesting)
You'd think that, but I highly suspect you'd be wrong.
I fly small airplanes regularly, which means it's just me, I don't have a copilot to handle the radios. I do the most communicating with air traffic control during the most critical aspects of flight, which is takeoff and landing. While approaching the airport, I not only have to listen for radio calls for me, but also for aircraft around me to maintain situational awareness and ensure the controller hasn't just cleared someone onto the runway I'm about to land on. Often I'm not cleared to land until I'm on short final and starting the power and pitch adjustments to flare. I must acknowledge that clearance with a radio transmission. I'll often receive basic taxi instructions (asking where I'm going on the airport, giving me a ground control frequency) during rollout.
Pilots every day talk to ATC at the same time they are performing critical tasks in the airplane. "Dropping the airplane to fly the radio" is rarely cited as a contributing factor to a crash. Not to say it never is, but it is rare. Pilots receive NO training on how to split their attention between the airplane and the radio ... while we are admonished to always fly the airplane first, failure to acknowledge a landing clearance has the potential to have the FAA start enforcement action against you, so it's not optional.
I don't think the big danger in driving while holding a cell phone is because you're talking, I think it's because you've just taken a hand away from controlling the vehicle. Or you've got your neck in some weird position trying to hold it between your ear and shoulder. Sure, it takes some brain cells to carry on a conversation, and that DOES reduce safety somewhat, same as singing along with the radio or carrying on a conversation with a passenger. But I can walk and chew gum at the same time, I can land an airplane and talk to ATC at the same time, and I can drive and talk to someone at the same time, regardless if they're sitting next to me or I have a bluetooth in my ear.
Re:Sure.. that will build 1 thousandth of the towe (Score:3, Interesting)
You're ignoring the fact that the dense urban centers are already covered.
Uh, wrong. You couldn't be more wrong. I've used the iPhone in Manhattan and in San Francisco, two of the most densely-populated urban centers in the US, and there are serious coverage issues in both cities. I got better performance in Napa and Sonoma, even on the fringes of town. Towers don't just cover a physical area, they also support a population of users.
If AT&T took some of the millions it wastes every year in executard compensation and invested that cash adding a couple dozen more cell towers in Manhattan and San Francisco, they'd improve the user experience of tens of thousands of lucrative customers and guarantee themselves a healthy revenue stream for years to come. But like most boardrooms in this country, AT&T's is packed full of brown-nosing, greedy psychopaths hell bent on grabbing as much cash as they can today without the slightest concern regarding what happens tomorrow.
You can bet that when the iPhone becomes available via another carrier, there will be a stampede of customers away from AT&T and their financials will go straight into the toilet. Then they'll probably beg the taxpayers for a bailout.
Welcome to unregulated "capitalism", where a bunch of slick lunatics in $2,000 suits eat all of their seed corn in the spring, then piss and moan in the fall that they're starving, before demanding that the peasants come feed them.
One of these days, the peasants are gonna wise up, and our fatted executive class is gonna find itself on the dinner plate.
Re:It's really NOT even about the 3G network anywa (Score:4, Interesting)
I used to work for AT&T back before the SBC merger, and I can assure you, this is exactly what they said about 3G. While all of the other carriers were rolling out fast CDMA-based networks with associated data networks, AT&T was in the dark ages with its proprietary TDMA network. They spent a lot of time excusing this by saying that they were building a new 3G network. This may or may not be the same 3G technology they're using now, but I stress that it took them at least five more years (plus the transition to a completely different non-3G network technology --- GSM) before any of it actually happened.
Re:What I find astonishing... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:iPhone (Score:3, Interesting)
In theory, Java Midlets are not so bad. The problem lies in the complexity of the ecosystem:
1) Lots of J2ME phones means lots of incompatible implementations.
2) The committees in charge of defining the technical specifications moves at a glacial pace.
3) Provisionning and payment systems are outside of the scope of J2ME, so everyone had to build their own.
4) The list goes on and on.
J2ME failed but I'm not sure that it ever had a chance to succeed. But don't blame Java. Blackberry phones are 100% Java (except the kernel) and they are doing OK. Why? Because a single company designs the phones, the OS and the APIs for the applications and came up with a relatively simple way to application developers to make money. Humm, it reminds me of someone, but who?
Re:Invest (Score:4, Interesting)
'Except that the Internet providers have similar anticompetitive traits. In a typical US city there are at most 2 serious internet providers. Sometimes there is only one. Sometimes they got there by bribing the local officials for an exclusivity deal. (I used to live in a place where Comcast had done this...)'
That sucks for you. In my town in the UK, I can choose from about 15 providers (even though I wouldn't touch some of them with a bargepole!). The local loop unbundling legislation (all EU countries have some form of this) seems to do a reasonable job at providing a framework for fair competition.
Re:Sure.. that will build 1 thousandth of the towe (Score:3, Interesting)
According to Harold Welte, some African operators are setting up their GSM equipment to skip every second TDMA time slot [gnumonks.org], resulting in an almost 70 Km (~43 mi) range at the expense of halving the capacity of a cell. It's an interesting "hack", although not the best solution for high-population areas.
And when you say "CDMA", you are presumably meaning IS-95 [wikipedia.org]. CDMA is just a multiplexing method that is used by IS-95 (2G), CDMA2000 (3G), and UMTS/W-CDMA; the 3G evolution of GSM. It's also used by GPS.