AT&T Downplays Talk of Tiered Pricing for iPhone Data Plans

[OldTimey]

Please! Tiered pricing is a must! Charge iphoners depending on how they tax the network.

It might not help at all, as an iphoner that is constantly downloading garbage might just sign up for the higher plans and pay whatever it takes to satisfy their appetite for updating their facebook status whathaveyou, but it might work. Worth a try.

 

[JPark]

I don't use my "portion" of the network frivolously, so no amount of incentive will matter to me. I am going to use what I use because I need to use it...PERIOD! So a tiered price for data use would be fine, but how is going to help. Just because it costs me more doesn't mean that I am going to use it less. I assume this would be the case with most other "smart phone" users. Therefore, all we will be doing is paying more and getting the same service (or loss of service).

If you're not using the network "frivolously" I doubt you're part of the 3% he's talking about. I use it pretty frivolously and still don't use more than about 500MB per month.

 

[NoExpectations]

IF AND WHEN they do that, I'm G O N E !

I'm not even getting 3.6 for speed! The phone is capable to 7.2!

Hate to say this....no one offers 7.2Mb yet....although AT&T will in 25 of the top 30 markets within a few months. Verizon (CDMA 1.4Mb) can't even support 3.6Mb.

 

[NoExpectations]

Prediction

All Wireless Carriers will HAVE TO charge per data usage soon. There is simply not enough bandwidth for everyone to have unlimited access. All the major Wireless Carriers are all looking at each other....waiting for someone to go first before they all follow. 18 months ago, the App Store did not even exist. The world has changed very fast.

Interesting statistic in today's Chicago Tribune: Bandwidth Usage

1 Tethered PC = 15 Smart Phones = 450 Standard Cell Phones

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi091217data-usage_gfx,0,7814988.graphic

 

[pkr]

As usual this is a case where the BIG PRINT (FREE, FASTEST, BIGGEST) is used - and very effectively - to seduce a customer into overlooking the itty-bitty, teeny-weeny print. But AT&T is now stuck with a wildly popular 3G phone ... AND .... the need to build a very expensive totally new (4G) network. They've now found that they don't have the resources to properly support both tasks. So, what are they doing? Dancing, that's what .... while talking out of both sides of their mouth. They will NOT acknowledge that they can't handle it so get used to the double-talk and rumors. Meanwhile of course, VZW is busily building their 4G network - without the need to build up their 3G network for an iPhone. And my guess is that when a 4G compatible iPhone shows up from Apple, it'll be branded VZW.

 

[huntercr]

I wouldn't mind the Microcell at all, but it needs to be cheaper, if not free.

No kidding. At work I am stuck with a Blackberry with Sprint ( though I'm not complaining too much... free > good for me in most cases )
Anyway... my house is in a deadzone for Sprint coverage. The sprint fempto/micro/whatever cell box is only $5/month and it doesn't eat minutes, and it doesn't charge against data use. They also gave me the device for free ( but I'm guessing that's because they were marketing it to the business )

Why on earth cell companies think they should charge people for using one's own bandwidth is delusional.

 

[jglavin]

[...]Give the customer an easy way to view how much data they've used[...]

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/at-t-mywireless-mobile/id309172177?mt=8

The sprint fempto/micro/whatever cell box is only $5/month and it doesn't eat minutes, and it doesn't charge against data use.

While that is fairly cheap, I still prefer AT&T's model which gives the option of no additional monthly fees, and just the initial $150 (?) purchase price. Now if only they would release it in my area...

 

[ivladster]

google it

All carriers suck so bad. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint...they all display a complete and utter disregard for their customers. Depressing and infuriating.

I wish there was a chance of a new player (or players) entering the market.

Hmmm who might be coming out with revolutionary way to fix that...Hmmm i wonder.

Google it!

 

[carmenodie]

I don't care how much you talk about Android, the pre etc, the iphone is the game changer. And it doesn't matter if the iphone went to Verizon. The traffic from iphone users would still wreak havoc on their network. Att doesn't want to spend the money like they should to allow larger than normal data traffic in their system. Darn it! Aren't they also a research company? Don't they do research?!
Why is this a problem? Rather than trying to gauge more money from the consumer they should invest invest invest in better tech to handle the data traffic. For the love of god man!
If they start asking for more money, I'm breaking my contract, heading back to Verizon and getting the LG env (whatever number). I love my iphone to death but if I'm going to get screwed then the hell with it. I'm already playing their little game by getting these little freaking gadgets to help make them billions. I will cancel my contract and go to Verizon. I swear!
To hell with all the fancy bells and whistles.

 

[NoExpectations]

As usual this is a case where the BIG PRINT (FREE, FASTEST, BIGGEST) is used - and very effectively - to seduce a customer into overlooking the itty-bitty, teeny-weeny print. But AT&T is now stuck with a wildly popular 3G phone ... AND .... the need to build a very expensive totally new (4G) network. They've now found that they don't have the resources to properly support both tasks. So, what are they doing? Dancing, that's what .... while talking out of both sides of their mouth. They will NOT acknowledge that they can't handle it so get used to the double-talk and rumors. Meanwhile of course, VZW is busily building their 4G network - without the need to build up their 3G network for an iPhone. And my guess is that when a 4G compatible iPhone shows up from Apple, it'll be branded VZW.

Everyone is building out their 4G networks now....don't be fooled by marketing campaigns. Sprint is saying that they were the first, but their 4G is quite different than what everyone else is planning to install. Plus, they have no 4G phones yet. So, what good was it to be first?

 

[dgdosen]

Please! Tiered pricing is a must! Charge iphoners depending on how they tax the network.

It might not help at all, as an iphoner that is constantly downloading garbage might just sign up for the higher plans and pay whatever it takes to satisfy their appetite for updating their facebook status whathaveyou, but it might work. Worth a try.

... and where do you stand on net neutrality?

See - to me the problem is AT&T thinking of the problem in the wrong way. They're taking the old school approach - "We need to figure out a way to variably charge people who use more bandwidth because Person A is using 5 x more than Person B..."

While they should be thinking - "How can we increase our capacity in such away that we can offer "unlimited" access and not have it be an empty promise."

In five years our data consumption over mobile devices is going to exponentially increase. You'd think AT&T would want to plan and be a part of that AND keep it affordable. I'm sure there will be plenty of comfortable profits in that space. If they don't, I'm sure some other viable alternatives will show up. Computers will get better, faster, lighter, long-lasting on a battery charge. We should demand increases in performance from a data provider.

I guarantee in 10 years time we'll look back on this and say "I can't believe I paid $30 a month for that trickle of data bandwidth"

 

[NoExpectations]

In five years our data consumption over mobile devices is going to exponentially increase. You'd think AT&T would want to plan and be a part of that AND keep it affordable.

And therein lies the problem, how can a carrier support year over year exponential growth in data AND keep prices low? The network requires expensive expansion...who is going to pay for that? I say the people who use it the most. Let the top 3%s pay for what they use.....bring on the tiered pricing plans!

 

[butterfly0fdoom]

Guys... Data used to be tiered. This is hardly anything new. It's just going retro!

 

[goobot]

And therein lies the problem, how can a carrier support year over year exponential growth in data AND keep prices low? The network requires expensive expansion...who is going to pay for that? I say the people who use it the most. Let the top 3%s pay for what they use.....bring on the tiered pricing plans!

they need to make a lower plan 5$ for 1000mb 10$ 1gig $20 5 gigs and 30 unlimited as an example. i would like aleast the one im currently paying to be a least a big one since im use a lot of data.

 

[ShiftyPig]

Apple should just build its own network. Surely it could find a better way to do it than AT&T and Verizon combined.

 

[Andronicus]

I like what someone on engadget posted, "Offer to let customers leave without having to pay an ETF ...that will probably free up lots of data, quick."

 

[goobot]

Everyone is building out their 4G networks now....don't be fooled by marketing campaigns. Sprint is saying that they were the first, but their 4G is quite different than what everyone else is planning to install. Plus, they have no 4G phones yet. So, what good was it to be first?

they have 4g in like three cities that is spoty with no phones.

its just for sprint to show off

 

[inkswamp]

I seem to be in the minority, but I have no problem with a fair tiered data plan. We've been using tiered voice plans since the beginning and I don't see why data should be any different. Give the customer an easy way to view how much data they've used, take off any restrictions about what they use that data for (VOIP, text messages, streaming tv, whatever), and allow them to choose a plan that works for them.

You're being idealistic. That's never how this works. Yes, it seems reasonable that they would offer lower-cost options but that would potentially undermine their revenue that no company is going to do that.

What they're most likely thinking is leaving the pricing structure exactly as-is and rebranding what they offer now as a "standard" data plan with maybe some limits put in place, and then introducing a "premium" plan that gives you back all the privileges you enjoy now. In other words, the tiers will expand upward, not downward.

 

[dgdosen]

And therein lies the problem, how can a carrier support year over year exponential growth in data AND keep prices low? The network requires expensive expansion...who is going to pay for that? I say the people who use it the most. Let the top 3%s pay for what they use.....bring on the tiered pricing plans!

As with any complex production problem, there are fixed costs and variable costs. Any data provider needs to amortize those fixed costs over the useful life of those assets and build in a profit. Is this any harder or easier for a chip maker whose product is quickly obsoleted? Or say an LED screen manufacturer? It's the same problem. Fortunately, there's completion (well, I'm not sure about Intel with the fed suit and all) to make sure. And it works.

If these execs want the big bucks, without these screaming customers, they should learn to forecast better. Sure the US has it's cellular complexities, but if AT&T lost their exclusivity, I'm sure they'd have a much bigger incentive to come up with a solution.

 

[kingtj]

Exactly ....

If AT&T wants to give people "incentive" to use their cellular bandwidth less, they need to make the alternatives completely painless to use. That means giving away Microcell units FREE to anyone interested, for starters. (Why not? The cost of one should be recouped easily by AT&T over the life of an iPhone's 2 year contract, if it keeps all the data used in someone's home off their network completely. And even *if* they don't see it that way? Who cares? It makes their customers feel like they're getting something extra with the service, and that has a lot of value in the way of customer retention!)

I give them some credit for offering the wi-fi hotspots they've put together. It really is nice to be able to go to a place like McDonalds, fire up the iPhone, and have it auto-establish a wi-fi connection without some manual login required first. That's the type of thing they need to work on getting out there even more, as well. As far as I'm concerned, I'd MUCH rather use data on my cellphone over a wi-fi broadband connection than over 3G. Saves battery life, better speed and reliability (assuming the hotspot is set up properly), and I'm not hogging up limited bandwidth on the tower that another subscriber might really need, due to their location.

I wouldn't mind the Microcell at all, but it needs to be cheaper, if not free.

 

[pavelbure]

I rarely come across any of their hot spots, and I'm in a pretty high-populated area. I'd rather they spend their time improving the network in order to support that kind of demand, but that's just me.

agreed.

Alot of people say "well wifi is in alot of places so that will help"

This is a big load of crap. Not everyone lives in a big city. Even when i do go into the city and find wifi it is either:

a: locked down

or

b: so freakin slow it is easier to just use 3g.

 

[Wild-Bill]

AT&T actually spending less on network improvements

AT&T has consistently spent less on network infrastructure improvements since iPhone's lanuch, despite their claims to the contrary. And their profits have steadily risen since iPhone's launch. AT&T chooses corporate greed over network improvements.

Gizmodo has the story along with the numbers from AT&T's own financial reports. Link

Once another network gets the iPhone and can do simultaneous voice and data, I am kicking AT&T to the curb. I can't remember the last time I carried on a phone conversation that didn't end in a dropped call.

AT&T SUCKS. And I can't wait to jump ship.

 

[kingtj]

re: Apple building their own network

Actually, from what I read about the origins of the iPhone, Apple DID want to essentially build their own cellular network. The problem is, they would have run afoul of government regulations, because they don't currently allow a phone manufacturer to ALSO be a phone carrier. (You don't see "Nokia cellular" or "Motorola cellular" service, right?)

I believe their next thought was to possibly negotiate to become a "middle man", reselling cellular service to iPhone users. (That way, you'd pay Apple for your cellphone usage each month, but they, in turn, would pay the existing carriers.) This could have had an interesting outcome if they negotiated terms to use several of the major networks. (Your iPhone could determine which carrier had the best prices in a given situation, and place or take each call using the best one, instead of being tied to a specific company. Or alternately, you could force it NOT to use certain ones if you consistently had spotty service with them.)

But I think ultimately, this proved to be too much of an obstacle to overcome for Apple. (The iPhone would probably STILL not be out yet if they had to solve all of that first.) So it may turn out to be an idea they revisit later on, now that they proved their hardware has earned respect.

Apple should just build its own network. Surely it could find a better way to do it than AT&T and Verizon combined.

 

[hwhalers]

The network requires expensive expansion...who is going to pay for that? I say the people who use it the most. Let the top 3%s pay for what they use.....bring on the tiered pricing plans!

Carriers won't make enough just by gouging people who use their service for what it was designed and advertised for. If the carriers start building more towers, you'll end up paying more too. Are you going to complain when your service fees go up? I won't, assuming I get an option for an actual unlimited plan that's not unreasonably expensive.

The simple fact is that the customer data infrastructure in the US sucks completely, no matter who the operator is, and all of them are going to have to invest tens upon tens of billions in the next few years to make it suck only slightly less. We are massively behind nearly everyone else. And if it doesn't improve, our networks will be so hilariously pathetic that we can't possibly compete with the rest of the world. The solution is to actually build more capacity. If paying more means they actually do it, then it's positive overall. Capping and doing nothing is the worst possible outcome, even for luddites.

 

[palmfox]

Isn't this the same company who lied back in April

AT&T Mobility CEO Ralph de la Vega, who received significant attention for his comments last week suggesting that the company is looking at tiered pricing for data plans to rein in high-use customers, appears to now be downplaying that suggestion, according to a Wall Street Journal report (subscription required).While de la Vega's statement certainly doesn't appear to take tiered pricing options off the table for the long-term, as the earlier report suggested such a move would be anyway, it does emphasize AT&T's current strategy of using "incentives" and other strategies for shifting traffic off of its network instead of changing the pricing structure of its wireless plans.

In particular, de la Vega reportedly cited the possibility of increasing free access to Wi-Fi hotspots for AT&T customers, helping to shift traffic off of the cellular network while also providing users with faster connections. He also pointed to AT&T's 3G MicroCell program, which customers can connect to their home networks to seamlessly shift wireless calls to the Internet. The 3G MicroCell is designed to provide greater signal strength indoors and offers users the choice of using their own cellular minutes for calls or purchasing an unlimited calling plan for wireless calls routed through the device.

Article Link: AT&T Downplays Talk of Tiered Pricing for iPhone Data Plans

I'd like to remind everyone of a previous lie told by AT&T back in March / April regarding the streaming video.. This was after a change in the terms of service came out which outlawed streaming using Slingbox and other place- shifting devices. After the uproar on the internet, AT&T came out and said the following:

"AT&T retracts new terms of service, apologizes
By Nilay Patel posted Apr 3rd 2009 7:08PM
Breaking News
Looks like the uproar over AT&T's recently-tweaked wireless terms of service banning video streaming and p2p activity caused some hasty rethinking in Dallas -- the company just sent us this statement:

The language added on March 30 to AT&T's wireless data service Terms and Conditions was done in error. It was brought to our attention and we have since removed it. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused."

What happened.. Slingbox for Iphone was released.. and we found out that the change in the TOS was NOT done in error.. it went right back to banning place-shifting.

"Fool me once AT&T.. shame on you.. Fool me twice AT&T shame on me." Excuse me if I don't believe you AT&T. You can expect me to break my contract without paying an Early Termination Fee....