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

[jdechko]

If AT&T want's to "incentivize" its smartphone users to use less, then I propose a few things.

1) Create a 250MB plan for $10-15/mo. for light users. Right now, I rarely ever use more than this anyway, and I'm sure a lot of folks are the same as I am with this. When skype 3G goes live, I'll probably start using it even more, though.

2) Leave the 5GB plan for $30/mo. for heavy users. Or charge $40-45 for 5GB of "dumb pipe data" and allow tethering + smartphone data with a cap of 5GB total.

3) Add a combined 10GB tethering + smartphone package for $60/mo.

4) Unlimited data for $90/mo.

Finally, FTFN!

Unfortunately, I don't see them adding a lower tier option because, as de la Vega said earlier, there's only ~3-5% of the people that actually have a problem with the cap. I'd say that easily ~85% of the people use less than 1GB of data per month, and probably over half use less than 250MB. Which means that a lot of people would just subscribe to the lowest tiered plan, leaving AT&T with less money than it originally had.

 

[Fastshutter]

I'm all for tiered pricing. I have 3 iphones on my plan, and one of the users doesn't use data much, if at all. In fact, last month she used the most amount of data in a year's worth of use, and it was only 8mb. The iPhone requires a data plan, but she isn't interseted in it.

My average monthly data usage looks like this:

Phone 1: 250MB (Me)
Phone 2: 50MB
Phone 3: 200KB (I'm not kidding).

I would love it if AT&T went to tiered pricing, but they would most likely increase my rate and keep the other two phones the same price, essentially charging me more in order to provide less.

This is a little off topic, but I usually prefer to use 3G instead of wifi when I'm out and about. I can't stand having to register or accept terms of use to access someone elses public wifi. If At&T offered a lower tier, I'd be more willing to go through the hassle in order to save a buck or twenty.

 

[notoriousceo]

How about just fixing the damn network instead of the constant whining. AT&T is reaping the benefits of adding lucrative smartphone contracts, but is spending less on upgrading and maintaining their crappy network. They could start by adding more cell sites to distribute network load particularly in NYC, San Francisco and Chicago. Why advertise unlimited plans and not expect people to use it, why advertise network superiority then encourage people not to connect to it. They better get their asses in gear cause the cellular landscape is changing. The future of cellular belongs to connected devices like the iPhone, Androids, Pres, Tablets, Netbooks, Pixis and eBooks so AT&T needs to shape up or shrivel into insignificance.

If they spent a lot of their money fixing the network, where will the funds for their executive compensation come from?

 

[Fastshutter]

If AT&T want's to "incentivize" its smartphone users to use less, then I propose a few things.

1) Create a 250MB plan for $10-15/mo. for light users. Right now, I rarely ever use more than this anyway, and I'm sure a lot of folks are the same as I am with this. When skype 3G goes live, I'll probably start using it even more, though.

Has AT&T ever said what they consider a heavy user? I only ask becuase I use 250MB on my iPhone, and I thought that was a lot for a smart phone. Based on your post, 250MB is light use. What has AT&T said?

 

[fox10078]

You people sensationalize things more than Fox news.

 

[davidee]

here was the original thread re: femtos

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/790416/



careful though it will bring out the Corporate Shills

-ee

 

[libertyforall]

The Microcell has VERY limited availability it seems and is not available in my area at all. My Dad really needs it with the terrible AT&T signal he gets at his place, but he cannot get it in his area either! I don't think the Microcell can also handle EDGE or GPRS, which is unfortunate!

 

[aokiqiao]

I propose you check the service map and terms of agreement before signing a two year contract.

LOLOL You believe those maps? hahaha

 

[CaryMacGuy]

This is just another way that AT&T is not being a responsible corporate citizen. They need to take ownership of the issue. People say that it isn't AT&T's fault. However, when you look at the 3G Map, there is no excuse for it. Verizon managed to get 3G in some really unlikely places and I don't understand why AT&T is having trouble with that.

When it comes to network reliability, all I can say is I live in San Antonio city limits in a quite populated area in Northwest. I tend to see a lot of Edge. That, to me, is unacceptable (especially since I have purchased an iPhone 3G).

 

[Shonuff]

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.

The problem is that they will structure it in a way that will cost the average user more money than it does today, not only the high data users. For example, they won't leave the top end at $30 and work down from there, they will structure it so that it is nearly impossible to stay under a certain level and then charge more for the "unlimited" package. Make no mistake, this isn't a way for them to restrict people because of network congestion (although it is a good excuse), it is just an excuse to get more money out of iPhone users to add revenue to their bottom line. It isn't like we will get faster 3G rollout with the extra money or faster speeds.

 

[fox10078]

This is just another way that AT&T is not being a responsible corporate citizen. They need to take ownership of the issue. People say that it isn't AT&T's fault. However, when you look at the 3G Map, there is no excuse for it. Verizon managed to get 3G in some really unlikely places and I don't understand why AT&T is having trouble with that.

When it comes to network reliability, all I can say is I live in San Antonio city limits in a quite populated area in Northwest. I tend to see a lot of Edge. That, to me, is unacceptable (especially since I have purchased an iPhone 3G).

Verizon's network was built in 2001. Since then they have had a lot of time to put 3G everywhere since it doesn't require a major overhaul for the tech they are using, which is currently why they are capped out. ATT's network is fairly new which is why they are going to be able to expand up to 7.2 and onwards, but also why we see the less coverage.

 

[Cougarcat]

If AT&T want's to "incentivize" its smartphone users to use less, then I propose a few things.

1) Create a 250MB plan for $10-15/mo. for light users. Right now, I rarely ever use more than this anyway, and I'm sure a lot of folks are the same as I am with this. When skype 3G goes live, I'll probably start using it even more, though.

If they did this I would be so over the iPhone. I have wireless at my house and at school, so I can't justify spending $30 a month on a data plan. Unfortunately I think a lot of people would jump at this as well. The surge in iPhone users would offset the data cap, so I don't think this would improve the network much.

 

[nsayer]

He also pointed to AT&T's 3G MicroCell program,

which currently remains unavailable to the vast majority of AT&T wireless' customer base.

 

[NeuralControl]

If AT&T was to initiate a tiered pricing system, I wonder how Apple would respond and if it would make them less inclined to renew the exclusivity contract.

 

[SleepyHead157]

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.

I recently did this. I've been with AT&T for years but after I got the iPhone, service wasn't as good but i loved the iPhone and stuck with it until the past 2 months. There were tons of degraded towers or down, yet AT&T reps keep saying I have service. I do have service for about 2-3 minutes. When I'm on the phone for anything longer than that, it drops the call. So after two months, I finally made the move 2 days ago, went with Sprint and the HTC Hero. Sprint has cheaper family plans through the referral program and while the Hero is no iPhone, i can get passed that to leave AT&T.

 

[Doctor Q]

Raise your hand if you want AT&T to define the standard tier to include the amount of data YOU transfer, and have the high-end tier start a little higher than that. After all, you NEED that much bandwidth and shouldn't have to pay extra for it. It's THOSE OTHER PEOPLE who use more than you and are bogarting the capacity.

:raises hand:

 

[Rodimus Prime]

This is just another way that AT&T is not being a responsible corporate citizen. They need to take ownership of the issue. People say that it isn't AT&T's fault. However, when you look at the 3G Map, there is no excuse for it. Verizon managed to get 3G in some really unlikely places and I don't understand why AT&T is having trouble with that.

When it comes to network reliability, all I can say is I live in San Antonio city limits in a quite populated area in Northwest. I tend to see a lot of Edge. That, to me, is unacceptable (especially since I have purchased an iPhone 3G).

You need to learn the difference between VZW tech and AT&T. VZW CDMA tech when it was built was able to switch over to 3G with mostly a software update. ATT 3G tech required completely different hardware and it is not something the hardware for Edge can even do since it is a very different beast in it self. This is way Sprint and VZW were able to roll out 3G quicker and faster compared to the T-Mobile and ATT.

Sprint and VZW already had the hardware in place for it. ATT and T-Mobile had to go in and add a lot of new hardware for it.

Long run CMDA carriers made a much better choice in hardware to go with because it lasted a hell of a lot longer than what GSM used. Now with 4G everyone is having to replace their hardware. So yet again VZW and Sprint made the better choice as it CDMA tech had a much much longer lifespan.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

To quote small pieces of the fake steve jobs' interview with Randall Stephenson of AT&T:

By April, twelve weeks after that album came out, the Beatles had the top five spots on the Billboard chart. Now there was a lot of demand for that record — so much that the plant that printed the records could not keep up. Now here’s the lesson. Do you think the guys who were running Capitol Records said, Gee whiz, the kids are buying up this record at such a crazy pace that our printing plant can’t keep up — we’d better find a way to slow things down. Maybe we can create an incentive that would discourage people from buying the record. Do you think they said that? No, they did not. What they did was, they went out and found another printing plant. And another one and another one, until they could make as many records as people wanted.

So let’s talk traffic. We’ve got people who love this godd@mn phone so much that they’re living on it. Yes, that’s crushing your network. Yes, 3% of your users are taking up 40% of your bandwidth. You see this as a bad thing. It’s not. It’s a good thing. It’s a blessing. It’s an indication that people love what we’re doing, which means you now have a reason to go out and double or triple or quadruple your d@mn network capacity. Jesus! I can’t believe I’m explaining this to you. You’re in the business of selling bandwidth. That pipe is what you sell. Right now what the market is telling you is that you can sell even more! Lots more! Good Lord. The world is changing, and you’re right in the sweet spot.

I mean if you did understand how to do things, your guys wouldn’t be standing up at Wall Street conferences and complaining about how much traffic you’re getting. Instead, you would be running around like a f*cking maniac trying to build out your f*cking network and make it the best network in the world — and the only reason you would ever need to talk to me would be to thank me for creating a phone that’s so amazing that it draws people to your $h!+ network in the first place.

And now here we are. Right here in your own backyard, an American company creates a brilliant phone, and that company hands it to you, and gives you an exclusive deal to carry it — and all you guys can do is complain about how much people want to use it. You, Randall Stephenson, and your lazy stupid company — you are the problem. You are what’s wrong with this country.

Read the whole thing. So Awesome

http://www.fakesteve.net/2009/12/a-not-so-brief-chat-with-randall-stephenson-of-att.html

 

[Rodimus Prime]

FSJ knows nothing about it other than he whins and does not understand it.

Traffic growth bandwith wise for the phone is a lot like highway traffic. It is a lot harder to expanded the roads than it is to add printing presses. You have all the red tape that goes with it.

This incentive part on ATT part only does one thing and it is to buy them time to expand the network to handle the demand. All the wireless carriers are struggling to keep up as they expand and really are only buy time to get there.

The mobile web take off it a lot like the internet take off many years ago. It overloaded the landlines networks as they were never designed to have so many people on the phone at the same time. It took a long time for them to get models working that can be used to predict the growth and then how to expanded to match. Hell it took an entire new system for them to really be able to keep pace and even not everyone is struggling to keep up with computer brand band. Wireless is the same way. There is just not enough data to make accurate long term models on were they will need to add more bandwith and right now all the telecoms are just trying to keep up much less try to get a head.

 

[-hh]

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.

I agree with you in principle .. but my perspective is slightly different: the providers have essentially NEVER offered the "fair" tiered plan that I want, because what I essentially want is a minimized monthly rate for very low utilization rates, and the providers conciously choose to not offer for sale any such "lower" tier product.

As such, on average over 90% of my "allotment" goes unused every month...they're making a nice profit off of me.

Of course, the irony is that in some ways, this appears to parallel Apple's choice to not compete in the bottom of the PC hardware market. But the reality is that it is different, because I'm buying a renewing service, not a hardware widget.

And to answer the obvious question: I have a work phone too. That's why I don't need gobs of minutes on my personal phone: it barely gets used, just on weekends.


-hh

 

[Michael CM1]

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're first so THEY'RE FIRST! Sprint/Clear has been bragging about this around Atlanta. You can pop down about $60+ a month to get wireless Internet EVERYWHERE -- well, everywhere that you can get a signal. You're then bumped down to the 3G network. Honestly, I don't get the appeal of that much money for what may or may not be fast speeds. People with 3G dongles or cards have been able to get 3G speeds, which are on par with most landlocked broadband, for a few years. Most people who need mobile Internet need it for business, not watching Scooby Doo.

As far as tiered pricing, it needs to come for both landlocked broadband and mobile. It's already tiered by speed. If you're a major bandwidth sucker, you should be charged more as long as it's told to you upfront. This has been done based on voice usage, so why has it taken so long on data? Methinks the iPhone surprised AT&T and the geniuses in suits have been slow to adapt a smart policy that would share the financial burden. A tiered program will only work if it starts cheaper for very low usage, but then there should be a barn-burner plan for people who must watch Scooby Doo on an iPhone.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

FSJ knows nothing about it other than he whins and does not understand it.

Traffic growth bandwith wise for the phone is a lot like highway traffic. It is a lot harder to expanded the roads than it is to add printing presses. You have all the red tape that goes with it.

I don't think anyone cares how hard it is or how much red tape there is. They just want their product to work as well as the smarmy commercials say they do.

This incentive part on ATT part only does one thing and it is to buy them time to expand the network to handle the demand. All the wireless carriers are struggling to keep up as they expand and really are only buy time to get there.

The mobile web take off it a lot like the internet take off many years ago. It overloaded the landlines networks as they were never designed to have so many people on the phone at the same time. It took a long time for them to get models working that can be used to predict the growth and then how to expanded to match. Hell it took an entire new system for them to really be able to keep pace and even not everyone is struggling to keep up with computer brand band. Wireless is the same way. There is just not enough data to make accurate long term models on were they will need to add more bandwith and right now all the telecoms are just trying to keep up much less try to get a head.

I think you are absolutely right. In time, hopefully this won't be an issue as the tech/networks evolve and grow. Apple's iPhone is just really bringing this to the forefront.

 

[MacFly123]

Ya you BETTER NOT touch my plan Ralph!

 

[Rodimus Prime]

I don't think anyone cares how hard it is or how much red tape there is. They just want their product to work as well as the smarmy commercials say they do.

I think you are absolutely right. In time, hopefully this won't be an issue as the tech/networks evolve and grow. Apple's iPhone is just really bringing this to the forefront.

While true people do not care, that is part of hte issue. The masses are to stupid to bother trying to understand the problem and compare it to something that makes sense to them.
FSJ is a great example. He to clueless to compare it to something else correct. He compared it to manufacturing which is not a way to compare it. Comparing it to highway traffic is by far a better way to do it. Since you can never build up a supply of that to sell later. It is either you have it or you dont.
Also comparing it to highway shows how hard it is to increase how much there is. Everyone knows highway and road construction takes a long time to add and complete. Most it it years in the making to figure out what is needed 10-20 years down the road. Bridges are designed to last a 100 years for a reason.

If people understood why there are problems they would be a lot more understanding but they do not want to take the time to understand the underlining problems. No one could of predicted how fast the bandwidth demand increase would of been and how fast it has been. The existing models they had to work with was mostly based on increase demand in voice services which are very predictable. Data on the other hand is growing at an insane pace and no one has a good idea on what the future holds. It is all guess work right now and I expect for a while to come.

 

[fox10078]

While true people do not care, that is part of hte issue. The masses are to stupid to bother trying to understand the problem and compare it to something that makes sense to them.
FSJ is a great example. He to clueless to compare it to something else correct. He compared it to manufacturing which is not a way to compare it. Comparing it to highway traffic is by far a better way to do it. Since you can never build up a supply of that to sell later. It is either you have it or you dont.
Also comparing it to highway shows how hard it is to increase how much there is. Everyone knows highway and road construction takes a long time to add and complete. Most it it years in the making to figure out what is needed 10-20 years down the road. Bridges are designed to last a 100 years for a reason.

If people understood why there are problems they would be a lot more understanding but they do not want to take the time to understand the underlining problems. No one could of predicted how fast the bandwidth demand increase would of been and how fast it has been. The existing models they had to work with was mostly based on increase demand in voice services which are very predictable. Data on the other hand is growing at an insane pace and no one has a good idea on what the future holds. It is all guess work right now and I expect for a while to come.

you are exactly right, the only reason people understand freeway traffic is cause they get a good visual sitting in the middle of it.