AT&T Caps Netflix Streaming Costs At $68K/Yr 433
theodp writes "What would you say if you went to join a gym and were told that it could cost you anywhere from $360 a year to $68,000 a year for the exact same usage? Don't be ridiculous, right? Well, that's really not so different from what the potential costs of streaming video on an AT&T smartphone are. According to AT&T's Data Usage Calculator, 1,440 minutes worth of streaming video consumes 2.81GB, which — if you manage to keep Netflix fired up all day and night — would result in a $360 annual bill under the grandfathered $30-monthly-unlimited-data plan, or $68,376 under the new $20-monthly-300MB plan. Still, that didn't stop a spokesman from characterizing the new AT&T data plans as 'a great value' for customers."
So when did... (Score:4, Insightful)
...it become our God-given right to stream Netflix 24-7? And to get outraged that there is a bulk discount? AT&T has many, many issues already, so do you really need to contrive a completely unrealistic one to make a point?
Re:So when did... (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is that some customers get a 99.48% discount for buying in bulk. How many other places offer that extreme of a discount? Should I get two McDoubles for a penny if I go to McDonalds every day?
Re:So when did... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's large.
My gym charges about $650 per year or $20 for a day. Some have a $10 for an hour fee.
Are the $20/day people supposed to be outraged at paying $7300 for something I'm paying $650 for, or should they be happy they saved money for something they didn't really want.
The $10/hour guy would pay $87,600 if they used it all day every day; but why would someone doing that be paying by the hour?
Re:So when did... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe a better question is "how much does AT&T pay for that bandwidth for which they charge $20/250MB?
The issue might not be who gets the discount so much as "why is AT&T price-gouging for something for which there is so little choice?"
When you've only got a couple of choices, and AT&T actively works to keep the number choices limited, they have a privileged position. When a company is granted such privilege, they should be held to some responsibility, one of which is not to price-gouge.
"Price-gouging" is defined as "a pejorative term referring to a situation in which a seller prices goods or commodities much higher than is considered reasonable or fair". Who wants to argue that $20/250MB is "reasonable"?
Re:So when did... (Score:5, Insightful)
Moreover, these Internets make heavy use of public resources. In the case of wireless, it is a public spectrum they are leasing. In the case of wired, they make use of the public right of way. The public has every right to see that its resources are used in a manner that maximize the public benefit, and corporations that cannot meet that challenge should not be allowed to use said resources.
Re:So when did... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that's not a good question, unless everyone is asking it. Text messaging rides on the backs of empty space in the network ping, costing nothing to the provider. But rates have gone up from 10 cents to now 40 cents.
People will pay whatever they value the service to be.
I have fought this for as long as I could - I didn't buy a cell phone, I didn't have cable or satellite TV, I didn't pay money for anything I thought was overpriced. But everyone around me did. $500/mo apartment with $140 tv + internet package, and complaining about not having money.
I told people where they were spending ridiculous piles of cash, they didn't care, they wanted the service. I tried to educate them, honestly I did.
And your argument that choice is limited doesn't really hold up - Sprint has been offering "truly unlimited" plans. This is basic capitalism. No one cares what it costs to make something, only what they are willing to pay for it. And very few people like me are truly outraged anough to actually not purchase something, they grumble and fork over the cash.
Re:So when did... (Score:5, Informative)
Will I argue that it's reasonable? Errrm. Maybe. Before I start, two things:
Disclaimer 1: I work in the backbone at T. My opinions are my own. Randall Stephenson gets paid more in a day than I'll make in my entire career to voice Ma Bell's opinions.
Disclaimer 2: It's fairly hard to calculate what bandwidth costs. The capital expenditure of the large telcos to build their networks runs into tens of billions of dollars. The operational expenditure to keep it running once the costs are sunk is considerably less. We have people who think about this stuff. They don't talk to me.
From the telco point of view, there are 3 segments to your Internet connection.
There's the backhaul between the data centers and the Internet. I think most Slashdotters are fairly familiar with the economics there. That bandwidth is cheap as dirt.
There is the cost of running a dedicated leased line to every fool tower in the US. Not as cheap as dark fiber, but still reasonably cheap.
Then there is spectrum over the air. That's a very limited commodity. There is a lot of chatter as to whether T (or other telcos) are making the best use of the spectrum they have, but the fact is, we have a certain quantity of it. Once it's gone, there is no more. Neither T, nor VZ nor Sprint nor you or your mom can write a check to make more spectrum appear. It's the long-term opinion of T's upper management that users will exhaust the spectrum capacity we have.
Another issue was that under unlimited data plans, a very small (i.e. 2% or less) of the customer base were using an inordinate (i.e. 50-60%) of the total bandwidth. Capping customers makes them mad and post angry messages on Slashdot. Thus, let marker forces take over. :-)
Re:So when did... (Score:5, Interesting)
The SPECTRUM is limited, and there is a hard limit on bandwidth somewhere in there, but we're nowhere near it. Double the number of cells and you very nearly double the bandwidth being carried in the same slice of spectrum.
The people with the unlimited data plans you speak of using 50% of the bandwidth were the people who actually used their phones the way the commercials all show. If they can't actually support their entire user base enjoying movies and sports telecasts on their phones wherever they are, perhaps they shouldn't advertise it.
Re:So when did... (Score:5, Insightful)
They pay for it because of a lack of choice.
"all other providers (of which there are several) also charge similar fees": This argument only works if all providers have similar coverage/phone-selection/etc.
There was a recent customer study that showed AT&T had one of the largest customer bases while having a customer satisfaction near 0/5. How does a company have horrible customer satisfaction while retaining its customer base? By having an "effective" monopoly. All the down sides of a monopoly without technically being one. Implicit anti-trust?
Re:So when did... (Score:5, Insightful)
The word you're looking for is not monopoly but cartel (companies colluding with one another to keep prices high). The record companies were prosecuted by the US DOJ for doing that with CD pricing.
If you believe cellphone companies are guilty too of collusion, then maybe you should start building your case to prove it's true. Can you do that?
Re:So when did... (Score:5, Insightful)
MB roll over? (Score:3)
So why not let your unused MB's 'roll over' like your unused minutes every month?
That would make the economy plan more reasonable for many.
Re: (Score:3)
So, AT&T wanted to buy out one of their very few competitors, because they were hoping that would allow them to charge their customers less?
Is that what happens when there is consolidation among competitors?
Re: (Score:2)
I think part of the complaint is that they no longer have the equivalent of a "$20/day" option, you only get it if you were grandfathered in.
That being said, there are other providers out there.
Re: (Score:2)
One thing you are forgetting here:
In your example, the gym still offers the $650/year plan. In AT&T's case, only those who have it already can keep it - it has been this way for 1-2 years now.
In addition, AT&T is doing everything they can to force people off of the unlimited plan:
1) Capping those supposedly in the "top 5%" of data users - however, some people have gotten capping nastygrams when their monthly usage was BELOW the 2GB cap of the highest non-tethering plans!
2) Forcing users off of th
Re: (Score:2)
I think if you read the articles listed a little more closely, this is more like they sold you the gym membership for $650 and said you kept that rate forever ... and then for all new people, it's a $10/hour fee, with even higher fees if you come too often.
This is not a case in which they could still opt for the $650/year price ... that option is no longer available to new members, they're stuck at the more expensive price
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So when did... (Score:5, Insightful)
They might not have an unlimited plan anymore, but they're offering more than a single $10/hour plan. There are 3 GB and 5 GB plans in addition to the 300 MB plan, which are perfectly reasonable choices if you plan on watching a ton of Netflix.
No one streaming Netflix 24/7 is going to be on the 300 MB plan, so the fact that it would cost $68K to do so on that plan is as stupid as claiming 100,000 instances of a song pirated is $300K in damages.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Once your customer pays $650, it would be in the interest of the gym to switch someone over to the yearly plan.
Sure, it limits the immediate short-term source of revenue, but the good-will it generates may be sufficient to lure in more people (long-term). Since it's unlikely that all but the wealthiest / most insane individuals would continue to patronize a gym that charged them such a large amount over the short-term, in much the same way that cellphone companies lose customers may hitting them wit
Re:So when did... (Score:5, Interesting)
The key difference between your gym and AT&T, is choice.
If you know you're going to hit the gym 5 days a week, you choose the plan that offers the best value, the yearly plan. Every gym user has an affordable option based on their needs.
With AT&T, if you know you're a heavy user, the only thing you can do is brace for impact. Even the most "generous" plan is very tight - 5gb may seem huge to someone who reads the occasional email or googles trivia at the bar, but for a guy like me who often works over 3G on a laptop, I blow through 2-3 gb per day. Where is the 100gb for $70 plan ?
Or, if we really want to point out the illogical price discrimination: why does unlimited data only cost $10 on a "standard phone" ? Are the bits any different from bits sent to a smartphone ? Are the zeroes and ones made from cheaper electrons ? Why should the device have any impact on a platform-agnostic network and its costs ?
Telcos' business models are so full of holes, they need armies of full-time lawyers and spin doctors to keep the ship from sinking.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not unheard of for there to be things like "founder's benefits" or "rent control" that grandfathers people into absurdly good rates.
The real question here is whether AT&T needs that money to expand their POS network or they're just being greedy. I'd wager it is some of both, but having said that, it's clear that AT&T doesn't have the network chops to offer unlimited utilization without some build out.
Re: (Score:2)
Call me nuts, but I have a friend, who lives in a much less densely populated country than the US, but has good cell coverage anyway, and pays $4/month. And no, it isn't a 3rd world country. If it were I could explain the difference, but as it is, I can't help but think that rampant greed is a huge factor in pretty much all cell companies here in the US.
The best I can do is $35/month for unlimited text/data/calls, and coverage is limited to my state, and only half-assed at best, there..
Re: (Score:2)
Call me nuts, but I have a friend, who lives in a much less densely populated country than the US, but has good cell coverage anyway, and pays $4/month. And no, it isn't a 3rd world country. If it were I could explain the difference, but as it is, I can't help but think that rampant greed is a huge factor in pretty much all cell companies here in the US.
The best I can do is $35/month for unlimited text/data/calls, and coverage is limited to my state, and only half-assed at best, there..
That's because you aren't looking hard enough. Switch to a MVNO who resells a nationwide network (there are several for Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon) and you can find unlimited talk/text for around $40 a month, and it will work anywhere in the US. Higher data plans usually start in the $55/mo range. I call bullshit that your "friend" has any significant amount of talk time or data for his $4 USD/mo. Most other countries have very cheap texting and higher charges for minutes and data to offset it, and co
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So when did... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So when did... (Score:5, Insightful)
But corporate lobbyists also spent fortunes to get the government to subsidize their infrastructure. They are free to do what they want with what they bought and paid for. If you want your representatives to actually represent your interests then you should spend the same millions that the corporate lobbyists do. That is how our democracy works.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So when did... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So when did... (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead we have companies like AT&T activly sueing competition from even getting started, and doing everything in their power to maintain that power. Power they have because we granted them a monopoly to get things going.
Long as they want to be the only game in town, they damn well better be beholden to the tax payer that put them there in the first place. To claim otherwise is Ludicrous!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are many large projects that no company(not even the large ones) has the capital fund. If the government did not fund these projects, they would never happen. These projects include useful things like infrastructure, nuclear power plants, etc. Should the companies get more stake in these programs than they put in? I say no. Non-conservatives get pissed-off when conservatives talk about reducing government control, because that usually means getting rid of the controls that corporations don't like, but
Re:So when did... (Score:4, Informative)
But radio spectrum is a public good, licensed by the government, and those using it can be thus regulated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So when did... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a God-given right, a CONTRACT-given right. I'm not paying by the bit for computer internet access, why should I pay it for internet access on my phone? And BTW, I have AT&T for home internet, the phone is Boost Mobile, unlimited everything for half the price of AT&T's cheapest phone data plan, even if you don't hit AT&T's caps.
And I could watch TV 24/7 (well, ok, 16/7, stations didn't run late at night back before the stone age) for FREE fifty years ago. I'm still watching for free. Cable? Why? A hundred channels of crap I don't want to watch, most of which are on the internet hosted by their networks (I have kubuntu TV, my computer uses the TV as a monitor).
Why do you expect me to pay for what was once free, and especially for what's free right now? No wonder everybody's broke, they're throwing their money away on bottled water, TV, radio, exercize, data, music... shit that they can get for free. What a bunch of maroons, as Bugsy would say! Pay five dollars for a goddamned cup of coffee when I can buy a two pound can of Maxwell House or Folgers for ten, and have a whole pot of coffee every day for a month? How fucking stupid would I have to be??? Kids, if you have money to waste, give your charity to the poor, not the rich bastards that own Starbucks and Comcast.
Re: (Score:3)
This.
Don't get me wrong, I quite enjoy a few pints at the pub, despite the premium price, but that's in part because my government imposes such usurious levies and taxes on alcohol that even "cheap swill" at the liquor store costs nearly as much as a full-service bar, for a bottled product that's been oxidizing on the shelf for a month. And, well, I haven't quite mastered the art of homebrewing yet...
I really do believe the only reason telcos are so dominant is because people don't bother spending any time
1,440 minutes is only 11 movies! (Score:3)
1,440 minutes is only 11 movies! It's not streaming 24/7 .. it's just 3 movies a week.
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously, this is AT&T's attempt to stop anyone from using Netflix from their mobile device, when not using wifi.
We've seen articles on /. estimating that Netflix streaming traffic constitutes a big chunk of all internet traffic. AT&T's mobile network is already shoddy compared to all competitors - the last thing they need is people streaming movies.
It's a transparent attempt to more or less outlaw this one specific app.
not so fast there alarmast headline writers. (Score:2, Informative)
per article, the changes are:
$15 for 200MB => $20 for 300MB
$25 for 2GB => $30 for 3GB
Nice alarmist title.
Re: (Score:2)
It's still way overpriced. It should be $1 for 1GB. We just need competition and the market will correct itself.
Re:not so fast there alarmast headline writers. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's still way overpriced. It should be $1 for 1GB. We just need competition and the market will correct itself.
Well, I think that your plan is overpriced. It should be $0.01 for 1GB.
See how pointless it is when you make up numbers just to make yourself happy?
Re:not so fast there alarmast headline writers. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:not so fast there alarmast headline writers. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's also cellular data that they're talking about. Anybody who would watch Netflix 24/7 in high definition over a cellular connection needs to have their head examined. (you did notice that the link to the "data usage calculator" was for the wireless calculator, right?)
Over a wired connection, the rate is significantly more reasonable. But it wouldn't make as interesting a sensationalist headline.
Re: (Score:3)
4G in my area is faster than DSL.
Why not just put all the wired bandwidth going to their DSL infrastructure in my area to the closest towers, and then give every one a 4G hotspot?
You can talk about spectrum space this and that, but DSL is just as limited in regards to physical infrastructure. (IE must be X miles from a DSLAM to get speed Y).
Why not make the ultimate set-top box? You only have to plug it into the wall and your TV. The unit is completely wireless (4g or whatever newer tech), and also acts
Re: (Score:2)
The max cost need to be in there, and having to pay $70000 just because you forgot to turn off your phone is not a good thing. This is important because people do not see this problem, and tend to laugh at "losers" affected by it. Pressure should be on the Telcos to have fair pricing, not on the customers.
So no it's not alarmist, it's trying to expose telcos for what they are, and hopefully change them.
Re:not so fast there alarmast headline writers. (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't calculate your water bill based on if you leave all the faucets in your house on for 24/7.
I don't see the big deal as long as AT&T notifies the customer of overages when they occur.
Re:not so fast there alarmast headline writers. (Score:5, Interesting)
They should prompt you for buying a new data allowance when your expires. And, ideally, they should charge you for Mb, not simply shove another 300Mb/1Gb down your throat. Sometimes you run into your cap on the last few days of the month and would rather simply wait for the refresh instead of paying 100% more for 10% more data.
Re: (Score:2)
Man, I wish I had mod points. An option to require an agree button to purchase more data would be ideal. I went over my limit once on my iPad, and got a notification that I was reaching my limit - 10 hours after I'd gone over it. It's not the end of the world, and $15 isn't going to kill me, but it would have been nice to have to manually authorize the overage.
Re:not so fast there alarmast headline writers. (Score:5, Insightful)
The max cost need to be in there, and having to pay $70000 just because you forgot to turn off your phone is not a good thing. This is important because people do not see this problem, and tend to laugh at "losers" affected by it. Pressure should be on the Telcos to have fair pricing, not on the customers.
So no it's not alarmist, it's trying to expose telcos for what they are, and hopefully change them.
If you "forget" about your phone the battery will die after about 45 minutes of this kind of usage, so, not to worry! And for what it's worth this has been going on ever since the invention of long distance; you have always been able to dig a real deep hole for yourself. Say you call your aunt in Armenia and you both forget to put the phone totally back on the hook; one month later you will have an $86,000 phone bill. Think that's changed any? You can opt to purchase more affordable plans, which is no different than in this scenario, but if you choose to be completely dumb about it yes you can find yourself owing a LOT of money. That's the price of being a grownup.
Re: (Score:2)
T-Mobile = $30 for 5 GB. Useless outside metro areas though.
Sprint Relay Store (Score:3)
Case in point: one of my friends is deaf. What use is the voice plan for her?
Sprint offers data-only plans, but only to people who can prove that they are deaf [sprintrelaystore.com].
Sounds like my utility company (Score:5, Interesting)
Utilities and the like seem to like to do crazy things with billing based on usage. My gas/electric company reads the meter every other month and estimates for the months they don't read based on past usage. I've had a number of months in the past year estimated gas use so high that they mark it as 0 use the next month when they read the meter (which means I'm still paying for gas I don't use because I really doubt it comes to exactly even every time). However, even on months where they bill me for 0 gas use, I still get a nice plump "delivery charge". Isn't this like FedEx sending you a bill because they could have delivered a package even though they didn't?
Re:Sounds like my utility company (Score:5, Informative)
I would get a hold of your local public utilities commission if this is really happening; that's certainly not the way that estimated usage billing should work and you are right that it's bullshit that they basically charge you for 2 months of usage up front and then ride out the cash. Sounds like they either have a super shitty estimation process or they are deliberately trying to pad their books to keep the cash flowing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Are you suggesting that state-run monopolies might not be competitive or customer-oriented?
That's unpossible.
Re: (Score:2)
So have I.
A. If your gas use varies a lot month to
As long as it's neutral (Score:3)
Already happening (Score:2)
This exact shit is already happening. Airlines offering free Facebook and Twitter (other content costs money), ISPs offering cap exemptions for Windows Update...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:As long as it's neutral (Score:4, Insightful)
"How much *profit* should they be allowed..."
As much as the market will pay. And comparing DSL to cellular is comparing apples to oranges.
Re:As long as it's neutral (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. These are regulated monopolies; we trust them with our very limited spectrum with the understanding that they will provide services that are in our best interest. This includes in terms of price.
The gradual lessening of service per dollar is a genuine concern.
Re: (Score:2)
The same cost for 2GB of bandwidth on a relatively expensive DSL plan ($14.99/month for 1.5Mbit) runs to approximately $0.02.
That gave me a good laugh. In my part of the States "cheap" DSL is $19.99 for 768Kb. To get to 1.5Mb you are talking at least $29.99 and that's usually when it's bundled with phone. Otherwise you are looking at the $30+ range.
Bullshit Strawman (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because it's entirely reasonable that someone would sign up for the lowest possible data plan, and then use as much bandwidth as possible for every second of every day. Obviously, that plan is designed for people who intend to use streaming very little, if at all, and it is a very good value for those people. No, not as good a value as the old $30 unlimited, but that was obviously not sustainable as phone bandwidth usage increased massively. Remember when the $30 unlimited plan was created, Netflix for the phone didn't exist, and most phones struggled to stream very low res video.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree for the most part, except for that "obviously not sustainable" part.
The phone companies complain loudly, but I don't trust them to be forthcoming about their business. Increasing network capacity is possible, but probably expensive. They don't want to if they don't have to.
The commercials on TV advertise the kind of usage that would lead to an absurdly large bill. They actively sell it to customers. Then, they turn around and demonize the users who actually use the phones as advertised.
Have you
Re: (Score:2)
Still I think that for safety most people would like their yearly costs capped at a sensible number, say, somewhere around the cost of a flat screen TV, rather than a Lotus Exige S.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet... I manage to stay under 25MB/mo most months.... It depends on what you use it for. My data gets used for e-mail, and calendar/contact syncing and that's it. With my carrier, $5/mo buys me the lowest tier of their flex data plan, and I'm set. My cell bill came to $40 last month (150 anytime minutes, 5pm unlimited evenings/weekends, unlimited long distance, unlimited global texting, call display/voicemail, and data), how much was yours?
Not everybody wants data so they can check their Facebook and Tw
Only video? (Score:3)
AT&T has a 3GB plan now (Score:5, Informative)
3GB data for $30 a month
article is FUD
Re: (Score:3)
Breaking news, service provider chooses to tier... (Score:2)
Wow, I can't believe that AT&T (of all companies,) would offer customers a way to pay either a little bit for something, or a way to pay a shit ton for the same thing! Just wait until [insert some useless governing body here] gets a load of this! They will be outraged! /sarcasm
And yes I get that the $30/unlimited is no longer a choice when signing a contract, but you *can* choose the $30/3GB plan where the overage is only $10/1GB resulting in approximately $820 in overage fees, instead of $68,000.
This is incredibly stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
AT&T offers larger chunks of data for less per megabyte. So if you're expecting to stream 3GB, buy 3GB.
You wouldn't be a complete moron and buy the smallest data plan and then let it up-charge you over and over again.
Re: (Score:3)
"You wouldn't be a complete moron and buy the smallest data plan and then let it up-charge you over and over again."
Apparently if you were the author of this article, you would be.
1440 minutes are "only" 24h not a whole month (Score:3)
A whole month of streaming is 96.3GB.
Oups, my mistake (Score:2)
The data usage link points to a screenshot of MONTHLY usage while the "article" speaks about daily usage. Indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
That's how they got *to* the total; they didn't show their math in any sane way but the argument was if you did 24h * 30d of 2.8gb/hr you would end up with that much in overage. Don't worry, it's stupid bullshit either way.
Brought to you by my iPhone (Score:2)
us cellular has unlimited data plans and so does sprint. why does AT&T need to gang rape it's customers?
Re: (Score:2)
There's no such thing as unlimited. Sprint's "unlimited" plan: friend's iphone 4s on sprint has bandwidth of about 200kbps.
All I know is (Score:2)
Movie industry execs and telco execs are getting some really FUNKY shit from their drug dealers if they think people have forgotten common skills like...math.
Stupid comparison (Score:2)
This is like complaining that it costs more to park near your local supermarket, when all they've done is add some extra handicap places. The fine you pay for parking in a handicapped spot isn't the cost of parking there, it's the cost of breaking the rules. Similarly, you're not supposed to sign up for this $20/month plan and then stream Netflix all day. If you want Netflix, get a plan with a bigger limit. It's not that hard.
ENOUGH (Score:2)
I am sick of "plans". What the hell is a cell phone "plan"? There is no plan, this is all retarded. I want a cell wireless data company to just say: "You give us $20 and we give you 2GB on our network". It's as simple as that, simply cuts off after the 2GB is over because that's what you paid for, no super high fees, no bullshit. Just GB for $$. That's it. Not complicated.
No, instead of simply selling bandwidth they choose to make all kinds of complicated illogical nonsensical absurd "plans" which mean n
Re: (Score:2)
So for extreme uses unlimited plan is cheaper. (Score:3)
As well this Gym Analogy isn't apt. Because it is more like a case you can have an unlimited Gym Membership for a month for $30 or you can choose to pay by the hour (Say $1.00 an hour) while you are there.
So if you are the guy who goes to the gym for 2 hours a day every day the Unlimited $30 a month is a better value. Because the other plan will have you paying around $60.00 a month.
If you are the average Joe who goes to the gym say 3 times a week for 1 hour. The hourly plan is cheaper because he will be paying $15.00 a month.
For most of the people the hourly rate will be a better value because if they do go to the gym every day it will normally be for 1 hour and they will normally have reasons to miss a day. However for the the guy who is addicted to exercise or is really trying to get buffed, that pay per usage will be more expensive.
Now the same will AT&T Plan. For most people we are getting a better rate, then before, however we don't like being metered, even if it is cheaper. We much rather pay more and have a consistent bill then a fluctuation bill even if the average is cheaper.
Are people really that stupid? (Score:3)
If you were planning to stream video content, why would ANYONE go with the 300MB plan, instead of the 3GB plan? If you plan to use data, then you go with the plan that gives you the appropriate amount of data for what you want. AT&T DOES offer pay as you go data for those who do not have a smartphone, and it costs more per megabyte than if you go with a data plan.
Smartphones tend to have "phone home" features to check for updates and such, and if you don't have a data plan, customers who buy a smartphone without planning to use any data services would freak out about "what is this data usage fee on my bill". That is why all carriers REQUIRE a data plan for those who buy a smartphone. People have to accept that if they plan to use data, they should NOT go with a low-end data plan, and they should go to the 2GB or above plan.
2.81GB of data...fits in the new 3GB plan offered by AT&T. So, what's the problem?
Re: (Score:2)
2.81GB of data...fits in the new 3GB plan offered by AT&T. So, what's the problem?
Yeah, it would, if it wasn't 2.81GB PER DAY.
1440 minutes== 24 hours
Re: (Score:2)
Smartphones tend to have "phone home" features to check for updates and such, and if you don't have a data plan, customers who buy a smartphone without planning to use any data services would freak out about "what is this data usage fee on my bill". That is why all carriers REQUIRE a data plan for those who buy a smartphone.
No, carriers got greedy and wanted money from ALL smartphone users, including ones who opted for Wi-Fi only and never planned to use cellular data. It used to be that one could opt for a complete block of cellular data connections on smartphones if they didn't want to pay for a data plan.
300Mb is about 500 browser page views (Score:2)
Do we get to keep our old plans? (Score:2)
It's not clear, either in TFA or on the AT&T site that you get to keep your old plan. One of the reasons for staying with AT&T (for me) is that they have the cheapest data plan at $15. If there were a $10/100MB plan, I'd probably get that as I average about 50-60MB per month. I rarely - if ever - stream media, and use my plan for looking up data and getting email/text/google voice when I'm out. I'll be pissed, and looking at switching both my phones to Verizon, if they force me into a higher cost
Are You Thick? (Score:3)
What would you say if you went to join a gym and were told that it could cost you anywhere from $360 a year to $68,000 a year for the exact same usage? Don't be ridiculous, right?
While it may be ridiculous that they still allow anyone to use the $360 "all you can download" plan, they have grandfathered those people in. I don't even really find it ridiculous. I think it is their obligation to complete each contract under its original terms.
Oh, or are you saying you want your new contract to be "all you can download for $360"? Are you thick? Do you have an "all you can burn" plan set up with your local gas station?
More accurate pricing, even when does not benefit you individually in the short run, is a good thing for everyone in the long run. We want AT&T to get paid for high usage, so they are financially incentivized to build out the network. Under the old way of billing, high usage was being subsidized by low-usage customers, and AT&T was incentivized to inhibit high usage by such extreme measures as throttling, which sucks. You are being short-sighted, quit whining.
No way! (Score:2)
If you are going to use lots of data then an unlimited plan is better than a metered plan. Who would have thunk?
It's almost like if you plan on spending 24 hours a day at the gym a monthly membership would be cheaper than day passes.
really, all video streaming is the same? (Score:2)
at what bitrate?
I'd have to say that's BS for HD video streaming.
Notes from someone who had the bottom-tier plan (Score:2)
- AT&T sends you a notification when you've used more than 50% of your bandwidth for the month. I used to get these all the time, usually about two days before the month was over, since they apparently just do it via high-water mark, and aren't building any kind of prediction of "will they go over".
- In that notification, it lets you know that you'll get another notification when you hit 90%, which they d
Motive (Score:2)
Certainly, if you do an insane amount of data transfer via 3G you will see a higher cost and AT&T will profit from that. But b
seriously? (Score:2)
Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's just the usual 'I used to get everything for FREE' rant that ignores the fact that the company has costs and unlimited plans were doomed from the start. They are so massively unfair to 90% of the users that I'm surprised there aren't more people clamoring for cheaper, metered plans.
I say this while I'm in the top 5%, if not the top 1%. When I was in highschool, back in the dialup days, I was "#1 abuser" at my local ISP. Yes, they told me that directly. I was part of the reason they ended their 'unlimited' dialup plan. (They nearly went out of business soon after and ended up selling out to an ISP that still had an unlimited plan.)
The problem is that the word 'unlimited' is very attractive to us, even if we're paying more than we should. At the moment, I have unlimited internet bandwidth, cell minutes, cell texts, cell bandwidth and probably other things I've forgotten. With my usage, it probably makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that the entire rest of my family (not living near me) has most of the same unlimited things, and they'd probably be better off with metered service. But they've got this 'don't want to pay overages' mentality that makes them keep paying too much. Notice that I said, "probably makes sense" for me. I haven't done the math! I could very well save some money if I examined it, but I feel a resistance to even doing that.
tl;dr - It's a psychological thing that overrides logic.
Unlimited = no overusage fee (Score:3)
For a customer, the best part of "unlimited" is not about being about to download petabytes of data.
The great part is about being able to download whatever he wants without worrying if he will be billed pricey overcharge fees for this.
He knows in advanced what he will pay every month, even if this is more than what he would have paid with a lower plan with overcharge fees.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I think the point is they won't give you a $30 unlimited plan any more.
Judging by the link [att.com] in TFS ... you can get 3GB (not 30GB) for $30/month .. and you can get $5GB for $50 (I'm going on smart phones here). And, it says you'll be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, bandwidth costs money, the fiber it flows over costs money, the routers that move the packets cost money, the peering agreements cost money, the data centers cost money, the technicians cost money, etc etc..
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there IS a cost, you just don't understand how much of an expense there is.
Fiber has a limit on how much bandwidth can be handled per strand, and in general, due to increased costs, carriers will NOT run a fiber bundle the size of one of Arnold Schwartzenagers biceps to each and every cell phone tower. The routers used to handle the traffic also have a limited capacity in how much data they can handle. So, what happens when the amount of data being used exceeds the capacity of the equipment?
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on how you look at it. The act of sending a packet of data through their network doesn't cost them anything, or at least not noticably. The big cost is in installing and maintaining the equipment.
So what they are doing is converting their capital cost (the cost of equipment) into a marginal cost for the customer ($ per GB)
The other trick they are doing is using the pricing to influence customers to limit their usage. While there is no real cost of sending data which they do have capacity for, the
Re: (Score:3)
So many things wrong with this. Where do I start?
1) 1440 minutes is the number of minutes in a day, not a month. Each month on average has 43,828.8 minutes. The AT&T slider is not a representation of maximum possible data usage.
2) As another poster pointed out, who streams Netflix 24x7 on the least cost-effective plan? $30 for 3GB/month would change the original calculation from $68,376 to $360 per year, the original value of the unlimited plan. (But at 43K minutes/month on either large plan woul