Originally published in the gdgt newsletter, sign up at gdgt.com/newsletter/
It looks like sooner or later we're going to witness the end of unlimited wireless data plans here in the States. They had a good run, but all indications are that eventually all of the major US wireless carriers are going to follow AT&T's lead and institute data caps of some kind. I'm not sure anyone is super happy about this, most people like the idea of being able to surf the web, watch online video, download apps, etc. without having to worry about going over their limit and paying overages (and keep in mind that even so-called "unlimited" wireless data plans usually have a cap of around 5GB per month).
It's just that with wireless data usage surging, total US wireless data traffic is expected to hit one exabyte this year, and the reality is that tiered plans make economic sense for the carriers, even if they do stifle adoption of bandwidth-intensive apps and services that will drive innovation in the mobile web. While it doesn't cost so much these days for carriers to handle voice calls and text messages, wireless data is pretty expensive by comparison. In fact, given their relative costs, if anything we're grossly overpaying for texts and voice calls while probably underpaying for data.
Here's the thing, if we are going to have to deal with caps then the carriers need to start thinking differently about how they offer their plans. I can accept that capped data plans may be inevitable, but if that's the case then I also want to be able to use my bandwidth allotment however I see fit. And that means I should be able to use it with as many devices as I want as long as I don't go over my limit. It's my 2GB, right?
So I'm proposing that the carriers offer what I like to call a "multidevice data plan." It makes sense that the carriers wouldn't want someone sharing their smartphone's unlimited wireless data with their laptop (which is why they charge extra for tethering), but under a capped plan there's no reason why you couldn't offer subscribers the option to have multiple phones, tablets, and laptops sharing that one fixed amount of data and then charge overages for anything beyond that (this is why AT&T's charging for tethering on a capped plan is so loathsome; it just feels wrong). Besides, if the carriers are able to offer shared buckets of minutes across several handsets they can surely offer a shared bucket of data across multiple devices. Sprint's already done something a bit similar with its Everything Data Family plan.
The reality is that more and more of us have more than one wireless device in our lives and are finding it difficult to justify paying for multiple data plans just because we want to own a smartphone (or two), a tablet, and a laptop. You can see the carriers straining to figure out the right way to price data service on Samsung's new Galaxy Tab tablet (the subject of an earlier newsletter); a shared data plan would make it so much easier for someone to buy one and just add it to their existing plan or bump up their plan a tier.
Though supposedly at least one Canadian carrier has been considering multidevice data plans, I don't expect to be able to sign up for one anytime soon. The carriers are inching towards this by offering wireless routers like the MiFi, but those don't really solve the underlying problem. Wireless routers are no doubt handy, but they're also an additional gadget to have to carry around and charge, they require a second data plan in addition to the one most people already have for their smartphone, and they don't take into account that more and more devices are coming with built-in 3G and 4G connections.
Even though the carriers like forcing people to sign up for additional data plans, I do think in the long run it'd be good for them to offer something like this as an option. For one thing it gives them an opportunity to create additional pricing tiers that would drive more revenue per user. I know I would happily spend a bit more per month if I could spread that bucket of data across multiple devices, and I'm sure tons of people would be a lot more inclined to pay $35 for 3GB or $50 for 5GB a month if they could share that data plan amongst their smartphone, tablet, and laptop. In fact, think about how many more people would buy a 3G-enabled tablet if weren't for the cost of that additional data plan. You can imagine all sorts of devices like game consoles getting built-in 3G and 4G when the price of a data plan stops being a barrier to adoption. To put it another way: do you think the Kindle would have had as much success if it had required users to sign up for another data plan?
Of course, I'm sure that part of AT&T's new pricing model is predicated on most users not getting too close to that 2GB cap each month, so something that makes it easier for them to actually use up their monthly allotment might not be a positive development (at least from the carriers' perspective). But even so, assuming that the market does shift away from unlimited data plans, a shared data plan would be a surefire way for one carrier to grab marketshare away from its competitors in much the same way that family plans did when they were first introduced. The reality is that the amount of wireless data the average person consumes and the number of wireless devices the average person owns are both only going to go up, and whichever carrier figures out how to best satisfy this growing demand will reap the benefits.
There are surely a bunch more reasons for and against something like this, so I'd love to get your feedback and ideas on this one. Anyone at a carrier want to (anonymously) comment on pricing and the real cost of delivering data?
Discussion about
The Multidevice Data Plan
Absolutely. Right now I'm waiting for the WiFi only version of the Galaxy tab to release even though TMobile has already come out with their version. Since I'm already tethering my laptop to my cell phone I see no reason to pay more money for YADP for a tablet device. I've tethered my wife's WiFi iPad plenty of times and it works great.
When the iPhone came out in Canada, many people here felt like they were getting screwed by the only provider at the time (Rogers). Now, that it is available on all (compatible) networks here, I pay $30 a month for 6 GB of data (tethering enabled), and $10 more a month to share that data with my iPad. And unlike AT&T, Bell's network is rock solid (in Toronto), so it looks like we ended up getting a good deal here after all.
OMFG it's not that complicated. Wireless data is too cheap, charge per bit and adjust the price so that supply matches demand. Simple economics. Done.
Implementing caps is like selling diamonds at $2 a pop and then limiting how many per month anyone can purchase. It's pointless, stupid, and makes no sense. If demand is outstripping supply, most econ 101 students will tell you that your price is too low. I'd rather pay more per bit with no cap, because to me that's the REAL value and thus a fair price.
Implementing caps is like selling diamonds at $2 a pop and then limiting how many per month anyone can purchase. It's pointless, stupid, and makes no sense. If demand is outstripping supply, most econ 101 students will tell you that your price is too low. I'd rather pay more per bit with no cap, because to me that's the REAL value and thus a fair price.
The thing is any network can have a limited amount of traffic. Even though the same holds true for wired networks, you can get more out of the wires because they usually have less interference and losing data packets because of data collision is limited to one local node (when it happens). On the other hand if you try to watch video on your wireless network you have to take away some bandwidth from the overall network capacity. Even though our wireless networks are cell-based and one phone is usually linked to only one station at any given time, that doesn't shield nearby stations from your radio in your phone. Any one phone that connects to a station will reduce how much that station can deliver and will interfere with a nearby station.
In theory your only limit is how much bandwidth there is. In practice what makes it affordable is multiple users sharing the radio frequency. If we follow the pricing that you suggest then people who can afford to pay more will hog most of the network and make connectivity a lot more expensive. If carriers follow a supply and demand sales strategy they will not reach the wider audience of users.
Carriers are not trying to be fair by reaching everyone. They are trying to use the concept of network value in the way that a cellphone is only useful to you if you have someone to call. Pricing data on a supply and demand basis would create a haves and have-nots ecosystem for the carriers that would reduce their value to the customers because demand will surely outstrip supply on a YouTube burdened network.
In theory your only limit is how much bandwidth there is. In practice what makes it affordable is multiple users sharing the radio frequency. If we follow the pricing that you suggest then people who can afford to pay more will hog most of the network and make connectivity a lot more expensive. If carriers follow a supply and demand sales strategy they will not reach the wider audience of users.
Carriers are not trying to be fair by reaching everyone. They are trying to use the concept of network value in the way that a cellphone is only useful to you if you have someone to call. Pricing data on a supply and demand basis would create a haves and have-nots ecosystem for the carriers that would reduce their value to the customers because demand will surely outstrip supply on a YouTube burdened network.
Wow - Very good point. Because customers work hard not to exceed their caps, the current structure allows telcos to predict relatively well how bandwidth they will need and how much income they will receive. Pure pay-as-you-go, coupled with unpredictable memes would cause spikes when everyone hops on, (for example, SF's Bay bridge was closed this morning due to a 'hostage situation' - if there's a web cam streaming it, there could be a huge data spike with millions signing on to watch) This crowd behavior is the coming wave of the future, but it will yield much more chaotic behavior patterns than the current infrastructure can manage.
Peter's recommendation of the shared plan at fixed pricing does several things - it provides a realistic plan to get more people online and paying for data for all the devices they own, and it still provides for telcos with a predictive model for revenue and data usage. Unfortunately, as noted customers will definitely use a higher % of data available, and more importantly the overall data usage trend will increase at an even steeper rate than the telcos are fighting to manage today.
If they can manage the growth in demand, there are real monetary rewards to be had. (...just holding my breath for 4G)
Peter's recommendation of the shared plan at fixed pricing does several things - it provides a realistic plan to get more people online and paying for data for all the devices they own, and it still provides for telcos with a predictive model for revenue and data usage. Unfortunately, as noted customers will definitely use a higher % of data available, and more importantly the overall data usage trend will increase at an even steeper rate than the telcos are fighting to manage today.
If they can manage the growth in demand, there are real monetary rewards to be had. (...just holding my breath for 4G)
Demand would only outstrip supply if the price per bit were set too low. Priced appropriately, you would reach a natural equilibrium between the amount of bandwidth available and how much a slice of that bandwidth costs.
Your argument about the have/have-not ecosystem only works if the wireless space was an isolated network that was only as valuable as the number of users it has. Unfortunately that isn't the case, as the wireless space is a small piece of a much larger internet. Certainly the small chunk of wireless users add value to the overall value of the internet, but does not carry enough weight to make it worth the kind of protection you argue for.
In truth, the cost for everyone is driven up more using the current model, in which the bandwidth hogs skew the average for the amount of data consumed per-person. This means most of us are actually paying more than we would otherwise. If most of us consume, say, 5GB per month, and a handful consume 30GB per month, the average would sit somewhere *above* 5GB per month. Now, if we all pay the same flat rate, it's pegged to that skewed average, meaning most of us are subsidizing the few that are using 70% of the bandwidth.
Your argument about the have/have-not ecosystem only works if the wireless space was an isolated network that was only as valuable as the number of users it has. Unfortunately that isn't the case, as the wireless space is a small piece of a much larger internet. Certainly the small chunk of wireless users add value to the overall value of the internet, but does not carry enough weight to make it worth the kind of protection you argue for.
In truth, the cost for everyone is driven up more using the current model, in which the bandwidth hogs skew the average for the amount of data consumed per-person. This means most of us are actually paying more than we would otherwise. If most of us consume, say, 5GB per month, and a handful consume 30GB per month, the average would sit somewhere *above* 5GB per month. Now, if we all pay the same flat rate, it's pegged to that skewed average, meaning most of us are subsidizing the few that are using 70% of the bandwidth.
To further the water analogy, drought stricken areas with vast wealth disparities (LA) use different rates for different users. Just need enough water to shower, eat and wash dishes; you'll pay x/gallon. Need enough for the pool, the fountain, the acres of landscaping, the automatic dog waterer, the pond, the other pool, the jacuzzi and the wave pool; you'll probably something closer to 10x/gallon after the first 1000 gallons.
Apply the same principle on the per bit charges and you have a stratified model that serves the haves (at a premium) and the have nots. And if the have nots want to gobble up an extra GB of data, they either pay through dollars or through the effort it takes to find some free WiFi.
Apply the same principle on the per bit charges and you have a stratified model that serves the haves (at a premium) and the have nots. And if the have nots want to gobble up an extra GB of data, they either pay through dollars or through the effort it takes to find some free WiFi.
The only problem with that model is that it needs to be priced in a way where, as you said, the system would balance itself to a state of equilibrium. As @kamstewart user.gdgt.com/kamstewart/ mentioned above there will always be network spikes similar to his example. I don't think that this sort of equilibirum will help users enough to get a proper (depends on how you define "proper") connection or price/bit without still subsidizing someone else's. @tno user.gdgt.com/tno/ in the comment below probably has the most practical approach.
I totally agree. Let you do what you want with the bandwidth you pay for.
But good luck. Try arguing that with AT&T who charges you $20 for the privilege to "Tether" because as they say "you use more when you tether."
WTF? 2GB is 2GB! If I use 3GB I pay for 3GB. It's like arguing with an idiot.
I do see data plan competition getting more aggressive. Virgin Mobile had dropped pre paid data plan prices. T-Mobile has a competitive mobile broadband plan now. Maybe they'll all finally get their heads out of their butts but I'm not counting on it.
You know what they'll do:
$25 for 2GB, on any device. Or $35 if you want to play video. Part of this 'tiered service' BS they want to do in the face of net neutrality.
I say it's time to play hard ball. Pay per GB, 100% net neutrality. Period. If everyone has to pay per GB, they'll have to keep costs low to keep demand up, otherwise people will simply not use it.
But good luck. Try arguing that with AT&T who charges you $20 for the privilege to "Tether" because as they say "you use more when you tether."
WTF? 2GB is 2GB! If I use 3GB I pay for 3GB. It's like arguing with an idiot.
I do see data plan competition getting more aggressive. Virgin Mobile had dropped pre paid data plan prices. T-Mobile has a competitive mobile broadband plan now. Maybe they'll all finally get their heads out of their butts but I'm not counting on it.
You know what they'll do:
$25 for 2GB, on any device. Or $35 if you want to play video. Part of this 'tiered service' BS they want to do in the face of net neutrality.
I say it's time to play hard ball. Pay per GB, 100% net neutrality. Period. If everyone has to pay per GB, they'll have to keep costs low to keep demand up, otherwise people will simply not use it.
The pay per GB idea while great in theory has some fundamental flaws if we compare it to other utilities (I consider internet access be it mobile or at home a utility as opposed to some luxury service as some see it).
1. If we compare it to wate: everyone has a base level of water consumption per month, while there are some people who use very little and some who use very much, most people are very closely clustered around the average and these levels of chainring are likely to remain the same in the foreseeable future. Data however follows a very usage pattern, some users with data plans are fine with 100MB a month or less because they only check mail or frequently connect with WiFi while others like me could easily go through several GB in just a couple days and there is a broad spectrum in between. The distribution of use per customer is probably possible to determine for some time period but data usage is much more likely to change from month to month. For instance, some great new game comes out and one of these users who would typically only use data for email is suddenly pulling tons of data and just as quickly interest in this data intensive game could wane. The providers don't have a real good way to model the usage patterns of their customers, data usage is highly unpredictable and, as Peter mentioned above, limiting data access stifles innovation which I take to mean that increased access should foster innovation (which is precisely what Google is testing with their gigabit landline connection test in some lucky US city).
2. Precisely because water is considered a utility, most people have access and that access is equal, either you have clean water coming to your house or you don't. The same can't be said about 2G and 3G coverage. Since coverage (access) isn't equal, I don't see it as particularly fair to charge the same for the same quantity of data but that has more to do with my personal opinion and less with logical arguments based in economic reasoning.
1. If we compare it to wate: everyone has a base level of water consumption per month, while there are some people who use very little and some who use very much, most people are very closely clustered around the average and these levels of chainring are likely to remain the same in the foreseeable future. Data however follows a very usage pattern, some users with data plans are fine with 100MB a month or less because they only check mail or frequently connect with WiFi while others like me could easily go through several GB in just a couple days and there is a broad spectrum in between. The distribution of use per customer is probably possible to determine for some time period but data usage is much more likely to change from month to month. For instance, some great new game comes out and one of these users who would typically only use data for email is suddenly pulling tons of data and just as quickly interest in this data intensive game could wane. The providers don't have a real good way to model the usage patterns of their customers, data usage is highly unpredictable and, as Peter mentioned above, limiting data access stifles innovation which I take to mean that increased access should foster innovation (which is precisely what Google is testing with their gigabit landline connection test in some lucky US city).
2. Precisely because water is considered a utility, most people have access and that access is equal, either you have clean water coming to your house or you don't. The same can't be said about 2G and 3G coverage. Since coverage (access) isn't equal, I don't see it as particularly fair to charge the same for the same quantity of data but that has more to do with my personal opinion and less with logical arguments based in economic reasoning.
Your first point, to me, actually supports the argument that a per-bit pricing model would make more sense. If there is such a wide and unpredictable spectrum of usage, the only reliable way to charge fairly for it would be by charging per-bit. The current pricing models encourage the many to subsidize the few.
If we accept that the bandwidth hogs are of the minority, and the $30/mo price tag (as an example) covers the average cost per-person plus some sort of profit markup, the bandwidth hogs are skewing the average to the upside. This means most of us are actually paying more than we would otherwise.
As to the issue of people having access to different types/qualities of coverage, that's a non-issue. I think you are making the assumption that a single price per bit would somehow be dictated for all forms of data communicated. If we instead consider that different connections could be priced differently per-bit, then the picture changes somewhat.
The market would support higher prices per bit for higher quality connections and lower prices for lower quality connections. This same principle can already be seen with your water example: bottled water versus tap water. Bottled water offers more rigorously filtered water with fewer chemicals (like fluoride and chlorine), and guess what? It's more expensive. I think the same principle could still be applied to both wired and wireless data.
If we accept that the bandwidth hogs are of the minority, and the $30/mo price tag (as an example) covers the average cost per-person plus some sort of profit markup, the bandwidth hogs are skewing the average to the upside. This means most of us are actually paying more than we would otherwise.
As to the issue of people having access to different types/qualities of coverage, that's a non-issue. I think you are making the assumption that a single price per bit would somehow be dictated for all forms of data communicated. If we instead consider that different connections could be priced differently per-bit, then the picture changes somewhat.
The market would support higher prices per bit for higher quality connections and lower prices for lower quality connections. This same principle can already be seen with your water example: bottled water versus tap water. Bottled water offers more rigorously filtered water with fewer chemicals (like fluoride and chlorine), and guess what? It's more expensive. I think the same principle could still be applied to both wired and wireless data.
If you don't own a car, you're still paying for the parking lot next to the supermarket. If you don't eat everything off your plate at a restaurant, you're still paying for the whole meal. If your neighbourhood is relatively safe, you're still paying for SWAT teams.
If people can use between 0MB and 200MB, obviously the people who use below average will pay more per MB than the people who use more than average. Having limits just helps the carrier plan deployment and avoid capacity-related problems.
If people can use between 0MB and 200MB, obviously the people who use below average will pay more per MB than the people who use more than average. Having limits just helps the carrier plan deployment and avoid capacity-related problems.
The important question to ask, though, is what portion of supermarket patrons use parking spaces versus those who walk? Is everyone subsidizing parking for 10-20% of the customers? Or is everyone paying for parking for 90% of the customers?
With the restaurant example, what if you consider one plate representing 1 unit of data (whether that be GB, MB or bits). Do you limit every customer to just 1 plate per day? What if you have so many customers you couldn't possibly serve all of them, what do you do? Continue selling meals at $5 a plate, or do you raise it to $6 or $7 until you have a level you can manage?
Generally speaking, overwhelming demand is the market's way of saying your price is too low.
With the restaurant example, what if you consider one plate representing 1 unit of data (whether that be GB, MB or bits). Do you limit every customer to just 1 plate per day? What if you have so many customers you couldn't possibly serve all of them, what do you do? Continue selling meals at $5 a plate, or do you raise it to $6 or $7 until you have a level you can manage?
Generally speaking, overwhelming demand is the market's way of saying your price is too low.
Oh, I'm all for tiering, but if I buy in bulk I should get bulk prices, i.e. $50/GB when I buy 200MB, but $10/GB if I buy 5GB. I think people who use a lot will always get a better deal than people who use a little.
Exactly my point, carriers need a way to calculate approximately how much revenue they will be earning in the future, that along with paying for handset subsidies is why they force 2-year contracts down our throats. The water company can think, most every one of our customers is going to use X amount of water at price Y in the next two years and we have approximately Z number of customers in a 2 year period, therefore XYZ=revenue. The providers set the price, so they know Y, they know how many customers they have had in the past so they can make a pretty educated guess about how roughly how many customers they will have in the future so they know Z (or at least get very close by factoring in their historic churn rate, growth of the number of customers in the past, considering landmark changes in adoption like the release of the iPhone and the availability of Android on 7,491 different handsets).
The problem is the level of consumption per customer in that period. In 2006, most data customers were using only a fraction of the data as compared to the amount of data we use today. Providers set their prices then, based on what it cost them to offer data so that on the vast majority of customers they were making enough money to cover their costs, pay for expanding their infrastructure a little and (hopefully) make a little profit. As time passed, they realized that we lived in a world of Apps and that the new data customer required way more data so they were make less money per customer. Ideally, they would be developing ways to increase capacity at the same pace that consumption is increasing but as anyone in SF or NY will tell you, data networks have not been built out enough to keep up with the demand for mobile data. Data consumption has proven to be unpredictable, they have no model to develop that would help them run their business if they make per customer revenue an unknown - at least not at this point.
The problem is the level of consumption per customer in that period. In 2006, most data customers were using only a fraction of the data as compared to the amount of data we use today. Providers set their prices then, based on what it cost them to offer data so that on the vast majority of customers they were making enough money to cover their costs, pay for expanding their infrastructure a little and (hopefully) make a little profit. As time passed, they realized that we lived in a world of Apps and that the new data customer required way more data so they were make less money per customer. Ideally, they would be developing ways to increase capacity at the same pace that consumption is increasing but as anyone in SF or NY will tell you, data networks have not been built out enough to keep up with the demand for mobile data. Data consumption has proven to be unpredictable, they have no model to develop that would help them run their business if they make per customer revenue an unknown - at least not at this point.
To be clear, what I meant is that we always pay for the amount of usage, but it's easier for carriers to manage if they pre-sell packets of data because they're supply-limited at any given time. And if we're going to buy packets, people buying bigger packets should get a better deal.
Rising prices isn't as simple as you think. Stuff at a supermarket is priced $9.99 and not $10.05 for a reason. I don't think telcos take a 200MB packet of data and figure out the price, but instead they're trying to match pricepoints and their expected popularity against how much data they can sell in total.
Telcos aren't trying to get the best single price per bit, but rather to extract as much profit from the whole market as possible. That means that for people with more money they should have a product that is more expensive (though better value).
Rising prices isn't as simple as you think. Stuff at a supermarket is priced $9.99 and not $10.05 for a reason. I don't think telcos take a 200MB packet of data and figure out the price, but instead they're trying to match pricepoints and their expected popularity against how much data they can sell in total.
Telcos aren't trying to get the best single price per bit, but rather to extract as much profit from the whole market as possible. That means that for people with more money they should have a product that is more expensive (though better value).
This is screaming for a revolution, "cooperative" style. Say two hundred users spread out in a city all buy microcells wired into their cable internet and let rip, coop style. You can use the service free if you join the coop and buy your own microcell and start serving, netting you a share of the profits to boot. If you just want to use you buy a day/week/month/year pass. It would still have to limit rate and usage to some degree, but it'd be broken free of Telco's. Except for the Comcast/TWC's providing the cable service. This would work well in Manhattan (looking your way jailbroken iPhone users) or similar population dense confined geographic areas. Hmm...
I've often thought that we should be able to just buy a bucket of data from Provider X and then just purchase some number of SIM cards from that provider to stick into our various devices which would then all 'drink' from this bucket. On top of this it would be great if we could get away from having devices locked to a particular carrier. Basically full flexibility for the consumer. I think this would lead to customers being generally more pleased with the providers which would in turn raise the customers willingness to pay for their service. Being nickeled and dimed by the carriers ($20/mo. for tethering, $10/mo. for SMS) just makes me angry, however, if I had the option to $75/mo. for 5GB of data, unlimited calls and SMS to split up between any number of Galaxy Tab's and iPhones (which I'd be willing to buy unsubsidized provided they are unlocked) then I'd be the first to sign up. Carriers, make my life simple and I'll give you money!
Chatting with the T-Mobile third party vendor who sold me my iPhone about a year ago we got to talking about this and he mentioned he actually had two phones running the same data plan. Turns out that several years back T-Mobile (here in Germany) actually just what Peter is proposing. They offered an unlimited data plan in conjunction with some voice/SMS plan for which additional SIMs could be bought and put into any T-Mobile or unlocked device. However, once they realized that devices like iPhone and Android were drastically increasing the amount of data that consumers were eating through each month they got rid of this already not-so-well-advertised option.
Chatting with the T-Mobile third party vendor who sold me my iPhone about a year ago we got to talking about this and he mentioned he actually had two phones running the same data plan. Turns out that several years back T-Mobile (here in Germany) actually just what Peter is proposing. They offered an unlimited data plan in conjunction with some voice/SMS plan for which additional SIMs could be bought and put into any T-Mobile or unlocked device. However, once they realized that devices like iPhone and Android were drastically increasing the amount of data that consumers were eating through each month they got rid of this already not-so-well-advertised option.
Sadly they don't offer it here anymore either. The fact that it had been tried by as large a carrier as T-Mobile in the past makes me worry that we won't be seeing it come back any time soon. Until hen I won't be giving up my unlimited data plan on my US iPhone unless AT&T comes heavily armed to my front door and I'll continue to use the feathering provided by that wonderful NetShare App that made it about 10 hours in the App Store before being pulled down.
Hi Peter,
coming from Europe it hurts not to have more then one sim card for the same account.
Check out my earlier article on MobilityMinded to help move this subject forward in the US.
www.mobilityminded.com/5568/carrier-challenge-in-t...
Let me know how I can help, if needed
Johan van Mierlo
coming from Europe it hurts not to have more then one sim card for the same account.
Check out my earlier article on MobilityMinded to help move this subject forward in the US.
www.mobilityminded.com/5568/carrier-challenge-in-t...
Let me know how I can help, if needed
Johan van Mierlo
I'm from Singapore. I have a 30GB data plan on my mobile phone plan at US$15 a month, and my mobile phone plan is spread across two SIM cards; one's sitting in my phone, the other in my notebook. This option currently costs me US$3.9 a month. Probably one of the few things we have that's cheaper compared to the USA!
instead of a multi-device and tiered plans - the carriers should offer a per/byte plan. Data plans should be like water utility bills. You pay per gallon used, so you should also pay for per byte. You shouldn't have to worry about using all of your data cap because there wouldn't be one. It's not like there is a cap placed on your water bill. For every byte consumed, you spend $$. The less you consume, the less you spend. If you go on vacation and you don't consume any data for a month, then your total data bill should be $0. If you download tons of movies, then your bill should be very high. If the carriers offered these kinds of plans then there wouldn't be a need for a multi-device plan since the only need for such a multi-device plan is to be able to use all of your data cap. What I am proposing there would be no data caps.
I see your point but the reality is that most people cannot relate to how much data they are consuming in the same manner as a water utility bill. Not everyone knows much about the "byte" concept or terminology. Also, it doesn't help that people are already used to browsing the internet without really thinking if they will be paying more this month than last month.
I know some carriers, if not all, have a way of telling you how much data you've been consuming, but it would be better if you could also see what your current data bill is at that very moment. In other words, an easy way to monitor your usage by displaying it in layman's terms, without having to dig too deep.
I know some carriers, if not all, have a way of telling you how much data you've been consuming, but it would be better if you could also see what your current data bill is at that very moment. In other words, an easy way to monitor your usage by displaying it in layman's terms, without having to dig too deep.
With the water bill analogy, you have a way to check real time how much you consumed by checking your water meter. Likewise, the per/byte plan should also have a meter. But this meter could be more intuitive than your water meter since it could translate the usage into a dollar amount. Wireless carriers could offer this meter in an app bundled with your phone so your meter is always with your phone. For those people who to pay more for their wireless data plans but don't want to worry about byte usage, then the wireless carriers could offer these users the same plans we have today. But for those that want to save money, it would be nice to have a per/byte plan.
I am with Bell in Canada. Tethering has no extra charge, and if you phone is capable of tethering it is encouraged and not turned off. I can already just turn on the Wi-Fi Hotspot on my Nexus One and share my data with any device near me. I would like the added ability to have a Family Share plan to share data on each device with everyone in the plan as I can with minutes used. I also like the tiered plans where they automatically pop up to the next level as I exceed or outgrow them, then drop back to the lower level the next month when not needed.
You are absolutely right Peter. I've been arguing for this for years. They have shared messaging plans, they should have shared data plans that allow for multiple devices. I don't understand why the device folks are pushing harder for this. And quite frankly, this seems like a win for everybody. Consumers would adopt devices more quickly if they could just add a device to their existing data plan. Device makers would then obviously sell more devices. More devices leads to more people being able to justify paying for data in the first place. I delayed getting an iPhone and will not get a tablet because of the data charges. I'm not paying separate fees for each device. Can you imagine paying more for cable because of the number of tvs? One small thing, the market is really not deciding, the cell phone oligarchy decides. There is limited competition but the market works best when there is real competition and the barriers to entry is so high that real competition is not likely.
I wonder if rSAP (remote SIM access profile) could be part of the solution.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth_profile#SIM_Access...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth_profile#SIM_Access...
Haha. If you come to ireland you can get unlimited data. €29.99 a month. Used to be €24.99 a month. I signed up when it was €24.99 a month! + a Novatel MiFi.
Yeah, but how unlimited is your unlimited? On my US plan with AT&T I pay $30/mo. for my so called 'unlimited' data plan plus a voice plan but that has a 'fair use' upper limit of 5GB. On my German plan with T-Mobile I have 'unlimited' data and voice for €39/mo. but my connection speed gets way slowed down once I reach 300MB.
This actually does already exist in Saudi Arabia with the provider Mobily. They offer you the option of a second device to use the same data package as your mobile device's package for free. You can even purchase one of those USB modems the size of a flash disk and put the micro SIM card in there for your computer/laptop. It's a pretty genius idea though tbh.
Well, here in Germany I have a 2 cards contract and a flatrate that will count for both cards. By contract the flatrate is bandwidth limited above 250 MBytes, but my phone company doesn't seem to care, last month I leeched ~8 GBytes with ~1.5 MBit/s. And this all costs you only €3/month for the second SIMcard and €10/month for the data plan. Oh, tethering and wireless AP via cell phone is included.
This ties in nicely with what has always been my dream, having my car be able to share my data plan. Right now, at least in the US, we have to sign up for stupid add-on packages to satellite radio and things like that to get traffic pushed to our GPS navigation. If car manufactures could just count on having a data connection (no cost tethering or a SIM slot for the car) think of all of the things that could be done. Traffic updates with the ability to effortlessly report new accidents back. Built-in Pandora radio. Streaming for subscription based services like Napster/Rhapsody. Constantly updated maps. The car could read your RSS feeds to you.
Right now manufacturers and devices are trying to cobble together these things and get around the fact that the average consumer is too adverse to pay a separate dataplan for their car.
Right now manufacturers and devices are trying to cobble together these things and get around the fact that the average consumer is too adverse to pay a separate dataplan for their car.
I have been tinkering with an idea long these lines. I think this is another great opportunity for a carrier and a device manufacturer to really change the way that we handle both our devices and our data. It is reasonable to expect that a power data user often has with them a smartphone, a notebook/netbook and a tablet (reader or multifunction). Each of these devices could meet most of the users needs by itself. The smartphone could offer apps, limited productivity, voice and reader functions. The n-x-book could offer high productivity, limited voice, apps and reader functions. And a multifunction tablet could offer apps, moderate productivity, limited voice and reader functions. So we want all of them, and not have to half-ass any one function.
Each of these devices has a data device and requisite plan. You can try and simplify by opting for a smartphone with tethering, at the sacrifice of battery life, which on some of these devices is woefully inadequate. This model works. WiFi is fairly mature and so it's battery use is negligible relative to 3g and certainly 4g, so the devices that are tethering to your cell can do so without fear of drastic battery drain. But it could be better, especially on the phone's end.
I think an opportunity exists for a manufacturer and carrier to get together and develop a new type of handset, one that emphasizes it's sharing capabilities with a larger battery and smaller screensize. Larger screens improve productivity. But if the working assumption is that as a power user you have a laptop and tablet at hand then you're less likely to need that added screen real estate. This could pay dividends on other device manufacturer's by allowing them to trumpet lower cost devices that don't need the 3g radio but still maintain mobile data through your phone.
I don't know if it's really feasible but I also think it is seriously infeasible to have to pay for data plans for all of my devices.
Each of these devices has a data device and requisite plan. You can try and simplify by opting for a smartphone with tethering, at the sacrifice of battery life, which on some of these devices is woefully inadequate. This model works. WiFi is fairly mature and so it's battery use is negligible relative to 3g and certainly 4g, so the devices that are tethering to your cell can do so without fear of drastic battery drain. But it could be better, especially on the phone's end.
I think an opportunity exists for a manufacturer and carrier to get together and develop a new type of handset, one that emphasizes it's sharing capabilities with a larger battery and smaller screensize. Larger screens improve productivity. But if the working assumption is that as a power user you have a laptop and tablet at hand then you're less likely to need that added screen real estate. This could pay dividends on other device manufacturer's by allowing them to trumpet lower cost devices that don't need the 3g radio but still maintain mobile data through your phone.
I don't know if it's really feasible but I also think it is seriously infeasible to have to pay for data plans for all of my devices.
The US carriers are acting like the RIAA and clinging to their outdated business models. Rather than try to increase their volume by reducing prices, they are content with keeping prices where they are. And, as long as people keep buying multiple devices and paying for multiple plans, the US carriers will continue this practice.
I have a (company provided) smartphone and love it. I'd like for my wife and teen to have the same experience, but there's no way I'm going to pay Verizion $60/mo on top of $60 for voice+text family plan. I hope the manufactures that are trying to sell smartphones are listening.
I have a (company provided) smartphone and love it. I'd like for my wife and teen to have the same experience, but there's no way I'm going to pay Verizion $60/mo on top of $60 for voice+text family plan. I hope the manufactures that are trying to sell smartphones are listening.
I'm like the concept, but do you think consumers are willing to pay non-subsidized prices for devices? For instance they buy device #1 with a plan and get device #1 at a subsidized price, but upon buying device #2+ they pay the full retail price because the carrier isn't getting any additional monthly revenue to justify a subsidy?
I am hoping that more people will start asking for something like this and this dream will actually become a reality soon.
One major problem with low data caps is re-downloading. Right now if you download a 1 MB app or media file and it bombs then you just re-download it. But with low data caps are the carriers going to credit you the bits that you downloaded during the first failed attempt?
I've been asking for shared data plans for a few years. I don't see why a family with 5 smartphones can share minutes but are forced to pay $150 for data even though they use only 5 GB's per month (avg) between all devices.
I like T-Mobile and Walmart's version of 1GB for $40. Yeah, a GB for $40 sounds expensive until you realize it's for the entire 1 GB not a 30-day windows. So if you have 2 devices on the plan and each device uses about 200 MB's a month than that 1GB will last you for almost 3 months. And with WiFi in more places that type of plan makes sense.
I've been asking for shared data plans for a few years. I don't see why a family with 5 smartphones can share minutes but are forced to pay $150 for data even though they use only 5 GB's per month (avg) between all devices.
I like T-Mobile and Walmart's version of 1GB for $40. Yeah, a GB for $40 sounds expensive until you realize it's for the entire 1 GB not a 30-day windows. So if you have 2 devices on the plan and each device uses about 200 MB's a month than that 1GB will last you for almost 3 months. And with WiFi in more places that type of plan makes sense.
I think the tiered plans will get a lot more people moved to quite capable smartphones (think iOS 4 and Android 2.2). The challenge will then be to get these people to use smartphones in a way that they actually transfer significant data. If they end up streaming HD videos to their HDTV via DLNA or Apple TV, but doesn't upload a Web-optimized video to Facebook, it could take quite a while until the plans are again revised.
Great analysis (and we're definitely headed in this direction of having data capped plans.) While AT&T is somewhat of a pioneer in the data limits, with the iPhone exclusivity probably being lost in 2011 they missed a big opportunity recently. When Apple announced AT&T as the partner for the iPad 3G plans initially, they should have extended some discount in data to all AT&T users with mobile phone data plans. I mean, they are already paying $30 for what WAS an unlimited data plan. Why not allow them to get the iPad 3G deal at $10 per month instead of $29.99? You would do what the cable industry has intelligently done and made switching more difficult. As long as people are going to have this "third device" in the form of a tablet/iPad/eReader or even a small connected netbook/laptop, make sure it's YOU they get their services from. If (and only if) the iPhone loses it's exclusivity with AT&T in 2011, remember this moment as one when a smart AT&T could have lessened the impact.
This post has been removed.
This post has been removed.
