Verizon Planning Speed-based Prices for 4G Data?

[Conumdrum]

[citation][nom]IM0001[/ Stop limiting people on how much we use and just make it unlimited and speed based dangit.[/citation]

You don't get it. The data transfer costs money. Someone has to pay for bandwidth. Someday when you have a 35 million budget to use with 43 million in costs maybe you'll understand.

There is costs to everything, like gas for your car. You just don't undersatnd the big picture yet, you will hopefully in the next 10 years when your a big IT manager and have to upgrade the companies pipe to the internet. Nothin is free, LOL.

 

[nebun]

if they can deliver i would love to pay for speed...but no matter what tech you have nothing is 100% stable.

 

[nebun]

[citation][nom]xxsk8er101xx[/nom]makes sense they do it for your ISP services.[/citation]
with isp you are not capped on how much you can use it....if i want i can d-load and upload 24/7

 

[figgus]

[citation][nom]User69[/nom]First off, your kind of an idiot and second - in the near future internet is such a vital function and essential for economic growth and prosperity that there are plans in the making to have whole country internet access. Use your imagination how that would happen, think really hard this time.[/citation]

Actually, you're kind of an idiot. SOMEONE still has to pay for it, and as with most things the government does it works out to be more expensive than having the private sector do the same thing. I'd also like to point out that the "super monopoly" the communications providers have (and you meant oligopoly, by the way) exist BECAUSE the government granted them exclusivity in the first place... but you already knew that, RIGHT?

 

[willard]

[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]with isp you are not capped on how much you can use it....if i want i can d-load and upload 24/7[/citation]
That's the case with most ISPs, yes. There are plenty that do limit your bandwidth, though (and very severely).

 

[caparc]

I won't pay $30 a month for internet access on my phone. Tell me what I can have for $10 a month with no bandwidth limit. If it does something useful and I can cancel anytime may be I'll try it for a few months.

 

[wydileie]

[citation][nom]figgus[/nom]Actually, you're kind of an idiot. SOMEONE still has to pay for it, and as with most things the government does it works out to be more expensive than having the private sector do the same thing. I'd also like to point out that the "super monopoly" the communications providers have (and you meant oligopoly, by the way) exist BECAUSE the government granted them exclusivity in the first place... but you already knew that, RIGHT?[/citation]

Supposedly the government has walled off the previous analog TV airwaves for Wifi use. Because these are longer wavelengths they can reach much farther, thus significantly reducing the need for your "millions of hotspots" and would thus make it quite cheap to implement. Companies will buy out airwaves from the government and sell their services on the airwaves.

 

[jerreece]

So, will they give us credits for wait time? For instance, I hit go on my BlackBerry and it waits, and waits, and waits... and then suddenly a web page begins to download.

Other times it happens instantly. But there are times when it simply won't connect to download data and just waits and waits. I'm a Verizon user by the way. So would they credit me for wait time?

 

[figgus]

[citation][nom]wydileie[/nom]Supposedly the government has walled off the previous analog TV airwaves for Wifi use. Because these are longer wavelengths they can reach much farther, thus significantly reducing the need for your "millions of hotspots" and would thus make it quite cheap to implement. Companies will buy out airwaves from the government and sell their services on the airwaves.[/citation]

Indeed they did, and those airwaves were auctioned off to private companies about 5 years ago.

The thing you need to remember is that every wavelength only has so much bandwidth. If you think cable is congested, you wait and see what happens when a couple dozen houses try to talk to one wireless hotspot. Remember, longer wavelength = lower frequency = less bandwidth.

Not to mention most of those companies are not interested in taking on the incumbents for home access...

 

[orionantares]

[citation][nom]IM0001[/nom]"If you want to pay for less speed, you'll pay for less speed and consume more, or you can pay for high speed and consume less," Shammo said yesterday.What the heck does this even mean? If you have a slow speed, and used it at it's max speed for a month, you will have downloaded X amount of data. If you have a faster speed and use it at it's full speed for a month it will be Y but it will not be less than X.. Soooo Yes with a faster speed you can get more done quicker if your not using it the entire time, but saying you will consume less is just stupid. Stop limiting people on how much we use and just make it unlimited and speed based dangit.[/citation]

It's spoken awkwardly but this "Stop limiting people on how much we use and just make it unlimited and speed based dangit." is pretty much what it meant. He didn't say you "will" consume less at higher speeds but that you could consume less even though you're paying for more speed.

 

[Guest]

If you think about it, bandwidth management is more important than bit volume management for carriers. Voice is easy to provision; it has a fixed bandwidth per phone. Calculate your subscription factor allowable per tower (aka 20 users/tower but only 5 active = 4x subscription) and adjust for geography. SMS is only slightly harder; the bit volume is low, and it uses a dedicated channel. Only near someplace like a high school or college with volumes of addicted texters where the subscription factor drops towards 1x is it an issue.

Data however, is hard. You've got radically different use cases. My wife is a pandora user at work, so she's a constant ~64Kbit/s stream that eats nearly 5GB of data per month. But that's only 1/8th of an EVDO channel at any time.

Meanwhile I "only" consume 3GB/month, most of which is from Podcasts and attachment-heavy emails I download while at work (no wifi) in short, high-speed bursts. That is very hard to provision cost effectively both on tower and backhaul. My usage is irregular but could monopolize the tower. If my usage schedule coincides with that of the other users, we fight over bandwidth and are cranky about how slow it is.

So Verizon can either toss out tons of towers to deal with the 4 hours of congestion during the day and raise rates or restrict the plan somehow to reduce usage. If they tier by data volume, I and coworkers, might reduce usage away from work and leave the congested area a problem.

Or they could tier bandwidth, which would actually help manage the towers during the peak usage period.

 

[nebun]

[citation][nom]willard[/nom]That's the case with most ISPs, yes. There are plenty that do limit your bandwidth, though (and very severely).[/citation]
i actually get more bandwidth than i pay for...legally

 

[caparc]

A basic principle of economics, if something has value and it's free people will consume more and more and more. Sooner or later demand will over take supply, even bandwidth. There are probably sensible, elegant solutions to bandwidth addicts but the ISP's are holding outt for something more lucrative for them.