Verizon to Ditch Unlimited Data Plans With 4G LTE

[dingmatt]

Take a look at Iphone tarrifs in the promotional uk 'http/shop.o2.co.uk/promo/iphoneindex'.

$45 per month for a 18 month contract and you still have to dish out $271 for the 16GB or $422 for the 32GB phone.

 

[hillarymakesmecry]

I use mine all the time and it's usually 3 GB a month or so.

So as long as thier new plan makes it cheaper I'm down. The thing is, 3G is fast enough for me. It' already faster than my home internet connection, so I don't even care to upgrade. Especially without added flash support there's no point.

 

[Montezuma]

[citation][nom]wulfstryke[/nom]I think it is another way for these companies to rape and pillage the consumers. It is a way for them to charge large fee's for little service and yet demand what service we can have because of the phones they offer. look at AT&T for over 4 years now they have had the Iphone, and yet they want to charge you 50 bucks a month for unlimited data and texting, 30 a month for the apple data plan and then 20 bucks for the unlimited data, when a non smart phone can get the same unlimited data and texting for 30 bucks total. isn't a text nothing but raw data anyways? and now with all these new phones coming out soon will all force you into a data plan even if you dont want it, what happened to buying and paying for what you need? not what the company is telling you, you have to have?[/citation]

Good try at attempting to sensationalize your point, but you could not be more wrong. While I have an extreme dislike for AT&T's business method of having a bad network and blaming the customer for their problems, I feel that I must set you straight.

When you purchase an iPhone, as with other phones that are primarily data devices with telephony functions, you have to pay for data access(approximately $30 USD a month). That is on top of whichever voice plan you choose. Other than taxes, there are no more charges assessed again you. Now, I disagree with AT&T's method of forcing customers into data plans.

 

[dwhapham]

When you buy your next smart phone just make sure it is 802.11 capable.

 

[Guest]

i use pdanet to tether my computer, if Verizon starts capping the data usage; next time i download a 4gb video file they will be charging up the azz. yeah Verizon try it, ill be gone faster then you can say who let the dogs out. who. who. who

 

[davectek]

I work for verizon wireless in technical support, not in a very high up position, but I'll say that I think unlimited data should still be made as an option to the consumer.

That said, pricing for handset data vs mobile broadband data should be different with one proviso being unlimited data. I know that one of the logistical challenges are 3rd party tethering apps which bypass the feature that allows the handset to be used as a modem.

I rather think that any handset data plan should allow for use as a modem for the computer, just capped by the allowance. This being the reason unlimited for the handset should be the same $$$ as unlimited for an internet connection. This would also make it much easier for cell phone producers to allow for use as a modem for the computer. They would no longer have to program the phone to cater to separate "handset data usage" vs "data my computer uses" and i am a fan of greater interoperability

 

[jeverson]

Here I thought all the pricing would start coming down once T-mobile gave "unlimited" everything for $50. I just don't see why they feel the need to nickle and dime people. I'm a Verizon customer and I have a Droid. I love my Droid and I think the service I get on it is pretty good. I don't do all the youtube and streaming that a lot of people do but I do my fair share of surfing and searching and GPS-ing. I pay about $80/mnth for "unlimited" data, 700-800min, and 250 text messages. I think it is a bit overpriced for what I get. I can't believe carriers still charge for texting plans. It costs them nothing to run texts through their systems. I understand why they do it though, it's a huge cash cow for them. All those teenagers sending billions of texts each month. I think that an all inclusive plan for $50 month is more than fair. No fee for this and for that. Things will balance out because you will have customers that won't use much bandwidth on a regular basis and you will have power users. People are complaining that they pay more when using less. They'll complain more when they need the service and have to pay massive overages. They need to quit competing on the price front and start offering real services to get people's business. The "road" to get to services shouldn't be the selling point. Access to services should be. By charging for "TV" access or audio streams they can manage their bandwidth better. But they shouldn't cost an arm and a leg either.

 

[gnice3d]

It's just another gd instance of the government allowing giant corporations to rip us off. WTF are they to tell us what we can do on the internet?

It's just another example of the revolting levels of corruption within Washington.

 

[mlopinto2k1]

You mean the end of senseless bandwidth abuse??? No way!!!

 

[mlopinto2k1]

They are NOT RIPPING ANYONE OFF!!! THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE USING THE INTERNET AT ONE TIME! SERIOUSLY! If you want to keep your so called "High Speed Service" HIGH SPEED... then this is what is going to be necessary until they enhance the infrastructure. Complain all you want but reality is reality.

 

[mlopinto2k1]

I'm gonna say at least half of all internet usage is streaming video. Just a guess. How is this helping anyone? Let me see what's on HULU. LOL.

 

[ROID R4GE]

another reason that sprint is the best wireless carrier

 

[mlopinto2k1]

Trust ME, I LOVE SURFING THE INTERNET. But if push comes to shove I would be the first to welcome bandwidth caps. I downloaded a bandwidth monitor a while back just to see how much I was using a day. For a week straight, I used between 200MB and 500MB a day. Multiply that x 30. 15GB's at the most. As far as I am concerned, all the people who sit home (mommas boys) and surf the web alllllllllllll day long looking for CRAP could use a cap or two.

 

[spleendamage]

If you don't like the service or pricing, don't buy it.

Support a company that has the right ideas (like Sprint) and help them become profitable and grow rather than throw good money at crap companies that give you scraps in return.

If you went to a restaurant and were served dog food... would you continue to go back just because it was close to your house?

 

[mlopinto2k1]

[citation][nom]spleendamage[/nom]If you don't like the service or pricing, don't buy it.Support a company that has the right ideas (like Sprint) and help them become profitable and grow rather than throw good money at crap companies that give you scraps in return.If you went to a restaurant and were served dog food... would you continue to go back just because it was close to your house?[/citation]That was a horrible analogy, sorry! LOL

 

[kentlowt]

Why should heavy users pay the same as light users? That kind of communistic thinking got the US into the mess it's in now. Will I be happy if it means I pay more no probably not but, to say it's not fair or they are crooks for doing it is a just a selfish reaction to a reasonable proposal.

 

[Clintonio]

I pay like the equivilant to $7/8 per month for unlimited internet here in the UK. The fact ANYONE suggests $50 for such a thing is INSANE. The UK is usually more expensive than the US for physical goods, due to tax, but we sure have superior internet...

 

[godwhomismike]

I was considering switching back to Verizon from AT&T, but upon reading this article, I will not be switching back.

I will wait until AT&T gets a Palm Pre Plus device of its own. And if they decide to do the metered usage, I will switch to Sprint.

 

[HalJordan]

Verizon will try to cap, but I don't see it lasting. As technology increases the availability of media the caps will drive too many customers away.

 

[frozenlead]

[citation][nom]mlopinto2k1[/nom]They are NOT RIPPING ANYONE OFF!!! THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE USING THE INTERNET AT ONE TIME! SERIOUSLY! If you want to keep your so called "High Speed Service" HIGH SPEED... then this is what is going to be necessary until they enhance the infrastructure. Complain all you want but reality is reality.[/citation]

No - the point is, the engineers who work at the company should be predicting the traffic they will need to use and get equipment in place BEFORE to serve me, the paying customer. They shouldn't have to play catch-up in the first place. If it were any other industry, the game of catch-up would most likely be met with disastrous consequences. What if your utility company didn't upgrade their generators ahead of time to serve increasing demand during summer, and your power was metered to so many kilowatts per day? You wouldn't be too happy, would you?