Will the US ever offer unlimited data as a standard?

The only reason I stay with these guys ( Verizon,past six years)is the service is top notch.
I get the whole money making thing. But seriously, way over priced Verizon, don't feed me this "One percent only use 6-10 gigs a month on their phones."
With all the new HD phones out there , this is getting easier to reach by the year.
Sprint and T-Mobile are on board with unlimited plans for some time now.
Att and Verizon should follow.
With the two megas not doing this, wouldn't it make sense to do it? You'll attract the other twos customers by giving the best service and same amount. It be a win win.
When do you guys think unlimited will be a standard in the Cell phone business?

Mainly talking data here

Maybe they've calculated that overages are earning them more money than unlimited or something.

No, metered internet will be the standard. It is all about the money.

When satellite dishes began it was sold as a buy this equipment and get all the channels free like a massive antenna. Then came the scrambled channels and pay for a de-scrambler. Then we end up with Dish and DirecTV. Pay for a sub, pay for hd, pay for local channels, pay pay pay...

Data caps and next generation faster equipment to hit those caps sooner. Buy more blocks of 1 GB for $50. Someone insert that pic from Southpark of the cable company guys rubbing their nipples and just photoshop cell phone providers on it.

I think it may happen eventually, but it will take a lot of time. But it will probably happen in the rest of the world before it arrives here. Ironically, the same advantages that got us ahead in the first place are now a disadvantage.

We have a ton of outdated analog infrastructure in this country that clogs the airwaves. Stuff like CDMA, AM/FM Radio, etc. Not to mention that some of the backend servers have probably been running for 10-20 years.

Aside from all that, there's a much bigger area to cover. There's also the fact that there's a sort of "culture" here where people are used to paying a lot of money for services like cable and cell service, because we started doing so when those technologies were new. Many players in the industry have the old-fashioned attitude that these services are luxuries rather than essentials, and price them accordingly.

Meanwhile, as these services are rolled out elsewhere, they're starting off with newer equipment, less ground to cover, and a population that needs to be convinced that they want the services in the first place.

The industry here, on the other hand, has a lot of experience with exactly how to talk people into spending their money, how to deal with regulators, and how to force people into deals they don't want. They know how to limit people's options and ensure that they extract a minimum price from everyone living In a certain service area. They just know us too well, really. Most Americans would rather pay a high price or accept an unfair contract to get what they want/need without having to fight, rather than haggle, read the fine print, or cut back.

With all that in mind, we won't be getting good deals for a very long time.

Also, don't be surprised if they start capping our home Internet at the same rate as the mobile Internet pretty soon. I think they're going to walk us DOWN from 250GB, not up. Most of these companies are also cable companies, and they'll be able to effectively eliminate streaming. Meaning that people will, in fact, still need cable. Not to mention that it means never having to invest in new infrastructure. Most of our major ISPs now have a vested interest in keeping us on an outdated cable business model. Not good.

Who knows? By the time it's all said and done, Internet might be so overpriced that most people will only use it in emergencies. That's probably about the time the whole thing will collapse and backfire on them. When they get too greedy.

Only way this would be possible is if you folks vote with your money and stop paying Verizon or AT&T, but especially Verizon.

I got 11 gb of internet and I have to be carefull not to break it at the end of the month. This is a 35€ cellphone contract. That's the max I can get!

Around the world the carriers have to make a lot of changes. (a few years ago they actually had an unlimited everything plan for around 100&#8364

m_isom said:

No, metered internet will be the standard. It is all about the money.

Click to expand...

This ↑. There is a slim to none chance we're moving toward unlimited data being the standard in the future. They're making way too much money going with tiered plans to ever go back and those still offering unlimited will follow suit given enough time.


Example: I've used this much data this month on my Verizon unlimited data smartphone (Buying my phones off contract to keep my unlimited data).



Now, how much would that have cost me on a tiered plan?




Come on fellas, there is no dam way they're going backwards when it comes to making money. They'll be kicking me off my unlimited data plan any year now (So I use it now).

verizon: how does X make us MORE money

I think that unlimited will happen eventually, but only with the advent of sufficient competition.

Verizon and others will feel the squeeze when moving to third parties gets easier and easier, and the service is comparable. The long and the short is, if you want unlimited now, move to a service with unlimited. Every person that leaves pushes the major companies closer. Staying with them while they don't give you something that you want that their competition does is just a losing battle for you.

JaiWebb said:

This ↑. There is a slim to none chance we're moving toward unlimited data being the standard in the future. They're making way too much money going with tiered plans to ever go back and those still offering unlimited will follow suit given enough time.


Example: I've used this much data this month on my Verizon unlimited data smartphone (Buying my phones off contract to keep my unlimited data).

Click to expand...

Thanks for sticking it to the rest of us...

86 5.0L said:

Thanks for sticking it to the rest of us...

Click to expand...

Thanks for not knowing what 'unlimited data' means. On top of that I'm pretty positive I only started using my phone data like this AFTER Verizon moved to a tiered plan for all new contracts. So, you were saying?

Eshelmen said:

The only reason I stay with these guys ( Verizon,past six years)is the service is top notch.
I get the whole money making thing. But seriously, way over priced Verizon, don't feed me this "One percent only use 6-10 gigs a month on their phones."
With all the new HD phones out there , this is getting easier to reach by the year.
Sprint and T-Mobile are on board with unlimited plans for some time now.
Att and Verizon should follow.
With the two megas not doing this, wouldn't it make sense to do it? You'll attract the other twos customers by giving the best service and same amount. It be a win win.
When do you guys think unlimited will be a standard in the Cell phone business?

Mainly talking data here

Click to expand...

Its kept my business at Sprint for over 10 years.

I would never consider paying for anything not unlimited when it comes to data.

I use 3-4 GB a month and that doesn't include tethering.

ok then, if unlimited isn't going to happwn, what about doubling the limit? We all know internet gets faster by the year. Comcast just doubled my speed AGAIN, I'm now at 80 mpbs for four years agos 20 mpbs pricing.
When can we expect such generosity from Verizon or ATt?
and a question to ask furthermore, will Sprint or Tmobile ever reach the service quality of Verizon ?

and hmmm, I wonder if Google should get something, going with cell towers.
They are investing billions in Google Fiber.

JaiWebb said:

This ↑. There is a slim to none chance we're moving toward unlimited data being the standard in the future. They're making way too much money going with tiered plans to ever go back and those still offering unlimited will follow suit given enough time.


Example: I've used this much data this month on my Verizon unlimited data smartphone (Buying my phones off contract to keep my unlimited data).

Now, how much would that have cost me on a tiered plan?

Come on fellas, there is no dam way they're going backwards when it comes to making money. They'll be kicking me off my unlimited data plan any year now (So I use it now).

Click to expand...

How did you use so much data? That's putting the unlimited back into unlimited!

I can see their point.... SOME guys(yes I'm looking at some of you here), think that 300GB/month is "barely" enough data.... I mean how else can we download all of our torrentz?? On the other hand (someone like me) would like to be able to download 20-30GB/month (of LEGITIMATE) data and not be reamed.

IMO, there needs to be a cap... but it needs to be high.... like maybe in the 50GB/month range??

Eshelmen said:

The only reason I stay with these guys ( Verizon,past six years)is the service is top notch.
I get the whole money making thing. But seriously, way over priced Verizon, don't feed me this "One percent only use 6-10 gigs a month on their phones."
With all the new HD phones out there , this is getting easier to reach by the year.
Sprint and T-Mobile are on board with unlimited plans for some time now.
Att and Verizon should follow.
With the two megas not doing this, wouldn't it make sense to do it? You'll attract the other twos customers by giving the best service and same amount. It be a win win.
When do you guys think unlimited will be a standard in the Cell phone business?

Mainly talking data here

Click to expand...

Were you just born yesterday or something...

Att and verizon both had unlimited in 2007 all 4 of the carriers did then att and verizon both discontinued the unlimited in favor of the price gouging tiered plans.

With att and verizon's coverage kicking sprint/tmobiles ass so hard unless tsprint steps up to the plate and deploys towers to all of the markets it has 0 coverage (mine) unlimited will never come back.

Btw I have 4 phones on my verizon contract 3 smart 1 feature i have the 1400 family share plan with anytime and unlimited nights and weekends with a 10 friends and family with 3 unlimited 4g lte data plans. I have had this plan for about 9 years now. I went month to month 6 years ago.
my phone progression was lg vx5200, lg vx 8200, lg versa, droid incredible galaxy s 3 and galaxy note 3.


as for what i see happening they will add more tiers or double the caps wont happen anytime soon though when 802.11ad or 700mhz wifi is common place perhaps they will drop the data plans.

Eshelmen said:

ok then, if unlimited isn't going to happwn, what about doubling the limit? We all know internet gets faster by the year. Comcast just doubled my speed AGAIN, I'm now at 80 mpbs for four years agos 20 mpbs pricing.
When can we expect such generosity from Verizon or ATt?
and a question to ask furthermore, will Sprint or Tmobile ever reach the service quality of Verizon ?

Click to expand...

Well, I do have an idea that might occur. Given that bundling, tiered plans, and such aren't going away... they probably will offer bigger caps as they upgrade their network and as websites become more bloated.

One idea I envision is that once they upgrade the cell networks and establish caps on home Internet that get us down to about 100GB/month... they'll introduce a new policy where you can share your data allotment between your mobile and home devices.

Also, your data allotment would double if you bundle your services. You get 100GB for using them as your ISP, 50GB if you get a cable bundle, and another 50GB if you bundle cell phone service.

The Triple Play package would thus effectively offer a 200GB cap on everything, but it would be "pooled" so that you could dip into that 200GB from either your cell phone or your FiOS connection. The clever part is that if you ditch any one of those services, not only do you lose your bundle price, you move to a lower data cap. And this is all assuming you buy the top package in each category, their "best deal." The total cap might be even lower if you low-ball any of the services.

Sprint and T-Mobile are going to have a hard time competing with AT&T and Verizon because they simply don't own enough spectrum or cover large enough areas. I've heard rumors Sprint and T-Mobile are considering merging. One of the biggest impediments right now is that T-Mobile is GSM while Sprint is CDMA, but both of them are slowly moving to standardize on 4G LTE. Once they're both on 4G, a merger will be easier and more beneficial. Pooling their spectrum and resources might give them a chance. On the other hand, there is a possibility that AT&T will buy T-Mobile and Verizon will buy Sprint in order to prevent this from ever happening.

athenian200 said:

Well, I do have an idea that might occur. Given that bundling, tiered plans, and such aren't going away... they probably will offer bigger caps as they upgrade their network and as websites become more bloated.

One idea I envision is that once they upgrade the cell networks and establish caps on home Internet that get us down to about 100GB/month... they'll introduce a new policy where you can share your data allotment between your mobile and home devices.

Also, your data allotment would double if you bundle your services. You get 100GB for using them as your ISP, 50GB if you get a cable bundle, and another 50GB if you bundle cell phone service.

The Triple Play package would thus effectively offer a 200GB cap on everything, but it would be "pooled" so that you could dip into that 200GB from either your cell phone or your FiOS connection. The clever part is that if you ditch any one of those services, not only do you lose your bundle price, you move to a lower data cap.

Sprint and T-Mobile are going to have a hard time competing with AT&T and Verizon because they simply don't own enough spectrum or cover large enough areas. I've heard rumors Sprint and T-Mobile are considering merging. One of the biggest impediments right now is that T-Mobile is GSM while Sprint is CDMA, but both of them are slowly moving to standardize on 4G LTE. Once they're both on 4G, a merger will be easier and more beneficial. Pooling their spectrum and resources might give them a chance.

Click to expand...

bull they dont have the spectrum they have plenty of spectrum they don't have the towers they would literally need to put hundreds of towers all over the country to compete with big red or att...

also i heard they were merging and it was going through the approval process.

I'm not bit torrenting or running public servers, and I use about 350 GB a month on my home connection.

That 300 GB data limit set by Comcast back in 2005 or something isn't enough for me.

Lunas said:

bull they dont have the spectrum they have plenty of spectrum they don't have the towers they would literally need to put hundreds of towers all over the country to compete with big red or att...

also i heard they were merging and it was going through the approval process.

Click to expand...

Not all spectrum is equal. Both sprint and TMo do not have very much low spectrums which goes farther than high spectrums. Sprint and TMo have to build a lot more towers to cover the same amount of area. And building penetration is worse too.

CHANG3D said:

I'm not bit torrenting or running public servers, and I use about 350 GB a month on my home connection.

That 300 GB data limit set by Comcast back in 2005 or something isn't enough for me.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that could become a very expensive habit. You'll really have to cut back on the voice calls and streaming video stuff. BitTorrenting and hosting servers? Forget about it. There are already clauses in those agreements no one reads that say you're not allowed to host any kind of server on a residential connection. It's not really enforced right now, but if it were it would probably make BitTorrent, running a Minecraft server, etc... a violation of your TOS.

Not all spectrum is equal. Both sprint and TMo do not have very much low spectrums which goes farther than high spectrums. Sprint and TMo have to build a lot more towers to cover the same amount of area. And building penetration is worse too.

Click to expand...

True, but all they really need to do is cover the major population centers more completely in order to be competitive. There aren't enough customers in the more remote ranges of territory to justify the investment, plus quite a few people will primarily use their phone within a particular city and suburb.

The tough part is that Sprint and T-Mobile will have to sell people on the idea that local coverage is "good enough," and that being able to go ANYWHERE with your phone really doesn't matter 90% of the time. I would say they have a tough sell ahead of them.

Its 2014, "low speed" should be 1 Mbps. Tbe industry's definition of low speed is, "no speed".

athenian200 said:

Yeah, that could become a very expensive habit. You'll really have to cut back on the voice calls and streaming video stuff. BitTorrenting and hosting servers? Forget about it. There are already clauses in those agreements no one reads that say you're not allowed to host any kind of server on a residential connection. It's not really enforced right now, but if it were it would probably make BitTorrent, running a Minecraft server, etc... a violation of your TOS.


True, but all they really need to do is cover the major population centers more completely in order to be competitive. There aren't enough customers in the more remote ranges of territory to justify the investment, plus quite a few people will primarily use their phone within a particular city and suburb.

The tough part is that Sprint and T-Mobile will have to sell people on the idea that local coverage is "good enough," and that being able to go ANYWHERE with your phone really doesn't matter 90% of the time. I would say they have a tough sell ahead of them.

Click to expand...

Except not. If I weren't tied into Sprint by contract and unlimited data I'd dump them in a heartbeat.

Why?

When I leave the interstate I kiss my voice and data connection goodbye. Whereas anywhere I go camping my fellow campers get 4G LTE on VZW. Doesn't matter how remote we go. Sprint focusing on population centers is precisely the problem. Who wants a cellphone that only works in metropolitan areas or population centers?

Eshelmen said:

and hmmm, I wonder if Google should get something, going with cell towers.
They are investing billions in Google Fiber.

Click to expand...

They already bought a GSM band from Tmobile. It's just a matter of time.

Sprint and T-Mo is banding together to get 600 MHz spectrum; I suppose there is some kind of spectrum sharing or roaming deal, if Softbank doesn't outright buy T-Mo. Hopefully they would get a big chuck of continuous spectrum and all these rural area issues go away.

Sprint does have the most spectrum total but it's only good for broadband. Technical details-wise, if you're within the small range of Sprint's 2.4GHz tower and Sprint actually let it rip, nobody can beat that speed. Unfortunately, Sprint needs to frigging take advantage of that and LET IT RIP! But I suspect Sprint isn't turning that on just in case the regulators use that against them on the merger/buyout.

Skripka said:

When I leave the interstate I kiss my voice and data connection goodbye. Whereas anywhere I go camping my fellow campers get 4G LTE on VZW. Doesn't matter how remote we go. Sprint focusing on population centers is precisely the problem. Who wants a cellphone that only works in metropolitan areas or population centers?

Click to expand...

You're in the minority whether you recognize that or not. Stick with Verizon then in your case if you want coverage everywhere all the time always. There are generations of people even where I am here in SoCal that have never ventured out of the state or 120 miles of their home town.

Most people work an 8-5 job, and do all their leisure activities either at home or within 100 miles of their home (heck, you're essentially in a hardware/video game forum....). The reason why you're not inundated with 1000 people on the mountain whenever you want to go camping is simply because most people don't go camping. Most people aren't adventurous. Most people don't try new things. When people 'are' adventurous, they don't go out of town. They go to a new club. Or go to a bar, or some 'hip-new' place. All of which are in major metropolitan centers... those are the 'happening' places.

There are tons of statistics on these things. Want to know why companies keep reaming their customers? Because they know that there is a good deal of elasticity in terms of what their customers will take because they know their customers don't want to 'bother' with the 'hassle' of canceling and switching.

This is more for the thread than for you and particular, but on that note all that information fits into this: Verizon and AT&T love the fact that they use 2 year contracts. They love the fact that they use two different spectrums. They love the fact that they use two different forms of cellular technology. They want you locked in and locked in tight. They love feeding you some subsidized phone so they can make money off your laziness, or better yet, get you excited that you're getting a new phone, yay!

UnknownSouljer said:

You're in the minority whether you recognize that or not. Stick with Verizon then in your case if you want coverage everywhere all the time always. There are generations of people even where I am here in SoCal that have never ventured out of the state or 120 miles of their home town.

Most people work an 8-5 job, and do all their leisure activities either at home or within 100 miles of their home (heck, you're essentially in a hardware/video game forum....). The reason why you're not inundated with 1000 people on the mountain whenever you want to go camping is simply because most people don't go camping. Most people aren't adventurous. Most people don't try new things. When people 'are' adventurous, they don't go out of town. They go to a new club. Or go to a bar, or some 'hip-new' place. All of which are in major metropolitan centers... those are the 'happening' places.

There are tons of statistics on these things. Want to know why companies keep reaming their customers? Because they know that there is a good deal of elasticity in terms of what their customers will take because they know their customers don't want to 'bother' with the 'hassle' of canceling and switching.

This is more for the thread than for you and particular, but on that note all that information fits into this: Verizon and AT&T love the fact that they use 2 year contracts. They love the fact that they use two different spectrums. They love the fact that they use two different forms of cellular technology. They want you locked in and locked in tight. They love feeding you some subsidized phone so they can make money off your laziness, or better yet, get you excited that you're getting a new phone, yay!

Click to expand...

You don't have to leave your home town. Like I said. Get away from Interstate routes and all you'll get is VZW. I was on a 5 day cycling tour last month. Every podunk farm town with 5-1000 people in it had 4G LTE VZW coverage, as well as the farmland in between. None of those folks travel more than you talk of a day, and they never see Sprint coverage ever, or anything other than VZW. Me, my "smart" phone was a simple LCD brick the whole time.

A mere 99% of the landmass between California and the Atlantic seaboard is just like that. Get away from the state capitol and get a mile off the Interstate, and kiss your cell provider goodbye unless it is VZW. And unlike what you claim lots of people go on vacation, and lots of people don't just stick to Interstates...although even Interstate coverage is shitty at best on Sprint...and god help you if you data roam with Sprint, 300MB of data roaming and they terminate your contract.

Who wants a cellphone that only works in places where they can readily get help...and doesn't work at all on the road between cities?



Like I said I'm still a Sprint customer, and kinda pissed about it.

Since ATT and Verizon axed unlimited data plans, their income and number of subscribers has only kept on increasing. Heck if I was them, I wouldn't go back to offering unlimited data plans as well.

Skripka said:

You don't have to leave your home town. Like I said. Get away from Interstate routes and all you'll get is VZW. I was on a 5 day cycling tour last month. Every podunk farm town with 5-1000 people in it had 4G LTE VZW coverage, as well as the farmland in between. None of those folks travel more than you talk of a day, and they never see Sprint coverage ever, or anything other than VZW. Me, my "smart" phone was a simple LCD brick the whole time.

A mere 99% of the landmass between California and the Atlantic seaboard is just like that. Get away from the state capitol and get a mile off the Interstate, and kiss your cell provider goodbye unless it is VZW. And unlike what you claim lots of people go on vacation, and lots of people don't just stick to Interstates...although even Interstate coverage is shitty at best on Sprint...and god help you if you data roam with Sprint, 300MB of data roaming and they terminate your contract.

Who wants a cellphone that only works in places where they can readily get help...and doesn't work at all on the road between cities?



Like I said I'm still a Sprint customer, and kinda pissed about it.

Click to expand...

I'm technically on Sprint myself. Using an MVNO called Ting. I don't really have these issues.

I won't argue with you about Verizon having the best service. I agree with you. But most people in urban areas don't really benefit from their great service. You seem to have missed what I said before in my previous post. If you want coverage all the time always, sure get Verizon. The main point and purpose of my point is that I (and most others) benefit from forfeiting that coverage in order to have either an unlimited plan or a plan that costs significantly less than Verizon, because 99.99% of the time most people are going to be in an area with coverage.

If their coverage map is to believed, it seems to me that they cover every area that I would probably cover me anywhere I want to go (granted, once again, it doesn't cover like you state, if you want to go to non-urbanized areas far off interstates there simply isn't tons of coverage there). We have discovered that isn't true for you. That's why there is more than one provider. Feel free to switch ASAP. Personally, if I was a serious hiker, trekker, or otherwise wilderness person, I would skip all of these 'low-end' providers and make the appropriate move to a satellite phone.

QwertyJuan said:

I can see their point.... SOME guys(yes I'm looking at some of you here), think that 300GB/month is "barely" enough data.... I mean how else can we download all of our torrentz?? On the other hand (someone like me) would like to be able to download 20-30GB/month (of LEGITIMATE) data and not be reamed.

IMO, there needs to be a cap... but it needs to be high.... like maybe in the 50GB/month range??

Click to expand...

50GB a month.. HAHAHAHAHHAHA.. NOOOO.

Some of the newer games by themselves are over 30GB.

Add to that application updates, game updates, Windows updates, streaming audio and video, etc. and you are way over 50GB very quickly.

50GB... HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. I would never use an ISP that had that low of a cap.

My current ISP - WoW(Knology) has no cap that I am aware of, and I like it that way.

I don't torrent much at all.. usually only stuff that is only available through a torrent, and I know I usually use way over 50GB a month.

And once my current phone contract is up, I am most likely going to be getting rid of Verizon and going with something different. Their service completely and totally sucks where I am at, and their prices are retarded as well compared to what else is available in my area.

cyclone3d said:

50GB a month.. HAHAHAHAHHAHA.. NOOOO.

Some of the newer games by themselves are over 30GB.

Add to that application updates, game updates, Windows updates, streaming audio and video, etc. and you are way over 50GB very quickly.

50GB... HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. I would never use an ISP that had that low of a cap.

My current ISP - WoW(Knology) has no cap that I am aware of, and I like it that way.

I don't torrent much at all.. usually only stuff that is only available through a torrent, and I know I usually use way over 50GB a month.

And once my current phone contract is up, I am most likely going to be getting rid of Verizon and going with something different. Their service completely and totally sucks where I am at, and their prices are retarded as well compared to what else is available in my area.

Click to expand...

I think he meant 50GB for mobile data cap, not home data cap. I don't think he's so foolish.

Skripka said:

Except not. If I weren't tied into Sprint by contract and unlimited data I'd dump them in a heartbeat.

Why?

When I leave the interstate I kiss my voice and data connection goodbye. Whereas anywhere I go camping my fellow campers get 4G LTE on VZW. Doesn't matter how remote we go. Sprint focusing on population centers is precisely the problem. Who wants a cellphone that only works in metropolitan areas or population centers?

Click to expand...

Well, if you go camping, hiking, or take bike trails, yeah that's a problem.

But there's a lot of people who never do those kind of things. A lot of people who work in the city, come home to a nearby suburb, and possibly go to museums or theaters on the weekend. They rarely, if ever, travel outside of their city. If they do, a good portion of the time they're taking a flight to some other major city like New York or Dallas for a business trip. And you can't use your phone on the plane anyway.

So in reality, they're covering a large number of people a lot of the time.

Verizon has invested a lot in having the largest, fastest network. And that's why they feel they don't need to offer unlimited data. They feel like their network is so big and fast that people will pay for limited data.

With Sprint, you have unlimited data, but you're more limited in coverage. There's always a tradeoff. Do you want the freedom to use as much data as you want, or the freedom to use it anywhere you want? I bet not too many companies are going to offer both.

Seeing as Sprint's network and configuration is currently geared towards good service in a smaller area, and they'd need too many towers in order to cover Verizon-like territory, it's impractical to expect them to build out that many towers. The money just isn't there. What they'll have to do is make sure their coverage is solid within the population centers, and then slowly radiate out into the suburbs. That will give them the most bang for their buck.

athenian200 said:

Well, if you go camping, hiking, or take bike trails, yeah that's a problem.

But there's a lot of people who never do those kind of things. A lot of people who work in the city, come home to a nearby suburb, and possibly go to museums or theaters on the weekend. They rarely, if ever, travel outside of their city. If they do, a good portion of the time they're taking a flight to some other major city like New York or Dallas for a business trip. And you can't use your phone on the plane anyway.

So in reality, they're covering a large number of people a lot of the time.

Verizon has invested a lot in having the largest, fastest network. And that's why they feel they don't need to offer unlimited data. They feel like their network is so big and fast that people will pay for limited data.

With Sprint, you have unlimited data, but you're more limited in coverage. There's always a tradeoff. Do you want the freedom to use as much data as you want, or the freedom to use it anywhere you want? I bet not too many companies are going to offer both.

Seeing as Sprint's network and configuration is currently geared towards good service in a smaller area, and they'd need too many towers in order to cover Verizon-like territory, it's impractical to expect them to build out that many towers. The money just isn't there. What they'll have to do is make sure their coverage is solid within the population centers, and then slowly radiate out into the suburbs. That will give them the most bang for their buck.

Click to expand...

Bingo.

I touched on some of these points earlier, but I think your iteration with different language is useful.

well isn't that just nice. I just got the g3 , so I'm in for another two years, woo hoo!
But I see Tmobile will pay my cancellation Bill, interested indeed.
thanks all

athenian200 said:

Well, if you go camping, hiking, or take bike trails, yeah that's a problem.

But there's a lot of people who never do those kind of things. A lot of people who work in the city, come home to a nearby suburb, and possibly go to museums or theaters on the weekend. They rarely, if ever, travel outside of their city. If they do, a good portion of the time they're taking a flight to some other major city like New York or Dallas for a business trip. And you can't use your phone on the plane anyway.

So in reality, they're covering a large number of people a lot of the time.

Verizon has invested a lot in having the largest, fastest network. And that's why they feel they don't need to offer unlimited data. They feel like their network is so big and fast that people will pay for limited data.

With Sprint, you have unlimited data, but you're more limited in coverage. There's always a tradeoff. Do you want the freedom to use as much data as you want, or the freedom to use it anywhere you want? I bet not too many companies are going to offer both.

Seeing as Sprint's network and configuration is currently geared towards good service in a smaller area, and they'd need too many towers in order to cover Verizon-like territory, it's impractical to expect them to build out that many towers. The money just isn't there. What they'll have to do is make sure their coverage is solid within the population centers, and then slowly radiate out into the suburbs. That will give them the most bang for their buck.

Click to expand...

Sprint has already done what you recommend.

Guess what?

They're bleeding money. That is how well the myopic focus on metro areas strategy is working IRL. And odds are if it continues, they'll kill T-Mo along with themselves.

Skripka said:

Sprint has already done what you recommend.

Guess what?

They're bleeding money. That is how well the myopic focus on metro areas strategy is working IRL. And odds are if it continues, they'll kill T-Mo along with themselves.

Click to expand...

This is a causal fallacy. Additionally Sprint is doing quite well right now. Their equity and assets are up (the only reason why their 2013 Operating/Net Income is negative is because of tons of acquisitions. Net income is down by 3B, but their assets went up 30B. Such as the purchase of controlling shares in Clearwire and purchasing spectrum from US Cellular).

Also, they're now owned by Softbank. And Softbank isn't going anywhere.

Skripka said:

Sprint has already done what you recommend.

Guess what?

They're bleeding money. That is how well the myopic focus on metro areas strategy is working IRL. And odds are if it continues, they'll kill T-Mo along with themselves.

Click to expand...

Well, if the market shows that what most people really want is coverage of every little town and backstreet, and want that high coverage over unlimited data... then that pretty much means there is no way they can compete with Verizon or other larger carriers. Verizon bet the farm on coverage mattering the most to people. Sprint is betting that people want unlimited data badly enough to tolerate limited coverage.

It's not a myopic strategy, so much as it's the only one they can pursue. The spectrum they've been allocated simply doesn't cover as wide of an area as their competitors, and each new tower won't bring in enough customers to justify the expense.

The reason I said population centers is because that's where the majority of customers are. For each tower in a less populated area, you cover fewer customers per tower. You have to pay just as much to build the tower, but you get less of a return on the investment. This issue is also amplified for them because each new Verizon tower in such a location covers such a broad area that it pays for itself, again due to the allocated frequencies. A Sprint tower in the same location wouldn't cover as much ground. They're at a disadvantage there, one that won't be mitigated for a while. They are trying to buy out other companies in order to acquire more spectrum/coverage, but they're really playing catch-up at this point.

Does that make sense?

when is Sprint going to enable LTE-A on the old Nextel 800mhz frequency?

athenian200 said:

Well, if the market shows that what most people really want is coverage of every little town and backstreet, and want that high coverage over unlimited data... then that pretty much means there is no way they can compete with Verizon or other larger carriers. Verizon bet the farm on coverage mattering the most to people. Sprint is betting that people want unlimited data badly enough to tolerate limited coverage.

It's not a myopic strategy, so much as it's the only one they can pursue. The spectrum they've been allocated simply doesn't cover as wide of an area as their competitors, and each new tower won't bring in enough customers to justify the expense.

The reason I said population centers is because that's where the majority of customers are. For each tower in a less populated area, you cover fewer customers per tower. You have to pay just as much to build the tower, but you get less of a return on the investment. This issue is also amplified for them because each new Verizon tower in such a location covers such a broad area that it pays for itself, again due to the allocated frequencies. A Sprint tower in the same location wouldn't cover as much ground. They're at a disadvantage there, one that won't be mitigated for a while. They are trying to buy out other companies in order to acquire more spectrum/coverage, but they're really playing catch-up at this point.

Does that make sense?

Click to expand...

Makes a bit of sense....except for the part about Sprint "betting" people wanting unlimited data. Sprint does not want to offer unlimited data (anymore). They're bleeding customers, and they know if they cut the unlim data cord their few that are left are gone. Once that is gone there's zero reason to stick with Sprint. They know it. And so does everyone else.

Sprint wants to dump unlim data at the first chance they can without killing the subscriber lists. They aren't "betting" on unlim data at all rather they were caught holding the check after everyone else dropped it, and are hoping unlim data will stop the customer hemorrhage....which it really isn't last I knew.

I think metered connections are here to stay, and I think they will start seeing metered connections on more residential ISPs as well. In the long run it is the only model that make sense. I thought a particularly insightful comment was by Mark Taylor in response to a question posted to his blog.

The architectures that each network operator deploys maybe different. In our [Level3] view that should be factored into how Level 3 charges for Internet Services and how the ISP charges for consumer broadband services.

Click to expand...

Context here

If ISPs no longer can oversubscribe connections because average usage goes up, they will either need to move to a usage based pricing model or push back with throttling to keep usage down. Personally I'd prefer to get a solid connection to Netflix, if that means I have to pay for the delivery of that service, I'm ok with that as long as I'm paying for bits and not specifically for netflix. In that model the party causing the traffic to be generated is paying for it directly.