Verizon may be taking away unlimited data?

[boomhower]

Thats like saying the hot stove burned your hand, so you're going to shove a hot coal up your butt hole instead.

AT&T certainly isn't a step up but I'd switch for several reasons. One for GSM and getting away from locked up Verizon phones. Simultaneous voice and data is a big one. Another is principle. My area coverage is about the same and I really don't think I'll notice the difference between 10mpbs and 30mbps on my phone.

I'm actually looking seriously at giving republic wireless a try. $190/month for three phones is getting to be ridiculous. Republic would be $75 plus taxes. My big hiccup is giving up my iPhone.

 

[Brian Stirling]

LOL, as if congestion issue is due to unlimited data subscribers. Congestion issue can be solved with better and more robust infrastructure. Not throttled and tiered data.

Tier data is for maximum profit and handsome bonuses. They got you by the balls and there is nothing you can do about it once you are on tiered data.

You are utterly clueless ... of course data usage effects data availability -- do you know nothing about technology?

Landing at Atlanta airport yesterday and when I turned my phone back on with 3-4 bars of LTE I should have been able to have decent data rates, but with many others sharing the same pipe the network was useless, totally useless.

You are either clueless or a troll...


Brian

 

[s44]

Where's "here?"

NYC

Simultaneous voice and data is a big one.

LTE Android devices already have that on Verizon.

 

[boomhower]

NYC

LTE Android devices already have that on Verizon.

Damn it. I keep forgetting it's my phone and not Verizon limiting that.

 

[sze5003]

I think the new iPhones support it no?

 

[openwheel]

You are utterly clueless ... of course data usage effects data availability -- do you know nothing about technology?

Landing at Atlanta airport yesterday and when I turned my phone back on with 3-4 bars of LTE I should have been able to have decent data rates, but with many others sharing the same pipe the network was useless, totally useless.

You are either clueless or a troll


Brian

Again. Are you saying Verizon data congestion is due to unlimited data users? Try to understand the argument first, otherwise you are just as clueless as the next guy. As if the few of of us unlimited data users are going to solve the issue.

 

[openwheel]

Taiwan is a perfect example of where you don't have data caps and tethering restrictions and their 3G is dog slow. I say this as a frequent traveler there. In terms of 3G deployment, they were fast and easy to roll out given the high population density. 4G unfortunately is lagging because they bet on WiMax and only completed LTE auctions last year. But that's a separate point.

You can throw 20+20 MHz LTE up in cities like New York and San Francisco, and when you remove bandwidth restrictions, people are going to go crazy. Your network will slow down like hell still.



Where's "here?" Here in the Bay Area, Verizon LTE speeds and reliability is nothing special.

Taiwan has decent HSPA speed as far as I can tell. I only stayed in big metro cities though. Taipei and Taichung. Don't get me started with Korea which is incredible compared to US garbage carriers.

 

[openwheel]

how? spectrum is limited and finite

if verizon only has 40mhz of bandwidth = theoretical 150mbps down, and you have 10 people streaming videos, you'll have to split that 150mbps by 10 = 15mbps each

if all of them have unlimited data and keep streaming videos at the same time, someone's going to have a bad experience

as you said, you can have more robust infrastructure... that's why Verizon is doing, deploying AWS LTE to certain areas. people with AWS-supported phones can use this less-crowded spectrum, but you're still spectrum-limited. if all the unlimited-plan people have AWS and start using it heavily, you'll have the same problem on the AWS band

Limited but not impossible to expand. It just takes more lobbying and money. Didn't Verizon just add bandwidth to most market? 1700mhz on top of 700mhz,. My point is that the few unlimited data users are NOT the reason there is congestion at certain locations. Which is what someone had suggested.

 

[boomhower]

I think the new iPhones support it no?

Nope, that's my problem.

 

[sze5003]

I'm not sure how many total unlimited users are left. I would not blame the congestion on them as there are also much more users on the 6 and 8gb tiered plan. Those people paying for that much are most likely also using that much. I've not once noticed any issues in Philadelphia. Over on the suburbs side where my mother lives I have horrible connection and signal but anywhere else I've been fine.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Again. Are you saying Verizon data congestion is due to unlimited data users? Try to understand the argument first, otherwise you are just as clueless as the next guy. As if the few of of us unlimited data users are going to solve the issue.

The amount of data a tower can deliver is limited and when more people are on it OR the people on it are eating more data that makes it more difficult to get data -- that's how this works. So when heavy users are hogging bandwidth there's less left for everyone else. You do understand this don't you?

Your argument that since there are few of us with unlimited plans there shouldn't be a problem is laughable considering you've been saying we should all be pushing for unlimited plans. I've been with Sprint and they had unlimited plans and there network ALWAYS sucked!

The carriers are moving to tiered plans and, eventually, metered plans and sooner or later unlimited plans will go away so being used to eating 25GB+ per month will be an expensive habit to break.

Again, you are either clueless or a troll...


Brian

 

[ControlD]

The amount of data a tower can deliver is limited and when more people are on it OR the people on it are eating more data that makes it more difficult to get data -- that's how this works. So when heavy users are hogging bandwidth there's less left for everyone else. You do understand this don't you?

Your argument that since there are few of us with unlimited plans there shouldn't be a problem is laughable considering you've been saying we should all be pushing for unlimited plans. I've been with Sprint and they had unlimited plans and there network ALWAYS sucked!

The carriers are moving to tiered plans and, eventually, metered plans and sooner or later unlimited plans will go away so being used to eating 25GB+ per month will be an expensive habit to break.

Again, you are either clueless or a troll...


Brian

I think perhaps the larger point is being missed here. If there are so many users in an area that the tower cannot handle the amount of demanded traffic, then the provider should upgrade their infrastructure to meet that demand.

Instead what we are seeing from providers is an entirely different approach. Rather than upgrade the infrastructure, simply cap the allowed usage and charge incredibly high rates for violating that cap. Also, train your sales force to use any means necessary to get people off their unlimited plans. It's a win-win from the big providers. Save on expensive system upgrades while giving your customers less service for more cost.

It's hard to find many other industries that can operate in such a way and stay in business. I guess big cable providers and utility companies might be somewhat similar.

 

[openwheel]

Again, you are either clueless or a troll...


Brian

See the reply above from DaveStall. You are a classic case of stupid as stupid does.

 

[paperwastage]

I think perhaps the larger point is being missed here. If there are so many users in an area that the tower cannot handle the amount of demanded traffic, then the provider should upgrade their infrastructure to meet that demand.

It's hard to find many other industries that can operate in such a way and stay in business. I guess big cable providers and utility companies might be somewhat similar.

again, i think you don't understand the limitations of the wireless spectrum.

yes, you can try to upgrade the tower, upgrade the backhaul to fiber... but there is still a spectrum limitation, no matter how you optimize antenna placement

once verizon adds more spectrum (eg AWS), then people will use it more, then you run into the same problems again. unlimited users are like people at a buffet... they can eat as much as they want, and they will. people who choose to stay on unlimited lines know they want unlimited (vs moving to a tiered data plan for subsidized phones) and will use whatever they want

that's why FCC is trying to free up more spectrum (eg from the TV channels, 600mhz auction)... but that doesn't solve the problem short term. Sprint has 120mhz of 2.5ghz, but that spectrum isn't as useful (can't penetrate buildings as well)

cable/utility companies have it slightly easier. they can get more "spectrum" by laying more fiber lines to the consumer, and they are "saving costs" by not doing so. wireless carriers can't lay more fiber to the consumer

(I don't particularly agree on moving to a tiered data model either, but that's how the industry works because of the current usage state. if you don't like what verizon is doing, join me @ tmobile with an unlimited data plan)

 

[sze5003]

I would go to tmobile but in my area t mobile sucks compared to att. Suprisingly metro runs off of tmobile and their service is actually better. With tmobile my friends have to walk into the street to make a phone call.

 

[ControlD]

again, i think you don't understand the limitations of the wireless spectrum.

yes, you can try to upgrade the tower, upgrade the backhaul to fiber... but there is still a spectrum limitation, no matter how you optimize antenna placement

It is true, I know almost nothing about modern wireless communications. I hadn't thought about the spectrum limitation issue.

 

[openwheel]

again, i think you don't understand the limitations of the wireless spectrum.

yes, you can try to upgrade the tower, upgrade the backhaul to fiber... but there is still a spectrum limitation, no matter how you optimize antenna placement

once verizon adds more spectrum (eg AWS), then people will use it more, then you run into the same problems again. unlimited users are like people at a buffet... they can eat as much as they want, and they will. people who choose to stay on unlimited lines know they want unlimited (vs moving to a tiered data plan for subsidized phones) and will use whatever they want

that's why FCC is trying to free up more spectrum (eg from the TV channels, 600mhz auction)... but that doesn't solve the problem short term. Sprint has 120mhz of 2.5ghz, but that spectrum isn't as useful (can't penetrate buildings as well)

cable/utility companies have it slightly easier. they can get more "spectrum" by laying more fiber lines to the consumer, and they are "saving costs" by not doing so. wireless carriers can't lay more fiber to the consumer

(I don't particularly agree on moving to a tiered data model either, but that's how the industry works because of the current usage state. if you don't like what verizon is doing, join me @ tmobile with an unlimited data plan)

There is plenty of unused spectrum especially from military. It takes lobbying power and money to obtain. I always wonder why carriers don't implement "zoned metering". Their build out deployment seems slower than a government agency, which is insane considering all the money pouring in. I am in the air-ground communication industry and perhaps I don't know all the problems they face, but they just seem more eager to sign people up than building infrastructure. Especially AT&T. At least Verizon build out deployment has been fast.

So I am sitting here with 40 down and 6 up. If I start streaming Netflix, do I actually affect crowded San Francisco or Atlanta airport. Trust me, unlimited users on Verizon are not the problem to certain congested areas. It's their own infrastructure and over crowded subscribers posting selfies.

Cable companies are not exempt from limitation either. There face zoning and lobbying issues. They can't just bury fiber anywhere they want. Somehow they find their way to spend money on infrastructure. Instead of retail stores with clueless employees working on commission making somewhere around $65K a year. Spending so much money trying to overcrowd a supposed congested spectrum. This is why you only get 2GB per month? $15 for another 1GB if you go over? How about all the bloatware that lurk in the background sucking up data? Why haven't Verizon gone away with that?

 

[Insomniator]

again, i think you don't understand the limitations of the wireless spectrum.

yes, you can try to upgrade the tower, upgrade the backhaul to fiber... but there is still a spectrum limitation, no matter how you optimize antenna placement

once verizon adds more spectrum (eg AWS), then people will use it more, then you run into the same problems again. unlimited users are like people at a buffet... they can eat as much as they want, and they will. people who choose to stay on unlimited lines know they want unlimited (vs moving to a tiered data plan for subsidized phones) and will use whatever they want

that's why FCC is trying to free up more spectrum (eg from the TV channels, 600mhz auction)... but that doesn't solve the problem short term. Sprint has 120mhz of 2.5ghz, but that spectrum isn't as useful (can't penetrate buildings as well)

cable/utility companies have it slightly easier. they can get more "spectrum" by laying more fiber lines to the consumer, and they are "saving costs" by not doing so. wireless carriers can't lay more fiber to the consumer

(I don't particularly agree on moving to a tiered data model either, but that's how the industry works because of the current usage state. if you don't like what verizon is doing, join me @ tmobile with an unlimited data plan)

I still don't blame unlimited users. Especially once on throttled plans, they can stream video on at crippled speeds 24/7 and it shouldn't effect the network anymore than a normal user. I have verizon unlimited just because I don't want to pay more for less... I still never go over 3 or 4 GB. I really think the number of people really abusing unthrottled unlimited is insignificant compared to the overall number of users. Yeah, nascar uses a TON of fuel in each race, but its completely meaningless in the big picture.

 

[paperwastage]

There is plenty of unused spectrum especially from military. It takes lobbying power and money to obtain. I always wonder why carriers don't implement "zoned metering". Their build out deployment seems slower than a government agency, which is insane considering all the money pouring in. I am in the air-ground communication industry and perhaps I don't know all the problems they face, but they just seem more eager to sign people up than building infrastructure. Especially AT&T. At least Verizon build out deployment has been fast.

there is unused spectrum, but how useful is it?

most, if not all of the current useful spectrum are taken/reserved (700, 850, 1700, 1900...). if you want to use new spectrum (like Sprint's 2600), you need people using new phones. it's more of a long term solution. I would like to see 2G/3G/CDMA deprecated, and everyone using LTE + VoLTE (5mhz of LTE gives you 200 active users @ full speed around 20mbps, vs 5mhz of 3G operating at 3mbps?)

I doubt carriers will move to zoned metering. it's difficult to implement, and how are you going to sell it to your customers? (if you go to NYC, you only have 1GB. If you go to Texas, you get 10GB?)

I guess it depends on how good the existing infrastructure is, and how "needy" you are to get things done. Look at t-mobile. they started LTE deployment in March 2013, and got a lot done 1 year later. some of it is due to efficiency (they had enough existing backhaul in places where they were using HSPA+ 42mb/s, their purchase of MetroPCS was great because all their frequencies were aligned...), their existing 1700/1900 frequences complement each other and can switch b/w 2G/3G/LTE easier,

So I am sitting here with 40 down and 6 up. If I start streaming Netflix, do I actually affect crowded San Francisco or Atlanta airport. Trust me, unlimited users on Verizon are not the problem to certain congested areas. It's their own infrastructure and over crowded subscribers posting selfies.

I still don't blame unlimited users. Especially once on throttled plans, they can stream video on at crippled speeds 24/7 and it shouldn't effect the network anymore than a normal user.

i disagree with the politics / bureaucracy of things especially for Verizon/ATT, but on a technical side, it's not easy

the whole thing about unlimited and wireless spectrum to me is: wireless spectrum is finite. if you use it, someone else can't use it.

if you have unlimited, it costs you $0 to use it, so you'll keep using it, while other people (paying $10/GB) can't access it.

too bad right?

 

[openwheel]

I doubt carriers will move to zoned metering. it's difficult to implement, and how are you going to sell it to your customers? (if you go to NYC, you only have 1GB. If you go to Texas, you get 10GB?)

Yes!

Why should we all have the same plan to choose from if we are in vastly different markets? I don't think it's fair for Joe the farmer to only get 2GB in his small town with huge bandwidth. He would be happy to only get 1GB in NYC because he will not visit a liberal city anyway

Didn't carriers used to have local plans and metered system?

 

[sze5003]

How do the systems work overseas? I know most of those areas only have 3g. They usually have way less expensive cell phone bills.

 

[s44]

LOL. Now we unlimited holdouts are becoming the scapegoats for the rest of you. Rage, peasants, rage.

Let me explain this to you: it's bullshit. Verizon, T-Mo, and even Sprint aren't any more capacity-taxed than AT&T, which has had hard caps on everyone for years. The real issue is *everyone* using more data. Furthermore, there's no spectrum issue. LTE is much-more spectrum-efficient than its predecessors... which is why the next move already on the board for the big two is refarming 850/1900.

 

[paperwastage]

Yes!

Why should we all have the same plan to choose from if we are in vastly different markets? I don't think it's fair for Joe the farmer to only get 2GB in his small town with huge bandwidth. He would be happy to only get 1GB in NYC because he will not visit a liberal city anyway

Didn't carriers used to have local plans and metered system?

they had local phone rates and local distance phone rates (and now, everything's unlimited)

LOL. Now we unlimited holdouts are becoming the scapegoats for the rest of you. Rage, peasants, rage.

Let me explain this to you: it's bullshit. Verizon, T-Mo, and even Sprint aren't any more capacity-taxed than AT&T, which has had hard caps on everyone for years. The real issue is *everyone* using more data. Furthermore, there's no spectrum issue. LTE was much-more spectrum-efficient than its predecessors... which is why the next move already on the board for the big two is refarming 850/1900.

verizon is more definitely capacity-taxed than at&t in NYC before their AWS shift. plenty of people complaining that their phones fellback on 3G instead of LTE for Verizon NYC

http://gigaom.com/2013/11/13/some-v...truggles-with-4g-lte-traffic-in-major-cities/

as I said, i wished we would just move everything to LTE/VoLTE today and forget about the legacy systems... but too bad, we have to waste spectrum for 2G/3G/CDMA fallback, at least for the next 2-3 years

 

[openwheel]

they had local phone rates and local distance phone rates (and now, everything's unlimited)
verizon is more definitely capacity-taxed than at&t in NYC before their AWS shift. plenty of people complaining that their phones fellback on 3G instead of LTE for Verizon NYC

http://gigaom.com/2013/11/13/some-v...truggles-with-4g-lte-traffic-in-major-cities/

as I said, i wished we would just move everything to LTE/VoLTE today and forget about the legacy systems... but too bad, we have to waste spectrum for 2G/3G/CDMA fallback, at least for the next 2-3 years

See, they went from metered to unlimited. :thumbsup:

Verizon's issue in NYC had to do with both crowded subscribers and building penetration. T-Mobile HSPA was glorious compared to Verizon's LTE even though Verizon had more bandwidth. It's all about infrastructure implementation.

I agree with VoLTE. I don't know why we are still forced to waste spectrum on CDMA. Heck I don't even know why my phone switches from LTE to 3G even though I have plenty of signal.....

Anyway, my beef with Verizon is how they spend their revenue/profit. I don't mind paying for their infrastructure, advertising and CS, but I hate to see carriers waste money at retail stores paying people to stand around. Some people are happy with 2GB/month at Verizon's premium pricing, but not me. Unlimited data or I am going prepaid.

 

[sze5003]

The average user that has no idea of a smart phone but now has to have one because that's how all phones are going , will not use any of that 2gb of data. So yea for them it's great but for people that actually use it, you can go through 2gb in less than an hour.