Home » Broadband Speed »Competition »Editorial & Site News »Internet Overcharging »Public Policy & Gov't »Verizon »Wireless Broadband » Currently Reading:

Verizon Wireless’ LTE Next Generation Wireless Broadband: ‘Long Term Expensive’ Usage-Based Billing On The Way

Phillip Dampier

Verizon Wireless’s next generation LTE wireless broadband network threatens to bring expensive “usage-based billing” to millions of Americans using technology products that depend on wireless networking to communicate  — from the handheld tablet you use to enjoy USA Today over morning coffee, the car that delivers news, weather and traffic reports to and from work, to the portable television you use to catch up with the game while running around town.

At the Consumer Electronics Show, Verizon chief technology officer Dick Lynch warned that Verizon is likely to abandon any notion of flat rate usage pricing, particularly when Verizon doesn’t get a piece of the action from the sale of the devices that connect to their network.

Instead, Verizon Wireless will adopt a wireless version of Internet Overcharging — usage-based billing that isn’t entirely “usage-based.”

A true consumption billing system charges consumers only for what they use — don’t use the service that month and customers would pay little or nothing for service that billing period.  Instead, providers maximize revenue with arbitrary “usage allowances” which are part of the steep monthly service fee.  The unused portion of the allowance typically does not roll over, in effect lost at the end of the month.  That means you pay for not using their network.  Imagine if your electric company charged you for leaving the lights on 24/7, but you were out of town that month.  If you exceed your allowance, the overlimit penalty kicks in, and most providers set those prices high enough to sting you while rewarding them.

“The problem we have today with flat-based usage is that you are trying to encourage customers to be efficient in use and applications but you are getting some people who are bandwidth hogs using gigabytes a month and they are paying something like megabytes a month,” Lynch said. “That isn’t long-term sustainable. Why should customers using an average amount of bandwidth be subsidizing bandwidth hogs?”

Lynch

The first step to broadband pricing enlightenment is to recognize the only true “hog” here is the broadband provider with an endless appetite for your money.  Usage-based pricing schemes carry the one-two punch for consumers, with no pain for providers:

  1. They discourage usage, as consumers fear using up their monthly allowance and getting socked with an enormous bill filled with penalties and overlimit fees;
  2. The corresponding reduction in usage lowers the providers’ capital spending requirements to meet consumer demand, and increase profits dramatically from those who find allowances too limiting and are willing to pay the exorbitant pricing providers charge those who exceed them.

Does Verizon actually believe that $60 a month for their wireless broadband service represents a fair price for someone using “something like megabytes a month?”  Can Verizon show it is losing money on its wireless broadband service?  I think not.

Predictably, Lynch provides a “between-the-lines” slap at government intervention to force open wireless networks to additional competition in the equipment marketplace:

“The whole paradigm of how we sell devices into the public is changing,” Lynch said. “At the same time that we announced LTE, we announced an open development initiative where we encouraged third-party developers to deploy devices on our network.”

That initiative was hardly the result of a sudden change of heart from Verizon.  It came from pressure Washington applied over the “closed network” practices the American wireless industry has followed for years.  Handsets and the applications that run on them have traditionally been closely controlled by providers.  Features built into smartphones and other handsets were disabled or limited by providers before the phones were sold to the public.  Usually, this forced customers to use the services either provided directly by their wireless company, or one of their “affiliated partners.”

Verizon Wireless is signaling the consequence of a more competitive, open market for wireless products and services: usage limits and a higher bill. That’s because you didn’t buy that device at a Verizon store at their asking price, and you’ve been using it too much.

Consumers would make a grave mistake in blaming a more activist watchdog role by the federal government to force open the wireless industry to competition and innovation by third parties.  Despite Verizon’s hints that those pesky regulators in Washington are to blame for your usage being limited and your bill being higher, the blame really belongs with the carriers pocketing those proceeds.

Since regulators will get the blame regardless, isn’t it time to go all out for American consumers by transforming the wireless provider marketplace?  Here are our suggestions:

  1. An end to the ongoing consolidation of existing wireless players into a shrinking number of what will soon be two or three “too big to fail” national providers;
  2. Insistence on additional competition coming from new, independent players, not simply those directly affiliated with the dominant four carriers (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile);
  3. Justification for confiscatory data pricing made possible from the highly concentrated wireless marketplace, particularly in smaller cities and communities.

Verizon and AT&T have both engaged in a lot of scare talk about usage and their costs to manage it.  We’d believe them, except we read their financial reports and neither company is hurting.  We’d even be willing to meet them halfway and advocate additional allocations of spectrum to provide the bandwidth an increasingly wireless world will demand, but not at their asking price with those pesky terms and conditions that ration service to consumers at top dollar prices.




Share

Other stories of interest:

  1. Verizon Wireless Introducing Prepaid Wireless Broadband, But Get Your Wallet: $15 A Day For 75 Megabytes
  2. New Report Says Wireless Broadband Providers May Have to Implement Usage Caps… But They Already Have
  3. Canada’s CRTC Throws Consumers & Independent ISPs Under the Bus – Rubber Stamps YES on Bell’s Usage Based Billing
  4. A Challenge Providers Will Never Accept: Turn Over Usage Data to Justify Usage Cap Schemes
  5. Can You Pay Me Now? Verizon Wireless “Refreshes” Pricing: Mandates Pricey Paltry Data Plans for “Enhanced Multimedia Phones”

Currently there are 5 comments on this Article:

  1. jr says:

    Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg received 20.3 million in compensation in 2007 and the media goes “these bandwidth hogs are costing the company money!”

  2. Tim says:

    I am not buying the “Bandwidth Hog” argument. This seems to the industry standard to smooth the way for caps. That and it isn’t “fair” to the other people. Also, I don’t buy the subsidized bandwidth argument. That is categorically incorrect. People pay a monthly price so there is no subsidizing by anyone. They, the providers, force you into these plans with the purchase of smart phones and then expect you not to use it to get your monies worth. If you do, you are labeled by them as “bandwidth hogs”. Sorry, I think we all know what their true intentions are, cha-ching cha-ching.

    The simple reason why they want caps is because of something they even admitted, usage is going up not down by everyone. So what they do is set a cap that looks like hardly anyone will go over when in fact more and more will as time moves on since usage will never decrease.

    @jr

    People like that live in their own little world. We, the commoners, are nothing to these people but objects of consumption. They could careless how their schemes affect you or your family. The dollar is the bottom line for these people. They worship it like it is some idol. And when they fail, they have the same commoners, bailing them out because our elected officials, who they also bribe, think they are too big to fall.

  3. Ian L says:

    FWIW, Sprint and T-Mobile are moving away from usage based billing. Where Sprint has plenty of capacity (their WiMAX network) there’s no data transfer limit.T-Mobile is selling unlimited accounts on their 3G (soon to be 3.99G HSPA+) network. Sure, cellular plans are still expensive, but Sprint and T-Mobile aren’t the culprits here, and they’re moving away from usage based billing rather quickly, at least on their postpaid services.

    Also, in many areas there are a company (or three) that’s local and provides just the kind of competition you want, though pricing varies and may not even be as good as the national carriers, though in return you usually get flawless coverage in your home area. Here we have three regional/local providers. One runs a GSM + EDGE network that at this point is physically the size of West Virginia, with great coverage throughout. Data rates are poor due to lack of bandwidth but call quality is great and plans are reasonably priced. They even have a family plan for $85 that includes unlimited voice and text messaging for two lines and…get this…unlimited voice-and-text extra lines are $10 apiece. Try that on a national carrier. They also carry RIM’s full BlackBerry lineup.

    The other two carriers are your typical metro-focused unlimiteds, though the local one (Pocket Communications) trades coverage for data speed (CricKet has slow EvDO here). The two companies have competed each other’s prices down to the point that cable digital voice is more expensive than their cellular service, and handsets for either company start at prices approaching those of standard prepaid cell phones.

    A fourth provider, a local telephone cooperative, has AWS spectrum in the area but is sitting on it for the moment. I’m trying to get them to fill their airwaves with HSPA+ or LTE…they have 20 MHz to play around with if I remember correctly.

  4. [...] Still, for customers pushed into purchasing a data plan they may not want, it’s another case of Internet Overcharging.  That’s particularly true with Verizon, which claims to be a proponent of “paying for what you use,” yet still doesn’t offer all of their customers that option.  Instead, customers who don’t want to pony up $29.99 a month (or don’t have to because they don’t own a smartphone) are stuck paying for overpriced “pay as you go” plans or a paltry 25MB plan priced not to sell.  Even their “unlimited” plan may not last for long.  As Verizon Wireless works towards their 4G network launch, unlimited pricing may never be a part of it. [...]

  5. Larry Lynt says:

    I agree with the moderator of this blog, the providers’ pocket are becoming deeper & their plans more shallow.
    When Verizon offers to contract out their coverage to third parties & allow them to make a profit off of their network bands… A big “red” light should be going off in every consumer’s mind! (If they can do that, then I’m sure they’re hold more cards than anyone could imagine. Fact is, I am a Verizon consumer of both their smart-phones and EVDO services. Their coverage is hard to beat & they know it… I spend $200 total, each month & I might have coverage for 1x (national access.) But, the quality of their evdo services need more attention! Spending $60+ taxes for good coverage should be a guarantee that I am receiving the best service they offer, along with the capability to reach the “cap”, & I manage to get better useable signal on my phone!
    My point is… If they do swap to these tiered plans, then I pay to have 256kb upstream & 512kb downstream… I better get it or I’m going to seek legal mean as a way to mend their little problem!
    Speak to your Representatives & your congressmen! Don’t be afraid to dabble with government, it’s your right as an American citizen! Make sure you specify what it is that you want from them and that it will be handled at the “state” level. Such as… Unfair business preactices, quality of services, & push to have it pass as state law! (Not countrywide law, that will hurt everyone worse, because they can haggle over their services with Washington! But, state laws have to be abided by regardless of who you are!
    Good luck guys & thanks for a great article!

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

  • nolan: ad says you may get 53 channels ? but 12 is a long way from 53 ! since i can get at least 31 channels with a rca flat antenna for $14.95 from wal-mar...
  • Loons In June!: Hi Riley nice commercial. Isn't Dish Networks TV everywhere just a slingbox? Or am I mistaken? Oh it is. "Dish will begin taking orders for the Vi...
  • Bill Bishop: Please note that these are the same clowns who sell the Heat Surge (you can bag all the glitz and get a thermostatically controlled 1500 watt heater a...
  • Jack J: Read the ad a little more thouroughly. It does not say you can get 953 channels. It says you can recieve approximatly 53 channels in your local area ...
  • Michelle: Thanks for the article... this ad just ran in Pittsburgh yesterday. Will make sure to forward to others! Many Thanks!...
  • Riley: I’m sure many Time Warner customers are happy that they have the ability to stream some channels to their iPhone. The main issue I see with the app is...
  • Ben: It's a nice app, but it's worthless by being limited to your home network! What's the point? If I'm at home, I'll watch on my TV!!! I like the Remote ...
  • jr: Frontier CEO Mary Agnes Wilderotter received $8,584,002 in total compensation in 2010...
  • DJ: Thanks for getting this out there for others to read, I do appreciate it. I do have some slightly good news though, I might be moving!!! No more Fr...
  • fred: No. Now you need a bare minimum of one gigabit (upload and download) for 21st century broadband. 100 megabits is aiming far too low to be competitive....
  • David: Daniel, That is what I set up via my bionic droid smartphone. A WAP2 that acts as the hotspot for my computer. Currently running 8 mb/s on download...
  • Matt: If they don't like the broadband options that are available, they can start their own WISP. That is how most WISPs started out anyway!...

Your Account: