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

By: Larry Lynt

Larry Lynt — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 07:04:36 +0000

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!

By: Stop the Cap! » Verizon Wireless Data Corral: Herding Customers Into New Data Plans Starting January 18th

Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:22:22 +0000

[...] 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. [...]

By: Ian L

Ian L — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:36:49 +0000

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.

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:25:53 +0000

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.

By: jr

jr — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:45:11 +0000

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