Verizon to drop Unlimited Data on 7/29, tiered pricing to follow?

[baaldemon]

Here's some basic math for you. Let's say my 3G connection is 1.5Mbits/sec. That means my theoretical limit is transferring 675Bytes an hour which works out to around 474GBytes a month. My highest data usage was around 15GB last month, I did not tether at all so all data was strictly through my phone. With that being said I utilized a measely 3% of my theoretical potential limit. If they were to implement the cap at 2GB they would only be allowing a utilization of 0.42% of what would be possible to use.

So even with my "heavy usage" they can still oversell their network 33 times if all users used 15GB a month. What they would be asking for if they setup a 2GB limit would be to oversell their network 238 times. But once again all that doesn't matter because because there network can still only handle a total number of users hitting it at one time. Which is why capping doesn't solve any issue, but active throttling would.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[baaldemon]

675Bytes should read MBytes

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[wuyanks]

Here's some basic math for you. Let's say my 3G connection is 1.5Mbits/sec. That means my theoretical limit is transferring 675Bytes an hour which works out to around 474GBytes a month. My highest data usage was around 15GB last month, I did not tether at all so all data was strictly through my phone. With that being said I utilized a measely 3% of my theoretical potential limit. If they were to implement the cap at 2GB they would only be allowing a utilization of 0.42% of what would be possible to use.

So even with my "heavy usage" they can still oversell their network 33 times if all users used 15GB a month. What they would be asking for if they setup a 2GB limit would be to oversell their network 238 times. But once again all that doesn't matter because because there network can still only handle a total number of users hitting it at one time. Which is why capping doesn't solve any issue, but active throttling would.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

interesting breakdown. can't disagree.

 

[clucernoni]

Here's some basic math for you. Let's say my 3G connection is 1.5Mbits/sec. That means my theoretical limit is transferring 675Bytes an hour which works out to around 474GBytes a month. My highest data usage was around 15GB last month, I did not tether at all so all data was strictly through my phone. With that being said I utilized a measely 3% of my theoretical potential limit. If they were to implement the cap at 2GB they would only be allowing a utilization of 0.42% of what would be possible to use.

So even with my "heavy usage" they can still oversell their network 33 times if all users used 15GB a month. What they would be asking for if they setup a 2GB limit would be to oversell their network 238 times. But once again all that doesn't matter because because there network can still only handle a total number of users hitting it at one time. Which is why capping doesn't solve any issue, but active throttling would.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

But you have to admit that it makes sense from a business perspective. It will lessen usage somewhat because people don't want to go over their data limit. So ppl like me will stop streaming pandora from their phone at work when they have a computer right next to them. And they still get to charge overage fees and make more money. Of course it makes no sense for the user outside of peak hours.

 

[kodiak799]

That is why you throttle heavy users. Capping is only a means to generate outrageous overages, and prevent having to upgrade your network even though you know more and more smartphone users are coming online every hour.

Also I have been watching slingplayer mobile nonstop the past 3 days in commemoration of this thread, and rumor.

Well, in theory a cap would cause some amount of reduction in usage throughout the day, wouldn't be linear but should relieve some pressure at peak times. Agreed probably not an ideal solution and likely would not keep up with the added pressure from new subscribers.

I guess I've been misusing the term and really been referring to tiers and assuming there is an unlimited tier. "Soft caps" thru tiered plans. Don't know, maybe we'll see something like allowances for "peak data useage" and free after 9PM like with cell.

I could live with 500meg a month daytime. Then again, that wouldn't help on free weekends when I'm most likely to be out and about wanting to use a lot of bandwidth.

 

[Abe21599]

Verizon Calls Tiered Data Plans Just “Rumors” - Droid Life: A Droid Community Blog

 

[wuyanks]

Verizon Calls Tiered Data Plans Just “Rumors” - Droid Life: A Droid Community Blog

http://www.droidforums.net/forum/dr...ps-dont-comment-rumors-about-tiered-data.html

dancedroid

 

[Abe21599]

well thats y lol i posted that like a minute after u did

thought maybe u missed it on twitter - but yea the title from droidlife is not really what the article is about

 

[kodiak799]

What they would be asking for if they setup a 2GB limit would be to oversell their network 238 times. But once again all that doesn't matter because because there network can still only handle a total number of users hitting it at one time. Which is why capping doesn't solve any issue, but active throttling would.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

Interesting breakdown, but you are looking at it from the wrong angle. You are saying only X number of users can hit it at one time. That's correct, but what I'm saying heavy users are more likely to be hitting that. It's not X number of users, but a distribution of users, and that's where inequities come into play with heavy users (agreed it's not 1:1)

What I'm saying is, you are 5X more likely or whatever to be on at a peak time, and probably using more bandwidth to boot - i.e. you'll be on twice as much between 5-6 and receiving 3X the data. That poses problems for a model that assumes a lower expected usage and blows out the distribution.

When you start hitting capacity limits, one solution is to create different buckets based on usage patterns. You have 100 buckets you'll sell for $100 each, and you'll have 100 light users in one bucket and 10 heavy users in another, meaning the heavy users would pay 10x. It obviously doesn't work that way as you illustrate that using 10X the data doesn't mean you're using 10X the bandwidth at peak times (maybe 2-3X or something).

Still not perfect because, in theory, all your use is at off-peak hours and you should actually pay LESS than a light user. But this is always how you would price from the start, unless you are running a type of promotion to attract users.

I'm am absolutely against throttling down the network. I pay for performance and I want performance - LOL, that's why I'm a VZW customer. Throttling down the network is a form of subsidy to heavy users because I'm sacrificing utility to satisfy their much higher demand. Although, a pricing plan that offers different download speeds would be interesting (if that's even possible).

 

[obxsalvo]

AWW Nuts!!!

 

[jsh1120]

I have to say that this is one of those threads that make me weep for the absence of economics as a subject in the schools.

As nearly as I can tell, there is a substantial number of people on this thread who think an ideal pricing model for energy would be a flat fee for everyone regardless of their use. Just send the power company a check for $30 every month and gobble up the kilowatts. The aluminum processing plant down the street would love it but those of us who get hit with brownouts might not find it so appealing.

Likewise, there seems to be a rather sizable contingent who think that "greed" shouldn't be a driving factor in capitalist firms. My own feelings about capitalism are somewhat mixed, but however one feels about the entire economic structure, greed is what drives it.

Furthermore, although consumers may (rightly) feel they are supporting VZW to an adequate extent already, it is worth noting that investors (who actually drive the construction of infrastructure) are not nearly as happy with VZW. So if the firm is committed to building more infrastructure, it needs to convince investors it's worth ponying up for the stock.

Finally, there are various ways to control demand in the face of limited capacity. How one feels about various approaches depends on whose ox is being gored. And the simplest and most effective approach has always been shown to be price incentives. They have the delightful attributes of being easy to understand and immediately effective. More complicated incentives like throttling (which ultimately only stretches out demand) and time shifting are not nearly as effective.

 

[NeoandGeo]

But you're forgetting the grossly overpriced talk/text plans we are forced into getting in your electric company analogy. We are already paying well more than enough to subsidize our data use.

 

[kodiak799]

however one feels about the entire economic structure, greed is what drives it.

 

[baaldemon]

Throttling is not subsidizing the heavy users. It is a technical means to make a network that has been oversold too much usable at peak times. The infrastructure cost to the company is essentially the same if its 1/2 sold or if its 100x oversold. So there is nothing to subsidize, you still need the same amount of technicians, the nodes still need to be operating. So what do you think would be subsidized exactly. My cost to the network is no difference than your cost to the network.

So what do you think the actual additional costs are? There is no static x dollars per GB of data. Once again think about how power companies work. It actually costs them x dollars to produce a kw of energy, but the price to transmit that energy is static. Look at your power bill the transmission cost is on there and will stay the same no matter how much you use. With a data network all we are paying for is the transmission of the data because verizon isn't producing it, the creators of the data can charge for it but verizon has no costs in that.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[kodiak799]

Throttling is not subsidizing the heavy users. It is a technical means to make a network that has been oversold too much usable at peak times. The infrastructure cost to the company is essentially the same if its 1/2 sold or if its 100x oversold. So there is nothing to subsidize, you still need the same amount of technicians, the nodes still need to be operating. So what do you think would be subsidized exactly. My cost to the network is no difference than your cost to the network.

$$$ is only one form of subsidy. If I sacrifice download speed to satisfy your higher demand, I am subsidizing your usage (my cost is not $$$, but speed which has value to me). Put another way, VZW is taxing each of us in the form of slower speed, and when useage differs a flat tax creates a subsidy.

Surely you don't feel that a bunch of bandwidth hogs joining the network, paying the same, and forcing VZW to throttle down speed at the expense of everyone else is an equitable solution? That decreases the value of the service to me, so it's a relative cost rather than absolute dollars and cents.