×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Verizon LTE Can Use the Monthly Data Allotment In 32 Minutes

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the that-was-quick dept.

The Internet 273

adeelarshad82 writes "Verizon's new 4G LTE network is so fast that you can use up your entire 5GB in as little as 32 minutes. The 2010-era speeds are soured by the 2005-era thinking on data plans. Verizon has priced LTE pretty much like 3G to encourage data sipping, not guzzling. As soon as you start using the latest high-bandwidth Internet services, your whole month's allotment can evaporate in no time. According to a test, the network's speed maxed out at 21Mbps, which means that it takes only 32 minutes to smoke up the 5GB monthly data cap on the plan. While the 21Mbps speed was hit on a low traffic network, Verizon estimates you'll be able to get around 8.5Mbps with a loaded network which still means that the cap can be exhausted in about an hour and a half."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

273 comments

Any user-defined throttles? (5, Insightful)

Ironchew (1069966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425674)

I bet it doesn't even stop the download when you exceed the limit. It just goes on to charge per megabyte or something.

Re:Any user-defined throttles? (1)

IB4Student (1885914) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425702)

Why would you be downloading a 6 GB file if your cap is 5, etc?

Re:Any user-defined throttles? (3, Informative)

meerling (1487879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425750)

What if you are watching a streaming video? (Which of course means you don't know what size it actually is...)
There are lots of data chugging activities on the net that don't tell you how large they are, combine that with a greedy provider that wants you to go over your limits so they can charge you more, and your wallet is going to be taking the hit sooner or later.

Re:Any user-defined throttles? (2)

IB4Student (1885914) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425810)

I used to think this, and then I actually measured how much bandwidth youtube uses.

Re:Any user-defined throttles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34425924)

Yeah because Youtube is where all the feature-length films are streamed from. Did you measure how much bandwidth streaming HD content uses? Every single one of my blu-ray discs is well over 5gb, and each movie is at minimum 90mins. If they soaked up 5gb in 32mins, I will let you do the math on much beyond 5gb you will need. I'm just not sure you are even able to do that much. Dumbass.

Re:Any user-defined throttles? (0)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426012)

Why the hell would you want to watch HD on a couple-inches-across screen?

Re:Any user-defined throttles? (5, Insightful)

fotbr (855184) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426036)

Maybe because it's tethered and being viewed with a laptop? Or the LTE device is a USB device, and not a phone?

Re:Any user-defined throttles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34426268)

Mod parent up

Re:Any user-defined throttles? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425948)

youtube doesnt' use a set amount of bandwidth. It's based on speeds, even for mobile. On desktop you use a different codec quality minimized vs fullscreen, so again the same applies even on a desktop now.

Re:Any user-defined throttles? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425980)

What if you are watching a streaming video?

Let's do the math, shall we? A basic youtube stream is 1 mbit/s. That's 1/21 of 21 mbit/s, the rate at which the cap lasts 32 minutes. So, 32 * 21 = 672, or a little over 11 hours.

So, you could watch a little over 11 hours of youtube-quality video per month on your phone. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Your expectations may vary.

Re:Any user-defined throttles? (1)

Kizeh (71312) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426176)

What I want are European style plans. They have unlimited data, but depending on how much you pay per month your actual bandwidth, not the amount of data, is shaped. So the 15 Euro plan caps at 384 kbps, the 50 Euro plan at 2 Mbps etc. That allows people to use a 3/4G modem as their primary network connection if they just want to do email, web browsing and basic youtube; and it won't kill the network, and it's cheap.

Re:Any user-defined throttles? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426280)

Oh, I wasn't claiming cell service rates in the US are any good. I use a tracphone for heaven's sake. Maybe that's why 5GB/mo on a phone sounds like a lot to me. I'm waiting for some Australian to chime in on how his home connection is capped at 5 GB/mo. Now that does sound bad.

Re:Any user-defined throttles? (1)

Nichotin (794369) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426334)

My Norwegian provider NetCom has a surfing package for 125 NOK (15,5 EUR / 20,5 USD), where you basically get unlimited traffic over GPRS/3G/HSDPA. What they do is that they cap your speed to 100 / 100 kbit after 6 GB (monthly quota), and you can purchase another 1 GB for 99 kr if you need the speed. Without this package, you pay maximum 9 kr per day for data traffic, but they cap the speed after 200 MB in month. I think this is a very good offer, way better than paying for a certain amount, and then having to pay more if I go over that. I take bandwidth caps over extra fees any day when it comes to data traffic on the phone.

There are probably better offers in other countries, of course, but by Norwegian standards it is pretty good.

Re:Any user-defined throttles? (1)

jaymz666 (34050) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425768)

I don't know about you, but it's kind of hard to estimate how much data you are downloading without some sort of meter. Automatic warnings and shutoffs should be in place to stop over charges.

Re:Any user-defined throttles? (1)

Tripp-phpBB (1912354) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425780)

Why wouldn't you think outside the box and realize people download different files of different sizes which can ultimately exceed your cap without you knowing. That's on top of just general web browsing and watching videos which uses bandwidth. But all I know is common sense so don't take my word for it.

Re:Any user-defined throttles? (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425782)

Streaming. Uploading those videos you just took to youtube. Plenty of realistic ways to clobber your cap, without trying to find a 6GB file.

Re:Any user-defined throttles? (2)

Ironchew (1069966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425714)

$10/gigabyte, nevermind. (Nearly three cents per second?) It still gets on my nerves.

Re:Any user-defined throttles? (-1, Troll)

IB4Student (1885914) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425740)

Why the hell are you measuring bandwidth in seconds? And why do you need over 5 GB on your phone?

Re:Any user-defined throttles? (1)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425812)

The phone isn't the tool, the data connection is. I tether my Evo to my netbook all the time and use it for all sorts of stuff between work and leisure.

If my plan wasn't unlimited, I wouldn't have signed up and I'd still be using a crappy old flip phone.

Re:Any user-defined throttles? (1)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425844)

Why the hell are you measuring bandwidth in seconds? And why do you need over 5 GB on your phone?

The new 4G data plans are not for phones, they're for USB 4G modems for laptops. Verizon hasn't announced 4G phones or their data plans.

-Taylor

Re:Any user-defined throttles? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425956)

why throw an argument that makes no sense?

why have speed limits over 10 mph?

same ridiculous argument.
it's about the connection, not 5gb on your phone.

let's ask this way, which is realistic, because phones are more and more becoming like computers.

Why would you need more than 5GB of bandwidth in a month on your computer?

oh right, any semblance of normal use will go way above that.

Re:Any user-defined throttles? (3, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426024)

Why the hell are you measuring bandwidth in seconds? And why do you need over 5 GB on your phone?

Verizon's 4G LTE network isn't even available on phones initially, its limited to USB modems for computers (and Verizon's marketing of those USB modems and the associated plans is targetted primarily to business users); it will be rolled out to phones later.

So the more relevant question should be, "why do you need over 5GB/month in network data transfer to a computer, especially one you use for business?"

Re:Any user-defined throttles? (2)

sleepy_weasel (839947) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426154)

I live in Austin, TX, and listen to Internet Radio exclusively through my Droid (XiiaLive or Pandora). Add web browsing with the Internet radio, and the tethering I do when not near wireless and I can use 10GB/month easy...

Re:Any user-defined throttles? (3, Insightful)

ImprovOmega (744717) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426174)

Teleconferencing, file transfer, VPN connections, e-mail (with picture attachments and whatnot), remote desktop sessions, etc. There are tons of easy ways to go over 5GB with business uses. These were just off the top of my head.

Re:Any user-defined throttles? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426260)

And why do you need over 5 GB on your phone?

You do realize that there are no phones available for Verizon's 4G LTE yet, which means for the first 6 months it will be used only by people plugging USB transceivers into their laptops, don't you? Don't know about you, but I can go through 5GB of downloads on a computer pretty quickly, even without resorting to porn.

Re:Any user-defined throttles? (1)

dfsmith (960400) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425852)

$10/gigabyte

That's way better than switching to text messaging at $0.40 per 160 bytes*. ($2.5M/GB)

* That's the AT&T metered rate for when I send a maximum capacity text message to my wife.

Re:Any user-defined throttles? (4, Funny)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425950)

Aha! But I have an unlimited texting plan! I'll just tunnel streaming video through SMS!

Re:Any user-defined throttles? (4, Informative)

Firehed (942385) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425966)

Still cheaper than a teenager without an unlimited texting plan.

Verizon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34425680)

And why is this a surprise?

Re:Verizon (1)

IB4Student (1885914) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425710)

True, they are usually the fastest network. At least the cap isn't only 2 GB like on some other networks -_-

Only in the US? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34425682)

Come visit Australia mate.
The land of snags on the barbie and GB's by the dollar.

Oh and not to mention up until as late as last week, the largest provider in Australia (Telstra) still had 100MB plans with excess data charges that would require sacrificing a firstborn or similar.

That's a good thing. (1)

IB4Student (1885914) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425684)

You aren't going to hit 5 whole GB just by browsing the web. I'm interested in the latency, too.

Re:That's a good thing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34425764)

Youtube.

Some of those vids are 50 Megs... and I can easily see someone doing 100 vids a month.

Re:That's a good thing. (1)

IB4Student (1885914) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425786)

You can't watch 4k or HD videos on a phone. Youtube videos are ridiculously small because they compress the hell out of them.

Re:That's a good thing. (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426044)

Apparently you have never heard of the MyTouch 4G, which has an HD Video camera, and plays HD videos.

Re:That's a good thing. (0)

IB4Student (1885914) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426222)

My phone has an HD video camera too, and can play HD videos, but neither can watch videos in HD, because they only have 480p displays.

Re:That's a good thing. (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426442)

The conversation is about what format can be pulled across the net and played, not in what resolution the HD video will be rendered.

Re:That's a good thing. (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426088)

You can't watch 4k or HD videos on a phone.

You also can't, at launch, use the network this pricing plan applies to on a phone (unless the USB modems that are the initial exclusive devices for accessing the network are attached to a computer which then serves as an WiFi access point for a phone with WiFi connectivity), so I'm not sure what you can do with a phone is relevant at all.

On a computer -- the kind of thing that will be directly attached to the USB modems that access this network -- you can certainly watch those kind of videos.

Re:That's a good thing. (1)

meerling (1487879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425778)

Just browsing? Of course not. Start hitting the music services or streaming video and it becomes a different game.

Re:That's a good thing. (1)

IB4Student (1885914) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425874)

Pandora + 480p youtube, I have difficulty hitting 2 GB a month, even when I try. I've gone through a lot of Khan academy on my phone >__>

Re:That's a good thing. (1)

jaymz666 (34050) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425904)

Whereas email, app updates and web browsing and I hit 1.5GB without really trying... adding video and pandora and it goes above 2 easily.

Re:That's a good thing. (2)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426020)

so why exactly have you trolled this entire thread into a "oh nobody uses bandwidth" argument?

Re:That's a good thing. (4, Interesting)

tabrisnet (722816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426218)

You're not trying. Where I work there is NO guest-wifi (the wifi that exists requires you to VPN from the wifi to the actual network and the VPN requires an RSA SecurID).

I listen to Pandora when at work, in order to drown out the conversations all around me + the noisy (she has to be the noisiest [sober] drinker I've ever heard) Russian woman who sits behind me.

I hit 2GB easily... I had ~3900MB last month. And the 5260MB the month before. 2000 MB in september. 1200 in August. Ever since I started working here.

Always able to find something negative (2, Interesting)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425694)

This is what people mean about journalistic bias. No matter what the topic, no matter what the victim, journalists are always able to slant stories in a negative direction like this. What's the story? New network offers great speeds? Awesome! But no, the guy comes up with a negative interpretation and makes that the focus of the entire article. It happens again and again, and anyone who points it out gets shouted down as obviously journalists are white knights of integrity and are smarter than everyone else. That's an awful lot of undeserved respect for people who were Communications majors.

Re:Always able to find something negative (5, Insightful)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425736)

Actually, I think the intent of the article is to show that while Verizon has a 4th gen awesome network, they still have a pricing framework that's about 5 years obsolete.

Re:Always able to find something negative (4, Insightful)

Burning1 (204959) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425752)

Spoken like someone who's never been hit with an $800 data bill.

Re:Always able to find something negative (1)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426166)

I've never been hit by a $800 data bill. See, I made sure to be smart and when I planned on using data, I went with a network that allowed for unlimited. Sorry for your loss, but in this day and age, you are not restricted to one carrier, so you should have switched.

Re:Always able to find something negative (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426296)

I'm pretty sure no carrier currently provides or has ever provided unlimited cellular data for computers at any price (at least in the United States). This is a computer plan we're talking about, not a cell phone plan. For that matter, even the unlimited smart phone plans are being phased out rather rapidly in favor of capped plans, but that's another issue.

Re:Always able to find something negative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34425794)

Well, I think it's indicative of what Users will do. I was in the boondocks, without DVD without anything to do and not working, so I slammed my Verizon Wireless card and watched Netflix on low reso. The result? 1 hour and I shut down.

It's somewhat like what we used to do when I worked for a Dialup ISP: look for the guy with the highest download count and kick him. Instead of doing it with a shell script in cron on a BSD machine, they've got robust network appliances that let them bill people when they go over the limit. I think it's somewhat like the stop light cameras and local governments. The idea is sound, but once those who want money and care little about justice, realize that if you adjust the measuring stick slightly you can make a larger profit. It's not that a majority people aren't being good citizens (or netizens as it were) it's just that those who are profit hungry have found another method to abuse that.

I have to disagree with your assessment, I think with the current limits this is a spot on article.

Re:Always able to find something negative (4, Insightful)

Tanman (90298) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425820)

While your interpretation is that the article is looking at the speed of Verizon's new service and then painting it in a negative light, my interpretation is that the article is about the pricing plans Verizon is introducing with their new technology and warning consumers that it's a bit like a booby trap. Take this:

"Verizon has priced LTE pretty much like 3G to encourage data sipping, not guzzling."

He is pointing out that although the service itself is vastly superior as far as speed, it is using identical benchmarks for pricing. As such, it is a warning to the consumer not to get caught unaware and be hit with a big bill. I, for one, appreciate that warning. It's the kind of thing I might not think to check when I go upgrade my smart phone to fast 4g service. I don't look at it as negative slanted journalism, but an article on how Verizon's pricing plans do not seem to be evolving at the same rate as their technology.

Re:Always able to find something negative (4, Insightful)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425832)

This is what people mean about journalistic bias. No matter what the topic, no matter what the victim, journalists are always able to slant stories in a negative direction like this. What's the story? New network offers great speeds? Awesome! But no, the guy comes up with a negative interpretation and makes that the focus of the entire article. It happens again and again, and anyone who points it out gets shouted down as obviously journalists are white knights of integrity and are smarter than everyone else. That's an awful lot of undeserved respect for people who were Communications majors.

There have been plenty of stories about the speed of Verizon's network. This is about something else. Are you suggesting that people shouldn't post stories unless they're positive? It's newsworthy that, although the plans offer great speeds, they offer very low data caps compared to the speeds. As someone who might be switching to Verizon when they get 4G phones, I'm glad that I've been reminded of this.

I mean seriously, you get as little as 1/2 hour of data a month for your $50? That is worth talking about.
-Taylor

Re:Always able to find something negative (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425870)

False advertising _is_ a negative thing. Verizon advertises 21Mbps speeds while they offer 18kbps (assuming drivemaker's gigabytes which they surely use). They should be allowed to advertise the bigger number at most as a burst speed it is.

Re:Always able to find something negative (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34425910)

... 21Mbps speeds while they offer 18kbps (assuming drivemaker's gigabytes which they surely use)...

Okay, the lowercase B means bits, not bytes.

And network bit rates have always been measured in powers of ten, like disks, not 2, like memory. It's memory that's the odd one out, not disks or networks.

Re:Always able to find something negative (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426324)

And network bit rates have always been measured in powers of ten, like disks, not 2, like memory. It's memory that's the odd one out, not disks or networks.

I had 1Mbps and 2Mbps decent (and expensive) symmetric links from two different ISPs, both matched real rather than drivermaker's megabits pretty closely, with IP but not lower layers' overhead. With most packets at the MTU and full queues the variance was very low.

And these companies are scummy enough to make sure if they can skimp on something reasonably, they will. So if they didn't cheat, I assume a good deal of other ISPs don't cheat here either.

Re:Always able to find something negative (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426330)

And network bit rates have always been measured in powers of ten, like disks, not 2, like memory. It's memory that's the odd one out, not disks or networks.

Wrong.
Storage space is measured in powers of 2.
Storage space is advertised in powers of 10.
Memory is measured and advertised in powers of 2.
Network speeds are measured and advertised in powers of 2.
Signal processing rates for modems are measured in baud, powers of 10.

Everything dealing with bits is measured in powers of 2. Anyone who says differently is simply wrong. Bits are quantum. We count them. We care about permutations in a given storage space. We thus care about the bits^2 operation. SI units are not special. SI prefixes are not inherently unambiguous in any other field (is "m" milli? mega? meter? mass? mile? minute?). The unit "kilobyte" is KB, not K B. There is no use of the SI unit K. The unit is KB. Kilobyte. KB, both characters together, is the thing you need to look at. See a B or b? Talking about bits? It's fucking binary.

Anyone who says otherwise is simply WRONG.

Awesome? (1)

scarboni888 (1122993) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425882)

Oh I see so we're not supposed to look at all the aspects of the story - only the good bits.

Why don't we just ban journalism all together, get straight to the point, and call advertising 'news' then?

I'm sure that Verizon's press release does a beautiful job according to your standards. So why have journalists?

Re:Awesome? (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425968)

My point illustrated perfectly. Anything good is shouted down as ignorant, followed by an argument that is a reduction to absurdity.

PS press releases are often reprinted verbatim. I used to have a job where I faxed press releases to a list of phone numbers, and to my immense surprise they appeared in the newspaper the next day. My desk telephone was at the bottom of the press release, and I never, not once, got a call to verify any of the information.

Re:Always able to find something negative (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425938)

"No matter what the topic, no matter what the victim, journalists are always able to slant stories in a negative direction like this. What's the story?"

The story is it is pointless to have such speeds at such shitty caps at such a shitty price point.

Re:Always able to find something negative (1)

TrippTDF (513419) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425942)

I think the author is making a very valid point that yes, you'll have greater speed, but you'll have to be very careful with it. I had been considering getting a 4G device to be my main internet connection, but I'd chew through the plan after watching a couple movies on NetFlix.

Verizon is going to have to come up with new pricing plans if they expect people to jump to this sort of tech en masse

Re:Always able to find something negative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34425986)

This is what people mean about journalistic bias. No matter what the topic, no matter what the victim, journalists are always able to slant stories in a negative direction like this. What's the story? New network offers great speeds? Awesome! But no, the guy comes up with a negative interpretation and makes that the focus of the entire article. It happens again and again, and anyone who points it out gets shouted down as obviously journalists are white knights of integrity and are smarter than everyone else. That's an awful lot of undeserved respect for people who were Communications majors.

I wouldn't call that bias. It's like saying I just bought a new super car that can do 205 mph but it just has a 3 gallon fuel tank. At speed you can watch the fuel gauge drop like a rock. What's the point of a monthly plan that you can exhaust in a matter of minutes? It's like those BS ads from Hughesnet. A blazing fast 1.5 meg per second, what are they used to dial up? But look out there's a 500 meg cap. It'd take two month's worth of your data cap to download one short movie from iTunes. 4G is adequate for speed so why not turn your effort to making it actually usable now???

Confirmation Bias? (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426028)

Then how do you explain these glowingly [pcmag.com] positive [pcmag.com] stories about the LTE rollout on PCMag (the same site linked in this article)? Or these non-critical [slashdot.org] postings [slashdot.org] here on slashdot? Maybe journalists just like to cover different aspects of an event rather than solely regurgitate press releases.

Re:Always able to find something negative (1)

guspasho (941623) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426144)

Just because you may think subjectively and start with your conclusions and then find evidence that supports them doesn't mean everyone else does.

That often happens when you are unbiased (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426340)

No. This is by no means what people mean by journalistic bias. Reporting that they have great speeds, without pointing out that you had better not actually make use of the feature for very long would be in favor of Verizon, and would be bias. Reporting the facts, and then focusing on one of the most important facts which people may not have considered and Verizon is not mentioning in their ads is not bias. Biased journalists don't write things like: "My tests maxed out at an impressive 21Mbps." They also don't allow a company representative to make their position clear on the subject like this: ""As the network evolves, other aspects around our offerings will evolve as well, and pricing is an aspect of that," he said. Let's hope so."

Re:Always able to find something negative (1)

stms (1132653) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426394)

Honestly I don't care that much about getting faster mbps on my mobile device... does anybody know if they've fixed latency issues?

Re:Always able to find something negative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34426426)

I agree, Verizon is awesome. I work there too. Are you going to the Christmas party this year? Which office do you work in?

Video (4, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425708)

Every cell phone company heavily advertises watching video on their network, but it was video that caused AT&T to yank their unlimited bandwidth and kill it. The second the iPad came out and people wanted to stream video (like AT&T sold them on) they freaked out.

Then again, these are the same companies that asked the government for a hand out in building infrastructure while bragging about profits, pocketed the money, and then still didn't build infrastructure. That is why you can get faster internet and cell phone data plans around the rest of the world.

I keep waiting for the free market to fix this. Shouldn't a competitor come out and win our business by responding to consumer demands and giving us fast access with unlimited data at a good price?

AT&T's network has been exposed. Sprint has a 4G network. Stand apart and keep your unlimited data while AT&T and Verizon remain in the stone age.

Re:Video (1)

IB4Student (1885914) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425722)

I have unlimited data on Verizon, and I get over 1 mbps.

Re:Video (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425796)

http://www.geekosystem.com/verizon-unlimited-data-ending/ [geekosystem.com]

Verizon is killing off their unlimited data plans and actively working to switch over all their existing customers.

Re:Video (1)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426076)

Verizon is killing off their unlimited data plans and actively working to switch over all their existing customers.
Well, that is odd, the article says that limited data plans are an outdated business model, and yet most of the cell phone providers have gone from unlimited to limited data plans. Could it be the journalist is wrong?
I suspect that the cell phone providers have done market research and what they most likely discovered was that most customers would begrudgingly pay more for less data because they believe that they cannot survive without data on their phones.
I am on one of Verizon's unlimited data plans. I don't relish the idea of moving to a tiered plan. I am on a family plan as well, so I don't know how that will affect my plan. I do know that the proposed price of $15 for 200 MB and $25 a month for 2GB makes the second tier of this tiered system already higher than my current rate of $20 for unlimited. Now, perhaps I will find that my usage is below 200 MB and I will be surprised by a lower bill. At any rate, this change is welcome news because this means I can cancel my service. I am paying nearly $60 per line and I only have two lines that have the data plan. This is just way, way too expensive. I have 5 lines. The main line is $75 for, and the others are $10 a month. Unlimited data is an extra $20 on two lines, so I figure my bill ought to be $155, but it is nearly double that after all the taxes and fees.

Re:Video (2)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425884)

I have unlimited data on Verizon, and I get over 1 mbps.

You don't have unlimited data if you have this "unlimited" plan:
http://slashdot.org/story/09/11/09/068255/Verizon-Droid-Tethering-Comes-At-a-Hefty-Price [slashdot.org]
-Taylor

Re:Video (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426102)

That's an old article and does not jive with my current experience. I signed up for unlimited data for my Android-based phone on Verizon 2 months ago for $30/mo. The usage meter on the phone that Verizon provides says "unlimited" (versus the voice and SMS limits the meter shows) and they are very explicit that the tethering plan is an extra fee.

Re:Video (1)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426434)

That's an old article and does not jive with my current experience. I signed up for unlimited data for my Android-based phone on Verizon 2 months ago for $30/mo. The usage meter on the phone that Verizon provides says "unlimited" (versus the voice and SMS limits the meter shows) and they are very explicit that the tethering plan is an extra fee.

I checked their site and it seems that you are right. I thought I remembered them having a 5GB cap. I knew that article was a year old, but people are often on older plans. Looks like you lucked out and got a good plan though!

-Taylor

Competitors? Hah. (4, Insightful)

Concern (819622) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425974)

You'll be waiting a very long time. Even if you really believe you will get competition in a market with a 10 figure barrier to entry, the spectrum is scarce and the federal government (in the form of the FCC) can't just license new cell phone carriers in your region all day long.

If the government simply ran it, at least there would be more accountability and transparency to the users of the system. Not to mention that the prices could be lowered to have a relationship to the actual costs, and the profits pay for schools and roads, thereby doubly stimulating the economy. But, I know, I know, the government can only run the entire military-industrial complex. :( Far better that we simply allow the owners of the telecom trust to enrich themselves virtually without limit, including, yes, government hand outs to "encourage" them to build their infrastructure, with few meaningful strings attached.

The entire pricing model of the cell carriers in the US is just the outcome of a game to see what tricks will and won't get past the feds. Charging for overages is ludicrous in general. It forces customers into the losing game of predicting their future calling needs and creates the illusion that they are responsible when they inevitably get a $400 bill. Of course, they can pay more every month to avoid that, and if the jump between the first and second pricing tier is inexplicably huge at every single carrier... can you really prove it's price fixing?

The problem with the telecoms is similar to those of the even more transparently criminal "privatized electric utilities" - who can only fail to profit if they somehow manage to build more capacity and alleviate the shortage of their commodity. Don't even get me started on the various funny attempts at market-oriented reform from the 90's.

Caps and per-megabyte charges are obviously rapacious. In a sane, well-regulated system, we could cope with scarcity by letting people pay for priority. Similar to an auction, if you pay more, then when there is contention on the network, your data rates are better than those who paid less. Easy, done.

If you can't understand why we don't already have this, why not call your senator and ask?

Re:Video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34426236)

Do your homework, all of you. Every single vendor capped their "unlimited" plans to 5GB years ago, while continuing to advertise them as "unlimited". When they offered true unlimited, online video and other high-bandwidth services simply weren't around and there were no handsets that could utilize them. Even if you tethered, it would have been difficult to use that much. As soon as that stuff changed, they capped the plans.

Re:Video (1)

Arker (91948) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426398)

I keep waiting for the free market to fix this.

Considering the market is not free, you may be waiting a long time on that.

Huh? (1)

hipp5 (1635263) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425784)

Just because your connection is fast doesn't mean you're going to use more data. A website that is 10MB is still 10MB whether or not you download it in 0.00001 seconds or 10 hours. Even video files have finite size. I'm not limited to how many videos I watch on Youtube by the speed I download them at.

Re:Huh? (1)

scarboni888 (1122993) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425918)

:I'm not limited to how many videos I watch on Youtube by the speed I download them at:

Then why bother increasing speeds at all?

Re:Huh? (1)

jaymz666 (34050) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425958)

You'll download fewer 10MB websites at 10 hours than if you download it in 10 minutes. Obviously.

Re:Huh? (1)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426156)

If each website takes 10 hours, you can only view two full websites in a 24 day. So, you can load the google home page, and look at the first page of search results. If each website takes 1 second to view, then I can easily view many more web sites.

Similarly, if it takes 10 hours to view a 1 minute YouTube video, I just won't bother. If my connection is fast enough to stream YouTube in real time, I'm much more likely to bother with it, which increases my data usage. Similarly, as the connection gets faster, I'll want to switch from the 320*240 stream to the 480p stream, which will take even more bandwidth. If greater speeds didn't result in people doing interesting new things with their connections, you wouldn't have mentioned YouTube in your post. You would have talked about using a BBS.

Re:Huh? (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426386)

I purposefully went to a business class connection so that I could do more with my connection. While I pay for 10/1 and generally get 20+/1 if I was still using my 4500/400 connection I wouldn't be hosting my own website, streaming Netflix nearly non-stop all night long, and having my wife and I surf the web the way we do because we simply would not have the bandwidth to do it.

I mean when I had a 640/160 DSL connection do you think I would have been uploading 500MB worth of fullsized DSLR photos to Flickr or HD videos to Vimeo? Hell no, I'd be resizing them on my computer and uploading only a few. Now what the hell do I care? It takes a couple minutes instead of a couple hours and I'm good to go.

This is the same thing. Verizon knows that people are going to go over their bandwidth limits and fast. That's exactly what they want.

21Mbps only? (1)

boreddotter (1836042) | more than 3 years ago | (#34425890)

Wasn't LTE supposed to give speeds up to 100Mbps? I was expecting more, 21Mbps is the max on 3G, I wasn't expecting 100Mbps but maybe something around 30-40Mbps.

Re:21Mbps only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34425960)

yup but verizon is taking a leaf outta apples book and advertising somthing as new tech when theres no real benifit to it

3Gwcdma hsdpa+ at 21Mbps or LTE 4G at 21Mbps....

Re:21Mbps only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34426058)

The newest chipsets can support 100Mb/s downlink, 50Mb/s uplink, as I recall,
but that is the ideal connection (bits going downhill with a wind behind their back...)
Sort of like that 11Mb/s you get with 802.11b.

Re:21Mbps only? (1)

Tacvek (948259) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426142)

LTE's maximum data rates assume things like using 4x4 antennae (or at least 2x2), and the full 20MHz bandwidth per connection. In reality these early devices are likely using a 1x1 antenna and are most likely using one of the lower bandwidth options.

I could be wrong though, I've not actually checked the specs of the device in question.

stop whining (0)

z-j-y (1056250) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426094)

should air travel be charged less because it's faster?

the slashdot editorial bitching has become unbearable.

Grandfathered unlimited 3G mobile broadband (4, Interesting)

kindbud (90044) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426206)

I have a grandfathered unlimited 3G data plan for Verizon Mobile Broadband. I use it for my primary internet access method (3 the Mifi). I exceed 15 Gb monthly on a routine basis. If it wasn't grandfathered, they'd want to charge me in excess of $100 for the overage. Now that I know about the deal with LTE, they can kiss my upgrade from 3G goodbye.

Duh, it's their answer to skype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34426228)

Make you pay to call on skype and it's no longer a competitor but a service they support.

bandwidth used (4, Interesting)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426292)

If a user wants to guzzle gigabytes, Verizon wants that person to sign up for DSL or FiOS.

TFA gives the above as a reason Verizon caps the LTE service. That's stupid as Verizon has no presence in many locations like mine. In those locations I bet many people would pay more for mobile wireless broadband. What Verizon could do also is bundle that 5GB LTE with DSL or FiOS.

Falcon

Broken phone market (1)

khchung (462899) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426308)

Welcome to America's broken mobile phone market. Customers have little to no choice that the carriers can get away with selling plans with data volume caps that made the service impractical to be actually used.

In Asia, we have the opposite, carriers sell 3G plans priced by data volume, more data = more expensive, but with the option of a FEE cap that limits the max fee you need to pay if you downloaded way over your plan's volume.

I don't get it. (1)

glebovitz (202712) | more than 3 years ago | (#34426368)

I think someone's been smoking a little too much medicinal pot if they think this is a good deal.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...