Verizon Caves In, 'Unlimited' Data Incoming

[Lurick]

15 minutes ago, Kobathor said:

Ting would be okay if you never used your phone.. Data is so expensive there, if you're a person that uses your phone for any kind of social media you'd probably be better off with other carriers. $40 for 4GB.. at Cricket (AT&T) it's $45 for 8GB, with unlimited talk & text compared to Ting's pay-for-what-you-use (which would still be more expensive, since you pay $6 flat for the line in the first place.)

Yah, for me it's great since I'm on wifi like 95% of the time so I almost never use more than 100MB or so of data per month. I think my average bill over the past year has come out to just shy of $24. Honestly I would have stayed on Verizon if it wasn't going to cost me $80 for a single line but I can get 4 for like $160-ish.

[Mira Yurizaki]

I'm going to come in with probably an unpopular view: Unlimited data was a misnomer to begin with. Technically speaking, they don't cut off your access to the network once you've reached some previously unknown cap. You can still consume "as much data as you want." But "Unlimited data" sounds a whole lot better than "Fastest speed all the time (until a certain point)."

 

It wouldn't hold up in a legal battle, but I mused one time if an ISP has a data cap and they actually do cut you off or severely throttle your internet speed, I could claim they can never give me the fastest rate they said they would because over a period of one month, the network speed would be grossly lower than what they advertised. e.g., 250GB/mo is really ~96 KB/sec assuming a 30 day average billing cycle.

[vanished]

12 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

I'm going to come in with probably an unpopular view: Unlimited data was a misnomer to begin with. Technically speaking, they don't cut off your access to the network once you've reached some previously unknown cap. You can still consume "as much data as you want." But "Unlimited data" sounds a whole lot better than "Fastest speed all the time (until a certain point)."

 

It wouldn't hold up in a legal battle, but I mused one time if an ISP has a data cap and they actually do cut you off or severely throttle your internet speed, I could claim they can never give me the fastest rate they said they would because over a period of one month, the network speed would be grossly lower than what they advertised. e.g., 250GB/mo is really ~96 KB/sec assuming a 30 day average billing cycle.

If you tried that, they'd probably get revenge by ruling that you're allowed "unlimited data" at a maximum instantaneous speed of 96 kB/s from then on, like the story of that guy who tried to get out of the red light ticket by saying it had blue-shifted due to his speed, but changed his mind and accepted it when he head what they would have charged him for speeding.

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

If you tried that, they'd probably get revenge by ruling that you're allowed "unlimited data" at a maximum instantaneous speed of 96 kB/s from then on, like the story of that guy who tried to get out of the red light ticket by saying it had blue-shifted due to his speed, but changed his mind and accepted it when he head what they would have charged him for speeding.

Well it'd probably be thrown out anyway because:

• They advertise up to some speed
• They advertise the instantaneous speed rather than the average speed.

The problem with bandwidth is it's relative depending on how you measure it.

[Mr.Meerkat]

$80 for unlimited data? Cheap? Limited to 22GB with no throttling? You havin a laugh?

 

For $40 per month, with Three UK, you can have "real" unlimited data with no capping (Cousin has an unlimited data plan, he uses like 100GB~ per month), 30GB of hot-spotting, free roaming in 42 countries (yep, full unlimited data while roaming with the only real downside is no thethering but that's fair enough), unlimited calls and text ect.

Or $30PM and you can have all of that above but only 200 mins of calls...

 

Yes, three probably has UK's worst 4G coverage and speed but when you can get 25-30Mbps down speeds on HSPDA+ (with great coverage in cities and okay coverage in the Countryside), who needs 4G? 

 

I thought UK prices would be worse than Murica's but it seems like for once, our pricing isn't bad...well three is the special child I guess where they are the only Company that still offers unlimited data and their prices are considerably lower than the competition but yeah, their 4G speeds and coverage is atrocious.

 

On a side note, I just realised how this sounds sooooooo much like an advert but nawh, I'm just stating how $80 isn't that reasonable IMO (from a UKer perspective) and yep, I've used the roaming "feature" in France, Italy, Netherlands and Switzerland so I know they're deffo not lying about it (where I got to use faster 4G speeds... )

[michaelocarroll007]

38 minutes ago, Lurick said:

Yah, for me it's great since I'm on wifi like 95% of the time so I almost never use more than 100MB or so of data per month. I think my average bill over the past year has come out to just shy of $24. Honestly I would have stayed on Verizon if it wasn't going to cost me $80 for a single line but I can get 4 for like $160-ish.

your kinda an exception your not an average consumer and this wouldnt work out like it does for you like everyone else.  you barley need a cellphone line 100mb of data is nothing just having emails MMS and notifcations like that can reach up around 100mb in a month. a single picture message can be 5mb  and streaming any music or video would blow past 100mb pretty quickly.  Ting isnt bad its not for anyone who uses more then like 1-3gbs though tops. same with what google offeres very similar pricing i believe   

[michaelocarroll007]

8 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

$80 for unlimited data? Cheap? Limited to 22GB with no throttling? You havin a laugh?

 

For $40 per month, with Three UK, you can have "real" unlimited data with no capping (Cousin has an unlimited data plan, he uses like 100GB~ per month), 30GB of hot-spotting, free roaming in 42 countries (yep, full unlimited data while roaming with the only real downside is no thethering but that's fair enough), unlimited calls and text ect.

Or $30PM and you can have all of that above but only 200 mins of calls...

 

Yes, three probably has UK's worst 4G coverage and speed but when you can get 25-30Mbps down speeds on HSPDA+ (with great coverage in cities and okay coverage in the Countryside), who needs 4G? 

 

I thought UK prices would be worse than Murica's but it seems like for once, our pricing isn't bad...well three is the special child I guess where they are the only Company that still offers unlimited data and their prices are considerably lower than the competition but yeah, their 4G speeds and coverage is atrocious.

 

On a side note, I just realised how this sounds sooooooo much like an advert but nawh, I'm just stating how $80 isn't that reasonable IMO (from a UKer perspective) and yep, I've used the roaming "feature" in France, Italy, Netherlands and Switzerland so I know they're deffo not lying about it (where I got to use faster 4G speeds... )

Big problem in this pricing discussion is people that are comparing dont understand the size of america  it is 4,000km wide x 2,000km long roughly plus alaska which is huge aswell. 

 

UK 694 people per sq mile 

US 85 People per sq mile 

 

Lot easier to have coverage and speed with good pricing when you have 8 times the amount of people in the same area 

[HarryNyquist]

7 minutes ago, michaelocarroll007 said:

Lot easier to have coverage and speed with good pricing when you have 8 times the amount of people in the same area 

So much this. Also consider that Verizon is using CDMA, which is older than GSM. That's going to factor into costs of maintenance.

 

EDIT: Doubly consider that the US has a /lot/ of mountainous regions when compared to the UK and generally mainland Europe. GSM sucks cock in the mountains. CDMA doesn't.

[michaelocarroll007]

1 minute ago, HarryNyquist said:

So much this. Also consider that Verizon is using CDMA, which is older than GSM. That's going to factor into costs of maintenance.

Yeah i dont know costs of infrastructure but isnt there LTE not on CDMA technically ? either way  Verizon has always been what seems overly priced so i wont defend there pricing too much just trying to get others to understand why there tiny country can provide much cheaper phone plans and also thats why we in america are big on cars and not public transportation it can take days to get acorss the US where most European countries its hours its much more viable and cost effective for them to invest into rail systems and such. 

[suits]

Ugh now everyone won't be jealous of my business plan...

[TroubleKlef]

2 hours ago, michaelocarroll007 said:

Yeah i dont know costs of infrastructure but isnt there LTE not on CDMA technically ? either way  Verizon has always been what seems overly priced so i wont defend there pricing too much just trying to get others to understand why there tiny country can provide much cheaper phone plans and also thats why we in america are big on cars and not public transportation it can take days to get acorss the US where most European countries its hours its much more viable and cost effective for them to invest into rail systems and such. 

Yup, if the entire population of America was compacted to the size of Oregon and we had all 4 major players competing in Oregon, you'd bet your ass that our rates would be not only cheaper but our lines would be faster as well.

[SansVarnic]

Way to little to late.

But it is About Damn Time Verizon ...

 

*edit 

I'm still going to stay with T-Mobile, imo better customer service, better plans, better pricing.

With some, few instances that Verizon has better coverage, it has not been that big of an issue for me.

Edited February 14, 2017 by SansVarnic

[Mooshi]

7 hours ago, michaelocarroll007 said:

Big problem in this pricing discussion is people that are comparing dont understand the size of america  it is 4,000km wide x 2,000km long roughly plus alaska which is huge aswell. 

 

UK 694 people per sq mile 

US 85 People per sq mile 

 

Lot easier to have coverage and speed with good pricing when you have 8 times the amount of people in the same area 

 

Seriously. The whole Murrica vs thing is dumb AF considering countries like Canada, a land that eclipses the Uk, has a LOWER population than California--1 state of 50.

[Bleedingyamato]

On February 12, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Ryan_Vickers said:

wow.  Does no one realize how incredibly insane the whole mobile phone "system" is?  Carriers sell a select group of locked phones, install their own software on them, interfere with and slow your device's ability to get updates, and, apparently, even remove basic features of the device, only to sell them back to you.  If ISPs acted like that with PCs there would be riots in the street but everyone just seems to go along with this madness.... 

 

Then again, how do you stop it?

Use an iPhone instead of icky droid?

 

No delayed updates or update restrictions for my iPhone SE.  ?

 

But last I knew droid works like you're talking about with things like affecting when and if your phone gets updates.  

 

My brother and dad used to have droid phones.  One would get an update and the other would have to wait like 6 months to get the exact same update.  It was ridiculous.

 

Both are using iPhones now like me.  ?

[Drak3]

20 minutes ago, Bleedingyamato said:

Use an iPhone instead of icky droid?

 

No delayed updates or update restrictions for my iPhone SE.  ?

 

But last I knew droid works like you're talking about with things like affecting when and if your phone gets updates.  

 

My brother and dad used to have droid phones.  One would get an update and the other would have to wait like 6 months to get the exact same update.  It was ridiculous.

 

Both are using iPhones now like me.  ?

Having a Lumia 950 XL, with an update wiping out the ability to use the second SIM, I support carriers being able to hold off updates until they are validated to work on that carrier.

Every Android phone can be updated the day the update drops anyways, with most, if not all, major manufacturers having backup programs that also handle updates. Carriers can only affect OTA delivery.

[Bleedingyamato]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Having a Lumia 950 XL, with an update wiping out the ability to use the second SIM, I support carriers being able to hold off updates until they are validated to work on that carrier.

Every Android phone can be updated the day the update drops anyways, with most, if not all, major manufacturers having backup programs that also handle updates. Carriers can only affect OTA delivery.

Why would a phone need two SIM cards?

 

 

If they can affect update delivery then that means you can't always get an update promptly even if it would be safe doesn't it?

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Bleedingyamato said:

Why would a phone need two SIM cards?

 

 

If they can affect update delivery then that means you can't always get an update promptly even if it would be safe doesn't it?

Two separate lines (oft a personal and a business), or going with one service provider for talk/text and another for data.

 

Also, OTA delivery is just the service provider pushing their update over GSM, LTE, or CDMA. Many phones can be manually updated when on WiFi, or by the manufacturer's phone backup utility.

 

I could get Note 4 updates on Verizon roughly 6 months to a year before they went "live" OTA. I also updated my S6 before a few days before Cricket issued the OTA delivery, just by having it connected to WiFi and manually updating through the phone's settings.

[Suika]

6 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Having a Lumia 950 XL, with an update wiping out the ability to use the second SIM, I support carriers being able to hold off updates until they are validated to work on that carrier.

Having installed dozens of custom ROMs across multiple devices between two carriers, I don't understand how a major manufacturer would be unable to develop a functioning update while a small group or single user can develop a custom ROM or update and have it functioning perfectly.

 

All the carriers are doing is sticking bloatware on their products to maximize profit, such as AT&T's latest move to integrate DirecTV advertisements into the Galaxy S7.

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, Suika said:

Having installed dozens of custom ROMs across multiple devices between two carriers, I don't understand how a major manufacturer would be unable to develop a functioning update while a small group or single user can develop a custom ROM or update and have it functioning perfectly.

 

All the carriers are doing is sticking bloatware on their products to maximize profit, such as AT&T's latest move to integrate DirecTV advertisements into the Galaxy S7.

Carriers need to cater to people that can't fix issues with their phones, be it ignorance, laziness, or a lack of time. Some carriers, like Cricket, are on top of the validation, and oft have an update being delivered OTA wothin days of the manufacturer releasing it. Others, Verizon, who will go unnamed, Verizon, suck ass at keeping on top of validating and pushing updates, Verizon.

 

Because of this, they need to make sure that the masses won't experience flaws on a large scale, which would happen if they pushed custom ROMs.

[Bleedingyamato]

9 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Two separate lines (oft a personal and a business), or going with one service provider for talk/text and another for data.

 

Also, OTA delivery is just the service provider pushing their update over GSM, LTE, or CDMA. Many phones can be manually updated when on WiFi, or by the manufacturer's phone backup utility.

 

I could get Note 4 updates on Verizon roughly 6 months to a year before they went "live" OTA. I also updated my S6 before a few days before Cricket issued the OTA delivery, just by having it connected to WiFi and manually updating through the phone's settings.

Hmmm..  I wonder if my brother and dad didn't know about that?  ?

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Bleedingyamato said:

Hmmm..  I wonder if my brother and dad didn't know about that?  ?

Another thing is that manufacturers don't have updates for their devices ready at the same time that Google releases a major update. They need to work in updates for their custom UI and firmware. Typically, manufacturers have their specific updates ready around a month after Google releases their update.

[AnonymousGuy]

2 hours ago, Suika said:

Having installed dozens of custom ROMs across multiple devices between two carriers, I don't understand how a major manufacturer would be unable to develop a functioning update while a small group or single user can develop a custom ROM or update and have it functioning perfectly.

 

All the carriers are doing is sticking bloatware on their products to maximize profit, such as AT&T's latest move to integrate DirecTV advertisements into the Galaxy S7.

 I've never seen a custom ROM "function perfectly"....ever.  I stopped giving a shit about custom roms when I realized I just want my phone to have all its features actually enabled and working properly instead of some half baked shit churned out by a douchey "dev" whose idea of product support is just saying "known issue" and never fixing anything.  Cause fuck me for wanting to have bluetooth and tethering working, right?

[Suika]

7 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

 I've never seen a custom ROM "function perfectly"....ever.  I stopped giving a shit about custom roms when I realized I just want my phone to have all its features actually enabled and working properly instead of some half baked shit churned out by a douchey "dev" whose idea of product support is just saying "known issue" and never fixing anything.  Cause fuck me for wanting to have bluetooth and tethering working, right?

It was in the older days of Android, when manufacturers rarely made their phones a stable version of Android at launch. Both my HTC Desire HD and LG Optimus G had stock inspired ROMs that functioned perfectly. Moving to the Nexus 5 shortly after, stock was always better than custom, except in the case of the OnePlus One. I don't like Cyanogenmod.

[Mr.Meerkat]

20 hours ago, michaelocarroll007 said:

Big problem in this pricing discussion is people that are comparing dont understand the size of america  it is 4,000km wide x 2,000km long roughly plus alaska which is huge aswell. 

 

UK 694 people per sq mile 

US 85 People per sq mile 

 

Lot easier to have coverage and speed with good pricing when you have 8 times the amount of people in the same area 

How about Scotland? 67.5 people per Sq mile and it still costs the same as England...

How about our Scottish Highlands with a 9.1 people per sq mile count? (ignoring the mediocre coverage of that certain carrier) The cost is still the same...  

 

15 hours ago, Mooshi said:

Seriously. The whole Murrica vs thing is dumb AF considering countries like Canada, a land that eclipses the Uk, has a LOWER population than California--1 state of 50.

3.41 versus 85...

You're right, it is an invalid argument  

[Real_PhillBert]

I have an "unlimited" data plan through Sprint, I just looked and I've used 2.26GB in the last 30 days. I probably dont even need my current unlimited plan lol.