Verizon CEO: “Eventually, Unlimited has to Go Away”

[geoff5093]

It's simple, do what T-Mobile is doing and simply throttle data use. After x amount of ultra high speed LTE-A it drops back to LTE, then after x amount of that to 3G, then 1x and so on. Not that it has to use those standards, just have a set throttle limit for each tier.

People hate risking going over to be surprised by a large bill, but are surprisingly content with dealing with slower speeds if they want to pay less.

[Downtown]

Some people refuse to let go of unlimited data. Verizon and ATT have both made it clear numerous times its not sustainable nor is it coming back. Some keep holding on for some odd reason.

At 49% gross margin, I don't exactly feel guilty for holding onto my unlimited.

[nikecar]

It's simple, do what T-Mobile is doing and simply throttle data use. After x amount of ultra high speed LTE-A it drops back to LTE, then after x amount of that to 3G, then 1x and so on. Not that it has to use those standards, just have a set throttle limit for each tier.

People hate risking going over to be surprised by a large bill, but are surprisingly content with dealing with slower speeds if they want to pay less.

I was looking at Tmo recently, and if you ahve the unlimited 4G plan, you aren't getting throttled.

[twbrn]

Is it really a money grab? Are you 100% positive on that?

Yes, it's a money grab. Sprint and T-Mobile have the same technical hurdles that Verizon and AT&T have, but manage to run their networks just fine with unlimited data. Verizon and AT&T are simply exploiting their market position.

[justalurker]

Yes, it's a money grab. Sprint and T-Mobile have the same technical hurdles that Verizon and AT&T have, but manage to run their networks just fine with unlimited data. Verizon and AT&T are simply exploiting their market position.

Sprint and T-Mobile have over 100 million lines each? That is news.

No, they don't have the same technical hurdles.

[Andy84094]

Sprint and T-Mobile have over 100 million lines each? That is news.

No, they don't have the same technical hurdles.

They don't, but generally Sprint and especially T-Mobile have a much denser network than VZW in urban areas. More cell sites = more capacity.

[whitetigergrowl]

Yes, it's a money grab. Sprint and T-Mobile have the same technical hurdles that Verizon and AT&T have, but manage to run their networks just fine with unlimited data. Verizon and AT&T are simply exploiting their market position.

Wait. So they both have over 100 million lines each AND a network that is comparable in size and speed to ATT and/or Verizon? And on top of that have 3G and 4G speeds that rival ATT and Verizon nationwide? I somehow missed that one.

As I recall last year Sprint even mentioned they are not sure how much longer they'll be able to do unlimited data.

As well, while both offer Unlimited data, it's only on their networks. Go off network with Tmobile and that unlimited data is shaved down to 50mb off network. So pray you never have to go anywhere that doesn't have native TMobile or Sprint. Which is quite a few places.

Say what you want about the big 2, but neither Tmobile or Sprint are anywhere near the size of Verizon or ATTs network or customer base.

With Att and Verizon there is no roaming off network. If you still have Unlimited data you can go crazy with no worry. Good luck doing that with Sprint or TMO off network especially.

Last I saw if you roam too much off Sprints network you can be kicked off them.

The list goes on. But even their unlimited data comes with caveats.

Sent with the HoFo App

[TC_Mits]

Haven't yet seen it mentioned that while data usage is rising rapidly, the incremental cost per bit to the carriers is dropping even faster. Also, so far, no one seems to have factored into his argument the fact that carriers never buy metered data. Backhaul, for example is provisioned from fixed capacity leased lines so that vzw pays the same for a given tower's data flow whether it's at 20% or 65% of its leased maximum. Further, it is well known and advertised within the industry that existing spectrum can be made to carry 1000 times its current data load – with current tech.

Those facts might modify the conclusions of some of the foregoing posts, perhaps and particularly some posts by justa, tchaika and wtg. There are, moreover, implications from those facts that seem to be getting short shrift here.

♪Where have all the lens caps gone? ♪

[twbrn]

Sprint and T-Mobile have over 100 million lines each? That is news.

No, they don't have the same technical hurdles.

You're right: Verizon and AT&T both have landline businesses as well as economies of scale that would make it EASIER and cheaper for them to run an unlimited data system than it is for Sprint and T-Mobile to do the same.

As well, while both offer Unlimited data, it's only on their networks. Go off network with Tmobile and that unlimited data is shaved down to 50mb off network. So pray you never have to go anywhere that doesn't have native TMobile or Sprint. Which is quite a few places.

Of course, which is the entire reason that Verizon and AT&T have such a free hand to squeeze the consumer. They got in on the 850 spectrum, built networks appropriate to it, and have been eating lunch off it ever since because neither of the others could build a national network using only 1900. It amounts to a duopoly, one that they exploit ruthlessly. As TC_Mits points out, there's no realistic bottleneck or opportunity cost for transferring extra data; the big two simply find it profitable to create managed scarcity, so that we're paying $50 a gigabyte instead of ten.

[justalurker]

Haven't yet seen it mentioned that while data usage is rising rapidly, the incremental cost per bit to the carriers is dropping even faster. Also, so far, no one seems to have factored into his argument the fact that carriers never buy metered data. Backhaul, for example is provisioned from fixed capacity leased lines so that vzw pays the same for a given tower's data flow whether it's at 20% or 65% of its leased maximum. Further, it is well known and advertised within the industry that existing spectrum can be made to carry 1000 times its current data load – with current tech.

Those facts might modify the conclusions of some of the foregoing posts, perhaps and particularly some posts by justa, tchaika and wtg. There are, moreover, implications from those facts that seem to be getting short shrift here.

Please provide an accurate source for every claim made in your post. Be detailed. Thanks.
(Offhand comments about "I've already posted that" or massive link lists that do not detail the claims made are not acceptable.)

You claim to have the facts. Provide them. Not FUD about court decisions (your usual rant). Not repeated claims. Facts.

[snarf7]

It has for vz and att. Sprint seems to be following

Sent with the HoFo App

[Guest 339]

Also, so far, no one seems to have factored into his argument the fact that carriers never buy metered data. Backhaul, for example is provisioned from fixed capacity leased lines so that vzw pays the same for a given tower's data flow whether it's at 20% or 65% of its leased maximum.

You don't seem to understand or acknowledge that backhaul is not the limiting factor. Cell sites have a finite capacity. The deployment of new ones to shrink cell size helps a great deal, but this solution doesn't have infinite scale either. It's limited by political, financial, and technological considerations.

Further, it is well known and advertised within the industry that existing spectrum can be made to carry 1000 times its current data load – with current tech.

1,000 times eh?

Those facts might modify the conclusions of some of the foregoing posts, perhaps and particularly some posts by justa, tchaika and wtg. There are, moreover, implications from those facts that seem to be getting short shrift here.

*shrug*, I'm the one who thinks unlimited data will come back in a decade or so, for the reasons I've already stated. It won't be at today's price point -- inflation is a ***** -- but as the networks mature there won't be much room left for the carriers to compete on anything but pricing.

[hwertz]

Wait. So they both have over 100 million lines each AND a network that is comparable in size and speed to ATT and/or Verizon? And on top of that have 3G and 4G speeds that rival ATT and Verizon nationwide? I somehow missed that one.

For talking about this being a cash grab or not, rural coverage (that VZW has while Sprint or T-Mo basically don't) is irrelevant. These sites will get light use compared to an urban site, so unlimited versus limited data won't impact these in terms of having to install capacity sites, or more channels and more equipment on each site. Of course with having this coverage I expect TOTAL price to be somewhat higher than Sprint or T-Mo, and it is.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using HowardForums

[bmtvaquero]

It's really rather foolish for any of us to pretend to know what the cellular industry/market will look like in ten, or even five, years. We can all speculate, but that's all we're doing.

How many cellphone photos were taken when the twin towers were attacked on 9/11? That's right, zero. Cellphones weren't equipped with cameras yet. That was just 12 years ago. At that time, how many of you would have envisioned being able to take high quality video and send it around the world to another cellphone to be viewed within minutes after the event?

So, enjoy the technology which is available today on the plans which exist and don't sweat the future. Pragmatists will look at present conditions and present technologies and say "this is not possible" or "this has it's limitations". Visionaries see the unlikely, then make it happen. The cellular industry has both types in plentiful supply.

[lonetree]

Last I saw if you roam too much off Sprints network you can be kicked off them.

This will happen on any network.