Unlocking a phone... Verizon refused

[#1]

sirguy wrote:

5% using 50% of the data. Doesn't matter if it was ONE user.  A small % using the majority of data is an issue.

It's like this. Say you have 100 people and 100 cookies. 5 people take 50 cookies and the other 95 have to share the other 50 cookies. or .53 cookies each. That is an issue. Especially when those 5 are paying the same price for their cookies as the other 95%. Now you stop those 5% from being greedy then everyone gets 2 cookies each. Or the 95% get nearly 4 times the amount of cookies.

Actually the difference is not everyone on unlimited uses more than what unlimited means. You see folks like myself use kilobytes or megabytes not gigabytes. Yet Unlimited means just that unlimited. But I don't use my phones or tablets for always on use like my broadband at Road Runner. Unlimited was not meant to be used as a replacement for that.

That is abuse. But is it if you use unlimited? Look at how people think.

You see Verizon by not cutting off the data limits at the set amount know that it generates large revenue streams.

Verizon is stating and the government has rebuked the line that going to shared or metered data is conserving data for others when it is a falsehood that unlimited is unsustainable at $30 but data at 2 GB at $30 is.

Now even if customers are being more careful it does not mean that the data be it on the unlimited or metered plans are not subject to congestion. Because it costs more per gigabyte does not mean those on metered plans don't use as much as they like. The difference is the price.

When unlimited was started Verizon did not have that many customers using the data, it was a gotcha to generate customer and revenue base. Yep Sprint & T-Mobile are now doing the same. It is a ploy to generate more customers.

I have posted links over and over that show, not my pulling the facts out of the air that it is sustainable. In your case if Verizon Wireless said starting Friday all plans are now eligible for Unlimited data at $50 how many folks will jump all over it?  You will in a heart beat. Oh and not shared but per line. In the world of technology when something is made better and better the prices come down. The claim of blame the unlimited data users is totally incorrect.

Find any paper, any online link by a reputable organization that shares that fact about unlimited users, you cannot and won't.

Its is a marketing tool for the foolish. You don't pay more for less. Unlimited is $30 versus 2GB at $30 you get less in this case and are paying the same. However just using what you say is on your plan 6 GB at (excuse me I don't know the price), but say $60 again you are paying more for less at Unlimited at $30 versus $60 for 6 GB.

If you have 100 people and 95% of them use 10 GB and the other 5% even though they can use as much as want only use 2-3 GB then now who are the data hogs? The only difference is in the pricing.

Good Luck

[Tidbits]

IT isn't sustainable. How is it that those experts that spewed now random spew the other way in less than a year.  They haven't shown what has changed, and what they show is theory.  What they don't say the technology hasn't caught up.  They compare networks that are 1/1000 the size of the US networks, and have people capacity 1/10000000 of the US...  That doesn't SCALE well. 

All these experts have NEVER worked in a large based network in their lives!  That's like trying to learn business from someone who graduated from college with no real world experience.

Why do you think Google is look at compressing data to lower internet usage?  They run one of the largest databases in the world...  It would be in their best interest if they pushed for unlimited internet from all ISPs.  Why don't they?  because even they themselves know it isn't sustainable.

[#3]

I think we went through this before. Didn't we?

The US Government and the MIT sites I posted and I know you looked at but could not counter were just a few of the agencies that said the "Chicken Little Theory" was perpetrated by the carriers.

It is sort of like the initial unlimited data scheme. It was sustainable to offer it, it was sustainable to grandfather it in.

Now with more users and the fact is more people stopped using calls and texts so as the US Government stated the Cellular companies had to find a new revenue stream. That new big money maker is DATA.

I have nothing against making money. However don't stand in a room a spout off what was sustainable at $30 is now not sustainable at $30 for less data.

If for example Verizon said like I posted above unlimited is now $50 per line. The customers would jump on it. Lets go the other way. Say Verizon said starting Monday every unlimited data user will be billed $50 instead of $30 again its the money. It has nothing to do with sustaining anything. Or with 30 days notice to those unlimited users.

There is much more behind the scenes that I and others will ever know.

Good Luck

[Tidbits]

MIT really? Just 2 years prior MIT was the ones that reported otherwise... Sorry it's nothing but click bait. I run a large network and I speak from EXPERIENCE. I have no vested interest in outside networks. Unlimited wirelessly is unsustainable. It only looks sustainable because the smaller networks don't require as much. Show me experts who have built and maintain networks the size of the US or larger. Not one that deals with a small state in a CONTROLLED environment and is funded rather than run on it's own profits and merits.

[#5]

Tidbits wrote:

MIT really? Just 2 years prior MIT was the ones that reported otherwise... Sorry it's nothing but click bait. I run a large network and I speak from EXPERIENCE. I have no vested interest in outside networks. Unlimited wirelessly is unsustainable. It only looks sustainable because the smaller networks don't require as much. Show me experts who have built and maintain networks the size of the US or larger. Not one that deals with a small state in a CONTROLLED environment and is funded rather than run on it's own profits and merits.

Again as we discussed before MIT and the Federal Government are saying as well as other learned organizations which also have no vested interest are saying it is sustainable. Yes I am going to assume they are future projecting and the newer technology will solve all. But it is a guess.

Additionally I believe I just read that Europe has faster speeds and higher capacity and that the United States is not even up to par with them. I wish I could remember what the site was. But it should be Google grabbed.

Again we can disagree, that is your right in this country. I will wait and see how the debacle of unlimited data progresses

[Tidbits]

Dude they have VESTED interest...

Like I told you before... The portion of the NETWORK I RUN FOR THE USM spent 18M in overages! That doesn't include what we paid overseas... If it would lower their bills of course you would say something right? MIT too... I know how much University of Hawaii spends and it wouldn't surprise me if MIT doesn't spend more.

Seriously. I don't care how much the USM spends. It's their choice and often I tell them things to help reduce usages, but I don't make that choice...

[Tidbits]

Like I said too... Europe is SMALLER and has a whole lot less number of people. Their costs are cheaper and their networks are heavily subsidized and majority owned by the government. That's why their taxes are so high. In Germany alone you can pay up to 55% in taxes. Yes I worked there and lived there.

[#8]

Elector wrote:

I have posted links over and over that show, not my pulling the facts out of the air that it is sustainable. In your case if Verizon Wireless said starting Friday all plans are now eligible for Unlimited data at $50 how many folks will jump all over it?  You will in a heart beat. Oh and not shared but per line. In the world of technology when something is made better and better the prices come down. The claim of blame the unlimited data users is totally incorrect.

Find any paper, any online link by a reputable organization that shares that fact about unlimited users, you cannot and won't.

Its is a marketing tool for the foolish. You don't pay more for less. Unlimited is $30 versus 2GB at $30 you get less in this case and are paying the same. However just using what you say is on your plan 6 GB at (excuse me I don't know the price), but say $60 again you are paying more for less at Unlimited at $30 versus $60 for 6 GB.

If you have 100 people and 95% of them use 10 GB and the other 5% even though they can use as much as want only use 2-3 GB then now who are the data hogs? The only difference is in the pricing.

Good Luck

Honestly I wish this site had an ignore feature. I'm tired of trying to explain things nicely to you then you choose to argue. math shows it's not sustainable.

Show me how a tower sector that can only support 150 Mbps can have hundreds of people all trying to watch Netflix at 5 Mbps. Basic math shows you it can't.

[#9]

sirguy wrote:

Honestly I wish this site had an ignore feature. I'm tired of trying to explain things nicely to you then you choose to argue. math shows it's not sustainable.

Show me how a tower sector that can only support 150 Mbps can have hundreds of people all trying to watch Netflix at 5 Mbps. Basic math shows you it can't.

First if you want to ignore then don't post.Or read any post by me. It really is that simple.

You don't know what you are talking about and as I said before POST PROOF not your crystal ball logic.

You see I back up my statements. it does a disservice for you to post the same inaccurate information. And that tower issue has been debunked before. Towers at peak times handle thousands of or hundred of thousands of connections and it is not really an issue. Data is cellular. So lets say I have unlimited talk and I talk and 100 thousand people talk at the same time well golly it is not sustainable? It is sustainable.

Please save yourself and me the issue of having to correct you. I enjoy some of your answers but you really don't know what you are talking about in certain cases. Like I said please post proof. I see your posts but I don't see your proof.

Go out on the net, and get the proof to back up your statements. I post links when ever I can.

You have a nice evening.

[#10]

Tidbits wrote:

Like I said too... Europe is SMALLER and has a whole lot less number of people. Their costs are cheaper and their networks are heavily subsidized and majority owned by the government. That's why their taxes are so high. In Germany alone you can pay up to 55% in taxes. Yes I worked there and lived there.

Yes we discussed this before. I don't say you are wrong. However I was pointing out the aspect of just where we here in the USA are technology wise. I believe I read recently that the UK has no issues with cellular. Yep it is less people. But if they can do it we can do it. You are spot on with your reply.