Verizon Charging You More, As Bandwidth Costs Them Less.

[#1]

Derek32880 wrote:

I don't fail to realize this  I know that T-Mobiles coverage is bad   However  what YOU fail to realize is that  the reason T-Mobile spends less on there network than Verizon does is cause  T-Mobile has over 60 MILLION less customers  than Verizon has.  Less customers = less money

Yes they have 60 million less because they don't bother to spend the money in areas like mine where they could actually get MORE customers which would bring in MORE revenue. People complain that Verizon doesn't value them as a customer. Well they value me A LOT more than T-mobile or Sprint that don't think we are good enough to even be a customer.

[#2]

Derek32880 wrote:

Here is some plans that I believe are reasonable.... yet would bring in money for Verizon (if they have you buy the phone at full price and allow a monthly payment plan).

$50 unlimited talk text and 10GB of Data (with this plan it's basically $3 a GB @ $30 for 10GB other plans would be $1 a GB extra except the $70 unlimited plan)

$55 unlimited talk text and 15GB of Data

$60 unlimited talk text and 20GB of Data

$65 unlimited talk text and 25GB of Data

$70 unlimited talk text and unlimited Data (same as T-Mobile)

Ok those don't even follow the Share Everything model which is what Verizon is moving too. So if you are going to come up with plans it should be within that framework. Verizon will up caps no doubt. As soon as they kill off unlimited and they have more spectrum deployed you'll see higher caps. Verizon is not going to do a Sprint and offer unlimited then have the nework be so congested as to be useless.

Also t-mobile doesn't have unlimited data. When are you guys going to get that?

[Derek32880]

Generic_Username wrote:

Derek32880 wrote:

Here is some plans that I believe are reasonable.... yet would bring in money for Verizon (if they have you buy the phone at full price and allow a monthly payment plan).

$50 unlimited talk text and 10GB of Data (with this plan it's basically $3 a GB @ $30 for 10GB other plans would be $1 a GB extra except the $70 unlimited plan)

$55 unlimited talk text and 15GB of Data

$60 unlimited talk text and 20GB of Data

$65 unlimited talk text and 25GB of Data

$70 unlimited talk text and unlimited Data (same as T-Mobile)

Ok those don't even follow the Share Everything model which is what Verizon is moving too. So if you are going to come up with plans it should be within that framework. Verizon will up caps no doubt. As soon as they kill off unlimited and they have more spectrum deployed you'll see higher caps. Verizon is not going to do a Sprint and offer unlimited then have the nework be so congested as to be useless.

Yea  I should have went with the family share plan route so every single person rather they have only 1 phone or not  can pay for a family plan rather they want too or not... THIS is the reason I came up with the plans I did.   I do NOT want a family share plan cause I don't share with a family  yet the 1GB plan is the cheapest plan they offer  which I find to be a real joke.

If the customers want a plan like this and want to share that data   then Verizon could offer a $30 add a line fee or something honestly for me personally (and i'm not saying this to be rude) I don't really care how they do it for family plans cause I'm not apart of one yet I pay for one.

Also t-mobile doesn't have unlimited data. When are you guys going to get that?

Apparently you don't keep up with wireless news as I do.  A few months ago they offered a truly  unlimited data plan but they did have other options that offered 2, 5, and 10GB I believe as well.   This $70 unlimited plan there coming out with is truly unlimited 4G data   IF  they say this and not offer it when someone signs up then they can get sued BIG TIME  for false advertisement. I really don't think they would risk that.

Yes they have 60 million less because they don't bother to spend the money in areas like mine where they could actually get MORE customers which would bring in MORE revenue. People complain that Verizon doesn't value them as a customer. Well they value me A LOT more than T-mobile or Sprint that don't think we are good enough to even be a customer.

It takes money to upgrade the networks and MOST money is going to AT&T and Verizon because they have more customers  like I said  more customers = more money. You don't see Leap Wireless/Cricket  upgrading 30 cities at one time either  cause they only have I believe it was something like 8 million customers.  T-Mobile is however expanding   they recently got in an agreement with Metro PCS to merge  which will bring them up to about 42 million customers.

This will help them out  a little bit because it will be bringing in more cash flow however they are still LESS than half  the customers  Verizon has  even if they were to agree to also merge with Leap Wireless/Cricket  they would still be under half of what Verizon has.  However they can expand a little bit faster than they currently are. 

And if you look at what I read a few weeks ago then even if they don't have coverage when ALL carriers are actually updating there 4G networks and going to voice over LTE at this time Verizon will be finnished and AT&T will be at least HALF done  and people will be able to get on ANY network they want and have 4G coverage everywhere  because they are shipping out an LTE super antenna that will pick up 12 LTE frequencies at one time.  They should be in newer phones THIS year.

[TexasRebel]

What I find conflicting is both Verizon and AT&T are reeling away from rolling out more copper and are claiming they are moving more towards wireless with LTE rollouts to reach the rural customers. If 700Mhz is their main spectrum they plan on doing this with, then by their own words they will oversubscribe on that spectrum, causing network congestion.

What other frequency band will they select next? Unless over the next several years they figure out newer ways to modulate the data to shrink the channels even tighter. Only thing I can guess is they use the existing cellular bands and convert those to use LTE and convert all the voice traffic to use VOIP.

The fact is regardless of how it all turns out, we all know that data consumption is going to grow exponentially and the datacaps are not about network congestion as several reports have indicated recently. The more bandwidth, the faster data can be downloaded and those heavy users can then go back to idling. Theoretically, if all cell towers are being fed with gigabit fiber, then congestion will likely never happen.

As a HomeFusion customer with the 30GB plan, there's no damn way that is enough data for my family and we're not even using NetFlix or any other movie streaming service. The department heads that come up with these low datacaps have to be laughing their a$$es off with implying that 30GB is enough for a family of 4 in a month's time for this service that is specifically marketed as a residential broadband product. They give us 30Mbps down and 20Mbps up and they actually think everyone should be able to fit within their data packages?!? It's seriously a bad joke.

Maybe that works for most smartphone users, but for a product they market as residential internet service, it does NOT work!!!

Both major carriers are making billions... I don't believe it costs billions to maintain their cell cites. Unless they are changing out burnt out hardware at every cell site because of poorly designed hardware. Who really knows. I know one thing and that whatever the published revenue figures are, you can bet that they have a second set of books that reports the actual take in cash. It's called the `Comprehensive Annual Financial Report' and it's something that the public doesn't know about. The billions that both AT&T and Verizon claim they made last quarter is a gross understatement. They made in most cases 3 times that stated amount. Don't believe me?? Go do some research on the CAFR. You will be shocked..

[#5]

TexasRebel wrote:

What I find conflicting is both Verizon and AT&T are reeling away from rolling out more copper and are claiming they are moving more towards wireless with LTE rollouts to reach the rural customers. If 700Mhz is their main spectrum they plan on doing this with, then by their own words they will oversubscribe on that spectrum, causing network congestion.

What other frequency band will they select next? Unless over the next several years they figure out newer ways to modulate the data to shrink the channels even tighter. Only thing I can guess is they use the existing cellular bands and convert those to use LTE and convert all the voice traffic to use VOIP.

The fact is regardless of how it all turns out, we all know that data consumption is going to grow exponentially and the datacaps are not about network congestion as several reports have indicated recently. The more bandwidth, the faster data can be downloaded and those heavy users can then go back to idling. Theoretically, if all cell towers are being fed with gigabit fiber, then congestion will likely never happen.

As a HomeFusion customer with the 30GB plan, there's no **** way that is enough data for my family and we're not even using NetFlix or any other movie streaming service. The department heads that come up with these low datacaps have to be laughing their a$$es off with implying that 30GB is enough for a family of 4 in a month's time for this service that is specifically marketed as a residential broadband product. They give us 30Mbps down and 20Mbps up and they actually think everyone should be able to fit within their data packages?!? It's seriously a bad joke.

A) Verizon will be rolling out LTE over 1700/2100 MHz later this year once the 700 MHz rollout is done. Expect the first devices that can handle these frequencies to be released within the next couple of months. One would assume both Verizon and at&t  will win some spectrum from the OTA TV auctions next year. This is in the 600 MHz range. Will probably be deployed around 2015/2016. Then Verizon has stated it will refarm it's 1X and 3G spectrum for LTE by 2021.

B) If you need more than 30 GB a month and you want to live in the boonies then you only choice is to get more than 1 service. having HomeFusion, Excede and Hughesnet provides you with 75 GB plus you have unlimited data with Excede from 12-5 AM and 20 bonus GB from Hughesnet 2 AM - 8 AM. Sure it cost nearly $400 a month but your other choice is to move where the real internet is.

[TexasRebel]

B) I'm definitely not signing up with a satellite based service since I've had both and both although were moderately fast, Exede more over than HNG4, neither one would provide me with enough data. Plus satellite latency is horrid when it comes to doing VPN, Remote Desktop, and VOIP. 

I could have 60GB with (2) HomeFusion accounts, but I'm betting that would result in VZW requiring me to have (2) HomeFusion routers and cantennas on my house. At $120 per account, plus the $6.99 monthly warranty, then the taxes and fees, that would probably result in around $270 a month. Or I could pay the outrageous amount of $10 per 1GB overage fee for the extra 30GB and pay $300 plus the $145 I'm paying now and have a bill at nearly $450 a month. That's totally absurd!! That's more than what I pay for electricity to my house per month or what I spend on putting fuel in my car a month.

*sigh*

monetizing data usage should be outlawed and punished by making the ISPs pay huge fines for purposely coming up with ways to screw customers out of money. it's about as ridiculous as charging people to breathe.

[#7]

I just notice you can get up to 50 GB with Share Everything. It's $375 a month plus the device charge. So for a mi-fi or USB dongle that's $20.

Once again unlimited data is impossible at this point. You are just going to have to wait. No need for the government to dictate how much bandwidth is appropriate. What do they know about it anyway. Most Congresspeople are technicalogically illiterate. How would they know the appropriate amount of bandwidth. Not to mention that number would need to be adjusted often due to technological changes.

[rcschnoor]

Unfortunately, it is EXTREMELY not economical to put a Home Fusion device on a Share Everything plan. On a Home Fusion stand alone plan, you can get 30 GB for $120.

It seems to be kind of crazy to put the Home Fusion device on a Share Everything plan just to get 50 GB. That is more than triple the price for not even double the data. Who is going to do that?

[#9]

did I say to do that?

HomeFusion 30 GB $120, Share Everything mi-fi plan 50 GB $ 355. Now you have 80 GB. Expensive sure, but that's the price you pay for living in the boonies in America. Not fair but that's the way it is an will be for a long time.

[TexasRebel]

How about stop dogging on people that live out in the country and stop bleeting about network congestion because that's not why they have data caps. That's already been proven to be false with multiple articles stating the fact that it's just about monetizing data usage. If VZW or AT&T really wish to show concern about network congestion then they've got multiple billions to fix it with laying fiber to the towers. Better yet they can sell their LTE with different speed tiers. Not everyone that is using LTE is needing the full 30+Mbps down and 20Mbps up. If 95% of the people are using the connection to read email and do web surfing on their phones then speed cap them to 5Mbps down and 1Mbps up. That's more than enough bandwidth. Those of us that need the sheer burst in bandwidth to download videos, or ISOs, etc. Then give them that speed at a higher price so they can get what they need fast and then go idle when their done. Speed tiers on wireless would work better on the pseudo network congestion you keep referring about.

HomeFusion subscribers shouldn't have to deal with data caps. I can guarantee that there's not enough of us out here to eat up all the available bandwidth. We're a fringe group of users. Not too many country folk are crazy enough as myself to spend $145 a month for a internet connection.