Verizon: Verizon May Follow AT&T’s IPhone to Tiered Pricing

[kjk]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-update1-.html

Verizon Wireless, the largest U.S. mobile-phone carrier, may follow AT&T Inc. in introducing tiered pricing and eliminating unlimited data plans this year as it moves to its faster fourth-generation network technology.
“We will probably need to change the design of our pricing where it will not be totally unlimited, flat rate,” John Killian, chief financial officer of Verizon Communications Inc., the wireless unit’s parent, said in an interview at Bloomberg’s headquarters in New York today.

Just in time for a Verizon iPhone

[scottjl]

and one step closer to charging for every kb transferred..

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by scottjl

and one step closer to charging for every kb transferred..

... which is the fairest way to do it. That way, those who use the most, pay the most. At present, the light users are massively subsidising the heavy users.

[scottjl]

and their implementing this because carriers worry about charging people fairly, right? you do know what insane profit they make off of SMS messages don't you? do you really think they'll charge you fairly for transmitting your data?

[dmaul1114]

I don't mind tiered pricing--as long as the tiers are priced reasonably.

I've never considered a smarthphone as I'm just not on the go anywhere near enough to pay $30 for e-mail and internet on my phone--especially when I only pay $19.99 for my home internet!

If I could get a 250MB plan--which would be plenty for just checking e-mail, looking up directions etc. which is all I'd use a smartphone for--for $10 or so, I'd be much more likely to get one.

But as scott noted, it's highly unlikely it will ever be priced reasonably. So being near a computer probably 90-95% of my awake hours most days, I'll probably never get a smartphone.

[Bremen Cole]

No matter how they do it, or how they spin it, the customer is being screwed. I agree that the "right" tier plan would be the most fair. And I would gladly sign up for such a plan. But, like any company, wireless providers number one priority is to enhance their revenue stream. And often that goal is in conflict with "fair" pricing.....

[kjk]

Dave Burstein has an interesting point:

http://www.dslprime.com/a-wireless-c...-big-fat-liar-

Two of the best engineers in the U.S. tell me wireless congestion can be almost eliminated except at Katrina type emergencies with 5 and 10 gigabyte caps. Models from Adtran suggest 20-30 gig caps (or higher) are practical in the LTE generation. There's nothing wrong with caps if they are economically sensible. The problem is that AT&T placed the cap much too low.

[scottjl]

of course they placed it low, they get to charge outrageous rates when you go over!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by scottjl

and their implementing this because carriers worry about charging people fairly, right?

No; they're worried about running out of network capacity, as data traffic skyrockets with the growth of smartphones. And rightly so, too.

[scottjl]

so you believe they'll charge you fairly as data traffic skyrockets? lol. if at&t had been investing in their infrastructure for the past few years like they should have been, they wouldn't have the capacity issues they do now.

[Bremen Cole]

IMHO if they didn't have the infrastructure in place to support the iPhone/ and now iPad, then they should not have sold them. I know and understand the limits of networks, that's why you stay ahead of the market so you cand deliver what you promise.

At this point they are backed in a corner, but it is their fault their there.....and also IMHO Apples fault for not having a condition in their contract with AT&T so they could open other carriers in case something like this happened.....

[JSWolf]

The problem is Apple... It's all Apple's fault. if the iPhones/ipad were allowed on other networks as well, the AT&T congestion issue would not be an issue.

Then again, the USA is crap when it comes to cell phones. We have prices that are insanely high, plans that as limiting, companies that have their heads so far up their ass they can see out their nostrils, and what we get when we sign up for a cell plan is a joke.

The USA is so far behind it isn't even funny. A pay-as-you-go cell plan should NOT need to be topped up every month until you are close to running out of your minutes.

[Tamara]

Verizon used to do tiered pricing and then stopped. I figured they'd announce that they were going back to it.

[Bremen Cole]

Jon, I agree.....except to say it's ALL Apples fault is to me a bit harsh. As I said in the post above I do put some of the blame on Apple, but by no means all. I am sure Apple is screaming at AT&T now, but they should have thought of it when working up their agreement....

[Trubu]

Originally Posted by scottjl

of course they placed it low, they get to charge outrageous rates when you go over!

Actually, the overage charges aren't outrageous (or no more outrageous than the original pricing, at least). If you go over the 200MB limit on the lower tier plan, you get charged another $15 for an additional 200MB; on the higher tier, you get charged $10 for each additional GB. It's a much better deal if you're on the higher tier, obviously, but even the lower tier overage pricing is much preferable to the old per-Kb charges they used to bend customers over with.

I'm on wifi most of the time, as is my wife, so the new data plans will end up saving us $30 a month. I'm pretty happy - now if AT&T could just quit leaking my email address...