[deleted]
Let my Wi-Fi go: FCC rules Verizon can't charge for Wi-Fi tethering
41–50 of 146 posts
Re: Let my Wi-Fi go: FCC rules Verizon can't charge for Wi-Fi tethering
#42>> Telecom companies are government-granted monopolies. Why not acknowledge that it's already not a free market situation and cap the profit margin Why not remove the monopoly?
Re: Let my Wi-Fi go: FCC rules Verizon can't charge for Wi-Fi tethering
#43One small step for man...
The next would be to somehow abolish the per-device data fee structure. We have seven iOS devices. Only three are actively online. Even at that, when at home, office or near wifi cellular data does not get used much if a all. Still, we have to pay 3x the cellular data monthly fee, which is insanity. I do understand the technical and business issues here, but this cuts both ways: I know that we are not using these connections anywhere near capacity. And, I also know that ATT is double charging us because our DSL services (office and home) are with them...yet we don't get a discount when the iOS devices use the network for data as opposed to cellular. In other words, they get to charge us for something that we don't use or, seen another way, we pay twice for the same data capacity.
Not sure what the solution might look like, but today's plans are starting to smell bad.
Re: Let my Wi-Fi go: FCC rules Verizon can't charge for Wi-Fi tethering
#44This is the sort of price/service regulation that superficially appears beneficial to consumers... but might not be pro-consumer in its total effects. In particular, it could mean customers who would never use tethering wind up paying incrementally more, because all plans now include that capability, and Verizon still has sufficient pricing power make up the loss from tethering fees with other incremental fee increas…
Data prices are already set where Verizon anticipates them maximizing profit so raising them isn't going to "make up" for the money they are now out because they can't rip off a tiny minority of their customers anymore.
I don't see how that follows. There's a percentage of their customers -- let's hypothesize 10% -- who were willing to pay an extra $20 for tethering. Now that Verizon can't charge for tethering, it can still raise base rates in such a way that, as long as these customers aren't paying more than $20 more, these customers are unlikely to switch.
Further, there are some of the 90% of customers who valued tethering, but wouldn't pay $20 for it. They might tolerate a $5-$10 rise in base rates without switching. Then, there are others of the 90% who could also tolerate a $5-10 increase in base rates, and still others who would be lost at each level of increase.
The exact net effect will change based on how many customers fall into which ranges of price-tolerance behavior, but the fact that the base rates now provide an extra value, that some were willing to pay $20 for, strongly suggests some increase in base rates, greater than $0 and less than $20, would be the new profit-maximizing rate for Verizon. And thus everyone who doesn't want tethering at any price loses out.
Regulations which prevent differentiated pricing can often help the high-end customers -- in this case richer people with multiple devices -- by preventing their willingness-to-pay-more from subsidizing the overall service. They may not help the price-sensitive and more likely to be poor customers. Thus the cheering of this regulatory action on some boards (including here) should not be taken as a proof of net consumer benefit. Just that it benefits rich heavy-tethering users.
Re: Let my Wi-Fi go: FCC rules Verizon can't charge for Wi-Fi tethering
#45The most important reason why this is a no-brainer is because of the 700Mhz spectrum auction. The open device restriction (or lack of restrictions really) was a key provision that google pushed for. I'm sure some people are going to say the government is overstepping their authority, but in fact, they aren't. Verizon was overstepping their authority in this case. Everybody has google to thank for this.
Was this a separate deal from the one where Google and Verizon screwed over wireless net neutrality?
Re: Let my Wi-Fi go: FCC rules Verizon can't charge for Wi-Fi tethering
#46I'm on the fence on this one because it doesn't prevent going up on all data plans. Which will just increase Verizon's revenue and probably not cost them much. However, I'm not advocating price controls. But I know how to solve this. Someone needs to become the defacto wireless network that focuses on the network (reliability, bandwidth) and doesn't deal with consumers. Instead they resell to companies who deal with…
Has a Kickstarter campaign ever raised $4 billion? Because I suspect that's what it would take to begin building a network from scratch. There are resellers that focus on data, however...Clear is one. They aren't great (they share the Sprint Network, which is very bad in some places, and fair to middling in most), and they reportedly throttle some high usage customers (I've not run into this, though the times when I'…
I've had pretty good experience with Clear everywhere except Manhattan, where the service is horrible.
Re: Let my Wi-Fi go: FCC rules Verizon can't charge for Wi-Fi tethering
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
This analysis holds up to "unlimited" plans where "tethering" is really a (poor) proxy for "using a lot of data." But if you have usage-based pricing (which Verizon does), it doesn't matter whether that 4GB originates from an iPhone or a MBP. A packet is a packet and it costs the same to route. I suppose you could argue that Verizon incurs some additional support burden for tethering. I question whether or not this s…
Almost no business charges strictly by commodity packet, because it would be disastrous for their long-term future: their margins, their ability to learn from their customers, and their ability to dynamically improve over time. So any criticism of differentiated pricing based solely on the idea that "a packet is a packet and it costs the same to route" may be astute in the static, technical dimension -- but naive in…
The micro-optimization driven desires of businesses are irrelevant when evaluating the larger picture. Carriers that decommoditize best-effort communications to misappropriate others' value should be taken to court for fraudulently advertising "Internet" access, and the colors of radio waves they enjoy a government-granted "public interest" monopoly on should be put to better use.
Re: Let my Wi-Fi go: FCC rules Verizon can't charge for Wi-Fi tethering
#48but do we geta refund??? Doesn't look likely.
Re: Let my Wi-Fi go: FCC rules Verizon can't charge for Wi-Fi tethering
#49One small step for man... The next would be to somehow abolish the per-device data fee structure. We have seven iOS devices. Only three are actively online. Even at that, when at home, office or near wifi cellular data does not get used much if a all. Still, we have to pay 3x the cellular data monthly fee, which is insanity. I do understand the technical and business issues here, but this cuts both ways: I know that…
In theory they now have pooled data plans, but in reality they're not cheaper so you probably don't care. Also, I've heard that a 3G PDP context costs money, so seven devices using 5GB total does cost more than one device using 5GB, although probably not as much as they charge.
we don't get a discount when the iOS devices use [Wi-Fi] for data as opposed to cellular
Sure you do; that data doesn't eat into your cellular cap. Effectively cellular is ~$6/GB and DSL is <$1/GB.
Re: Let my Wi-Fi go: FCC rules Verizon can't charge for Wi-Fi tethering
#50>> Telecom companies are government-granted monopolies. Why not acknowledge that it's already not a free market situation and cap the profit margin Why not remove the monopoly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_management http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_allocation
My understanding is that the finite bandwidth of the spectrum puts a limit (for a given level of technology) on the total data capacity of the network, not on the number of service providers. Could we not have more providers for the same number of users by divvying the spectrum into more chunks? Instead, I think the number of providers is limited by the huge entry costs of building towers. It's the low marginal cost of operating these towers (compared to their build costs) which leads to monopolies.
I would love clarification.