Will these tiered data plans be a stingy amount? I wont be surprised to see some measly 10GB plan for $45. I think when Verizon launches their LTE network that Clear should SLAM Verizon's stingy data plans and tout that they are *continuing* truly unlimited.

Its kinda hard to watch Hulu, Netflix, news clips, and porn on a measly 10GB a month.

You always have to add in porn don't you haha.

Yeah, well I'm single! I don't know what else to say.
Plus I'm more picky than most guys, I'm not into girls who are plastered with tattoos or piercings! I like decent attractive girls, and their hard to come by these days.

🤨 uh.. no we're not

No your not what?

Jay, I think she was hitting on you.

Ohhhh! 😁 Think so, huh?

🤣

I'm going to have to imagine you speaking with that bashful buzzard from the old Bugs Bunny cartoon's voice. Shucks!

See. That may be the problem. All American girls are probably flirting with you everyday and it is sailing over your head...just like her come on did.

agent99 said:
🤨 uh.. no we're not

In Las Vegas you are!

you like decent, attractive girls, but you'll jerk it to porn whores.

Isn't that an oxymoron?

I do what I gotta do to get by while I'm single.

Unless your wife is extraordinary things won't change once you get married and have a few kids running around. You'll be put on a weekly ration and find yourself back to old reliable.

Seriously. Dial down the judgment meter there bub. If you're not jerking it you are not human. Even married guys do it.

He is just being modest. Porn should be the first thing mentioned and it should be in CAPS.

I guess it is going to depend on the coverage area. If Verizon rolls out a coverage area that pimp slaps Clear/Sprint the same way their 3G coverage does then it will be Apples to Oranges.

I think local coverage is more important than national. How many people go from city to city to city? I live in Las Vegas, all I care about is coverage in Las Vegas, Henderson, and North Las Vegas. Maybe on occasion Boulder City (where the Hoover Damn is).
And I think a majority of customers out there care more about local coverage, within 30-50 miles of where they live.

Well, if local coverage is more important to you then no big deal. I need national coverage so that limits me to VZW or AT&T or one of their MVNO/re-sellers.

Jayshmay said:
Will these tiered data plans be a stingy amount? I wont be surprised to see some measly 10GB plan for $45. I think when Verizon launches their LTE network that Clear should SLAM Verizon's stingy data plans and tout that they are *continuing* truly unlimited.

Its kinda hard to watch Hulu, Netflix, news clips, and porn on a measly 10GB a month.

I just hope they take the T-mobile route of throttling data speeds after the allowance rather then ridiculous overage rates like the cellular modems.

If I burn through my GB allotment in three weeks, I'd still at least like to get 1X data service so my email will keep coming through for the rest of the month. I can live without youtube for a wee...
(continues)

WiMax is here now! 😎

No. Your plan wont change. You're always grandfathered on what you have until YOU change it.

Yep, you can count me in. I've used 7GB's 2 months in a row. Its really not that hard. I listen to radio, podcasts, watch some videos, it all adds up. There's a lot of people on Phone Scoop who seem to think 7GB's is a lot, but it really isn't.

It's nothing. If I had an Incredible I would blow up the device AND tether it. I am really thinking about pulling the trigger. Two hundred bones is a lot though.

It does matter what phone you have. With the same useage I can hit 4 GB on an Android and only 1.5 GB with a blackberry. I wouldn't be surprised if the
BIS has something to do with that.

The BIS is where it's at. Blackberry encryptions and compression make iPhone, Android and WinMo look more like Larry, Curly and Moe.

The Blackberry OS 6 webkit browser combined with tiered data pricing are what is going to bring RIM back into the consumer smartphone game.

It is going to be way less expensive (monthly) to own a Blackberry compared to anything else.

Even so, I'll probably still switch platforms to Android once I find one that I actually like.

Hmmm...99 from the old Get Smart sitcom.

3.5GB?! That's not high end! 🤣

Azeron said:
3.5GB?! That's not high end! 🤣

It is for a Blackberry. That'd be like using 10.5GB or so on an android device.

Either way, I'm definitely in the top % of heavy end users... maybe not the top 1%, but probably top 5% or top 10%.

I've used a little over 7gigs 2 months in a row. Podcasts, videos, its called using my smartphone people. 7gigs really isn't that much.

7 gigs is a quite a bit, dont kid yourself.

That is waaaaaaay above average for most smart phone users.

Three reasons I use my smartphone more than most.
1. I don't have cable tv
2. I don't have home internet.
3. I have an *extremely* boring job.

I listen to podcasts, internet radio, watch videos on the Newsy & FOX News apps. Those sorts of things use more data than regular web browsing.

Jayshmay said:
2. I don't have home internet.

Enjoy it while you can. It's guys like you that are breaking the single-price system.

Don't take it personally- I like you and your insights, but mobile data cannot replace landline services in areas where high-speed landline services already exist.

A lot of people are leaping for the mobile option when they do not truly need it, and complain about the prices and the speed while trying to do the same things they did on their stable landline connection. Landline is the way to go for %90+ percent of internet usage, I really only feel that the people who *need* the mobile data should have it.

Then companies should not require a data package at all. Can't have it both ways. You want my thirty bones a month, but I can't use what I am paying for?

Azeron said:
Then companies should not require a data package at all. Can't have it both ways. You want my thirty bones a month, but I can't use what I am paying for?

Hence "Pay-per-GB" pricing models.

It allows for lower minimum data package costs AND shifts the higher cost of service to heavier users.

It's just like driving a car. Travel more miles, pay more for gas- but your annual government registration fee is the same as your neighbor (who owns the same car).

Tiered pricing solves the problem.

Pay per use with no data requirement ALSO solves the problem. I could care less. My XV6900 is on a grandfathered plan. The same plan I had with my Q and I will have the same plan with my next upgrade (whenever that is). It is new customers who will sign up with tier pricing who I feel sorry for.

Azeron said:
Pay per use with no data requirement ALSO solves the problem.

That solution is only feasible in an unsubsidized marketplace. I wish that marketplace existed just as much as you do, but it doesn't.

We will just have to settle for reduced subsidy/reduced data charges.

I never said mobile internet is better. But from a budget point of view, I can't afford both home & mobile (at least right now).

I have thought about getting a blu-ray player with built-in wifi n and streaming Netflix, but that won't be til sometime next year. I have a blu-ray player now, but I got mine before Netflix became a feature.

There's nothing morally reprehensible about using cellular as your primary internet source. If that's what you want to do, go for it.

The problem is that excessively high users become an actual economic loss for the carriers. They need to at least find a way to make these super heavy users pay a break-even rate plan.

You will likely find yourself either:

a) giving up porn because it uses too much bandwidth and therefore costs too much

b)getting a landline internet connection because even though it's more expensive then what you're doing now, it will be way cheaper then true market-priced cellular data.

I suggest (a)....

Anyhow, as I said when AT&T tiered pricing first launched:

There is no way to find out w

...
(continues)

They're not losing any money. Not as long as they are raping customers charging an additional $20 or $30 per month for text packages which cost them nothing to provide. They are doing just fine.

Azeron said:
They're not losing any money. Not as long as they are raping customers charging an additional $20 or $30 per month for text packages which cost them nothing to provide. They are doing just fine.

Exactly. A full dynamic shift is needed with regard to data pricing. The fleecing of low to moderate users (SMS, web, email, ringtones, etc.) to subsidize heavy users needs to stop now, and those costs need to be shifted to the people actually consuming more of the services.

I think you and I have similar goals in mind, we're just expressing ourselves differently. HOW do you think the problem could be solved and the shift made?

According to att it is... with there 2gb cap for the larger data plan