Verizon to end grandfathered unlimited plans

[MaxPower]

http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/16/verizon-cfo-says-grandfathered-unlimited-plans-on-the-way-out/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+weblogsinc%2Fengadget+%28Engadget%29

 

 

If Sprint has a turbo button on LTE deployment, now might be a good time to push it.

[silverhawknike]

Sprint to end their early upgrade program on June 1st. Well, I researched it and it appeared that Sprint wont let their customers to upgrade their devices two weeks earlier before contract end date. oh well, fine with me lol

http://www.engadget....early-upgrades/

[alphnasx]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57435601-94/verizon-to-kill-unlimited-data-plans-for-existing-subscribers/

 

Verizon to kill unlimited data plans for existing subscribers

 

 

A Verizon exec said at an investor conference that the company is killing its unlimited data plan for "grandfathered" customers and will force existing and new customers to sign up for a new tiered "data-share" plan on its 4G LTE network.

[9erHater]

It would not be a complete surprise if AT&T were to follow Verizon's lead in this.

[ericdabbs]

It would not be a complete surprise if AT&T were to follow Verizon's lead in this.

 

Of course not. The CEO still has animosity towards the FCC for the failed Tmobile merger and even claimed that cell phone rates would go higher as a result. AT&T started the trend of tiered data and I wouldn't be surprised if they followed Verizon's lead since they gave them the idea. I just hope customers would be pissed and flock to Sprint and Tmobile.

[lynyrd65]

Well, I for one will be laughing my ass off when my friend (the one who uses VZ unlimited LTE and says Sprint sucks) begs his parents to switch to Sprint.

[ChadBroChillz]

ATT does not need to do this. they already limit unlimited data users. If you have a 3g/HSPA+ device, then you get throttled after 3gbs, and 5gbs for LTE devices.

 

I could see a good amount of disgruntled Verizon/ATT customers jumping to Sprint, especially if their LTE speeds are in the 6-8 range.

 

Cmon Sprint press the HyperTurbo button on LTE rollout.

[ericdabbs]

ATT does not need to do this. they already limit unlimited data users. If you have a 3g/HSPA+ device, then you get throttled after 3gbs, and 5gbs for LTE devices.

 

I could see a good amount of disgruntled Verizon/ATT customers jumping to Sprint, especially if their LTE speeds are in the 6-8 range.

 

Cmon Sprint press the HyperTurbo button on LTE rollout.

 

I believe Verizon says that they throtte its LTE customers at 5 GB since they would be considered the highest 5% of the data users. If this is already becoming a problem for Verizon then you know AT&T will follow suit. Hopefully someone can confirm the Verizon part..

[ChadBroChillz]

I believe Verizon says that they throtte its LTE customers at 5 GB since they would be considered the highest 5% of the data users. If this is already becoming a problem for Verizon then you know AT&T will follow suit. Hopefully someone can confirm the Verizon part..

 

I havent heard anything about verizon, but ATT is not following with this. Their plan to thottle the top 5% back fired real bad, since people were getting throttled after 2Gbs, so instead of doing top 5, they just switched it to 5gbs for lte and 3gbs for HSPA+.

 

http://9to5mac.com/2012/03/01/att-changes-its-throttling-techniques-3gb-for-hspa-iphone-5gb-for-lte-gets-you-on-the-naughty-list/

 

Link to the story.

[JeffDTD]

If they continue the double data promotion for lte, I think people will go for it. Theyre going to continue to sear into their customers mind, like no other carrier can, that their network and their lte are their only option for reliability. My mom (a technological dumbass) has a razr maxx. Sent her this story today. Her response? "If they try to take it away from me ill leave.." no, no mom, theyll take it when you upgrade"oh... well verizon has the coverage we need and we like it... we will stick with them"

[pyroscott]

 

I believe Verizon says that they throtte its LTE customers at 5 GB since they would be considered the highest 5% of the data users. If this is already becoming a problem for Verizon then you know AT&T will follow suit. Hopefully someone can confirm the Verizon part..

 

As far as I know, verizon only admitted to throttling 3G. I have been told that they throttle after 5gb of LTE by someone who has a grandfathered unlimited data plan.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[gangrene]

This announcement probably gives Sprint a decent impetus to speed up its LTE deployment, having several major markets online by the time Verizon makes this move at the end of June would be a smart strategic decision.

[9erHater]

One new tidbit I just read is that Verizon customers will have to move to the new tiered, shared data plan when they upgrade to a new subsidized device. Those who don't upgrade or upgrade without subsidy can keep their unlimited plans.

[gangrene]

One new tidbit I just read is that Verizon customers will have to move to the new tiered, shared data plan when they upgrade to a new subsidized device. Those who don't upgrade or upgrade without subsidy can keep their unlimited plans.

 

Allowing carriers to unilaterally change terms and impose rules like this has got to go.

[MacinJosh]

Allowing carriers to unilaterally change terms and impose rules like this has got to go.

 

That would be a good idea to stop the carriers from changing things, but it could also stifle competition in some ways. If the government stopped carriers from changing data plans, would there have been reason to build up their networks? The government would have to force the carriers to build better networks. And then you basically have "government controlled telecoms". That would be bad for sure.

[gangrene]

That would be a good idea to stop the carriers from changing things, but it could also stifle competition in some ways. If the government stopped carriers from changing data plans, would there have been reason to build up their networks? The government would have to force the carriers to build better networks. And then you basically have "government controlled telecoms". That would be bad for sure.

 

Service providers shouldn't be allowed to unilaterally change the terms of service and impose new conditions on long term, grandfathered subscribers, the terms of the service agreement should be binding for both parties.

 

Regulations that protect consumers don't hurt competition and wouldn't remove the incentive to invest in network infrastructure. What it would do is force the big carriers to offer new, compelling services and compete for new subscribers in order to increase revenue and not move in an oligopolistic lockstep that allows them to raise ARPU at the drop of a hat and avoid most meaningful forms of competition.

[MacinJosh]

Protecting consumers would just make the carriers bitter. Then you would have repeat of Ma Bell. After the 84 breakup, it took many years before the government allowed the Baby Bells to inter-merge with each other. It was protecting consumers while also hampering competition because their territories did not overlap much.

[gangrene]

Protecting consumers would just make the carriers bitter. Then you would have repeat of Ma Bell. After the 84 breakup, it took many years before the government allowed the Baby Bells to inter-merge with each other. It was protecting consumers while also hampering competition because their territories did not overlap much.

 

The wireline and wireless markets are inherently very different, none of the Ma Bell stuff is relevant here as long as further consolidation isn't allowed.The competitive model of the wireless industry is a lot closer to Airline industry, where carriers mirror the pricing, and policies of each other in order to avoid meaningful competition.

 

And corporations don't have emotions, they have a singular, legally mandated drive to make as much money for their investors as possible.Acting with any other motive, if you're the CEO of a public company is literally a crime.

 

Sprint keeps unlimited data because its advantageous to them considering their market position. Focusing on APRU isn't as appealing because they haven't reached a critical mass of subscribers like ATT and Verizon, Dan believes he can lure millions of customers from the AT&T and Verizon over the next couple of years if he retains unlimited data and favorable pricing, APRU is secondary compared to subscriber growth.

[lynyrd65]

 

That would be a good idea to stop the carriers from changing things, but it could also stifle competition in some ways. If the government stopped carriers from changing data plans, would there have been reason to build up their networks? The government would have to force the carriers to build better networks. And then you basically have "government controlled telecoms". That would be bad for sure.

Sprint has said they have reached a peak in pricing structure and won't raise prices for a long time. So, price increases don't necessarily mean new infrastructure (Sprint is staying put at pricing but full steam ahead on network building).

 

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk 2

[S4GRU]

I completely disagree. Grandfathering is just an incentive to keep you as a customer, it is not something contractually binding. When a company refuses to grandfather a perk, they are saying that they are willing to lose you as a customer. And customers should call companies on that and take their business elsewhere.

 

The only exception to this is during the initial contract period. Carriers should not be allowed to change in the middle of the contract. And Verizon is keeping to that. You only lose unlimited if you upgrade to a new subsidized device and sign a new contract. That new contract has new terms.

 

No carrier should be forced to keep the terms that you like forever. If you don't like the new terms, don't sign the new contract. Make your statements of unhappiness with the new terms by taking your business elsewhere.

 

In my opinion, making the government come in and trying to force companies to grandfather unlimited for life is an absurd notion. You aren't a victim. You are a consumer with choices. This highlights the importance of keeping competition alive and why we need more than two large carriers. If there was just ATT and Verizon, then you wouldn't have choices when changes are made.

 

Robert via Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[marioc21]

Sprint to end their early upgrade program on June 1st. Well, I researched it and it appeared that Sprint wont let their customers to upgrade their devices two weeks earlier before contract end date. oh well, fine with me lol

http://www.engadget....early-upgrades/

 

This has been a very misunderstood story. Sprint will let you upgrade starting at the 22 month mark. Additionally, if you're contract end date is toward the end of the month they will push you're upgrade period to the 1st day of month 22. So they will let you upgrade early. This 14 day thing seemed to be an additional perk that they offered to some customers where they gave them an additional 14 days before they hit the 22 month mark.

 

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

[ericdabbs]

This has been a very misunderstood story. Sprint will let you upgrade starting at the 22 month mark. Additionally, if you're contract end date is toward the end of the month they will push you're upgrade period to the 1st day of month 22. So they will let you upgrade early. This 14 day thing seemed to be an additional perk that they offered to some customers where they gave them an additional 14 days before they hit the 22 month mark.

 

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

 

You're correct. Sprint is not ending the 22 month or 20 month early upgrade. The 14 day thing is an additional perk which is not really a big deal.

[irev210]

If they continue the double data promotion for lte, I think people will go for it. Theyre going to continue to sear into their customers mind, like no other carrier can, that their network and their lte are their only option for reliability. My mom (a technological dumbass) has a razr maxx. Sent her this story today. Her response? "If they try to take it away from me ill leave.." no, no mom, theyll take it when you upgrade"oh... well verizon has the coverage we need and we like it... we will stick with them"

 

The moved to buckets of data is really interesting. This is a huge shift.

 

The point of moving to just a giant bucket of data is that carriers what you to use it, so they can generate revenue from it. Charging people for each connected device creates an incentive for customers not to use data.

 

Creating a "family" plan of data also removed liability. Any time you take a giant bucket of data and dump a bunch of devices into it, you are removing an indivduals desire to conserve their own data. Since it is a group of people, usage is MUCH more competitive. People feel like if they don't use it, someone else in the family will - plus, even if they do use it, who is to know?

 

The reason why carriers have been so hesitant to roll this out is because of overages. Overages are the biggest cause of voluntary churn (when customers voluntarily leave). If Verizon or AT&T screw this up, they will end up sending customers to Sprint and T-Mobile. Both Sprint and T-Mobile do not have data overages (yes, T-Mobile throttles).

 

If I was a betting person, I would say that a group of people inside Verizon have spent a LOT of time studying the potential impacts to churn for rolling this out. At the end of the day, the increase in churn was probably way more than offset by an increase in revenue from data usage, making the risk/reward a no brainer.

 

 

On a personal note - no carrier owes anyone anything. They can change the terms of the contract on you at any point. You can leave (if they change the terms under your contract they will have to wave the ETF) or live with the new terms. They typically don't because it leads to increased churn (higher costs). In the real world this happens ALL the time. The only reason why they grandfather people is to lower voluntary churn (for example, I am a Sprint Sero customer and I know if I leave sprint I can never get my old SERO plan back).

 

Let's face it. If Verizon told everyone - hey our new plans are $500/month for each phone and you can use 10MB data and you get 50 minutes of talk time... nobody would be on Verizon. Look at what they tried to do a few months back with a "billing" charge.... at the end of the day they decided the risk of losing more subscribers vs. the increased revenues wasn't worth the risk/reward.

 

It's just a numbers game - it's business, not a charity.

 

 

Jeff - if your mother ended up getting hit with $100 in data overages, she would probably start singing a different tune. That's one of the reasons Sprint's "avoid a data dilemma" commercials are (in my opinion) a huge success. When people get hit with overages and get ticked off at Verizon or AT&T, Sprint wants those customers to be EXTREMELY aware that if they switch to Sprint, they won't have overages (which in my opinion, they are doing a VERY good job of conveying that message).