"The usage based pricing models best serve the needs of the majority of our customers"

[Vance]

"The usage based pricing models best serve the needs of the majority of our customers"

That is on the newest leaked document being given to Verizon reps to help them sell the new plan to customers. The idea that this change 'best serves" the needs of the customers is really just BS.

The bottom line is that no existing customer can possibly save money by switching to the new plan, since the lowest smartphone data plan is the same price as the current unlimited plan!

The justification I have heard these carriers give for a tiered plan is that the heavy users and the light users are paying the same amount, which is not fair to the lighter users. They could be paying less if the heavier users were paying more, etc. And this would work if the lighter users were actually given a lower price than they are currently paying while the heavier users paid more than currently. But they are not giving the lighter users a break on price at all.

So, how is that "best serving the needs" of their customers? How does ANY customer benefit from this new plan?

 

[nickhimself]

When reading nearly any corporate document from nearly any company, you can change "best serving the needs of our customers" to "makes us more money" and be correct 100% of the time.

"The usage based pricing models makes us more money"

 

[Vance]

Sad, but true.

They also have indicated that it will be better to get folks onto the tiered plans in order to encourage them to use wifi more often, thus taking some of the load off of their new network. But, they give us no incentive to switch to the new plan.

 

[Nor*Cal]

I totally agree Vance, it's really insulting for them to feed this crap to us customers. I don't get how they can even write such a false statement. Crazy.

 

[nickhimself]

There's rarely ever real incentive to move onto a new plan. Verizon hasn't developed a new voice plan with better pricing in the longest time. Their best release was the unlimited data smart phone $30 which was really just an offering to pull people away from AT&T when they first had access to the iPhone before anyone else.

Now that AT&T is basically releasing worse plans and implementing data caps there's little incentive for other companies to offer unlimited anything. Don't offer your customers incentive until your revenue depends on it.

 

[Yeahha]

You must remember the average user will not be affected by these plans. There was a news story recently showing the average data use for the major brands of smartphone, Android was the top use per month but the average user is still less than half a GB monthly. Forums like these are going to attract those of us who are more apt to use more data, so a large portion of posters here saying I use more than that does not mean most VZW customers will be adversly affected by tiered data.

 

[Vance]

I agree that right now it won't effect many people, my wife and daughter only average around 800 MB a month. But with 4G growing, and Netflix coming, more streaming music, etc, I can see them blowing through 2GB pretty quickly. I am old, I remember when 256 mb of storage on a desktop was huge!!! :0)

My point really is that this move is not one to benefit the consumer, but they want to spin it that way.

 

[Devildadeo]

I agree that right now it won't effect many people, my wife and daughter only average around 800 MB a month. But with 4G growing, and Netflix coming, more streaming music, etc, I can see them blowing through 2GB pretty quickly. I am old, I remember when 256 mb of storage on a desktop was huge!!!

And this is what's important, you will soon see better front facing cameras and hi-def or even 3d video chat. Besides, with LTE running around 15mbps it only takes about 18 mins to download a 2gb file. That's data @ $1.66 per min. To me, that's too pricey. Also, the overages are cheaper @ 10 per GB that the initial 2 for 30. I don't get it.

 

[jcnyc]

This is complete horseshit. This in no means serves the majority BETTER, its not like the average user will be better off paying the same amount for less data that they wouldnt use anyway. At least make it cost less to all of a suddenly ut the data limit. Its times like this that i actually want a group like anonymous to put a "no its not better for tge majority if your customers" sign on verizons site

 

[Yeahha]

This is complete horseshit. This in no means serves the majority BETTER, its not like the average user will be better off paying the same amount for less data that they wouldnt use anyway. At least make it cost less to all of a suddenly ut the data limit. Its times like this that i actually want a group like anonymous to put a "no its not better for tge majority if your customers" sign on verizons site

No if the majority of users use less than 2GB monthly they will not see a difference in pricing but they may notice improvement with less network congestion, so they would benefit from the tiered data. The heavy users would have to think twice if they really want to download that 500Mb file over the network or if it can wait a few hours til they have wifi access.
You pay to play their game if you don't like the rules, which are always subject to change, show them by taking your money elsewhere.

 

[nickhimself]

No if the majority of users use less than 2GB monthly they will not see a difference in pricing but they may notice improvement with less network congestion, so they would benefit from the tiered data. The heavy users would have to think twice if they really want to download that 500Mb file over the network or if it can wait a few hours til they have wifi access.
You pay to play their game if you don't like the rules, which are always subject to change, show them by taking your money elsewhere.

The problem with this is the lower tiered plans aren't cheaper than our current unlimited plan. You'd think with tiered pricing, the lowest allowed transfer per month would also be cheaper than what is currently being offered, not equally priced.

There is no amount of back-and-forth that can happen to make 2gb transfer @ $29.99 seem equally as fair as unlimited @ $29.99.

If 2gb were, say, $14.99 per month then it would be a different story.

 

[Vance]

No if the majority of users use less than 2GB monthly they will not see a difference in pricing but they may notice improvement with less network congestion, so they would benefit from the tiered data. The heavy users would have to think twice if they really want to download that 500Mb file over the network or if it can wait a few hours til they have wifi access.
You pay to play their game if you don't like the rules, which are always subject to change, show them by taking your money elsewhere.

That is only an argument for the value of tiered pricing, which I agree with. But the argument that the majority of users would be better off due to less congestion doesn't fly. First, they are expanding their networks all the time and they can handle it. Second, the average users WILL be negatively impacted when the average data USE goes up due to streaming services like Netflix, Google Music, etc. Those who only use 1 GB a month now will very soon be using 5GB and find themselves paying a lot more or doing a lot less than they want to.

So, the low end user, which should be paying no more than they are now, will be paying more, or feel more restricted. Not good. And definitely not "better" for them.

 

[Sailing_Nut]

I'm with everyone that not offering a "budget" plan is a benefit to exactly 0 consumers! The whole "releiving congestion" argument is crap. LTE has enough bandwidth that even high users will not be able to "seal" enough to affect others in a significant way.

I'm probably a minority with this next statement, but this tiered plan is going to cause Verizon to make less money from my family. My wife has an old WinMo phone that she used for her calendar & contacts. She likes it because it will sync with her PC. We were considering going with a new phone for her on the lowest tier plan because she doesn't use any data. we were really going to just pay the monthly premium because she needs to get on a newer phone. But, there is no way she will be willing to pay $30 a month just to have a new phone. So, they will not get the handset sale or any increased revenue from us. (I know I'm just one person, but I'm a pissed off person and wanted to vent!)

 

[mdeblaz]

I consider myself a light user. On my Droid Eris, I used no more than 300 MB per month... and that was pushing it. But ever since I switched the TB, I can go over 2GB per month easily when on 4G. And I wouldn't say I'm using the phone any differently - not streaming movies, or anything that is data intensive. My background syncs are either turned off or minimized to once a day other than Google. I'm on WiFi while at home... and when I'm at work, I'm not on the phone that much.

I turned off 4G for the past month, and my data usage went down significantly - just over 1GB. So I do strongly believe that 4G uses more data than 3G does. On what? No idea... there's no explanation.

It would make sense - to me at least - for there to be a WiFi only phone. No 3G/4G service, but WiFi capable and have cell service. For example - give the iPod Touch cell service and there you go.

The carriers would never do this...

 

[Yeahha]

That is only an argument for the value of tiered pricing, which I agree with. But the argument that the majority of users would be better off due to less congestion doesn't fly. First, they are expanding their networks all the time and they can handle it. Second, the average users WILL be negatively impacted when the average data USE goes up due to streaming services like Netflix, Google Music, etc. Those who only use 1 GB a month now will very soon be using 5GB and find themselves paying a lot more or doing a lot less than they want to.

So, the low end user, which should be paying no more than they are now, will be paying more, or feel more restricted. Not good. And definitely not "better" for them.

The network congestion would not be an issue if data use was not expanding. While yes VZW is working to expand it's network the amount of people switching from feature phone plans using little or no data to a smartphone plan and using data for the first time is also growing. With the wave the iPhone brought to VZW along with the Droid line of phones the consumer data use is expanding faster than the network can and becoming more expensive for VZW. I have lived near an ampitheater and when there was a concert my service would die due to congestion, this was just 3G. The tiered data policies will hamper streaming services like google music and netflix, yeah it may be free or cheap for the service itself but when you include having to pay for the data use that $7 netflix subscription on your phone is going to cost you alot more than face value.

 

[Vance]

I believe Verizon will stay ahead of the curve on their network, but that is not really the issue. The point is their pricing policy. They are saying that the new tiered plan will benefit most of their customers, which implies that most of their customers will actually pay less on the new plan than the old plan. And that is simply not true.

And, really, they are not raising the cost in order to lower the total usage of their bandwidth. They know that people will generally continue to use their phones the same way, which will mean higher and higher data usage as features grow, and they will end up paying the price. To them. So, they jack up the price to maximize this profit, and then spin it to sound like they are doing most of their customers a favor.

 

[Yeahha]

Nielsen Data Shows Android Users Still the Most Hungry For Data

Most recent published #s I have seen for monthly data use on smartphones. The average android user uses 582 MB monthly. The way averages work VZW will have the same percentage of average users as other carriers. So at least half of users would be around the 582 MB mark, that is just for android if you also factor in the other brands the average will be much less. Now there would be a bell curve where the higher MB per month you look at the amount of users affected will drop quickly. Those of you saying that most people will need more than 2 GB a month are just wrong, most users will pay for 2GB each month and not need to ever worry about hitting their limit, given many of these users could get just as much function out of a feature phone and pay less for service. Now most the users on here do not fit in the average user catagory, but most of VZW's customers are not here.

 

[WizeGuyDezignz]

I'm gonna start a physical altercation with a service rep at my local Verizon store to see if I can get my data cheaper than $29.99 per month unlimited. I will let you all know how it goes.

 

[Yeahha]

I pay 9.99 monthly for data. I've actually got 2 lines and only use 1 because it would cost me more if I dropped the second line

 

[vzwuser76]

Nielsen Data Shows Android Users Still the Most Hungry For Data

Most recent published #s I have seen for monthly data use on smartphones. The average android user uses 582 MB monthly. The way averages work VZW will have the same percentage of average users as other carriers. So at least half of users would be around the 582 MB mark, that is just for android if you also factor in the other brands the average will be much less. Now there would be a bell curve where the higher MB per month you look at the amount of users affected will drop quickly. Those of you saying that most people will need more than 2 GB a month are just wrong, most users will pay for 2GB each month and not need to ever worry about hitting their limit, given many of these users could get just as much function out of a feature phone and pay less for service. Now most the users on here do not fit in the average user catagory, but most of VZW's customers are not here.

Look, now matter how much people use, the switch to tiered data will not save customers money like Verizon is implying. Someone stated this before "how does paying $30 for 2GB of data work out better for the consumer than $30 for unlimited". Monetarily it doesn't.

The argument then comes up that people will think twice about using Verizon's data pipeline with tiered data in place. OK, say the power users decide to use the 3G/4G and pays for it. Verizon gets more money & the networks are as congested as if we had unlimited data. Who benefits there?

Verizon isn't helping the matter either. In one breath they announce they are capping data. Then in the other they flood the airwaves with "Look what you can do with your phone. Netflix, Pandora, video chat, etc. etc." How long will it be before they start offering a month trial of these services to get you hooked like they did with Mobile Hotspot when the LTE phones were introduced?

What about when they switch to LTE for everything? The LG Revolution is the first phone VOLTE (Voice Over LTE) capable. I remember reading that they want to go to only LTE shortly after they finish rolling out the LTE network (2013). I looked up the particulars on VOIP (Voice Over IP) the other night. A 1 hour call uses about 90-100mB. So if you make about 10 hours of calls over the month, you've used roughly 1GB of your data alotment.

As far as your earlier comment, going somewhere else or voting with your wallet is almost impossible now, let alone in the future. I'd bet money that the AT&T/ T-Mobile merger will go through (I still don't understand how the merger will allow AT&T to better serve remote & rural areas when T-Mobile is only in the major Metros). Sprint will be trailing a DISTANT third to VZW & AT&T-Mob. and will have a hard time offering unlimited servies & competing. So then you have the prepaid brigade, most of which either run on or are owned by the major carriers.

I will hold on until they want to move me to a tiered data plan (if Verizon knows how to do anything it's to be able to get customers off of services that cost them money). After that it will be either no cell at all or a prepaid emergency phone.

Sorry if I sound like a glass half empty kinda guy, but looking at what Verizon has done in 2011, I can't remain optimistic. It's kinda funny, all of the previous changes this year (no NE2, 1 year contracts, or annual upgrades) were made because Verizon said they wanted to make things less confusing for the consumer. How does having to try to determine the lowest cost data package while making sure you don't go over make it less confusing for the customer?

In my opinion, tiered data plans/ possibility of overages combined with the current economic situation may be what halts or slows the smartphone explosion going on now.

 

[jcnyc]

It will be forever blasphemy once we go to a tiered model for Verizon to promote ANYTHING involving streaming. Why the F would I want to stream netflix when I'll hit my montly cap in a few hours? Switch to wifi? Why the hell would I want to use wifi to watch netflix on my PHONE when I have a large computer monitor and a larger LED TV with Xbox streaming? What the hell's the point of streaming anthing when you pretty much have to go to wifi?

But I suppose there's no reason to complain about anything, it is all inevitable that we will be taking the shaft sooner or later.

 

[Yeahha]

It will be forever blasphemy once we go to a tiered model for Verizon to promote ANYTHING involving streaming. Why the F would I want to stream netflix when I'll hit my montly cap in a few hours? Switch to wifi? Why the hell would I want to use wifi to watch netflix on my PHONE when I have a large computer monitor and a larger LED TV with Xbox streaming? What the hell's the point of streaming anthing when you pretty much have to go to wifi?

But I suppose there's no reason to complain about anything, it is all inevitable that we will be taking the shaft sooner or later.

VZW would love you to get a tiered data plan and stream non-stop.