o2 To Ditch Unlimited Data Tariffs

Krypton

New Member
Location
UK
So now they've got all the iPhone users by the short and curlies it's time to roll them over and pick their pockets some more ... :biggrin:

I expect a few people will be reviewing their smartphone usage on the back of this one !!! ?
 

marinyork

Resting in suspended Animation
Location
Logopolis
The problem was that before the unlimited data tariff, they tariffs compared very poorly with some other operators so they had to be seen to do something and now a lot of them will probably leave.
 

Shaun

Founder
Moderator
I've been toying with getting an iPhone as I find them really great fun and really easy to use (and they've got that Angry Birds game that is just sooooo addictive).

I just can't justify spending thirty quid a month on contract fees. I'm simply not a heavy mobile user; minutes or texts.

Do you think this will open-up the range of plans, or will it simply be a case of less bandwidth for the same money?

Cheers,
Shaun ;)
 

BearPear

Veteran
Location
God's Own County
I got an entry level 3g 8gb iPhone last month at tesco and I pay £20 per month for unlimited texts & data plus 250 mins. Also it is only a 12 month contract, rather than the 18 or 24 that others offer. I paid £220 for the phone.
 

Shaun

Founder
Moderator
BearPear said:
I got an entry level 3g 8gb iPhone last month at tesco and I pay £20 per month for unlimited texts & data plus 250 mins. Also it is only a 12 month contract, rather than the 18 or 24 that others offer. I paid £220 for the phone.
Cheers for that, I might have a look around ... ;)
 

vernon

Harder than Ronnie Pickering
Location
Meanwood, Leeds
The problem lies with the three percent of the users that account for thirty percent of the traffic.

It's a bit like the motorway system - who should pay to upgrade the motorway network to accommodate the burgeoning number of cars using it?

  • High usage motorists only
  • All motorists using the network
  • Only those who exceed a threshold mileage
  • All motorists even if they don't use the motorways
I have some sympathy with network providers. Large capital investment is needed just to keep up with demand never mind provide spare capacity. There is every chance that other network providers will reel in their unlimited contracts or introduce small print that introduces fair usage clauses.

I changed ISPs twice over their redefining of their unlimited bandwidth contracts.

I think that it is inevitable that there will be some shakeout with tarriffs for telephony/data and cable/data provision. We just might have unrealistic expectations of what we can expect for our tarriffs once the costs of the phones are deduducted there's not a lot of money to play with
 
The "unlimited data" has been a con for some time....

Look at the small print.

Here is a example



Paragraph 1:
Our Web Bolt On gives you unlimited browsing for just £7.50 a month. So if this sounds like the Bolt On for you, send a free text message with the keyword WEB to 21300, or call 2425 free of charge from your mobile. Then for all the surfing you can handle, keep your mobile topped up with enough monthly call time credit to pay for it.
The the last paragraph:


The O2 Web Bolt On can only be used for web browsing on your phone and a fair use policy applies. But if your usage exceeds that of other users, which is normally expected to be below 200MB a month, you'll be charged standard rates for additional browsing.
So unlimited is in fact 200 Mb
 

Dan B

Disengaged member
Most mobile operators already *do* have "fair use" policies on their unlimited(sic) tariffs - typically about 1GB or 3GB monthly. Fair play to O2 for not hiding the limits in the small print, but the limit is unimpressively low even so

Why is mobile data so much more expensive than fixed line anyway? I get 50GB/month for £25 on my home line and that's not even a particularly cheap adsl provider
 

marinyork

Resting in suspended Animation
Location
Logopolis
What coruskate said, although I'd take issue with the slightly simplistic stuff vernon has said as it's all been seen before with broadband (identical language, similar numbers, similar evasiveness) where companies running crippling restrictions were found out to be deliberately running things on wholly insufficient infrastructure (that was later upgraded).
 

vernon

Harder than Ronnie Pickering
Location
Meanwood, Leeds
The infrastructure has to be paid for the question remains: who should be expected to pay for the infrastructure:
Content providers?
Network providers?
End users?

Is it fair that the BBC releases iPlayer that has driven bandwidth demands upwards without contributing to the cost of accommodating it on the networks?
Should other high bandwidth content providers contribute to infrastructure costs?
 

redddraggon

Blondie
Location
North Wales
When my current iphone contract is up I'll probably be looking for a new network methinks. Looking at my usage, I seem to use around 500mb a month, I'm on my second iphone, got it two months and it's telling my in my settings I've downloaded 1GB.

I wouldn't say I was a heavy user, I watch a few videos on Youtube a week, use google maps, do a bit of internet surfing while in the lab, download a few apps now and again, go on Twitter, and all my email accounts are synced to the phone.

My Only worry with the soon to be imposed limits, is if I am away from Wifi and my computer I use to sync the phone with, I'm likely to use loads more bandwidth, as I'd be downloading podcasts and more youtube videos on 3G, leading me to be over my limit.
 
vernon said:
The infrastructure has to be paid for the question remains: who should be expected to pay for the infrastructure:
Content providers?
Network providers?
End users?

Is it fair that the BBC releases iPlayer that has driven bandwidth demands upwards without contributing to the cost of accommodating it on the networks?
Should other high bandwidth content providers contribute to infrastructure costs?

If an ISP finds that iPlayer puts high demands on their network upstream costs, they can easily do what Virgin did - work the beeb to host iplayer within their network so that all virgin users only download from their network and make no upstream demands. Must have saved them a fortune with just a little forward thinking.


As for O2, shrewd b*ggers who recognise the value of smartphone download rates as a money spinner. This will probably become more common, but will also mean that customers will start to look elsewhere...
 

marinyork

Resting in suspended Animation
Location
Logopolis
2Loose said:
If an ISP finds that iPlayer puts high demands on their network upstream costs, they can easily do what Virgin did - work the beeb to host iplayer within their network so that all virgin users only download from their network and make no upstream demands. Must have saved them a fortune with just a little forward thinking.
Wasn't a surprise, virgin were much more forward thinking than that - iPlayer was already on virgin long before iPlayer formally 'existed'.
 
Top Bottom