Should Bad 3G Be More Accessible?

from the fine-line... dept

Recently, we noted that early reviews of various 3G services were noting that, just like almost every other wireless technology, it didn't really live up to the hype. Here's yet another story saying that 3G services really aren't as good as everyone had hyped -- which shouldn't come as much of a surprise to anyone following the wireless industry. However, this newer article then goes on to recommend that the prices of 3G services be made much, much cheaper. While it is true that the pricing on most 3G services these days is positively ridiculous, this brings to mind the old joke about people complaining about a restaurant that serves terrible soup... in such small portions. If the service isn't that good, why even worry that it's too expensive? While it is entirely possible (never put it past the carriers to be this clueless) that the current pricing is a misguided attempt at maximizing revenue from early adopters -- another interpretation could be that 3G services are priced so badly to limit the number of users while the network gets some real world stress testing. Sure, in an ideal world, it would be great to have a perfect network, and throw open the doors to everyone, but in the meantime, getting the network out to early adopters, and letting improvements be made probably makes sense for the carriers. The real suckers, though, are those who are paying the $80/month to beta test weak services. There certainly are plenty of improvements that carriers can make in offering 3G services, but rushing them into it isn't going to make the service any better.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Steve Mueller, 30 Nov 2004 @ 4:31pm

    Useless?

    If the service isn't that good, why even worry that it's too expensive?
    Remember that they didn't say the service wasn't good; they said it didn't live up to the hype. That could just mean the hype was ridiculous (as most hype often is). Even the article you cited didn't say the service was really bad; the author mainly had hardware and coverage problems.

    Even if it really isn't that good, that doesn't necessarily imply that it's useless. I'd seriously consider a $20-per-month unlimited plan even for slow data access. I won't pay $80 per month even for gigabit speed (unless I could share that access with all the computers on my home network).

    After all, some access (even bad) is better than none if the price is reasonable. I'd rather drive a Yugo than walk....

    link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.