Mobile Operator CEO: Customers Under Our Data Caps Don't Use Much Data, So Nobody Needs Unlimited Data

from the lolwut? dept

Wed, Mar 6th 2013 7:49am — Timothy Geigner

While we just recently got some bandwidth-providers to come out from under their caps-due-to-congestion rocks, there is a long and storied history of ISPs filling in the void of logic in the debate over caps with creamy, pink nonsense cupcakes. Because, hey! Who doesn't like cupcakes? A long-standing favorite of mine was Sprint's deft change of the English language, when they altered the meaning of "unlimited" to mean "5 gigs," because Sprint thinks the real world blows and we're better off in their make-believe Sprint-land, where all of our parents turn into Kevin Durant.

But, in an apparent effort to put the UK in the mix for countries with CEOs who say really dumb things, mobile operator EE's chief guy of stuff has come out with his own assessment of why their data caps are fine and unlimited plans are unnecessary.

EE is the first mobile operator in the UK to offer 4G services. When it launched last October, it was criticised for imposing tight data caps - including a 500MB plan that could be chewed through in five minutes at the network's maximum speed.

Speaking at MWC 2013, [Olaf] Swantee said that on average users are actually getting through only 1.4GB a month. "It shows that the instinct for unlimited data plans is unnecessary," he said.

Now, on the off chance that you've spent the past week doing massive amounts of peyote, let me take a moment to explain why this kind of logic is so abysmal that it might actually be responsible for global warming. Olaf says that unlimited data plans are not in demand because their customers, who are already under their strict caps, on average use about 1.5GB per month. The logic is flawless...and by flawless, I mean backwards and evil. Of course EE customers that are under strict caps are going to do everything possible to stay under those caps. You're charging them extra if they go over! The very sample you're using in your justification nullifies your entire point.

Let's see...an appropriate analogy. Ah, got it! A dog owner buys one of those electric fence collars for Fido, puts the barrier around a twelve-foot squared kitchen, and then insists that the dog doesn't want to leave the kitchen because it rarely chooses to get the piss shocked out of it by stepping over the barrier. If someone tried to use that kind of sophistry on you, how long before you'd shove a couple of pencils in your ears to make the bad man's voice stop hurting you so?

So way to go, United Kingdom. You're officially accepted into the Dumb CEO League of Extraordinary Un-Logic. Play nice now.

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

Filed Under: data caps, uk, unlimited data

60 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

silverscarcat (profile), 6 Mar 2013 @ 6:13am

No, no...
The real logic is this...

You get a group of people together who are allergic to peanuts and then serve them peanut butter-chocolate pie.

Since none of them eat it, obviously no one wants such a pie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 6 Mar 2013 @ 6:48am
  
  Re: No, no...
  +insightful and +funny
  
  What amuses me is that I have a 2Gb plan and I never go beyond 1,5Gb because I use 3Gwatchdog (pun not intended with article example) to track my consumption and when I get to 1,5Gb I start controlling very closely what I do with my phone in order to have spare bandwidth to use it in case of some greater need. I'd probably spend much more than 5Gb in some months if I had an unlimited plan or if my plan had higher caps.
  
  So yes, the guy is a moron.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2013 @ 9:05am
    
    Re: Re: No, no...
    If you carry a laptop, look at their pay as you go dongles. In he UK, if you go past the cap they block downloads, but leave web browsing and email enabled. They also come with linux support on the built in cd rom.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 6 Mar 2013 @ 12:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: No, no...
      In he UK, if you go past the cap they block downloads, but leave web browsing and email enabled.
      
      It's all downloads*... what do they do, block everything not on ports 80 and 443, or via SMTP? That wouldn't prevent enormous downloads. Do they only allow certain file types and block email attachments? I'm curious about this implementation though I understand if you don't know the details.
      
      * and uploads of course
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2013 @ 1:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: No, no...
        They block mp3 and flv's etc.as far as I can tell. Not tried to upload as usual connection is GSM.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - ltlw0lf (profile), 7 Mar 2013 @ 7:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: No, no...
        what do they do, block everything not on port 80 and 443
        
        Deep Packet Inspection? Probably.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 7 Mar 2013 @ 7:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, no...
        Blocking a port isn't considered deep packet inspection is it?
        
        a form of computer network packet filtering that examines the data part (and possibly also the header) of a packet as it passes an inspection point
        
        You don't have to inspect the packet data to know what port it's on. Not that I'm saying they would be unwilling to do so, just that there would be easier ways to accomplish their goal.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 6 Mar 2013 @ 6:48am
  
  Re: No, no...
  Huh, that really works well too....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 6 Mar 2013 @ 7:55am
  
  Re: No, no...
  LOL !
  More like you get a bunch of people and put them in a room with precious diamonds.
  Then you watch them all fight over them till you get a few Bigger Individuals who grab the Diamonds.
  Then they all talk about how much they can sell the diamonds and come up with "Let us cut them into little pieces and charge even more money per piece" and they go on and on.
  Sucking the life out of the Mass Consumer..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 6 Mar 2013 @ 8:39am
  
  Re: No, no...
  It would also be logical to state that these people don't like chocolate because they aren't eating it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
kog999, 6 Mar 2013 @ 7:54am

"Swantee said that on average users are actually getting through only 1.4GB a month"

Since the average user is only using 1.4GB a month it follows that there is no reason not to give users an unlimited plan since they only use 1.4GB a month anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greg (profile), 6 Mar 2013 @ 8:45am
  
  Re:
  Yes, this argument actually makes much more sense when used in reverse.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Colin, 6 Mar 2013 @ 8:58am
  
  Re:
  That was my thought too - if people only use 1.4GB, why have any caps at all since they obviously won't go over it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- CN, 7 Mar 2013 @ 4:43am
  
  Logic dictates that the caps are not needed then.
  Since the average user is only using 1.4GB a month it follows that there is no reason not to give users an unlimited plan since they only use 1.4GB a month anyway.
  
  Exactly what I was thinking.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PaulT (profile), 6 Mar 2013 @ 7:55am

"So way to go, United Kingdom"

You mean, way to go incumbent mobile operator, owned by multinational conglomerates (EE is the company formed by the merger of the UK businesses of Orange and T-Mobile). So, business as normal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2013 @ 8:00am

Our Office's bathrooms are almost always empty despite the fact that most of our employees work 12 hours shifts, so our employees must not need or want a bathroom. That means we can just uninstall the plumbing and throw a more desks and people in the bathrooms.

Sounds as reasonable as their logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 6 Mar 2013 @ 8:02am

Malthus will be right eventually. And congestion WILL be a problem.
They're just getting ahead of the curve.

Also, this conflicts with Techdirt's notion of "selling scarcity". -- Like the rest here, not a new idea, either. -- Look, they're GIVING you FREE USE of their equipment and selling the scarcity of bandwidth, yet you STILL complain.

And don't forget the universal fix: if you don't want the service, don't buy it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2013 @ 8:40am
  
  Re: Malthus will be right eventually. And congestion WILL be a problem.
  The number zero and the number one are not scarce.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 6 Mar 2013 @ 8:46am
  
  Re: Malthus will be right eventually. And congestion WILL be a problem.
  Artificial scarcity...that's what we're talking about. Plus, they don't give me free use of their equipment...if I bring my own phone and add it to their network with voice only (no bandwidth requirement) they aren't giving it to me for free.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2013 @ 9:19am
  
  Re: Malthus will be right eventually. And congestion WILL be a problem.
  What you write makes no sense. The customer is paying mostly for the backhaul ISP costs and very little for everything else. The real cost is therefore on keeping the customers with sufficient maximum capacity (the equipment!)and not peanuts like usage-cost!
  The only reasonable argument for usage costs are trying to control users behaviour so the ISPs usage become more equally distributed throughout the day, the week and the year. A flat unconditional $x per GB is not gonna do beep in that context!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2013 @ 10:13am
  
  Re: Malthus will be right eventually. And congestion WILL be a problem.
  Do you have a different definition of free then the rest of the world?
  I do agree with your universal fix, I don�t want your service and I don�t buy what you say!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2013 @ 10:34am
  
  Re: Malthus will be right eventually. And congestion WILL be a problem.
  Wha...? Please stop talking about technology you don't understand. Seriously.
  
  First of all, bandwidth is an artificial scarcity because we have a large amount of spectrum being locked away for legacy technology or military use (most of which is unused). If we stopped broadcasting terribly ineffecient analog TV channels and radio stations and replaced them with digital versions we could dramatically increase the amount of currently available bandwidth.
  
  Second, we're already developing technologies that will further increase our bandwidth. Read about "twisting" radio waves to allow for multiple signals to be transmitted on the same spectrum. We can also further improve the amount of data transmitted through the air by utilizing higher resolution detection systems or systems that cancel "noise" by analyzing reflected waves in metropolitan areas. And this is ignoring technological improvements we haven't already started working on or that are not yet known too the public.
  
  The "bandwidth crisis" is just as much of a myth as the "fuel crisis." We're not going to run out of bandwidth just as we aren't going to run out of gas...by the time prices start increasing high enough to be prohibitive to the average consumer, the market will develop an alternative that is affordable. And the prices are already far above the standard market value due to the natural monopolies (cell carriers) which are government sanctioned.
  
  Never mind. Go back to talking about piracy and stealing, at least with your morality plays there aren't any facts that can contradict you. Discussing technology is obviously outside your comfort zone.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2013 @ 2:14pm
  
  Re: Malthus will be right eventually. And congestion WILL be a problem.
  Apparently I need to switch to whatever cell provider you use because they don't charge you for use of their equipment. Mine charges $70/month.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2013 @ 8:04am

Of course they don't you have forced data caps. They don't want to have heavy expenses because you want to cap the data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2013 @ 8:09am

Search your feelings...
The tard is strong with this one.

(directed at Olaf, not you, Tim)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
slick8086, 6 Mar 2013 @ 8:10am

This is like the cheating girl friend.

Cheating girlfriend:"It was only sex, it didn't mean anything"

Boyfriend: "If it didn't mean anything then why did you fuck do it?"

Capped Carrier: "No one ever uses more than X data so unlimited is not necessary"

Angry customer: "If no one ever uses more than X data, then why are you putting limits on it?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2013 @ 2:36pm
  
  Re:
  I like the analogy, although I believe I would have the boyfriend be the cheater/carrier in this scenario, and the girlfriend be the scorned lover/customer.
  I say this simply because my wireless provider tends to make me feel like their bitch more than I would like.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TrustAvidity, 6 Mar 2013 @ 8:35am

Not only is it a valid point people are making that there's no reason to limit the data if the average person doesn't use that much as the company is claiming, but according to that logic, they're turning down free money. When they use this excuse to not have unlimited data, all I hear is "We could offer this service people are willing to pay us for without the costs of them actually using said service but we prefer to turn away free money." An abundance of people utilizing unlimited data would be a much better argument for them to be rid of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TrustAvidity, 6 Mar 2013 @ 8:35am

Not only is it a valid point people are making that there's no reason to limit the data if the average person doesn't use that much as the company is claiming, but according to that logic, they're turning down free money. When they use this excuse to not have unlimited data, all I hear is "We could offer this service people are willing to pay us for without the costs of them actually using said service but we prefer to turn away free money." An abundance of people utilizing unlimited data would be a much better argument for them to be rid of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TrustAvidity, 6 Mar 2013 @ 8:35am

Not only is it a valid point people are making that there's no reason to limit the data if the average person doesn't use that much as the company is claiming, but according to that logic, they're turning down free money. When they use this excuse to not have unlimited data, all I hear is "We could offer this service people are willing to pay us for without the costs of them actually using said service but we prefer to turn away free money." An abundance of people utilizing unlimited data would be a much better argument for them to be rid of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Atkray (profile), 6 Mar 2013 @ 8:42am

Thanks for the explanation
"Now, on the off chance that you've spent the past week doing massive amounts of peyote,"

Oddly enough...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
alastair, 6 Mar 2013 @ 8:44am

Busness Logic
We were moving to new premises and each office was designated to have a whiteboard installed. On moving it was then noticed that the pens had been forgotten and a request was sent to the stationary manager to put in a stock order.

Several months went by and in a head if departments meeting the question was raised why the pens hadn�t turned up yet. The stationary manager said' I cancelled that order as an unnecessary expense 'cos on looking round the building I noticed that no-one was using the whiteboards'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stephen, 6 Mar 2013 @ 8:50am

Sprint has unlimited data for PHONES. The only cap they have is for mobile hotspots. Of all the companies to try and trash about limits, Sprint's limit is the most reasonable. After reading that, I stopped reading because I can't be bothered with reading trash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 6 Mar 2013 @ 9:23am
  
  Re:
  What if your phone is a mobile hotspot?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Kevin H (profile), 6 Mar 2013 @ 1:23pm
    
    Re: Re:
    There's a fee for that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 6 Mar 2013 @ 1:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      How can they tell you're doing it?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2013 @ 3:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The easiest way is to have an "audit" program monitor all activity on the device.
        
        https://doc.opensuse.org/products/draft/SLES/SLE-audit-quick_sd_draft/
        
        Also there are ways to see everything the system does for security purposes which can be abused to send information on what the device is doing(i.e. TOMOYO, SELinux, AppArmor, etc).
        
        The easiest one to understand is TOMOYO probably, it watches everything the system does and can tell what accessed what and when, it is great for debugging but also for snooping.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOMOYO_Linux
        http://tomoyo.sourceforge.jp/2.5/android-arm. html.en
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2013 @ 10:12am
  
  Re:
  Sprint has unlimited data for PHONES. The only cap they have is for mobile hotspots.
  
  Actually, they have data caps for everything except phones, and only for data used on the phone itself. This includes tethering, tablets, and other devices.
  
  Also, if you'd actually bothered to read the linked article, it talks about mobile hotspots and how, while being advertised as unlimited, they changed the policy on their customers without warning or recourse.
  
  "After that, I stopped reading because I can't be bothered with basic reading comprehension."
  
  FTFY.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - NovemberGold (profile), 27 Mar 2013 @ 2:36pm
    
    Re: Re:
    That is the problem. The article makes it look like Sprint has limited data on phones. It should be much more clear if it wants to be quality journalism.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 6 Mar 2013 @ 12:59pm
  
  Re:
  After reading that, I stopped reading because I can't be bothered with reading
  
  I stopped reading your comment at this point.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2013 @ 9:25am

Pencils? Pencils?
If some bad man tried to use that kind of "sophistry" on me, I don't think that it would be my ears that I shoved pencils into. In fact it wouldn't be ears that received the pointy ends of the pencils at all. And, come to think of it, I would probably be inclined to use a more appropriate tool than pencils. Also, it seems likely that the "bad man" in this little vignette is the one who has been making (inappropriate) use of peyote, or perhaps crack, and on company time too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2013 @ 9:54am

this twat has obviously been taking thinking lessons from a friggin' moron! about par for the course of top UK business execs! look at who's in charge of the country atm and then look at who has aspirations of stepping into the shoes once worn by Thatcher (useless bitch!). will be going from a disaster to a greater disaster!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2013 @ 10:04am

I think it might be time for a new CEO...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2013 @ 10:04am

He must hang out with the TWC guy who said since no one wants to pay for our overpriced highspeed plans no one wants highspeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Devils_Advocate (profile), 6 Mar 2013 @ 10:20am

Unlimited Logic
Scientist logging a lab experiment...

Summary: Frog placed at starting line, and prompted to jump by sounding an airhorn. A condition is changed and test repeated. Resulting distances are recorded.

Jump 1: Frog with 4 legs jumps 20 feet.
(1 Leg is removed.)
Jump 2: Frog with 3 legs jumps 2 feet.
(1 Leg is removed.)
Jump 3: Frog with 2 legs jumps 3 inches.
(1 Leg is removed.)
Jump 4: Frog with 1 leg jumps 1/8 of an inch.
(1 Leg is removed.)
(Airhorn sounds repeatedly, with no response.)
Jump 5: Frog with no legs is DEAF!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 6 Mar 2013 @ 10:34am
  
  Re: Unlimited Logic
  That poor frog. :(
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
izzitme101, 6 Mar 2013 @ 10:34am

Let em carry on, hopefully it wont be to long until they'r nothing nowhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2013 @ 10:45am

"We don't need to build a bridge here. We've been sitting here all day and haven't seen a single vehicle try to cross the river."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Devils_Advocate (profile), 6 Mar 2013 @ 12:34pm
  
  Re: Bridge
  That one's definitely the winner! (And certainly not as cruel as my frog experiment.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
arahman81 (profile), 6 Mar 2013 @ 10:52am

Looks like someone's taking leaves out of the Canadian telco's books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BigKeithO, 6 Mar 2013 @ 3:08pm
  
  Re:
  I just recently had a Telus rep tell me that I didn't need a larger data plan because my number hasn't ever gone over the data cap... Amazing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
crashsuit (profile), 6 Mar 2013 @ 10:57am

Sure, people in 3rd-world countries SAY they're starving, but how much more food could they want if they barely eat anything as it is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2013 @ 3:40pm

500 MB cap with an average usage of 1.5GB.

Has anyone read that and saw "RIPOFF" written all over the place?

They know that most people use 1.5GB and they lower the caps so most people will be forced to pay, they basically are creating revenues from nothing at the expense of customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 6 Mar 2013 @ 3:49pm
  
  Re:
  Has anyone read that and saw "RIPOFF" written all over the place?
  
  Perhaps, but I think not for the reason you're thinking. The 500MB cap is only for their lowest plan. On that plan they say the customers are averaging 380MB per month.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2013 @ 4:14pm

No 4K videos on Youtube for the UK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mischab1, 6 Mar 2013 @ 4:17pm

You usage always changes based on your limits. A month ago I would have said I'll never use 2 GB on my cell phone. But when I thought my data plan had become completely unlimited, I hit the 5 GB limit in 20 days just by watching youtube videos on my lunch break.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
warren crossing, 6 Mar 2013 @ 6:47pm

I have always been one for conspiracy theories, so here's one for why they don't want unlimited caps.

First. OTT and VOIP, Choose a new voice provider and turn your carrier into a bitpipe.

Second. Packet loss. Entire leg, TCP retransmits, at a percentage of your actual traffic. (Echos which turn into Feedback and cause massive network contention)

But there is a solution, wearing a tinfoil hat, prevents both these problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NovemberGold (profile), 27 Mar 2013 @ 1:20pm

Bad Information
I was with you on this until you claim a cap on Sprints unlimited data of 5 GB. I am a long-time Sprint customer and a former Sprint employee. There is no data cap. I know this both from policy and practice. My wife consistently used 10-12 GB per month and there is never an issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 27 Mar 2013 @ 1:38pm
  
  Re: Bad Information
  I was with you on this until you claim a cap on Sprints unlimited data of 5 GB. I am a long-time Sprint customer and a former Sprint employee. There is no data cap.
  
  Isn't there a cap for tethering or something along those lines?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - NovemberGold (profile), 27 Mar 2013 @ 2:38pm
    
    Re: Re: Bad Information
    Tethering is a separate fee. The unlimited data applies to the phone only. However, the article made it seem like Sprint does not have unlimited data on the phone.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]