Mobile Operator CEO: Customers Under Our Data Caps Don't Use Much Data, So Nobody Needs Unlimited Data
from the lolwut? dept
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.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.
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.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No, no...
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 thread ]
Re: No, no...
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 thread ]
Re: No, no...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
Re: No, no...
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 thread ]
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 thread ]
Sounds as reasonable as their logic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Malthus will be right eventually. And congestion WILL be a problem.
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Search your feelings...
(directed at Olaf, not you, Tim)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No, no...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Malthus will be right eventually. And congestion WILL be a problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thanks for the explanation
Oddly enough...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Busness Logic
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 thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Malthus will be right eventually. And congestion WILL be a problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: No, no...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Malthus will be right eventually. And congestion WILL be a problem.
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 thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pencils? Pencils?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Malthus will be right eventually. And congestion WILL be a problem.
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 thread ]
Unlimited Logic
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 thread ]
Re: Malthus will be right eventually. And congestion WILL be a problem.
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Unlimited Logic
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bridge
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: No, no...
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 thread ]
Re:
I stopped reading your comment at this point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No, no...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Malthus will be right eventually. And congestion WILL be a problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
Logic dictates that the caps are not needed then.
Exactly what I was thinking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No, no...
Deep Packet Inspection? Probably.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, no...
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 thread ]
Bad Information
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bad Information
Isn't there a cap for tethering or something along those lines?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Bad Information
[ link to this | view in thread ]