It would start off quite sensible with clear tiers and those in the know would be quite happy with that system as they know they won’t always get that, you get what you pay for etc.
Shortly after ‘normal people’ would start running the speedtest.net app and tweeting angrily at the mobile networks for ripping them off and demanding refunds.
Then some consumer action group would get on the case and demand the ASA and/or Ofcom do something.
Then ASA and/or Ofcom would enforce a load of silly advertising rules saying oh you can only advertise the speed x% number of customers can get x% of the time.
Then the advertised speeds bear no relation to what you’re actually buying - this is bad enough for fixed line but would be worse for mobile as I suspect most of the plans would end up being around the same speed ‘on average’.
most of the plans would end up being around the same speed ‘on average’
I think this would work itself out - people would just realise and not buy the more expensive plans, thus giving an incentive to the carriers to actually make sure the higher speed plans are indeed faster.
This is an issue with fixed lines because they are mostly legacy rust and people have no choice (you can’t “buy” a 50Mbps plan and get it if your rusty phone line only manages to get 5Mbps), but with mobile as long as you’ve got good cell reception you should theoretically be able to get 150Mbps, and the carrier will be on the hook for making it happen should you pay enough for it (I expect and am totally fine with such a plan being extremely expensive, as you’d be essentially buying out the entire tower for yourself).
Pay & go is a decent alternative. From what I see on the website there’s no mention of the 60Mbps limit and data is effectively unlimited as long as you pay for it (which in my eyes is a huge perk). Prices on EE seem fair, 30£ for 16GB of data.
The issue is selling a 150mb plan to somebody who spends most of their time in an area only covered by edge could be seen as mis-selling to some.
Sure, you can just cancel their contract if they complain enough, but as most people sign up to a 24 month plan with a phone you then have a second hand phone to shift.
Networks on the hook to make their network faster is alright in cities where you’re likely to get ROI, but there are millions of people who don’t live anywhere near places that are likely to see these speeds. Some places don’t even have 3G.
The issue is selling a 150mb plan to somebody who spends most of their time in an area only covered by edge could be seen as mis-selling to some.
Isn’t that the case already though? Some areas have absolutely zero coverage and yet not many people are complaining about mis-selling; customers are invited to check the coverage map before signing up.
Sure, you can just cancel their contract if they complain enough
Contracts should be on the way out anyway, providing great price & service is a much better way to retain customers than contracts (see for example Monzo or many other SaaS businesses), and saves you a ton of hassle & potential liability (if there’s no contract an unhappy customer would just cancel instead of wasting support’s time, and then potentially going to ADR and complaining to the ombudsman).
but as most people sign up to a 24 month plan with a phone
Separate the network plan from the phone plan; the phone should just be a standard credit agreement; if someone is not happy with the network they can go somewhere else and keep paying the phone plan.
but there are millions of people who don’t live anywhere near places that are likely to see these speeds
Doesn’t look like a big deal; in less populated areas a single tower on a lower frequency band should provide plenty of coverage. The subscriber’s plan choice will also allow them to estimate average capacity required for a given area.
Just saying, it’s a minefield and we’re unlikely to ever see it.
In a perfect world, yes, we’d pay for a speed and get that speed - unfortunately there’s too many variables to make this a possibility in a price bracket that anybody in their right mind would be willing to pay.
Saying ‘Ok you have X amount of data and can access our 2G/3G/4G/LTE-A networks - have fun’ solves all of the problems.
I don’t really see how “you have X amount of data and can access our 2G/3G/4G/LTE-A networks” is better than “you have X amount of bandwidth allocated to you”.
If the network or signal is bad, you wouldn’t be able to use neither the bandwidth nor the “data” (good luck using 20GB of data on EDGE when even a single HTTPS handshake is likely to timeout), but if the network conditions allow it, unlimited data capped at a certain speed provide a much better experience than capped data. I’d rather watch Netflix all day at lower quality on a 2Mbps plan than have 150Mbps for 10 minutes before running out of data for the rest of the month.
Hmm, while I do agree plans probably need to be more spectrum-slice priced, I also think that reasonable data capping is also a good measure against over-use and thus over-congestion.
It is much easier to tell person paying for 5GB that their allowance have finished than argue with somebody that he’s used 3TB which is more than 99.9% of other users and he’s about to be subject to a FUP…
Even more so in hyper-congested areas like London that could be a disaster…
Because on the former they are actually giving you an allocation of data for you to use without making any promises that they can’t control, on the latter they are not allocating you anything but are selling a promise of a throughput. They are selling you something that you may potentially never achieve.
allocation of data for you to use without making any promises that they can’t control
But isn’t it the same problem - people with poor coverage or bad network conditions (see the Speedtests above where some users barely have 1Mbps) won’t actually be able to use that data allocation…
I suppose you could say that, however the number of people who can say ‘It’s impossible for me to use my data allowance so let me out of my contract!’ are much fewer than the number who would be able to say 'You sold me 150mbps but the most I have ever got is 149.9mbps so let me out of my contract!"
And thinking about it, the assumption that it’s fine to take the usage allowance and split that over the month to have a speed limit instead is also faulty - I’m not always trying to download files that are gigabytes in size - but when I am I want it to happen quickly.
Couldn’t agree more. I’ve been an EE customer for about 4 years now, initially 4G coverage was a bit lacking but they were quick to install a network tower in my town and since then it’s been flawless (even if a little pricier than most)
My 4G is better than my WIFI so that 100GB comes in handy most days.
I moved from Three to EE. Whilst it is significantly cheaper (and their credit checking software accepts our sort code ) the bandwidth is much worse and signal is lacking, especially 4G. Overall, I’m fairly happy with Three - I like the non-EU roaming options too.
I guess it depends where you live. I live in South Wales and I find 3 fantastic everywhere. On the odd weekend I’ve spent in London though the data service seems to fall over in places! Obviously since I’m rarely there that’s not a concern for me.
Their roaming ability is a nice feature. Although it does seem to be throttled in places I find.
) the bandwidth is much worse and signal is lacking, especially 4G. Overall, I’m fairly happy with Three - I like the non-EU roaming options too.
I guess it depends where you live. I live in South Wales and I find 3 fantastic everywhere. On the odd weekend I’ve spent in London though the data service seems to fall over in places! Obviously since I’m rarely there that’s not a concern for me.