It remains frustrating that no provider offers a plan which more accurately reflects how the cell network functions. When your local cells is not near full load, downstream bandwidth should cost nothing over your fixed monthly access fee. When the network is busy, they should auction off high speed access (call that "surge data"). From a UI perspective this would have have been hard to do pre-smartphone but nowadays it would be pretty straight-forward.
The desire for these "easy to understand" data plans instead results in really inefficient network operation. Throughput collapses in busy areas during business hours even if you pay for the super mega ultra unlimited plan, because everyone is using their "unthrottled" data. Meanwhile if off-peak usage were more discounted (say, $0.10/GB instead of $10/GB) many people would probably be able to give up their home internet service.
> It remains frustrating that no provider offers a plan which more accurately reflects how the cell network functions.
This is one of my gripes with net neutrality, mostly on cell networks. It ignores how the network operates and that saturating a link at 3AM is different that 5PM.
> From a UI perspective this...would be pretty straight-forward.
Not really. "You're about to stream a video. Tap to accept the 15 cent network surge fee."
When cell plans commonly had night and weekend minutes, people didn't need to accept the charges each time. This is a ridiculous interpretation.
But say, people might schedule their Steam downloader to only update games in off-peak hours. And apps might have features that cache content automatically during off peak to save their users money.
> But say, people might schedule their Steam downloader to only update games in off-peak hours. And apps might have features that cache content automatically during off peak to save their users money.
This is a phone. At that stuff is set to use wifi.
> Meanwhile if off-peak usage were more discounted (say, $0.10/GB instead of $10/GB) many people would probably be able to give up their home internet service.
Grandparent comment suggests otherwise. Note that my personal preference would be for both wireless and landline services to meter data use fairly, and then ideally have such an off-peak mechanic to encourage scheduling high data use activities.
> Not really. "You're about to stream a video. Tap to accept the 15 cent network surge fee."
Nothing stopping you having a passive meter in the top corner showing an average spend rate, e.g. $0.05/last hr or something. Put spending limits in and you're fine.
Personally, I'm not sure I would want this. I think it's even more likely the average consumer would want this. It makes costs harder to predict. Perhaps if there was time of use pricing with a fixed schedule then I could get on board.
This would be optimizing network performance ahead of customer product and price transparency, which is unlikely to be as profitable. When asking, "How much does it cost?" the answer "It depends" isn't very satisfactory.
Well the alternative is what we have now: "how much does it cost to get a reliable connection during busy periods?" "There is no amount of money that can buy that."
Something that isn't just "unlimited everything" might help. Bring back plans like there used to be: <X> minutes of talk, unlimited nights & weekends. Of course no company would do that, for the same reason they wouldn't switch to a bid system with opaque monthly costs. Customers wouldn't like it, and any competitor that kept the "unlimited" plans would win out.
The desire for these "easy to understand" data plans instead results in really inefficient network operation. Throughput collapses in busy areas during business hours even if you pay for the super mega ultra unlimited plan, because everyone is using their "unthrottled" data. Meanwhile if off-peak usage were more discounted (say, $0.10/GB instead of $10/GB) many people would probably be able to give up their home internet service.