[duaneb]

Bandwidth itself is impossible to value. The infrastructure providing the bandwidth is not free, no, but the idea of data caps to provide some sort of artificial value it fairly laughable, not to mention irrational. If they want to make this argument, charge me WHAT IT IS ACTUALLY VALUED (i.e. charge me for what I use based on a variable rate derived from maintenance costs), not some made up cap that likely has to do with what they'll estimate people might be willing to put up with.

[rayiner]

No it's not. The amount of bandwidth available on a wireless network is a function of the amount of spectrum ($$), the sophistication of the cell equipment ($$), and the density of the cell sites ($$$).

Sprint's network is slow because it spends a fraction of what AT&T and Verizon do,[1] while trying to get the same nationwide footprint. It's a simple math problem.

As for prices--every company charges what they estimate people might be willing to put up with.

[1] Last year, $6 billion versus $17-20 billion. These are combined CapEx, but most of it goes into wireless.

[zanny]

You are describing the costs of total network capacity. The poster above is describing marginal costs of bandwidth.

If there is infrastructure in place that is going underutilized and I want to download a megabyte of data, the marginal cost of that data transfer is incredibly negligible. But that infrastructure exists to meet the conditions of peak utilization, when at capacity, and that is what is expensive.

If anything, Sprint should give flat rate mobile data and have fixed funding campaigns to increase capacity for each residential block around a tower. If the speeds are too slow end users would then pay to upgrade the infrastructure themselves, or more specifically heavy and business users would subsidize network upgrades.

[forrestthewoods]

It's not artificial if the network is overloaded by users. It's not like fiber where an optical running from user end point to the ISP can be fully saturated all the time without affecting other users.

[duaneb]

Yes, but that's an entirely different problem. It's not like imposing fees after a certain point of use will help that problem at all, it would make more sense to a) absorb it and raise the monthly subscription when necessary, b) charge per byte, c) charge based on your % of network, or charge maintenance or service fees and don't charge for bandwidth at all. The current, tiered model only makes sense to use "overloading the network" as an excuse to abuse monopolies and overcharge customers.

[adventured]

The US mobile network system has plenty of competition presently. In fact, it's competitive enough that it has evolved faster faster and better than most European mobile networks. It took nearly all of Europe a very long time to get 4G adoption above even 50% of the population.

[msh]

But they needed it less. Verizon and sprint only had slow evdo 3G while Europe had fast hsdpa.

[forrestthewoods]

Monopoly? Who has a cell network monopoly? Prices are going down and features up due to ever increasing competition.

[duaneb]

Maybe in some places, but the competition in the US is a joke. You either go with a decent plan but terrible service (Sprint), or you go with good service with virtually no control over your use (Verizon/AT&T).

[venomsnake]

I was able to get in austria in 2006 3g for 1 EUR/GB . How are prices falling down?

[forrestthewoods]

Are you for real? It's easy. Look at prices and services from all major carriers in the US over the past 5 years. the prices are going down and you're getting more for less. It's a tough back and forth and every month or two they try to one up each other. So that's how prices are going down.

What you got in a different market doesn't matter. It's inarguable that prices are going down and it's inarguable that there is no monopoly. There isn't even a duopoly. What is arguable is that you should perhaps get more for what you pay. But the velocity is still down, even if it's not yet as low as it should be.

[duaneb]

> the prices are going down and you're getting more for less

Unless I'm missing something, unlimited data plans have virtually disappeared. That seems like getting less.

[quonn]

In South-East Asia, you often get a prepaid contract including 5 GB for between $5 and $20. This is 10x cheaper. Sure, salaries are lower, but the equipment is the same.

[rhino369]

The actual bandwidth the tower has actually costs a lot of money.

65Mhz of highband bandwidth was worth 40 billion at the last auction.

[Zigurd]

Or it could be worth $0 if shared by smart radios. Fixed reservations of spectrum is technologically obsolete and economically very sub-optimal.

Spectrum "ownership" will be the taxi medallion of the 21st century.

[anon4]

If they charged you on usage percent times maintenance cost plus future upgrade plans, they wouldn't make nearly enough for buying golden yachts. You'd be paying like 20$/month for 10Mbit unlimited data.