The Real Reason AT&T And Verizon Are Pushing New “Shared” Data Plans

first_imgA new iPhone this year may mean a new “shared data” wireless plan for you, too. They may or may not save you money – that’s not the point. They’re really designed to put the wireless carriers in a better financial position for the future.Get Ready To ShareWith Apple’s new iPhone expected to launch in mid-September, expect to hear a lot of noise about newish, “shared” service plans from Verizon Wireless and AT&T, the biggest U.S. wireless carriers. The big idea: Instead of having separate pools of data allowances between different devices – an iPhone and iPad, for example – all of your family’s devices draw from the same pool.Verizon already requires these plans for new subscribers, and AT&T says it will require them for subscribers who want to use Apple’s FaceTime video chat service over the mobile internet. (Translation: Eventually, you’ll end up using one whether you want to or not.)Here’s how it works: For each device, you pay a monthly “access” fee. At Verizon Wireless, for example, this ranges from $40 per month for smartphones to $10 per month for tablets. This provides unlimited talking and texting on phones – no more minutes to keep track of. Then, you choose a monthly bucket of data that all your devices use, ranging from $50 per month for 1 GB to $100 per month for 10 GB.The pitch to the consumer is that these plans are smarter for today’s families, which often have multiple smartphones and tablets. If you’re not using all the iPhone data you’re paying for, why not be allowed to use it on your iPad?The Business MotivePerhaps this pricing realignment makes some sense for subscribers. But it really makes sense for the carriers.Consider how much more time you spend using a smartphone’s data signal versus making voice calls. Since I started using an iPhone in 2008, my data usage far has far outpaced my voice usage. Last month, I used 70 voice minutes, but probably spent over 50 hours using data. (Meanwhile, I’ve accumulated 3,900 “rollover” minutes on AT&T – a near-worthless benefit that made much more sense a decade ago.)But while our smartphone data usage could now be 10 to 20 times our voice usage (if not more!), the amount of money we spend on voice is still usually half or more of our monthly bills. Below, I’ve charted the last 10 years’ worth of Verizon’s voice and data service revenues. Overall service revenue has more than tripled, but data is still only about 44% of Verizon Wireless’s service revenue. Related Posts dan frommer Role of Mobile App Analytics In-App Engagement Tags:#mobile#web Why IoT Apps are Eating Device Interfaces The Rise and Rise of Mobile Payment Technology What it Takes to Build a Highly Secure FinTech … With faster wireless networks – the new iPhone is expected to work on Verizon’s 4G LTE network – and services like Skype and Apple’s FaceTime and iMessage, which “disrupt” the carrier voice and messaging services, it becomes even more important for carriers to shift billing toward data plans.With more connected devices launching all the time, these new “shared” plans offer greater convenience to subscribers – at a potentially higher cost. But what they really do is insulate carriers from potential disruption to outdated service models, and provide a more stable, logical revenue model for current and future wireless usage.Phone and tablet photo via Shutterstock.last_img read more

FIFA may as well lock Suarez into Guantanamo Bay: Maradona

first_imgGiorgio Chiellini complains after Suarez ran into his shoulder with his teeth Diego Maradona blasted FIFA’s ban on Uruguay striker Luis Suarez as “criminal” and said world soccer’s governing body might as well handcuff the striker and lock him up in Guantanamo prison. “Who did Suarez kill?” Maradona said during his soccer commentary programme broadcast on Venezuela’s Telesur and Argentine public television on Thursday night.”This is football, this is contact,” the Argentine legend said. “They may as well handcuff him and bring him to Guantanamo directly.”The controversial US prison in Cuba, opened during the Bush administration, is heavily criticized by human rights groups for indefinite imprisonment of many detainees without charge or trial.Temperamental 1986 World Cup winner Maradona, known for his flamboyant declarations, is echoing outrage in Uruguay, where many are fuming at a ban they deem exaggerated, hypocritical or outright biased.Many abroad, however, were horrified by brilliant but volatile Suarez’s biting of Italian defender Giorgio Chiellini on Tuesday.Suarez was given longest sanction imposed at a World Cup by soccer’s governing body on Thursday, suspended from all football-related activity for four months and banned for nine international matches.But Maradona, who like Suarez emerged from a poor background to rise to global fame, fervently defended “Luisito” throughout the programme, at the end even unveiling a T-shirt with “We’re with you Luisito” scrawled on the front.”If he made a mistake, fine, they should punish him, but they shouldn’t exaggerate, they shouldn’t be moralistic,” said Maradona, who is close to Cuba’s former president Fidel Castro.advertisementLeftist Uruguayan president Jose Mujica also phoned in to the programme, blasting what he saw as a move to sideline Uruguay from the tournament where many European heavyweights have bit the dust.”We kicked out Italy, we kicked out England, how much money was lost there?,” said Mujica, a 79 year-old former guerrilla. “We’re Uruguay, we’re very little. It was cheap (for them to do).”The European establishment could not understand Suarez’s tough street style, Mujica and Maradona opined.”Incredible players are often born here in the heart of poverty,” Mujica said. “They don’t understand him because they don’t want to and because they were born in another society with other resources.”last_img read more

Recent Developments Residential school students say theyve been hurt by law firm

first_imgAPTN National NewsOn November 10, British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Brenda Brown ordered an investigation into the allegations made against a Calgary law firm. We do not know how many of the Blott and Company lawyers are facing these allegations.There is a publication ban on material that is before the court.The original air date for the APTN Investigates episode on this matter was to be Jan. 27, 2012. Many of our sources urged us to move the broadcast date up so that their concerns could be made known to the public as soon as possible. So we decided to move the date of our broadcast up to November 28.Our investigation was nearing completion in late October. That’s when the people responsible for overseeing the Indian residential school students’ compensation process suddenly took action. We say “suddenly” because a handful of reliable sources have told us they’d had been reporting concerns for three years or longer and seeing no action. That lack of visible action is what prompted some of those sources to approach APTN Investigates.But after we began asking questions, things definitely started to happen.A meeting attended by a number of senior officials was held in Stand Off, AB. on Oct. 22.More than a dozen people attended that meeting in the Chief Shot Both Sides Building on the Blood Reserve. Included in that number was court monitor Randy Bennett, Michael Mooney of Crawford Class Action Services, National Administrative Committee member Kathleen Mahoney and her spouse Phil Fontaine, former national chief and representative plaintiff for the residential schools settlement agreement, Treaty 7 Grand Chief Charles Weasel Head, who is also chief of the Blood Tribe, Charlene Belleau, head of the AFN residential schools unit, and others.The allegations former students were making against Blott and Company were put before the court monitor at that Saturday meeting in Southern Alberta. We are told the court monitor made the decision then and there to ask the court to order an investigation.We expect the matter was discussed when the Oversight Committee met in Toronto on Oct. 25, but the minutes of that meeting have not yet been posted online.Shortly after that meeting in Stand Off, Mooney applied to British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Brenda Brown for an ex parte order suspending the law firm from contact with its clients. That order was issued in Vancouver on October 31.An ex parte application is one where the other side is not present to argue against the action requested of the court. Ex parte processes are very rare. After the suspension order was issued, the parties were summoned to appear before Justice Brown in Vancouver on November 10.At the end of that day-long hearing, Justice Brown lifted the suspension so that Blott and Company clients could resume receiving legal representation. But the judge ordered the court monitor to commence an investigation into the allegations.As we said earlier, the judge placed a publication ban on materials before the court. APTN Investigates does not know what is before the court. We have not obtained any materials or information from what has been filed in court. We are reporting only on information we gathered independently. Most of that information was gathered well before the court became involved in this matter. Many current or former Blott clients allowed us to look through their files and see the paperwork associated with their claims last August.During the last weekend in November, the court monitor began seizing files. One of our sources voluntarily surrendered the material she had placed in the possession of Russell D. Taylor, a private investigator in Alberta.last_img read more