Earlier this week, Verizon Wireless announced that it was offering month-to-month mobile phone service contracts to anyone who wanted to bring their own compatible device for use with Verizon's network. This was greeted with cheers by many analysts and bloggers that follow this market.
Bloggers said that the Verizon Wireless network would now host many more high-end CDMA devices. People who had the resources to pay for quality would use the Verizon network and bring their own best-of-breed handsets or express cards. I actually think that moving to month-to-month contracts would be a bigger driver for EVDO data services than smartphones.
However, there are a couple problems with this analysis that I can't resolve in my own mind. So I thought I'd ask you for help understanding and rationalizing:
Life After 3G: Verizon Wireless is reportedly planning to move away from EVDO to a new GSM-based "4G" technology called LTE between 2009 and 2011. AT&T has signaled that it will also be on this platform after HSDPA.
At that point, supposedly all major US-based carriers will use the same voice and data protocols, and switching between GSM and CDMA will no longer be a consideration. With this understanding, if you consider switching to Verizon now to get a BlackBerry Thunder, would it make financial sense to pay full price and go month-to-month? What's the useful life of an iPhone 3G or a BlackBerry Thunder bought tomorrow?
I think the decision about which device to buy next just got more complicated. I can make this decision as I continue to learn about the service plans that the major mobile carriers offer. But what does this mean to our friends and relatives who just want to carry something cool and usable? What do we recommend to them?
This changes nothing. If you want an iPhone you get AT&T. If you want better cell service you use Verozon.
I hadn't heard about this until I saw it here. As a Verizon customer, I am absolutely overjoyed right now.
The thing about using cellular data service is that I don't need it all the time. I need it some months, when traveling, and don't need it when I'm sitting at home. Now I can get a laptop card and get month-to-month service when I need it, and cancel it when I don't.
The only other viable option for mobile data service in the US right now is Sprint. The others (who allow month-to-month) are a joke, including AT&T (which is why I don't have an iPhone, just an iPod touch).
Sure, the move was probably defensive, but it doesn't really matter what the reason was. Unless AT&T gets a LOT more coverage than they have now, they are not usable for mobile data for someone who travels a lot. Verizon has 3G coverage almost everywhere you can get a signal, even the rural areas, so they already had AT&T completely beat in that area and didn't really need to change anything at this time for competitive reasons. AT&T could charge $20 a month with no contract and they still wouldn't be usable for data while traveling.
The press release says that if you currently have a contract, you must fulfill that obligation before switching to month-to-month. So you wouldn't be able to keep your voice on a contract, and add the data month-to-month when you need it. It's either all or none. Unless I misunderstood your post, and you want to switch everything over to month-to-month. But isn't this the same as pre-paid plans everyone else has, where you pay more for the minutes you do use?
And from Key West straight up to New York, across to Rochester, Cleveland, Chicago, Moline and Alpha, IL, down to Hebron, KY, Nashville, Chattanooga, Knoxville, Panama City and over to Gulf Shores, I have yet to have a problem with my AT&T service.
Even the village of Alpha, IL, with 750 people, and not a single stoplight and is 30 minutes to the nearest small town, my service was rock solid.
So traveling EVERY week for work, I find AT&T and my iPhone to be spectacular. Maybe old perceptions should be updated?