These are my thoughts on AT&T’s issue with smart phone data usage.  If you don’t know much about me; I am Brad Arsenault of Nova Scotia, Canada.  I am an avid iPhone user.

I am probably not wrong in making the assumption that most Americans don’t fully understand other cellular data model from around the world, and I’d like to illuminate the Canadian cellular service model in hopes that it will prevent more issue from coming.  I know that Rogers isn’t a stellar cellular provider, but I challenge me to show me one that is.

My current understanding of AT&T’s cellular data model is this: you pay a flat rate for unlimited wireless data usage.  With the original iPhone that was $30/mo, then when the new iPhone 3G was released you had to upgrade to a $35/mo service to get access to 3G service.  I take this to mean that you pay one tier for EDGE/GPRS and another for 3G (ignoring 3G coverage).

Here’s how the Canadian system works: you sign up for a data contract and have two basic options:

• Fixed amounts of data for a fixed rate.  Using more than your allotment results in an overage by the MB. *Rogers only
• Flex rate plans. You advance through definite tiers of data quantity, priced at definite amounts.  No overages.  These tend to be a premium on fixed amounts of data. *Rogers, Telus, or Bell

I’ve found that in data-only plans (where you purchase a voice and a data plan separate from each other) the data pricing (for smart phones, Blackberrys are excluded from this category by some carriers) goes as follows (Rogers plan stated):

• $25 – 500MB fixed
• $30 – 500 flex rate, 1GB fixed
• $35 – 1GB flex
• $50 – flex 2GB
• $60 – 3GB fixed
• $65 – 3GB flex
• $80 – 5GB fixed
• $85 – 5GB flex

Canada and the US are very similar, correct? There are similar mobile services to be enjoyed, correct?  The cultues of smart phone use are very similar in the US and Canada, correct? Then it can be assumed that Canadian and American “data hogs” use approximately the same amount of data, correct?  Rogers has stated that 4% of their smartphone customers exceed data usage of 500MB/mo.  –meaning in a room of 100 people (selected at random) only 4 people would have used more than 500MB, and 96 having used <500MB.

I can presume that AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint are all looking into this model, however if it would sell, they’d need ads out the wazoo to prove that they aren’t swindling customers AND can’t apply it to current contracts (whether renewing customers would be forced into this pricing plan? No idea.)

The problem is that I’m proposing anti-net-neutrality.  And that could be true, same with I could be proposing limitations that would limit clients from accessing web content (such as TWiT; Leo Laporte having said many times that net-neutrality is good because it doesn’t limit people from consuming his and other content).  But I’m not.  It’s just like saying that having limited amounts of minutes on a cellular voice plan will destroy families by not allowing people to reasonably keep in contact, especially long-distance families.  Remember that data could be looked at in the same light as voice is.

Let’s look at the voice system: there are landlines and cellular phones.  They are interconnected, provide a common ringtone, and also provide the same dialing system.  The difference being that cellular phones are accessible anywhere where as to use your landline you must be near it.  Another difference is that landlines phones have unlimited local calling, cell phones don’t (typically).  This has rarely been called on as a question of debate.  This could be debated as talk-neutrality; “why are there two tiers of voice? –landline and mobile.”

Are there really two tiers of voice?  Yes, because of human behavior.  When was the last time you talked for hours on end around town on a phone? (let’s ignore vacations, hotel stays, and talking on a cell phone at home.)  When was the last time you called somebody on your landline to ask them if they wanted you to pick up a coffee on the way home?  For me, that second one, never.  The tiers of voice have been created by design, especially where cell phones only started sounding decent since the introduction of UMTS/3G.

Lately AT&T and Rogers (and some other carriers) have introduced products which allow you to chat using VOiP at home; Rogers calls this “Home Calling Zone” and AT&T calls this the Microcell.  Both of these use your internet connection to carry voice to the call servers.  In both cases you get reduced long-distance rates and unlimited local calling (I don’t know about AT&T, but Roger’s charges $15/mo + hardware for this service; $25/mo for unlimited Canada-wide calling).  Why are these cheaper than using the cellular towers?  Because you are keeping your voice off of the towers.  Infrastructure.  Let’s apply the same process to smart phone data.

Let’s think in this new mindset, using the infrastructure of least resistance: when you’re at home you’re connected to WiFi for your data, and this is probably faster than any 3G you can get now.  When you go to get a coffee you leave your home WiFi as you leave the driveway and you’re now on the cellular network.  When you get to Starbucks you connect to their WiFi which AT&T has graciously given to you for free as part of your cellular package.  You return home without having used nearly as much data as you would have before, and got better data speeds.  This system works, especially if you only get EDGE/GPRS/1x.  I’m not saying to boycott the cellular towers entirely, just be more frugal with your bits.

Thinking of two tiers again; yes, there are two tiers for data–landline and mobile, just like voice.  Having mobile more limited than landline probably won’t matter, unless we go to an Australian-like data model where ALL data is capped, tiered, throttled, and expen$ive.  There needs to be some balance, and I think Canada happens to be it.

Just my thoughts.