> Your post is complaining about paying for unused data, and why can't you just pay for the data you're actually using - in short, you want a plan that you saturate and just want to pay for that.
Nope. Sorry. Didn't say that. This is your interpretation and nothing more. And that's OK.
All I am saying is that I a starting to think that we are over-paying for connectivity. I don't know exactly where or how, but something about it just feels wrong. I can't point to it directly because in order to do that I'd have to know more about the internal numbers of a telco. I don't have that data. For all I know we are getting a deal. I am more than willing to concede that. But I need data.
Right now, without said data it feels very much that paying $250 per month for connectivity when most of the data is going over DSL is not quite a good fit.
Obviously we all (or most) have a need for cellular data outside WiFi zones. The question is how much and whether or not pricing is fair. I don't have the answers, just an overall feeling of rotten tomatoes somewhere.
Your suggestion that I personally drop cellular data has nothing whatsoever to do with the idea that cellular data might not be priced correctly in the context of multiple devices and the availability (and payment for) parallel connectivity over DSL/WiFi.
In other words, whether I personally drop cellular data service or not has no effect over whether or not cellular data is correctly priced.
So, I guess I am not getting your point. Does cellular data service become fairly priced for everyone else if I -single handedly- drop my service?
You're hung up on the flow of data, rather than my point which is having the connectivity in the first place. Pure data costs really are trivial - plans with different caps are simply a way of segmenting customers.
I'm also not understanding the difference between "wanting to pay for a group plan that's only big enough to avoid saturation" and "paying too much for data we're not using over multiple devices". They seem to be two different ways of referring to the same thing.
Does cellular data service become fairly priced for everyone else if I -single handedly- drop my service?
I wasn't saying that. I was saying that since you were implying that you don't use cellular data, just drop the plan and move wholly to wifi. It was a solution to your stated problem.
I also said that of course that wasn't the case - which was why I then talked about connectivity rather then simple ones and zeroes.
Is wireless data priced correctly? How long is a piece of string?
Nope. Sorry. Didn't say that. This is your interpretation and nothing more. And that's OK.
All I am saying is that I a starting to think that we are over-paying for connectivity. I don't know exactly where or how, but something about it just feels wrong. I can't point to it directly because in order to do that I'd have to know more about the internal numbers of a telco. I don't have that data. For all I know we are getting a deal. I am more than willing to concede that. But I need data.
Right now, without said data it feels very much that paying $250 per month for connectivity when most of the data is going over DSL is not quite a good fit.
Obviously we all (or most) have a need for cellular data outside WiFi zones. The question is how much and whether or not pricing is fair. I don't have the answers, just an overall feeling of rotten tomatoes somewhere.
Your suggestion that I personally drop cellular data has nothing whatsoever to do with the idea that cellular data might not be priced correctly in the context of multiple devices and the availability (and payment for) parallel connectivity over DSL/WiFi.
In other words, whether I personally drop cellular data service or not has no effect over whether or not cellular data is correctly priced.
So, I guess I am not getting your point. Does cellular data service become fairly priced for everyone else if I -single handedly- drop my service?