The average use of a Three unlimited data plan is 2GB though, if we all turned all our taps on at once the water to a lot of properties would stop, with the remaining getting just a trickle, the same with electricity or any other utility with a finite total capacity.

It isn't the limit so much as the actual usage that might become an issue if the average goes up too high that TrafficSense has to throttle some of the heaviest users or discontinue free tethering from more plans for new customers. There is no immediate overall problem with capacity though.

They haven't even started rolling out 800Mhz, and there will be more spectrum availability in a few years, so there's no need to scaremonger with "too good to be true" comments, and "have it while it lasts"

As I say Three are in a very different position to the likes of giffgaff

It was 5GB in the past before. I guess it changes to suit the argument at the time.

And the data is based on a whitepaper from one company, which is a theoretical figure based on a particular scenario that it has established in the document. Good as a guide, but nothing more.

In the real world, it's mostly meaningless because no network is set up exactly the same.


Indeed. Three is yet to fully benefit from the extra spectrum it will have, and EE is yet to take full advantage of what it has.

I think it's fair to say that unlimited tethering will come to an end on Three one day, but I also expect that it will be offering far higher data allowances (for a price). We've seen EE now offering 50GB deals, and Three abroad offers 300GB or more.

Sure, you might have to enjoy the £15/month for 1000GB per month including tethering while it lasts, but not access to large amounts of data as a whole. The networks are clearly able to cope with more than 3GB or 5GB per month, and when too many people are wanting more data, the networks should all be getting enough revenue from these users to easily expand the network and capacity accordingly.

Those that don't, well - look at Vodafone, O2 and Orange to see how they didn't keep up with demand with 3G and how that ended up. I hope none will make the same mistakes again (but I suspect that some will).

It shouldn't be put out of reach of the average consumer either as some appear to be baying for. If the future of data is very heavily capped packages at expensive rates at a time where smartphone and data usage is growing, then people will respond accordingly. Patronisingly telling people to use "Wi-Fi hotspots" is not a practical idea in many situations.

It's not. the average consumer is perfectly able to afford their average data use.

If you want a lot of data then unfortunately it is going to get expensive.

White papers are not 'meaningless'...... they are written to explore and explain topics and when they are published by reputable companies who are leaders in their business fields they cannot simply be 'rubbished'. Nokia Siemens are a real world provider of mobile network equipment and their proven expertise is far greater than any individual on a public forum!

If the information contained in the document quoted is out of date, unreliable or unfit for consideration then a link to an alternative from a similarly qualified company or academic institution would be of interest.

Unlimited data with few users on a network with 18,000 masts is sustainable for a time in some areas but not in cities for long and the use of traffic management proves that in some places congestion has to be addressed and that results in something less than 'unlimited data' for all.

Companies do revise their strategies and one only has to look at the speed performance of the 4 networks published in the latest Root Metrics surveys to see how the landscape re data speeds has been changing in major markets across the UK in recent months.

http://www.rootmetrics.com/uk/ (See Feb 2014 surveys for Birmingham, Coventry and Leicester).

Networks can use Wi-Fi to relieve some pressure from their networks, but EE silently ditched its free access to BT hotspots and presumably wanted people to use mobile data instead (presumably using up their allowance quicker and paying for more data).

I find using Wi-Fi hotspots to often be a pain. Poor signal (congested Wi-Fi), slow speeds compared to sticking with mobile data, and the need to log in. Oh, and when you have a poor connection you get the issue of the phone switching back and forth, interrupting data transfers and totally destroying things like Skype etc.

It does remind me of when operators recommended their users turned off data roaming when going abroad, which was ridiculous. What business tells users to NOT do something? Businesses that rake(d) it in from business users and therefore had little incentive to reduce charges for us, that's who. Hence the EC having to step in five or so years ago.

EE knew all along that 4G would see increased data usage, despite claiming the opposite, and now it knows it can make good money from it because you can't charge anything significant for calls and texts these days. I expect EE and other networks won't want to do any deals with Wi-Fi networks to give access, bar on the tube, as it means giving them money to allow access.

Every network knows data usage is going to increase and people will demand enough data to do what they now want to do, which might include watching the footie on Sky, watching a boxset on Netflix and streaming extreme quality Spotify music.

As such, I can't see that people will want to be on Giffgaff for much longer. And I'm sure Giffgaff will be quite happy. Get those people onto an O2 tariff and leave Giffgaff for those people who still have dumb phones and only want to make calls and text occasionally.

Whilst I agree in part, we should remember that data wholesale rates have dropped a lot over time, the spectrum for mobile data continues to increase an availability with more spectrum expected to be on offer in the coming years, technology continues to develop and offer greater throughput. Cell site consolidation has reduced operator costs as well.

Call and text revenue is dying and in future calls and text will just be a given, and the data plan will be what separates one plan from another.

It's what will keep the operators going, if they want to enjoy the same levels of profit that they have for the last 10+ years.

Data has been a huge cash cow for the operators, especially when roaming. In some ways, that's about to end - at the same time that operators have to find money to build high capacity networks that will be placed under increasing pressure in the years to come.

Today we're streaming HD instead of SD. Tomorrow it will be 2K and then 4K video. In ten years, 8K video and beyond.

Education is a key aspect to allow people to use mobile networks efficiently.

Yeah you could stream 2K, 4K, 8K video etc but what would be the point of doing so to view on a mobile with a 5" Screen?

That is where education comes in so that users can make appropriate choices for the tasks they want to do and to ensure Xperia Z2 users (amongst others) don't stream 4K video regularly over a mobile network. Price will continue to play a significant role in maintaining efficiency of use.

Yet another thing Three are already on top of.

http://support.three.co.uk/mobiledoc...s_document.pdf

I have a full HD screen on my phone. I stream full HD content wherever I can. Why wouldn't I?

Next week we'll see the first 'mainstream' 1440p display on a phone with the LG G3. People will probably want to stream that resolution, no? And many tablets are already there too.

People don't stream 4K to a phone now as there's no phone display that can do it, but if you have a Z2 then you might stream it with the MHL lead plugged in to your 4K TV, no?

Not many people doing it now, sure, but eventually they will. And 1080p screens have been around for over a year now, so plenty of people already have a phone with full HD even if they don't upgrade for a while.

Networks will need to provide a minimum speed to cater for it, or be left behind. EE makes a big deal of video streaming (even bigger after its announcement earlier this week) so can't suddenly start to say that people shouldn't be streaming or that their network isn't capable.

Of course, if you don't mind losing customers then you can continue to think the solution is to cap data allowances and speeds.

I'm not sure video 'compression' can be counted as a benefit!

Many apps and networks limit excessive streaming and file sharing and often that forces users to think about how to do tasks more efficiently. Sending a short clip on Viber etc is very cost effective and in most cases can get across the message intended.

There will be some cases where higher quality video needs to be transferred but in those circumstances price can easily manage demand. I am sure there are some professional users who don't want mandatory compression and are willing to pay for the bandwidth needed to transport their material and they should have that option available.

Networks have to cater for the majority of 'average users' and current mobile technology simply can't cope with 4K video being streamed by large numbers buying high spec handsets. Already some networks have included reference to video compression in their traffic management documentation, as detailed above, which is wise if they want to be able to offer a quality of service to the majority, for most of the time.

Professional users would be using business tariffs though and would be paying for that kind of service like EE offer, rather than a £15 or £20 One Plan.

http://www.techradar.com/news/intern...-years-1198272

i'll tell you what's weird about mobile phones.

you don't have the same car as david beckham, the same house, the same tv, yet you do assume that with mobile phone you can have the best and use it how you like.

why can't streaming 4K video be a luxury product. why do you presume that you can continue to pay £30 a month and ask for more and more. why can't you pay ten times as much if you want to use the network 10 times more than the average user?

That is exactly the case. What a sensible suggestion. Pricing should be affordable for the average user and those who want the networks to invest and provide premium services should pay an appropriate fee for those.

The truth is that we have all made great strides with technology and we have got used to being able to do more for less every year. That is fine as long as there is capacity to deliver it but radio spectrum is finite and will reach a point where users have to think about efficiency. Just as the cost of petrol limits the range and performance of driving the cost of data should limit wasteful and unnecessary use of bandwidth, like streaming at maximum resolution just because it's possible.

Buy the EE 1 petabyte plan for 8 million if you like, nobody is stopping you! it is aimed at business, but they will probably sell it to you.

If that's too much there's a 50TB option.

£8 per gigabyte is EE's business rate roughly, and you can buy it all the way up to a petabyte to share across devices. It is roughly £8k a month for a terrabyte of data subject to the throughput you can achieve.

there's no minutes included sadly.

Well that's going to happen to a degree. If a 4K file is a lot bigger than a normal HD file, you'll use your allowance up quicker.

But competition also plays a part here. Operators can get together cartel-style and seek to maximise profits by charging a lot for data, but some will break away and charges will still fall in the future.

Think of what people paid for allowances years ago when GPRS/EDGE was new, and then 3G was in its infancy. Remember the mobile broadband tariffs from Vodafone with their PCMCIA data cards? Eye watering but who cared? They were sold to business users who needed to communicate on the go and would pay, just as they did when getting their first mobile phones for huge expense in the 80s.

You obviously couldn't charge that now. Data is no longer something business users need. Heck, business users probably consume very little data in comparison to consumers (but - woah - business users are also consumers!).

And as time goes on, networks will have no choice but to readjust their charges as 1GB becomes too small for most, and 10 or 20GB becomes closer to the norm. We'll see higher plans than just 50GB for consumers.

I'd say it's happening already. I mean, Vodafone will let you have free Sky Sports on your phone but if you actually use it, how much data are you consuming for that alone?

Ultimately, not everyone is using iPlayer/Sky Go/Netflix on the go so their usage has probably changed very little. They use very little for social networking and the only increase comes from uploading higher resolution photos from time to time.

But as time goes on, more people will use video streaming services and that will mark a huge turning point.

EE is on the case. Three is seemingly looking at this too. O2 and Vodafone must be also. So what's Giffgaff going to do about this, or does it not need to worry as it doesn't want these users on its network anyway?

a few things in no particular order.

my understanding is we have one of the cheapest mobile markets in the western world? so there doesn't seem to be any collusion.

Business users certainly do need data, and will pay for it. ideally they do not want you streaming a 4K video stopping their calendar from syncing.

50GB data plans are not going to become the norm any time soon. you might think the consumer demand will push it. but if the technology isn't there. like i say on EE's 1PB business it's £400 worth. more if you're only on their 50TB plan. consumer plans are a little cheaper because they are only half used, but that is still a lot of money.

the vodafone skysports deal is a bit weird. they appear to have lost their shit with it. but it is only SD i think, probably <500kbps and at the moment they have a lot of spare capacity on their 4G network as they work out how to monetize it.

i think there is a finite amount of streaming that people will do on their phones. like most people i have a tv. the circumstances in which the majority of people want to watch video on their phones are pretty limited. probably mostly as part of social networks.

GiffGaff:
are in a fairly awkward position. they have set themselves up as the nerdiest and the cheapest operator. nerdy brings high data usage, without my mum to subsidise it or the tariffs. but seriously paying the least and expecting the most?

Three always gave the canniest deal to people using iPlayer etc. Though even there, overcharged public often found the need to criticise.

Seems rather strange that 'non sucker' plans are also referred to as nerdy.

who says that?

what are the sucker plans?

I've no real interest in streaming video to my mobile, and I'm sure a fair number of other people are the same.

Can we have cheaper price plans with no capability to stream video please?

The majority of price plans are such. 500MB is much the norm.

Hard to offer that when video is embedded in many websites like Facebook etc, however there may be some justification for charging a premium for the use of dedicated streaming services like Netflix or Amazon Prime video with additional cost for HD. That may be a solution that will be deployed by some carriers in the future to prevent excessive use of video on mobiles. That said, data pricing offers the same opportunity so I expect that to be the favoured strategy to encourage responsible use.

That's the abolition of net neutrality, the prospect of having different tiers based on charging a premium for some services or denying access to them. That won't go down well with advocates for Internet freedom.