Then enlighten me to the point of business and economics. If its to chant "we must have growth", cutting expenses, improving profit, reducing service, at the expense of the poorest in society, then you can stick it, because thats all I see happening everywhere and what annoys me most is the fake excuses for these reasons given for these decisions and some peoples total exceptance of them without question and ridiculous justifications of them on threads like these. Gullible fools screwing themselves and everyone else.

Those who are using huge amounts of data each month are getting a bargain but costing the network a fortune. Someone once posted that they downloaded 90GB on GiffGaff, had their account suspended and got told that it had cost the network over £1000.

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...postcount=2012

Meanwhile, EE sells data to business customers at around £8/GB, so 90GB at that rate would cost £720. If you're downloading that much data for £15 a month, you're getting a great deal but it's unsustainable in the long term.

I hate it when any network (or any service based business for that matter) reduces the service / value for money that it offers especially when it also means that most people will end up paying more for it.. This is just another nail in the coffin for the consumer, who generally in this Country, will (after the initial round of complaining), just sit back and accept it, and its that little fact that most businesses rely on when rolling out unpopular changes.

Whether you were for or against Three's original USP, it did keep the other networks keen in relation to active competition. Now Three seem intent on eventually just becoming A.N Other network, its just going to serve to encourage other networks to also become complacent, or worse still, consider where they can also cut their services & increase their prices, based on what their own customer base will stand, before they start losing significant numbers.

If the industry keeps back tracking on its Data allowances, I suspect it won't be long before we all start paying £15 / 500mb - so be careful what you wish for, as eventually it may reach a stage where a network may choose to limit or remove a service which you also previously found to be of value.

Your just spouting 2nd hand information from companies that have proved to be liars, did they say it would of cost the network over a £1000, where is the source of that info, the company themselves. Oh of course it must be true.
I think You know nothing. Prove me wrong, answer this. - How much cost is the data to EE. before they sell it, do you know that?

So by that thought process, we should be paying the same price for fuel as we did several years ago, and food, and gas, and electricity?

The simple facts are that even if you have the same number of users, using the same resources (amount of data/minutes) running on exactly the same infrastructure, your costs are going to rise. You're going to need to pay staff - and over time costs of staff will always rise. Inflation will always hit - and if you don't pay your current staff more, you'll have to hire new staff as they'll leave which in itself costs more and you have to pay the current going rate to get new staff.

If you add the fact that we - as a society - are using vastly more mobile data than we have in the past, that means that more kit is needed to support even the same number of users, which costs more to implement and support. Add more users and you need to get more in quicker to support the rate of growth.

All of these things lead to prices increasing. It's a fact of life. You have a contract with Three which says that they will provide you with services for X amount of time at X price. After that time, both sides can agree to part ways, continue as is or re-negotiate where you stand.

That's all Three are doing - they're saying "we feel we can't continue offering your previous deal, this is what we now offer". It's no different to your gas or electricity prices changing.

I'd rather Three did something to try and keep themselves sustainable as a business rather than just trying to keep everything running as is and run themselves into the ground - whether that be because of lack of data capacity or funds.

I seem to remember O2 becoming dreadful with data about 4 years back because they kept trying to offer what they always had with the same capacity and at the same prices, and it led to almost a year of shocking 3G performance and me jumping ship to Three.

Ultimately a tethering cap won't be an issue for most. For some it will be - and for some of those it will be because they're not using the service as intended (the 180GB per month type people!). Unfortunately there will always be some that fit between the two camps when something like this happens - they haven't been overly excessive, but it will impact them. In those kind of scenarios you have to ask if it's better to think "You swines! How dare you?!" or "Ah well! Damn and blast! But it was great whilst it lasted!"?

Data prices will have a really huge mark up. Realistically it wont be remotely near £1000 or even £720. 5p pre GB is much closer to the mark!




http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/brain...e-scenario.htm

It's not just data. Calls and texts are being seriously reduced as well.

2000 minutes plus loads of 3 to 3 being reduced to 600 minutes (though that is still plenty of calling time) and zero 3 to 3 minures is a savage cut. The loss of 3 to 3 minutes, people are really going to feel the pinch if they have been their phones heavily on the new plan which has a max of 600 minute plan. But the 600 minutes are only to 01 and 02 numbers with calls to 800 and 0845 free.

The days of being on the smartphone calling several friends and your family with 3 for several hours a month are coming to an abrupt end as they won't be able to afford to keep calling 07 on their smartphone as such calls are outwithvtge allowance. They are going to have to call friends and family within their 600 mins to 01 or 02 numbers. But it's bad news if you need to call your friends or family mobile to mobile in emergency.

Yes, that's a fair point, there will always be a profit margin built in to the prices. That article though is referring to fixed line services. The cost for mobile data transmission will always be somewhat higher, due to the infrastructure needed.

Really if 90GB on giffgaff through tethering cost £1000, Three would of hardly of come up with unlimited tethering on their packages for £15 a month. It just doesn't make sense.

I take and understand the points your making, but to make your argument carry more weight, can you provide the figures that these companies will be paying? Without knowing those figures it's difficult to weigh up - but in the absence of any other source then we have to consider that the figures quoted by these companies are reasonable ball-park figures? Or even - at a complete stretch - if they're only 10% then it's still unsustainable on an ongoing basis for a customer to pay £15 a month?

I think the problem is with providing "unlimited" services. I think that it's clear to most of us it means "use what you want, normal usage means we can cater for you and if you have the occasional blip where you use a bit more one month because you've replaced your device/laptop/console, we can cope with that". Unfortunately some people see "unlimited" as meaning "I will download the absolute maximum throughput 24 x 7 x 365 as I am able and don't you even ever try to stop me".

Of course, some people will use very little data and some people will use an extreme amount of data, and most people will sit in between. The costs of all incomes has to be able to pay for the usage of all data, and staff, and infrastructure running costs, and infrastructure expansion costs (to cater for increased usage by existing as well as new customers).

That means that there's a tipping point - when the excessive users start to pose a threat, you have to deal with them. Whether that be congestion. Whether that be that they're costing the business disproportionally. Whether it be for both of those reasons or others - but when they become unsustainable (or are heading in that direction), you have to do something to continue to keep your business sustainable for both your business and the majority of your customers.

I'm not saying that this will be the magic bullet some think it will be in bandwidth availability - but it will cause an improvement for some people in some areas... I do think it's more about overall sustainability before it becomes a major problem though...

Industry suppliers like Nokia Siemens have published white papers that list the cost to provide data at around €1 per GB. That assumes delivery using LTE with high capacity. It is stated that "Monthly network CAPEX + OPEX can be kept below €3 per subscriber over an eight year depreciation period if mobile broadband penetration is at least 500 subscribers per site and if data use is below 2GB per subscriber per month." (From Mobile broadband with HSPA + LTE Capacity & Costs Aspects - Nokia Siemens Networks White Paper).

http://www.developingtelecoms.com/bu...t-aspects.html

The cost to provide data is more than the cost to buy bandwidth though.

A Mobile Network Operator may pay 5p to transfer 1GB bandwidth.... But they then have the costs of their staff, offices, masts, routing kit, own data centres, etc above the 5p (or whatever the cost is) to transmit into/out of their network.

Your link's great in explaining the costs for a link across one of the undersea cables - but there's multiple links on "the Internet" which need paying for (that all get rolled up/packaged to whoever provides connectivity to the MNO) - then the MNO need to pay their own costs and generate their own profit.... Only by factoring in all of that can you reach a cost per GB for the MNO.

Thanks for that

So €1 is 78p. Which is still nowhere near the huge mark ups the networks charge. 100GB would cost £78.

Which is more than 500% of the £15 some people may currently be paying.

It's swings and roundabouts though - a MNO has to be able to pay all of their costs from all of their income. There's a tipping point to remain sustainable. Those outside the boundaries of "normal usage" are those that either get the best or worst deal depending on your personal circumstances.

I'm not one of those people who just weakly accept what I'm given thankyou.

Always beware a person who uses the term "fact" before they make a point.
three is not a farm, they are not a processing/manufacturing company, they allow you access to the internet, how much manpower is involved in that, compared to producing and actual product on a mass scale. They are allowing you to pick up there signal to transmit data, Yes the bigger they get the more employees they will need, but the bigger they get the more money they make to allow for that growth. Its not a manufacturing business, its nothing compared to a business that produces a physical product, or deals with physical products they in, they out. They are a business that exist primarily in the digital realm.
So that "fact" of yours is complete rubbish, if anything there in a position to lower prices more so than any other company because they operate mostly in that invisible digital world. The increeasing cheapness of Music downloads is a good example. Its not like they have to hand deliver mobile data to your door is it.
And anyway your "fact" is not true of any other multi national corporations, I don't see the profits of amazon and apple decreasing the bigger they get, especially when there are employees for them to exploit here and especially overseas. And lets not forget the minuscule amount of tax they pay compared to other cash strapped independent business's.
Your also neglecting the advancements in technology which benefits a company like three and enables them to streamline there business and cut more corners and expense as time goes on.

Your argument is bogus, and based on 2nd hand information fed to you by probably the corporation themselves. And your inference that the company is not sustainable is an insult to your intelligence and mine.

Three have approximately 10 Million customers. Since 10% of Three's approx. 1 Million One Plan customers are heavy users that means there are approx. 10,000 heavy users that are costing the company more than they are paying in subscriptions. So its not quite as bad as people are making out. Obviously Three want to improve profits.

Lets do some more estimating!

Lets assume the average bandwidth hog uses 50GB per month 78p X 50 GB = £39.

So if they got the cheap £15 per month Sim Only deal £39 - £15 = £24 per month loss for Three.

10,000 High users will cost Three an extra £24 per month. That's 240,000 per month loss or 2,880,000 per year. Obviously they will want to get rid of customers who are costing them almost £3 Million a year.

Remember the majority of customers will make Three a nice profit!

sigh. I'm unsubscribing this thread. was hoping for people to post reasonable alternatives, but all i'm getting is nonsense from those who expect something on a gold platter for £15/month.

I work in the IT industry, and in IT infrastructure. I can say with absolute certainty that although different in so many ways from a manufacturing company there are overheads involved with growth.

As you grow you need to meet your existing capacity needs as well as your growth needs and. Whilst your suggestion that the money a company like Three makes allows for that growth - they also need the infrastructure and staff in place to support growth as it happens, not after the fact.

You can't say "last month I had 50,000 new customers therefore I'll start supporting them next month". You have to have the capacity for them before they come on board - and that costs. You then also need to cater for the growth needs of your existing customers using their service more. You then also need to cater for the prospective new customers that come on board next month.

There's a lot of forecasting that needs to go in place - and getting things like planning permission for new masts (or altering existing masts) takes time, as does getting the backhaul links in place.... And increasing capacity in places that it's needed.

Then add the capacity to your customer service centre (which unlike the likes of EE or BT you can get through to in just a few minutes with Three, which has to be a good thing)?

So compared to manufacturing something on a mass scale, less "people" may be involved - but the cost of some of those services will still be high.

Streamlining businesses through advancing technologies may cut some costs, but it increases others - for example deploying newer 4G kit (with less people experienced to do so, lines in factories that are less mature and R&D costs still being recovered) will always cost more than deploying older 3G kit with lower manufacturing costs (because the lines in factories to create them are less mature, R&D costs have already been recovered and more people trained to install and manage them).

Also to the point of "bewaring a person using the term 'fact'" before making a point and then stating "so that fact of yours is complete rubbish" without backing up the point your making doesn't really sit to well. The fact I stated is a fact - and I challenge you to prove it otherwise.

If you have exactly the same infrastructure and the same usage over a period of time (say 2 years for arguments sake) your staff costs will be more at the end of that period than at the start.

Even if you cut a few heads and expect your remaining staff to do more, if you don't give them some kind of increase they will get fed up and leave. If they leave, then it will cost money to hire replacements, and time, money and effort to train the replacements. If you don't offer the going rate to the replacements, they'll either be rubbish or leave when they can get something better.

I know that many companies go about saving on staffing costs - but quite often they end up hiring contract staff which costs more but can be put through the books as flexible staff so they're not counted in the main head count for staffing costs, but ultimately this costs more.

Everything I've put, I've explained my reasoning for. I have drawn my conclusions and debate from a point of experience. It's not all second hand fed to me "by the corporation themselves". I'd ask you not to question my intelligence, or suggest anyone is attempting to insult it. It's great to have different points of view and discuss those!

I'm not saying the company isn't sustainable - I'm saying that there's a tipping point over when a company becomes unsustainable, and it's best to not let things get to that point.

When you have a small number of people disproportionately using the resources available, I don't think it's unfair - for longevity and for fairness - to ask those people to pay more. If it causes you to look at what led to that situation in the first place and come up with a way forwards that stops you from being in the same position again in a few years time, then that's your decision. That's all I think Three have done - and I can see why they have.

Three also did state that it was cheaper to run a 4G network than the 3G one.

So in theory as technology changes - prices are falling for mobile operators.

It's purely profit. The profit is in data now and not calls and texts.

It was the same when 2G came out. You got very low minutes, texts were not included in plans - you paid by the text on top of your minutes tariff.

I can't understand why Three has promised several things yet have lied about them when we look back.

They were the mug network, got their act together. I recommended several friends and family to them as they were unsure about them. However things that they shout about no mid term price rises etc - they done these things around 24 months ago with my other half.

It's a network that says something but does another.

Agreed - but reading through the white paper the €1 per GB figure is a bit misleading. It's based around the costs to deploy sites (which I take are masts) and it is only around that figure if a subscriber is using 2GB per month and there are 1,000 people on the site. You can argue that there will be many that use less, and many that use more. It can also cost more or less depending on the number of subscribers per site.

Ultimately the white paper's findings are that costs can be kept below €3 per GB as long if users less than 2GB per month each and there's at least 500 subscribers per site (which is considered 25% penetration of a site). That can drop to less than €1 per GB if penetration is higher and I should also imagine the higher data throughput the lower the cost.

Of course this is all based on 8 years deprecation so needs a lot of upfront investment - most likely at least part financed and therefore also paying the interest on that investment.

If we take the middle value of €2 per month then that becomes £6 million per year based on your estimates.

I'm not saying that they don't want to get reduce the impact of 10,000 customers that are costing Three £3 million - £6 million per year. That makes good commercial sense doesn't it? As well as freeing some (quite substantial) resources? Everyone, outside of maybe 10,000 people, wins?

You sound like you work for three

Thats a long convoluted post that basically agrees with all of my points.
Your post sounds like a damage limitation exercise.

I said "considerably less employees than a manufacturing company", - yes you agree, I love it that you say "less people may be employed" when you know that there is a considerably less amount of employees. that shows you to be trying to disguise the truth in a statement to lessen the impact of that fact.

advancement of technology streamlining costs - yes you agree,

company making serious profit and growing all the time,
even say so themselves on their site
Richard Woodward, Chief Financial Officer, said: “2013 saw Three become a bigger and more profitable business, driven by a focus on giving customers what they want.

“With revenue topping £2 billion, costs falling and operating profit doubling Three is delivering consistent, profitable growth in all areas.”

I dunno about that focus on giving customers what they want, another lie.

Or we can take a look at this link
http://www.theguardian.com/business/...riples-profits

Yeah, they need to make sure they are sustainable lol. I question your intelligence and motives when you are duplicitous in the way you phrase your answers.
Well done for replying and agreeing with all I said without it seeming very obvious and also clouding the issues with waffle.

I vouchsafe you work for three.

Hi

I've got off the fone to Three Customer Services, I hadn't received the txt message. My 12 month One Plan contract was due to change on 22.11.2014. I'd explained to them that I'd not received the txt message but I knew about Three's plans to phase out the One Plan. I've signed up to a new plan. I was offered, unlimited calls, unlimited txts, unlimited data, 4GB hotspot, free calls to 0800 numbers, rolling month contract for £15.00. Im happy with that as I was already paying £15.00.

Baz

not sure why I wasn't offered this - asked multiple people for the same!

Hi

I'd foned Three Customer Services before lunch on my iPhone, calling them on 333. They couldn't offer me unlimited everything and 4GB Hotspot for £15.00, so I'd told them I'd carry on with my plan as normal.

The number I'd foned to get the deal that I will move onto on the 15.11.2014 was 08003583429. They said I'd not received the txt message to which I said. Yeah I know but I know the One Plan is being phased out on the 05.01.2015. It pays to be nice or maybe Three just like the Northern Irish lol.

Baz

Compare your usage with baz

They might have done a cost analysis based on historical usage. If you are a higher user you may pay more to cover the predicted data supporting costs. Just a guess