# A letter to Rogers & Apple



## Drizzx (Jun 30, 2008)

*Data Usage Analysis: A letter to Rogers & Apple*

Below is the letter I sent to several Rogers and Apple executive in an effort to perhaps educate people who think these data plans are acceptable, I've made a few revisions since the original in case anyone decides to repost this elsewhere. The only thing I ask is that you cite the original source here at ehMac.






> *The Reality of Data Usage on the iPhone
> *
> 
> 
> ...





Edit History
7/05/08 at 02:22 PM. Reason: "Sent e-mail": Thanks shogun 308 for pointing
that out
7/05/08 at 02:34 PM. Reason: Revision of opening statement: Thanks hugerobots!


----------



## Amiga2000HD (Jan 23, 2007)

That's very well thought out and composed, and the truly sad thing is that what you mentioned in your paragraph above the letter is probably true: the executives you sent it to probably won't read past the first paragraph, if at all. That's a shame.


----------



## Caillou (Jun 9, 2003)

*Well done. Keep it up !*

Well done. Let's keep the pressure building.

Already all major TV networks in Canada have covered the story including Radio-Canada's Téléjournal yesterday night.

All the coverage I've heard and read clearly highlight consumers educated complaints that Rogers' offer in not competitive, especially to what is available south of the border. 

Hear, hear to the Web 2.0 that allows some power shift to happen... ;-)


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Well-written and well-argued. At 5¢ a kb (current add-on data rate), that little 316 kb e-mail would have cost $15.80 to send _or_ receive.


----------



## mirkrim (Oct 20, 2006)

Excellent letter, Drizzx. Thanks for writing and sending it!

Not sure who runs the "get the facts on the iphone" website, but I think this letter is definitely worth putting up.


----------



## hugerobots! (Sep 24, 2007)

I agree that the subject has been covered thoroughly in your letter, but I would like to point out why you supersede your message to us that they may not read past the first portion.

In order to spark interest from the reader, you'll have to understand that the reader needs to want to read it. By way of insinuating that their employees are any of those incompetent traits warrants a quick toss over the shoulder.

Lure your audience in with rational, cautious suggestion, then hammer them with clear decisive arguments. They already know people are not happy with the limited data package as you mention by way of media outlets. Rather than drudge through the inevitable scorn in your letter, why not coax them into believing what you're trying to say is legitimate.

The whole point of this 'movement' (if it can even be called that by the consumer), is to inform the supplier that their services are inadequate. Not that their business is in no way able to supply the quality of demand their products are shelving. It's already evident that the product will sell, which is their bottom line. Kicking and screaming is not something they'll be kind enough to oblige with smile on their face.


----------



## Drizzx (Jun 30, 2008)

> I would like to point out why you supersede your message to us that they may not read past the first portion.


Good point, and well taken. I guess when started writing this it was not with the same tone and intention that it ended up once i started writing out the facts. Had I reviewed that top portion prior to sending, it would have had a different tone.

I guess that's water under the bridge now. However, if this information can be used to help educate others as to how truly awful Rogers plans are and convince a few others to hold out, then it'll have served some purpose.


----------



## zlinger (Aug 28, 2007)

Wow. Thanks so much for reporting this research and findings. It serves as a good indicator for the trends in data usage in the 3G world. It is clear that Rogers is completely out to lunch with their calculations and consumer expectations for their so called "value" packages.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

Great, well-researched letter.
I've been writing back and forth with Rogers customer service over the last week, explaining to them the error of their ways.... which I'm sure they're all well aware of. 

I find that what they keep responding is the statement "not all carriers worldwide are offering unlimited data". In fact, the last correspondence I received, regurgitated stats about a data cap in France. Actually I will quote them here:

_"The majority of carriers offering iPhone 3G worldwide do not have 
unlimited plans for this device. Some carriers have implemented a ?soft
cap? so the plan is not truly ?unlimited?. For example, in France the 
soft cap is 500MB where we have a plan that includes 4 times that amount
in your bucket. Unlimited plans could end up costing you more for what 
you do not use. 
Based on reports that the average usage for the first generation iPhone 
was less than 100MB per month, our iPhone 3G plans more than accommodate
the vast majority of customers. Rogers and Fido customers get 4 times 
the data on our $60 entry-level plan (400 MB) and 20 times the data on 
our most comprehensive plan. "_

What I had to reiterate in my follow-up to this email was that:
a) 400mb *would* be fine for my uses, given that I use wifi most of the time

BUT

b) To call this $60 base plan a "Value Pack" is not only misleading, but is practically extortion given the fact that once you've added the hidden fees (saf + 911) and have added a reasonable amount of TXTs and Caller ID ($15 value add-on) you're already looking at a bill just over $93 per month... for 3 YEARS (and you'd better pray that you never move outside of Canada...)

I also did some quick comparison to show how aside from the data issue, the AT&T plans in the USA have way more value than those proposed by Rogers. It would seem as though they're made for people who never get off the phone. Rollover minutes + unlimited mobile to mobile + no long distance fees. How on earth would anyone EVER need anymore than the base 400 daytime mins is beyond me.

That is why I will not be purchasing their iPhone until the prices are brought down to reflect the services offered with them. 

ok im done.

But yes. I'm actually thinking of copying this researched letter and setting it up as an auto-response to any further correspondence with Roger$. This ridiculousness has got to end.


----------



## Drizzx (Jun 30, 2008)

> But yes. I'm actually thinking of copying this researched letter and setting it up as an auto-response to any further correspondence with Roger$. This ridiculousness has got to end.


If you do, take the most recent version as the beginning has been rewritten with a slightly different slant. It's slightly less likely to be ignored.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

I am sorry, Greed has turned his hearing aid off for today.

Perhaps if, as indicated, if we all speak loudly by holding our tongues on "R-day", they might just sit-up and take notice.

Anyone know any shareholders that they could "talk" to?? beejacon


----------



## zkarj (Jul 8, 2008)

*This calculation is flawed*

I'm sorry, but this argument is flawed.

1) A 40,960 byte text email is *large*. I just checked my GMail account and it has 14,190 emails and these include all those movies, pictures and powerpoints that friends send me. These total 1449Mb. That's an average size of *all* emails of just over 104kb. Nowhere near your numbers.

2) Even if you receive a 500kb email, Mail should only download the headers and first 40kb or so and then only when you start the app and further still, only when you open the folder (besides the inboxes). The full contents of the email are only fetched when you open them and attachments only when you open them. This is how standard email clients behave and they were built this way to conserve data transmission. From my observations, Mobile Mail does all this.

3) You state that you currently view 30 web pages on your iPod Touch, and that because of the prevalence of cellular coverage you will add 10 more pages. This means 10 pages only will be over the cellular connection unless you are deliberately changing your browsing habits.

4) If you have a 'miserly' 400Mb cap, why on earth would you watch the few YouTube videos you consume over a cellular connection when clearly you have a workable wi-fi connection (that you currently use for your iPod Touch)?

5) Following on from #4. You are including ALL of your usage over the cellular connection. It's like you want to cut the cord and live the wild life. If you had unlimited data that might be a great lifestyle. But you don't. So live within your means.

6) Your figures for iTunes store, app store etc are basically guesses. Once again, when you *know* you are going to be consuming large amounts of data, why wouldn't you wait until you are within wi-fi coverage or even (in the case of the two stores) at home on your computer on your already-paid-for broadband connection (is that unlimited?)

About the only part of this article I agree with is the use of Maps. Clearly this is of little use when at home within my own wi-fi network and most likely to be used on cellular connections. However, smart use of Maps would, I suggest, minimise this data. I.e. use the regular map view unless you need the satellite view and don't try and use it as a turn-by-turn navigator.

To put my thoughts in context, I am a New Zealander and we have just had plans announced here which are similarly restrictive. I am looking at the only affordable (and cheapest) plan with 250Mb of data included.

In summary, don't expect what you want. Work with what you get.


----------

