[Ben]

It’s very interesting to consider that all three 3G networks in the UK currently have very different 3G pricing models for data. Three simply removes access to external data altogether and provides unmetered access to it’s por.tal. Vodafone allows unmetered access to it’s portal too, but also allows external data at a price. Orange, on the other hand, charge for all data transmitted, but at much much lower rates and with an inclusive bundle on the contract itself.

Which is best? Well, for the consumer I’d argue Orange. The model employed by Orange promotes freedom of choice, so the end user can either browse Orange World or browse sites and por.tals of their choice at the same rate. Such transparency and promotion of freedom of choice should be acknowledged and praised. Vodafone, however, have a model which gives them the best of both worlds. They’ve secured full-length high-quality music downloads for their por.tal, but don’t alienate users by restricting them to that por.tal entirely. What with their amazing Christmas subscriber results and their comprehensive 3G line-up, Vodafone’s Sarin must be a very happy bunny right now.

One thing is clear to me. No network has yet identified the best way to charge for data. On a slightly unrelated note Orange (and Vodafone if they don’t have this feature) desperately need a ‘My Three’ section. This is a commendable feature from Three, but would be of so much more use on other networks where real time data usage could be recorded.

[Ben]

Thank you for the poll contributions thus far...

Does anyone have any ideas for alternative ways of billing for 3G services?

[Hands0n]

I feel that the transparent model is best, at an affordable tariff. Let the volume of data consumption be the reason to charge, not the ability do access data. Essentially, metered access - something we've been familiar with in wired services until the advent of broadband. After all, our voice and video access is metered.

Continuing the theme - we already pay metered voice access to "premium content" services.

Perhaps, in time, the ops will be able to offer us both options metered and unmetered at suitable tariffs. Thus further increasing our choice. But I wonder if the networks can actually support this in terms of data and access volumes yet. I keep reading how 3G accessibility falls off with more usage in a particular cell. I suspect none of the networks are really at primetime for 3G yet.

[3GScottishUser]

I think 3 actually have one thing right - pricing. Their charges are transparent and its a good combination being able to either pay per view or buy a bundle for video content.

Only annoying thing with the pay-per-view option is that you get charged even if the download fails. They assume you will get it within a 20 minuter timescale. That has put me off using it for a while.

[Ben]

Yeah, I do agree with you there.

I think what I would prefer, though, would be if all the networks portal content was an incentive to be with that network - ie part of your 3G contract package - and you were just billed for how much data you transfer at the agreed data rate. What's lacking at the moment is a real time data usage indicator on the mobile portals.

What would also be good under this scheme would be to detect the users agreed data rate and calculate the price of consuming the data about to be consumed.

Network portals should be a value added feature for subscribers to differentiate the networks from one another - not a way of locking your subscribers into buying ringtones and other content from you.

There are exceptions to my suggestion - Music downloads, for example, have royalties to be paid and so cannot be 'inclusive'.

[Marcwic]

How about charging per byte but at a reasonable rate? It should be pennies per megabyte, not pounds!

[3GScottishUser]

Agree 100%. Look what they charge for a text... 1280 bits costs 10p to send on most networks. Crazy!!! Voice is sent at 12.2Kb/s so 1 second of voice uses more than 10 times the same bandwidth to send yet costs a fraction of a text message.

The networks have been making fortunes from SMS/MMS and Data for ages. Time they rethought the whole pricing structure to encourage more mobile use of their wireless networks.

[miffed]

I think one day someone will have the balls to charge a flat rate - and when they do they will clean up

I reckon it will be bloody expensive still (as flat rates go ) , but one day , someone will suprise us and do it

Remember me & my bizarre predictions then :p

[3GScottishUser]

Why not?

Something like the way they cahrge for Broadband on landlines now.

A flat fee with a 'capped' useage rate. Fair and sensible.

[Ben]

It would certainly encourage takeup if users knew there was a flat fee and they wern't going to get a massive bill. The 'capped' idea would work well if enforced like most Broadband companies do it - a simple letter or note on the bill if you go wildly over advising you that your tariff will increase if your data usage continues at that level.

Billing by the Kilobyte in a world of broadband data is just insane at the end of the day. I do agree with the poll so far - a solution such as this would be better than the options currently available.

[Hands0n]

Unless and until the radio transmitters can handle sufficient volumes of traffic I can't see the flat rate coming any time soon now. But taking up on the challenge, I do think it is a good idea in principle if not in fact. If the technology can provide network bandwidth along the lines of ADSL in the wired world then the excuse for not selling it flat rate becomes somewhat specious.

Maybe WiMax and WiFi will offer the challenge for 3G to meet. Certainly when we get to 4G this discussion point may well become entirely moot as it will encompass the mix of technologies that we know and understand today. How they charge for that, and pro-rata would be an utter mess, is going to be a major challenge.

[@NickyColman]

I think a Capped solution would be the best. In order to stop mass network conjestion i think a "tier" system should be introduced whereby the higher the tarrif the higher your "cap" is. PayG customers either be given a smaller cap with the option of a "bolt-on" of somesort. If someone breaks their cap there could be a number of penalties ie their www. is turned off for the rest of the month or they are offered to pay a premium to add another cap.

[Jon3G]

Just like the ISP's do then

[3g-g]

Personally I'd like to see it based along the lines of your home ISP, you pay a monthly fee and your data has a cap (if you're unlucky). I believe they already use this model on some of the US cellular operators for GPRS data use. But Europe has always been ahead in terms of mobile technology over the US, so possibly there isn't as much data traffic on the other side of the pond

The only thing is that stops this kind of charging in the nature of the network. Each BTS has a limited link capacity, usually 2Mbits, sometimes 4 on larger city sites, but the beauty of a mobile network, and it's downfall WRT unlimited data use is that fact you don't know where your customers are going to be. At least with a home DSL service you know that you can connect 50 users to the one pipe, they'll always be there. With a mobile network you may have lots of users in one place, all using bandwidth hungry services, which eventually the network won't be able to provide, as I mentioned before, because the link to the actual WBTS is limited.

I think untill we see HSDPA, widespread EDGE or integrated WiFi/3G type devices more common we'll all need to pay for the data we use.

[jman]

"I believe they already use this model on some of the US cellular operators for GPRS data use."

They do, and when you read posters talking about using radio apps and such like over GPRS in the US you can only go green with envy.

"But Europe has always been ahead in terms of mobile technology over the US"

No point in being ahead if the technology is to expensive to fully utilise by joe-public.

[Hands0n]

Sadly, in Europe, we see wireless as a value add rather than a general purpose enabler. We would never have been able to get our collective heads around to actually giving away the Internet like DARPA did !!!

Yes, Europe leads the US in some ways but commercially we are still at the maggot stage!