x PhoneArena is looking for new authors! To view all available positions, click here.
  • Home
  • News
  • Report: U.S. consumers paying as much as ten times too much for LTE

Report: U.S. consumers paying as much as ten times too much for LTE

Posted: , by Alan F.

Tags:

Report: U.S. consumers paying as much as ten times too much for LTE
Are U.S. mobile customers paying too much for LTE service? Have you turned various shades of red after receiving your carrier's monthly bill? If so, you are not alone. The GSM Association conducted a survey and found that Americans are paying three times the European average and as much as ten times more the rate in certain European countries, for LTE service. You might not expect that from the world's biggest LTE market out of the existing 88 countries where the service can be found. As of June, there were 27 milion LTE users in the world with half found in the states. South Korea is the second largest LTE market with 7.5 million users and Japan is third with 3.5 million LTE customers. 21 European countries offer the service with 1.5 million users.

U.S.consumers pay more for LTE

U.S.consumers pay more for LTE

The first country to use LTE was Sweden three years ago.There, the service goes for an amazingly low 63 cents per GB compared to the $7.50 charged by Verizon. Even removing voice and text from Big Red's bundle still works out to $5.50 per GB which remains a large multiple of the price in Sweden and more than double the average rate of $2.50 per GB found in Europe.

According to the GSMA, the lack of competition in the U.S. for LTE service explains the difference in pricing. 38 carriers out of the 88 worldwide that offer LTE are in Europe. Besides the lack of LTE signals in the states, European carriers often market LTE as an add-on or for PAYG services. In America, LTE is often bundled with other services that raise the cost. The same discrepancy in pricing can be seen with 3G. The U.S. rate for 3G is $115 per month versus $51 monthly in the Netherlands and $59 in the United Kingdom.

source: NYTimes via AndroidAuthority

35 Comments
  • Options
    Close




posted on 16 Oct 2012, 01:49 1

1. Ruckus (Posts: 276; Member since: 20 Oct 2011)


This is unfortunately not a surprise to me. I was reading an article online a few weeks ago that showed we over pay for home internet (I believe about 7x higher than France was it?) And our speeds are considerably slower!

We're getting ripped off something fierce!

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 01:58

4. No_Nonsense (Posts: 826; Member since: 17 Aug 2012)


You need to see the Indian speeds and data caps before commenting.

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 02:05

5. MorePhonesThanNeeded (Posts: 618; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)


Only is good US of A!! take it home with ya!

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 09:21

22. superguy (Posts: 269; Member since: 15 Jul 2011)


If you think we have it bad, the Canadians are screwed worse than we are.

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 18:42

28. Nadr1212 (Posts: 741; Member since: 22 Sep 2012)


Are we Canadians I don't think so, so y do u care?

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 01:54

2. XPERIA-KNIGHT (Posts: 2384; Member since: 08 Aug 2012)


"The U.S. rate for 3G is $115 per month versus $51 monthly in the Netherlands and $59 in the United Kingdom."

What about prepaid 3g at $50 a month in the US?? verizon offers it

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 03:34 3

7. laheelahee (Posts: 213; Member since: 09 Apr 2012)


wouldnt that mean they have cheaper prepaid plans in europe too? idk...

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 05:24 2

10. Stoli89 (Posts: 333; Member since: 28 Jun 2010)


...and they do. But on top of that, the phone you buy is not restricted to one network (like Verizon).

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 12:47

26. XPERIA-KNIGHT (Posts: 2384; Member since: 08 Aug 2012)


hey you're right! lol but 50 a month for 3g is really not asking much but also it would never hurt to go lower hehehe :)

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 13:53

27. JunitoNH (Posts: 837; Member since: 15 Feb 2012)


True, but as always there is a catch with Verizon. The offer is only extended to dumb phones a la clam style. If you want to use a prepaid smartphone it'll cost you $80; to add insult, believe is only for 1G of data.

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 01:56 1

3. BrockSamson (Posts: 8; Member since: 26 Sep 2012)


Of course there are vast differences in the sizes of these countries that must be considered. Still getting screwed, but there is more to it than a 1 to 1 price comparison.

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 03:16 1

6. freefour1968 (Posts: 9; Member since: 16 Oct 2012)


size of the country does not matter. look how much money AT@T take in and then compare what other countries take in... thats all bs. I lived in the states ( born an raise 42 years) and worked in cell phone sales for years. America you are getting screwed. I live in Finland and have pre-paid unlimited internet and ony pay 29€ every 6 months. also have a plan on my xperia for unlimited internet 13.95€ a month. and the infrastructure is here and I can be anywere and have signal. Get the government back into the telecommunication and regulate those monopolies an you can have the same.

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 09:18 2

20. superguy (Posts: 269; Member since: 15 Jul 2011)


Getting government IN to the market? The government mucking with the market is the whole reason why prices suck in the US. The telecoms are heavily regulated and relatively limited in what they can do. Add to that it's difficult for new carriers to come in and compete due to the regulation. Plus the government is stingy with spectrum, making it very expensive for carriers to buy what they need (especially for the littler guys).

If the government would make it EASIER for carriers to enter the market, compete, and get the spectrum they needed, we could have more competition.

It's not much different on the wireline side. Laws and local ordinances make it difficult for new competition to enter the market. For wireline internet and phone, you have basically two companies in an area: one telecom and one cable company. And each one pretty much has a monopoly over a given area. So Cox can't compete where Comcast is, Verizon can't compete where Qwest is, etc. It's really screwed up, and we have government to thank for that.

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 03:43

8. wickets (Posts: 12; Member since: 20 Jun 2012)


What about those of us that pay for lte but dont have it because we reside in a an lte black hole? Thats being screwed!!

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 09:00

18. -box- (Posts: 3709; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)


Do you pay a premium for LTE? As far as I'm aware customers pay the same for their data capacity for smartphones regardless of what data network they're using. The only premium I'm aware of is the $10 one for smartphones sprint has

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 05:17

9. Stoli89 (Posts: 333; Member since: 28 Jun 2010)


How's that Republican deregulation work'in for'ya?

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 07:49

16. hybrid06339 (Posts: 23; Member since: 16 May 2012)


Republicans are for the people - mainly the corporate type of people - who then drop a few breadcrumbs for the poor and middle class to feast on.

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 09:34

23. androiddownsouth (Posts: 598; Member since: 02 May 2012)


And the higher Democrat regulation is any better? Far too often people are too far on opposite sides of any argument and are unwilling to find middle ground. If by some miracle there could be middle ground found in this and many other things, we might have a snowball's chance in hell of seeing things get better.

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 05:35 4

11. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5530; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)


Welcome to life in an oligopoly. Imagine what would happen to prices if AT&T had been able to buy T-Mo....

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 06:09 3

12. Ralston1983 (Posts: 65; Member since: 03 Feb 2011)


I'd rather overpay for my mobile bill cause there could be worse things. Do you see how much some of those other countries pay for gas?

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 06:52

13. ibap (Posts: 681; Member since: 09 Sep 2009)


And how exactly are the rates for LTE and gasoline connected?

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 07:42 2

14. roldefol (Posts: 2858; Member since: 28 Jan 2011)


Well, if we had to pay what other countries pay for gas, we'd be much more likely to stay home and use WiFi instead. Our low gasoline taxes permit us to surf porn on the freeway instead.

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 08:20 2

17. Ralston1983 (Posts: 65; Member since: 03 Feb 2011)


They're not, you missed my point. There are other things overseas that are more expensive then it is in the states was the only thing I was trying to get across.

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 09:36

24. androiddownsouth (Posts: 598; Member since: 02 May 2012)


I was recently in Jamaica, and gas prices there are in the area of $8 - $10 US dollars per gallon. While I don't like gas at what it is now, it definitely could be worse.

posted on 19 Oct 2012, 11:44

35. laheelahee (Posts: 213; Member since: 09 Apr 2012)


way to put things in perspective. lol

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 07:46 1

15. sleepyjohnny (Posts: 151; Member since: 16 Dec 2009)


the countries being compared to the US are significantly smaller. They pay less to have their networks because less people are covered. While I don't know how much more, we should have to pay more in order for LTE to be so widespread and used by so many people. Also, Verizon customers pay the same whether they have 3G or 4G, so I'm not sure why this article specifically points out 4G LTE

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 11:10

25. freefour1968 (Posts: 9; Member since: 16 Oct 2012)


S imple economics show you that the more people there are paying for a service the lower the service needs to charge them for said service. Henry Ford knew it that the more people buying his cars the cheaper he could sell them for and the more profit he would make. Not just the assembly line was he noted for. Also Sam Walton knew this simple rule. The argument of those countries aren't as big or they only have blah blah blah is not valid. I have lived in both and America needs to open their eyes and get rid of a broken system of corporate greed.

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 19:12

29. sleepyjohnny (Posts: 151; Member since: 16 Dec 2009)


it's not as simple as simple economics. Henry ford manufactured products (trucks), which are nothing like data services unfortunately. If you have a network capable over holding 5 people per tower, and you have 25 people in an area around a tower, you have to invest money into making more towers and opening the bandwith to allow more people to be connected to one tower. So in Europe, since these countries in question are about the size of one US state (on average), these cell phone providers are dealing with MUCH less data consumption. I understand your point, and you do have one. However, to call my point invalid is not supporting material to your point and makes you look quite ignorant.

I'm not saying the amount Verizon charges is just in any way, and I'm not saying it's unjust. My point is that to some degree, the price of the service must be higher when you have a cell phone provider spanning over a much larger area and delivering service to a much larger population

If you'd like an example, imagine another service like delivering water. If a company based in Kansas is in charge of delivering water to all of the United States, and it completes with two other similar companies, I would highly doubt you'd be able to find a bottle for $1.25. It would cost too much money in delivery to be practical, and that's why there are many providers throughout all of the states. Cell phone services work similarly to some degree as that example since area span of service and the amount of people in the area affects price.

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 23:34

31. freefour1968 (Posts: 9; Member since: 16 Oct 2012)


Hummm ok then with that example Wal mart must have the most expinsive prices on their products then because they are the largest corperation serveing the most amount of people covering the most amount of coverage. And mom and pop store should have the lowest prices because they only serve a small amount of people in a small area. a company charges for a service what that service coat the store will be passed down to the consumers but the store has tomake a profit there for if there are less customers then the profit has to be made off fewer itemes sold there for a higher price for the item. If you have many items to sell with many customers to buy you can make less profit per item and still make more revenue because you are selling more items. Logistics, overhead, and everything else is factored into the price of each item so as people are buying your costs are covered. All companies work like this. Laws of supply and demand . Here were I live now, there are laws that companies cant do what they do in the states like grossly overchargeing you for internet, the companies are regulated to protect the consumers. And in doing so the whole counrty has better service and cheaper prices. You say that these cou rties are only as big as a state but so what. Sweden, Netherlands, Estonia, all together prove we all have boarder to boarder internet coverage and all pay about the same. Yet the data we are useing is the same data you are useing. At&t as well as Verizon over charge you because they can. Infostructure, tower maintenance and upgrades, blah blah blah is all been paid for in youre monthly bill a long time ago . Thats just cost of operation, factor in 30-45% of your bill is what it cost those companies to operate the rest is profit. and greed pure and simple. I worked in telecommunications and sales for years with at&t, verizon, t-mobil, sprint, and the prepaids and at&t and verizon were the worst at greed. Go with t-mobile or sprint they were always cheaper and had ok service or pre-paid.

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 23:54

32. sleepyjohnny (Posts: 151; Member since: 16 Dec 2009)


No that's not a correct analogy in this situation. Walmart sells items. It has nearly an unlimited supply of that item because of the expanse of Walmart and various other factors that deal with the reduced prices available at Walmart. Like I said, data is a SERVICE, not a physical product. Data network relies on bandwidth, so that the more people subscribed, the more bandwidth is required. When you have areas densely populated, the bandwidth required is much higher. You seem to be knowledgeable in economics, but you don't seem to be applying certain facts that change the outcomes. And again, I'm not saying Verizon and at&t aren't charging more than they need to. I'm saying that they need to charge more than a Swedish company providing service in Sweden only. I've only said this in all of my arguments, yet you seem to ignore it completely and just go on to say that all prices are due to greed. That's not factually based at all, not even with your economic knowledge. If you'd like to further contribute to the argument, why don't you look up some statistics pertaining to cellular data.

posted on 17 Oct 2012, 02:47

33. freefour1968 (Posts: 9; Member since: 16 Oct 2012)


It's not that I am ignoring your point about the bandwidth per tower or customer, it's that the laws of economics apply to it as well. with it being a service or product it doesn't matter it is the same. The companies have more than enoigh bandwidth to spread out and the lies they have said in the past about running out are bunck. Yes each cell tower has a limited supply of calls it can handle at a time but thats when you pit up more towers or relays to compinsate for it, the big two wont because it will cut into their generous proffits instead of makeing happy customers and building a better system for everyone they dont . Dont believe everything the CEO's tell the public. Data uses no more bandwidth than makeing a call . Look it up. We both have strong points but your point is supporting then to overcharge you on your bill were as mine is the simple laws of economics that is they would obey they would have better service for all and cheaper prices and still make proffits that are reasonable instead of record high every year.

posted on 17 Oct 2012, 14:40

34. sleepyjohnny (Posts: 151; Member since: 16 Dec 2009)


I'm not arguing them the right to overcharge, because I'm simply stating they have to charge more for their service. Even if voice and data use the same bandwith, data is most likely in constant use. Syncing required there to be constant data flow.

I also find it hard to believe that a voice call over 3G will utilize the same bandwith as data downloaded over 4G. My 4G connection delivers songs to my phone faster than my own home WiFi network. And if this were so, it would be easy to have a factime call over a 2G network. But it's not.

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 09:16

19. casperspirits (Posts: 15; Member since: 20 Sep 2012)


who ever tell me that "America is the land of opportunity", i will spit right in your face

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 09:20 2

21. superguy (Posts: 269; Member since: 15 Jul 2011)


Compared to a lot of other places in the world, it is. Try going to places like North Korea or some of the African countries and tell me how much opporunity there is there.

posted on 16 Oct 2012, 19:16

30. sleepyjohnny (Posts: 151; Member since: 16 Dec 2009)


Please inform me how having data prices higher in one country would make you say that.
Some questions to consider:
1. Is a cell phone truly necessary
2. IS DATA NECESSARY?
3. If you answer no to either of them, how could you form such an ignorant sentence?

Your english is broken, and your attitude and level of respect is seriously lacking. There are many other options than getting an AT&T or Verizon service plan with 4G data in the United States. Many people have come here and have found it to be much more stable and safe than their home countries. By no means is America the supreme best country in the world, and this is no site to be debating that.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories