It would be quite ironic if AT&T, just months after bragging about its open network, were to implement a 5 Gbyte cap on 3G data usage. So far, the proposed soft cap has shown up only on some employee/agent message boards and a few blogs, and there's no evidence that AT&T has introduced it or has plans to do so. But such soft caps have their precedence with AT&T's biggest competitor, Verizon Wireless. This is a competitive industry, and when one carrier adopts a policy — whether good or bad — the others often quickly follow.

Let's explore the soft cap. Its obvious purpose is to prevent customers from abusing the data network, taking more than their fair share of a limited and valuable resource. It makes logical sense, but there are a few holes in that argument. If capacity is so valuable, why are operators consistently advertising “unlimited” data plans? (To be fair, Verizon has begun taking the word unlimited out of its advertising, but the implication is still there.) The carriers are positioning 3G like wireline broadband, and we think of broadband data as an unlimited commodity. Telling customers they can behave one way while knowing that they'll behave in an entirely different way may be savvy marketing, but you can't complain if customers start behaving the way you expressly told them they could.

Is 3G data really such a scarce resource? The Big 3 have barely moved beyond a single 3G channel in most markets. If there is a capacity crunch, wouldn't the simple answer be to add more 3G channels? On the other hand, 5 Gbytes is a lot of data for a phone, and the carriers point out that a customer has to be doing a lot more than surfing and downloading the odd application or ringtone to consume 5 billion bytes in a single month. There are numerous culprits: video-streaming applications such as Slingbox, peer-to-peer networking applications, video blogging and real-time wireless Web cams. But aren't these the types of applications we want consumers to use? We've had mobile browsing and game downloads over the networks for years, and they've failed to produce the wireless data revolution we dreamed of in 2000.

Furthermore, is there any proof that these new multimedia apps are overtaxing the network? The real problem isn't the few users accessing Slingbox, but the millions of users with BlackBerrys. Push e-mail actually transmits little data, but it signals the BlackBerry server constantly, hogging massive amounts of network resources in the process. Whole networks in Europe have gone down for hours, if not days, due to hyperactive e-mail devices. Admittedly, operators charge more for push e-mail services, but not that much more.

I'm not arguing that 3G access should be cheap. Spectrum ultimately is a limited resource, and wireless networks are not inexpensive to build or maintain. Perhaps $20 to $30 a month isn't the proper price point for customers who use their 3G connections as a broadband service, especially as 3G networks start filling up with more users. That critical mass will never happen if operators start placing arbitrary limits on what customers can and can't do with their phones. Maybe the pricing models and the marketing need to be retooled. But if the goal is really to put a 3G plan onto the bill of every man, woman and child in the U.S., then instead of trying to prevent customers from discovering new uses for their phones, carriers should be encouraging them.

ONLINE

Telephony Senior Editor Kevin Fitchard talks with StubHub's Ashley Gibson about using wireless as a means to buy and sell event tickets.
www.telephonyonline.com/podcasts