1. FlashFlare11's Avatar
    I just want to say that this is not a troll thread in any way. Please be respectful!

    Carriers (especially in North America) are starting to make data their cash cow, charging more for data packages than for voice and text. From my understanding (if it's correct), BlackBerry devices are unique in that BIS compresses data, resulting in less data used. On top of that, carriers pay RIM for access to this network, am I correct?

    So, my question is, if BlackBerry devices are less profitable for carriers once sold, why did (or do) carriers push BlackBerry devices when they can make more of a profit from data and overages from other OSs that do not feature data compression?
    04-18-12 08:45 AM
  2. kbz1960's Avatar
    I'm thinking they are not pushing them right and even steering people away from them. In the past things were different.
    Mystic205 likes this.
    04-18-12 08:51 AM
  3. FlashFlare11's Avatar
    I'm thinking they are not pushing them right and even steering people away from them. In the past things were different.
    That's true, but some carriers still do push BBs. Verizon is probably the biggest culprit in steering customers away, but AT&T has usually been pretty good at bringing people to BB (from what I hear).

    But if data is now what carriers are prioritizing on, BBs are at a disadvantage when it comes to carrier advertising (but is a huge bonus for us users )
    04-18-12 08:55 AM
  4. undone's Avatar
    4G is where its at. RIM does not have a 4G device today. So they will get zero (to negative) love from carriers. Carriers are also over subscribed (Verizon release something a while ago about its own estimates being too low for usage), so RIM could exploit there NOC to assist carriers in compressing data and I am not talking just BB devices. Its all about the spin to the carriers. If RIM can convince the carriers that more BB devices = more profits, they will go for it and push the new devices.
    00stryder likes this.
    04-18-12 09:00 AM
  5. guerllamo7's Avatar
    Carriers are not pushing these devices. I called Verizon because I like to check around for prices every so often and the sales guy practically refused to give up on selling me an android. I tried to tell him politely that I like the security, push-email on all accounts not just google, the fact that all OS7 devices were world phones, that I love the keyboard and shortcuts, and that I just want a BlackBerry.
    I actually tried to tell him politely three times not to keep trying to sell me a droid. Finally I got rude and he stopped. Needless to say he did not make a sale but the point is that the are not pushing the devices at all.

    Your observation is correct. It should be cheaper for consumers to use BlackBerry devices as the all-you-can-eat era is passing and the iP4s is a data hog that consumes 3x the data but generates more revenue from data charges is more interesting to carriers.
    FlashFlare11 likes this.
    04-18-12 09:09 AM
  6. joeldf's Avatar
    That's true, but some carriers still do push BBs. Verizon is probably the biggest culprit in steering customers away, but AT&T has usually been pretty good at bringing people to BB (from what I hear).
    Not sure wher you heard that, but AT&T had basically turned their backs on BB right after the release of the original Torch 9800. And even then, they (half-heartedly) pushed the Torch only because it was a joint development product between AT&T and BB that started 2 years prior (that's the reason for the rather enemic hardware compared to other phones at the time). AT&T has been so far up Apple's rear that they virtually ignore BB now. Plus there are plenty of stories right here on this forum of AT&T store reps steering anyone who even looks at a BB away from it to push something else.
    Majestic Lion likes this.
    04-18-12 10:22 AM
  7. xandermac's Avatar
    With services like onavo available, which compresses data on the fly for both android and iOS, carriers have no real incentive to pay the RIM tax anymore.

    They could pre-install onavo on all devices to save data if that was their primary concern. BUT, they don't really care about saving data for the customer because they make a LOT of money on overages.

    RIM will soon eliminate (or greatly reduce) their service tax just to be able to compete. Once that playing field is leveled the carriers might start to pay a little more attention to the platform.

    All carriers want is more spectrum and capped data plans. That's it.
    Last edited by xandermac; 04-18-12 at 10:44 AM.
    04-18-12 10:40 AM
  8. shemaree09's Avatar
    Carriers arent pushing Blackberrys because they arent as popular anymore. Its as simple as that.

    In the U.S. there is very little to no marketing for the new Bold, Torch, or Playbook. Many people dont even know they exist or their features.

    I was inside of At&t and the rep was trying to dial an alpha numberic number (1800-call-att or whatever) on my phone. He was stumped and said "Oh, yeah. You cant dial these types of numbers on Blackberry's"

    I politely showed him how and he said, "Oh! It has a touchscreen too?"

    iOs and Android are dominating, so thats what they push people to them.
    Last edited by shemaree09; 04-18-12 at 01:57 PM.
    04-18-12 01:54 PM
  9. guerllamo7's Avatar
    I don't know it is a simple as some say. However, there is no question that iPhones consume more data. Much more data.
    The carriers want you to have data sucking phones because they want to charge you more.
    Here is an article from Bloomberg that states that.
    Verizon First-Quarter Profit Beats Estimates on Smartphone Sales - Bloomberg

    What is good for the carriers bottom line is not for consumers. Take the BB Bridge app. It saves us from having to get a 3G tablet or at least from paying a tethering fee. It is a great deal for us but not the carriers.
    Majestic Lion likes this.
    04-19-12 07:48 AM
  10. Economist101's Avatar
    I don't know it is a simple as some say. However, there is no question that iPhones consume more data. Much more data.
    The carriers want you to have data sucking phones because they want to charge you more.
    Here is an article from Bloomberg that states that.
    Verizon First-Quarter Profit Beats Estimates on Smartphone Sales - Bloomberg
    The only thing in the article that supports your claim is this line:

    Users of iPhone and other smartphones are lucrative because they spend more each month browsing the Web, sending e-mail and watching video.

    I have it on good authority that BlackBerrys are smartphones and that Verizon offers them. So. . .
    04-19-12 08:00 AM
  11. wuulfy's Avatar
    in the uk when you pass the stores of all the major networks, they are promoting blackberrys quite heavily.

    I suppose they could just be clearing the shelves though...
    04-19-12 08:15 AM
  12. joeldf's Avatar
    I have it on good authority that BlackBerrys are smartphones and that Verizon offers them. So. . .
    True enough.

    But, there is a big difference between "offering" and actively pushing the sale of a particular brand of phone.

    Even looking online, Verizon's main wireless page shows only android phones and one block in the lower left corner for the iPhone. BlackBerry is listed only in name under the list of brands at the very bottom.

    Go to AT&T's main list of phones and it's all Nokia, Apple, and Samsung at first. Then the LGs, HTCs, and Pantechs. You don't see the first BlackBerry until 7 rows down in their default order - and it's the Curve 3G for 1 cent.

    Of course you can narrow down any list, but for the average shopper browsing what's available, BlackBerry just doesn't pop out.
    04-19-12 09:02 AM
  13. xandermac's Avatar
    True enough.

    But, there is a big difference between "offering" and actively pushing the sale of a particular brand of phone.

    Even looking online, Verizon's main wireless page shows only android phones and one block in the lower left corner for the iPhone. BlackBerry is listed only in name under the list of brands at the very bottom.

    Go to AT&T's main list of phones and it's all Nokia, Apple, and Samsung at first. Then the LGs, HTCs, and Pantechs. You don't see the first BlackBerry until 7 rows down in their default order - and it's the Curve 3G for 1 cent.

    Of course you can narrow down any list, but for the average shopper browsing what's available, BlackBerry just doesn't pop out.
    What does this say I wonder?

    I'm guessing it means the carriers make more money off of the competing devices.

    Data compression and RIM taxes aren't profitable.

    Why would a carrier push the least profitable devices?
    04-19-12 09:25 AM
  14. FlashFlare11's Avatar
    What does this say I wonder?

    I'm guessing it means the carriers make more money off of the competing devices.

    Data compression and RIM taxes aren't profitable.

    Why would a carrier push the least profitable devices?
    This is the exact question I was looking for an answer to. It's apparent that BlackBerry devices aren't selling that we'll, but once the customer takes it home, it is making less money for the carrier than iPhones or Android devices. If this continues, how will This affect carrier support for BB10 devices?
    04-19-12 12:19 PM
  15. xandermac's Avatar
    This is the exact question I was looking for an answer to. It's apparent that BlackBerry devices aren't selling that we'll, but once the customer takes it home, it is making less money for the carrier than iPhones or Android devices. If this continues, how will This affect carrier support for BB10 devices?
    I think the biggest change will be the elimination of the rim tax. I've been saying this for a while now and I fully expect it to happen when they switch to Blackberry 10 and activesync.

    As for compression I'm not sure. I believe a number of features of blackberry 10 will use a direct IP connection which will negate the compression aspect. Some features will still require a connection through rims servers. Rim obviously see this as a benefit, which it is for the consumer however the carrier could care less about the consumer and merely want to maximize revenue.

    It's a Catch-22. The consumer wants to save money and the carrier wants to make money. Rim are going to have to try and strike that balance and please everyone. That's a pretty tough position for a manufacturer to be in. Especially one that depends on service revenue and who's customers expect an efficient device.
    Last edited by xandermac; 04-19-12 at 12:42 PM.
    04-19-12 12:30 PM
  16. lnichols's Avatar
    I just want to say that this is not a troll thread in any way. Please be respectful!

    Carriers (especially in North America) are starting to make data their cash cow, charging more for data packages than for voice and text. From my understanding (if it's correct), BlackBerry devices are unique in that BIS compresses data, resulting in less data used. On top of that, carriers pay RIM for access to this network, am I correct?

    So, my question is, if BlackBerry devices are less profitable for carriers once sold, why did (or do) carriers push BlackBerry devices when they can make more of a profit from data and overages from other OSs that do not feature data compression?
    You have to remember that at one point there were EDGE network, and CDMA 1x networks. Bandwidth was scarce, and your smartphone choices were Palm, WindowsCE, and Blackberry. Blackberry devices made it possible to sell data plans and would work great on these slow networks, so the $5 per month per user was a bargain to them and people wanted to buy the phones and the service. Now that we have tons of bandwidth, and phones that replicate many of the functions that Blackberry can do without a fee to the carriers, the $5 per month fee is now a deterrent. Do you think T-Mobile would rather me buy 4 Androids and keep all $80 per month in data fees, or have my 4 Blackberry devices and only get to keep $60 of the $80 charged to me. I have the same 2GB no matter what, and the network is built out so they don't need to save on bandwidth. IMHO RIM needs to get rid of this fee with BB10 devices and find some other way to make up that revenue. Easier said than done, but their are plenty of solutions available that allow the carrier to keep all that data cost from the user, and they will try to get you to buy those first.
    Laura Knotek likes this.
    04-19-12 01:26 PM
  17. Majestic Lion's Avatar
    You have to remember that at one point there were EDGE network, and CDMA 1x networks. Bandwidth was scarce, and your smartphone choices were Palm, WindowsCE, and Blackberry. Blackberry devices made it possible to sell data plans and would work great on these slow networks, so the $5 per month per user was a bargain to them and people wanted to buy the phones and the service. Now that we have tons of bandwidth, and phones that replicate many of the functions that Blackberry can do without a fee to the carriers, the $5 per month fee is now a deterrent.
    This is going a bit far. If there were "tons" of bandwidth there would be no such thing as caps on supposedly-unlimited data plans.

    The simple answer is greed. Every carrier in the United States will try to squeeze every single penny out of consumers while offering them the least possible number of features/options that they can. And you can forget improving infrastructure to handle the bandwidth demand, they'd rather charge you extra for actually using a service that you're already paying for.



    RIM should have bought Sprint when they were teetering some years back, made Sprint a wholly owned subsidiary and solidified their position.
    04-19-12 01:42 PM
  18. Laura Knotek's Avatar
    The caps are not due to bandwidth limitations. The carriers are imposing the caps to make customers move into the higher-priced tiered data plans. If bandwidth really were limited, carriers would not throttle grandfathered unlimited customers at 2 GB, while also selling tiered data plans up to 5 GB without throttling.
    04-19-12 01:49 PM
  19. Majestic Lion's Avatar
    The caps are not due to bandwidth limitations. The carriers are imposing the caps to make customers move into the higher-priced tiered data plans. If bandwidth really were limited, carriers would not throttle grandfathered unlimited customers at 2 GB, while also selling tiered data plans up to 5 GB without throttling.
    This makes it seem like carriers were forced to offer unlimited plans when they didn't want to...as I said, greed. In any event it also ignores two vital variables: population growth and behind-the-times infrastructure.
    04-19-12 02:16 PM
  20. Laura Knotek's Avatar
    This makes it seem like carriers were forced to offer unlimited plans when they didn't want to...as I said, greed. In any event it also ignores two vital variables: population growth and behind-the-times infrastructure.
    The impression I get is that the carriers initially offered unlimited data plans as a selling point to move customers from feature phones to smartphones.
    04-19-12 02:22 PM
  21. lnichols's Avatar
    This is going a bit far. If there were "tons" of bandwidth there would be no such thing as caps on supposedly-unlimited data plans.
    Caps are there to get overage fees and prevent abuse. All residential data networks are designed to be oversubscribed. Most business networks are oversubscribed too, just at a lower ratio. All the carriers, except for Sprint, have built and/or are building out HSPA+ or LTE networks. Sprint will finally be going LTE soon, but they are behind the curve and the EVDO-Rev A is slow compared to the competition (I was with them till last September for 10 years). T-Mobile is refarming there spectrum to support both HSPA+ and LTE. These technologies offer way more bandwidth per MHz of spectrum utilized than EDGE, 3G GSM, and EV-DO CDMA. I say there is tons of bandwidth at the moment because Verizon says only 5% of customers are using the LTE network, even though it covers much more than that. T-Mobile has large HSPA+ network and only 33 Million subs. AT&T is rolling out LTE. Their is still a finite amount of spectrum/bandwidth, but the recent technology enhancements made the pool much bigger very quickly, and right now I think there is more than supply than demand except possibly in the places like Manhattan and other heavy populous/smartphone areas. The goal of the carrier is to oversubscribe the most to get as much profit, while keeping the customer happy enough to prevent them from switching services.
    04-19-12 02:25 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD