Hello Team Exede and Exede Community,
First off, it's good to see that unlimited plans are rolling out - and it is totally understandable that (just as with the Freedom plans), the current top option of Gold is only available to some beams. That makes sense, some beams are more crowded - and it even makes sense to make plans available briefly and then pull them back so that Exede can somewhat control the rate of adoption. It's a classic technique of "measure - adjust - measure - adjust" - it's good business and also makes sense technically.
However (you knew there would be a "however", correct?) - what I feel compelled to question is the pricing policies put in place along with the new plans. I'm not a big fan of offering lower rates to new members... even though I don't like it, however, I do understand that incentives are a tried-and-true business tactic, and lower rates to new members typically are temporary. What I do question, though, is this notion of offering the same plan to different beams and at drastically different pricing. In my beam, I see that Bronze is not available at all (although it's the only lower-speed Unlimited plan) - and that Silver is available, but at $150 per month. I think that's a high price, but again, the pricing is understandable given the need to limit adoption.
However - on other beams, I see that Silver is available for $100. I strenuously question that as a business practice and as a somewhat severe example of exaggerated unfairness.
IF you could not make Gold available in my beam, I get it. But WHY do I have to pay Gold pricing for Silver service? If I can only get Silver, then Silver should be available at Silver pricing... and that pricing should be consistent for all beams.
What does this imply for ViaSat 2 plans? Will there be different pricing, dependent on your beam, when ViaSat 2 rolls out?
If I were to sign up for Unlimited and then decided I did not much care for 480p streaming (and streaming would be the only reason I would consider Unlimited), could I switch back to Freedom - in reviewing the available options, Freedom does not appear to be available on my beam any longer.
If true that I can't switch back to Freedom, then Exede has offered a compromised streaming option - yet at a higher price - if I were to try it and find it did not suit my needs, I could not return to Freedom, which I like so far. If that were to be the case, then not only would Exede not be offering equitable pricing, you'd follow that up by sticking the consumer with limited options to reverse their decision. How is that good business? I just don't get it.
The bottom line is this - Given that with Silver, I would be getting 480p streaming, I should pay whatever Exede has established as the pricing for 480p streaming. I should not have to pay the pricing that's been established for 720p if I cannot get 720p.
If the point is to limit adoption, then either:
a) don't offer Unlimited at all in this beam (although not "fair" either, it's actually more in keeping with your established policy of making different plan options available in different beams, due to congestion). or...
b) charge the Silver rate for the Silver plan (in other beams, it is $100) or...
c) charge more for Silver, as you have done, but establish a rate which Exede can equitably distribute among all beams. Perhaps that rate is $150 - perhaps it is $120 - whatever it is, make your pricing equitable.
This business of setting market "winners" and "losers" really sticks in my craw. I've been a loyal customer and an advocate of Exede, but this decision was a poorly considered one by your business operations team and needs to be re-considered. My .02
Thanks,
Rique
First off, it's good to see that unlimited plans are rolling out - and it is totally understandable that (just as with the Freedom plans), the current top option of Gold is only available to some beams. That makes sense, some beams are more crowded - and it even makes sense to make plans available briefly and then pull them back so that Exede can somewhat control the rate of adoption. It's a classic technique of "measure - adjust - measure - adjust" - it's good business and also makes sense technically.
However (you knew there would be a "however", correct?) - what I feel compelled to question is the pricing policies put in place along with the new plans. I'm not a big fan of offering lower rates to new members... even though I don't like it, however, I do understand that incentives are a tried-and-true business tactic, and lower rates to new members typically are temporary. What I do question, though, is this notion of offering the same plan to different beams and at drastically different pricing. In my beam, I see that Bronze is not available at all (although it's the only lower-speed Unlimited plan) - and that Silver is available, but at $150 per month. I think that's a high price, but again, the pricing is understandable given the need to limit adoption.
However - on other beams, I see that Silver is available for $100. I strenuously question that as a business practice and as a somewhat severe example of exaggerated unfairness.
IF you could not make Gold available in my beam, I get it. But WHY do I have to pay Gold pricing for Silver service? If I can only get Silver, then Silver should be available at Silver pricing... and that pricing should be consistent for all beams.
What does this imply for ViaSat 2 plans? Will there be different pricing, dependent on your beam, when ViaSat 2 rolls out?
If I were to sign up for Unlimited and then decided I did not much care for 480p streaming (and streaming would be the only reason I would consider Unlimited), could I switch back to Freedom - in reviewing the available options, Freedom does not appear to be available on my beam any longer.
If true that I can't switch back to Freedom, then Exede has offered a compromised streaming option - yet at a higher price - if I were to try it and find it did not suit my needs, I could not return to Freedom, which I like so far. If that were to be the case, then not only would Exede not be offering equitable pricing, you'd follow that up by sticking the consumer with limited options to reverse their decision. How is that good business? I just don't get it.
The bottom line is this - Given that with Silver, I would be getting 480p streaming, I should pay whatever Exede has established as the pricing for 480p streaming. I should not have to pay the pricing that's been established for 720p if I cannot get 720p.
If the point is to limit adoption, then either:
a) don't offer Unlimited at all in this beam (although not "fair" either, it's actually more in keeping with your established policy of making different plan options available in different beams, due to congestion). or...
b) charge the Silver rate for the Silver plan (in other beams, it is $100) or...
c) charge more for Silver, as you have done, but establish a rate which Exede can equitably distribute among all beams. Perhaps that rate is $150 - perhaps it is $120 - whatever it is, make your pricing equitable.
This business of setting market "winners" and "losers" really sticks in my craw. I've been a loyal customer and an advocate of Exede, but this decision was a poorly considered one by your business operations team and needs to be re-considered. My .02
Thanks,
Rique
Posted 2 years ago
VeteranSatUser, Champion
Bev, Champion
Pretty normal, take even Milk for an example. It costs less some places than others. Here, it's 2.28 a gallon, I'm sure it's different where you live. Supply and demand combined with what the average economy of an area will allow customers to afford. Whether that applies to your neighborhood or town or not is another matter, but it does apply to your area in general.
Yes, on my road 150 is beyond the budget of most, but since there are only 6 families here and, 3 of us COULD swing the 150 if we want to (as I have chosen to do.) that hardly matters when it comes to all of the area covered by my beam. The whole area includes a couple of resort and lakefront communities and, several higher wealth areas that are outside the limits of land based internet, so, for this area, that's a good price to set for Silver service.
Yes, on my road 150 is beyond the budget of most, but since there are only 6 families here and, 3 of us COULD swing the 150 if we want to (as I have chosen to do.) that hardly matters when it comes to all of the area covered by my beam. The whole area includes a couple of resort and lakefront communities and, several higher wealth areas that are outside the limits of land based internet, so, for this area, that's a good price to set for Silver service.
I pay 3.89 for 1 gal of whole milk at my local grocery store. or 2.29 if I drive 20 miles into the city. I guess I should invest in a milk cow.
Find me an example - just one example - of another major national access provider, be it a provider of LTE, cable, DSL, VoIP services, WISP... where they are charging 50% more for the exact same plan in two different markets.
Bev - milk? Really? We're not talking milk, steak, eggs or widgets. We're discussing provision of a utility service. As I mentioned before, I totally understand the desire to level adoption by pricing certain plans higher. There are ways to do it (and I suggested several ways of doing it in my post) other than literally setting up winners and losers in the marketplace. To charge customers 50% more for the exact same package is a practice I am frankly offended by. As mentioned before, I'm an advocate of Exede. I find them to be far more responsive than Hughes and I also think their technology is better. However, they are a business engaging in business practices and as a consumer, I am compelled to speak up when I think they are pursuing an unfair business practice.
Sure, you can justify their business decisions by defending their rationale. Understanding their rationale does not make what they've done in this instance right. It makes it understandable, sure. I've understood every decision they've made and I understand this one. That doesn't make it right, it doesn't make it rest easier in my belly and it certainly doesn't make me defend it.
I get why certain packages are offered in markets and not in others. If Exede believes they can support 720p on my beam, then offer it (they have not - I understand that). If Exede believes they can support 480p on my beam, then offer that - and at the same price where 480p is offered in other markets. If they think they couldn't support the adoption rate in my beam at the $100 price, then raise the price to a level where they can support the adoption rate - but make that the price in all markets.
There's a number out there... it's a number that they could have arrived at where they could have offered Silver at for all markets, while restricting adoption. Perhaps that number is $120, perhaps it is $130. Alternatively, if they wanted to offer Silver for $100, they could have done that... they could have offered it wherever they think they can support it, but restricted that offer to a day - or two - or a week. However, to insult me, a loyal customer who defends Exede, by telling me I can have the same service offered in another market only if I pay $600 more per year - for the same service - is a business decision which borders on arrogant disrespect of customers on my beam. If you can afford that, then great - go get yourself a dedicated fractional T3 and call it a day. Some of us have a budget we must keep within.
As said before, what Exede has done in this case sticks in my craw, I find it to be an indefensible business decision and I really hope it is not indicative of more money-grab decisions to come. I'm waiting for comments from Exede.
Rique
Bev - milk? Really? We're not talking milk, steak, eggs or widgets. We're discussing provision of a utility service. As I mentioned before, I totally understand the desire to level adoption by pricing certain plans higher. There are ways to do it (and I suggested several ways of doing it in my post) other than literally setting up winners and losers in the marketplace. To charge customers 50% more for the exact same package is a practice I am frankly offended by. As mentioned before, I'm an advocate of Exede. I find them to be far more responsive than Hughes and I also think their technology is better. However, they are a business engaging in business practices and as a consumer, I am compelled to speak up when I think they are pursuing an unfair business practice.
Sure, you can justify their business decisions by defending their rationale. Understanding their rationale does not make what they've done in this instance right. It makes it understandable, sure. I've understood every decision they've made and I understand this one. That doesn't make it right, it doesn't make it rest easier in my belly and it certainly doesn't make me defend it.
I get why certain packages are offered in markets and not in others. If Exede believes they can support 720p on my beam, then offer it (they have not - I understand that). If Exede believes they can support 480p on my beam, then offer that - and at the same price where 480p is offered in other markets. If they think they couldn't support the adoption rate in my beam at the $100 price, then raise the price to a level where they can support the adoption rate - but make that the price in all markets.
There's a number out there... it's a number that they could have arrived at where they could have offered Silver at for all markets, while restricting adoption. Perhaps that number is $120, perhaps it is $130. Alternatively, if they wanted to offer Silver for $100, they could have done that... they could have offered it wherever they think they can support it, but restricted that offer to a day - or two - or a week. However, to insult me, a loyal customer who defends Exede, by telling me I can have the same service offered in another market only if I pay $600 more per year - for the same service - is a business decision which borders on arrogant disrespect of customers on my beam. If you can afford that, then great - go get yourself a dedicated fractional T3 and call it a day. Some of us have a budget we must keep within.
As said before, what Exede has done in this case sticks in my craw, I find it to be an indefensible business decision and I really hope it is not indicative of more money-grab decisions to come. I'm waiting for comments from Exede.
Rique
They can charge WHATEVER THEY WANT. If you don't like it, then you have a choice not to buy it. In fact, we have a choice to go to another provider if you, we, don't like it. Crap, every store I go to has different prices for the same items. Drive 5 miles and pay more for the same gas. Nothing new here.
I think a 30+ percent price difference for the same product from the same company from the same satellite should be questioned, since we do not have the option to drive to the other store (beam) for the lower price. My silver plan is $100, so I guess that is good :) Still a little pricey, but hey at least they provide service.
Google Fiber charges about $50 in Kansas city but $70 in Atalanta.
(Edited)
Jim - If you're saying that the marketplace - that any marketplace - votes with their wallets, you're correct about that. If you're saying that we have a real choice, you're only partially correct. Satellite internet service consumers have perhaps two - or three - choices. I can get Hughes and I used them for years before switching to Exede, I can get Exede and I can get LTE through Verizon. However I can't get cable, I can't get DSL, T1 and T3 are priced beyond my budget, I can't even get WISP. I loathe Hughes, Verizon is overpriced and their service under-performs in my area. The point is, my choices are limited and I would wager that's the case with the vast majority of satellite 'net consumers.
And of course they can't charge whatever they want - that's an absolutely false argument. If they charged $500, adoption would not be sufficient to support their business. Let's say they charged you $300 for the same service they offered in other markets for $50 - would you be OK with that? I doubt it... I expect you'd complain. Even if you did not complain, I expect you'd be far less likely to purchase that service. Perhaps in your case, that's not the case - but in the case of many, it would be.
As mentioned before, there's a number out there where Exede could have priced their service equitably and limited the adoption - and just as there's a number out there where they could have done that, there's another number out there which would have been likely to tick you off. In my case, that number is 50%. Exede is offering me 480p and along with that, they are offering me the privilege of paying 50% more than in other markets. I'm offended. I can't be persuaded otherwise, I am offended by that business practice. And as a consumer, I absolutely have the right to complain when I feel they are treating an entire marketplace unfairly (and I consider my beam to be a "marketplace").
I understood when Freedom was only available in some markets, but not others. Congestion was an issue on my beam, I got that. I wasn't thrilled with it, but I understood the need to limit congestion.
I understood when Freedom was only made available for a brief time on some beams and then those offers were retracted. Again, due to congestion, it was important to manage the rate of adoption.
If Exede is concerned about adoption of Unlimited in this market, then they could have adopted the same approach with that service. They could have offered it for a briefer time - or perhaps not at all. They could have raised the price in all markets and limited adoption - equitably - in all markets.
And although not crazy about the high prices which Exede historically has charged, I understand their pricing - and have defended it - in these very forums. They put money back into the technology, I expect their margins are somewhat thin and I know their available market is limited.
AND - as I've said repeatedly, I totally get the need to limit adoption and to manage congestion. But what I am saying is that there is a way that could have been accomplished other than with glaringly unfair pricing practices. Instead, Exede chose to set up winners and losers and that's a business decision I am compelled to call them out on. It's not fair, it's not right, it's not (IMO) good business and I'm an aggrieved consumer who is questioning that decision.
Hopefully, there will be some kind of response from Exede.
Rique
And of course they can't charge whatever they want - that's an absolutely false argument. If they charged $500, adoption would not be sufficient to support their business. Let's say they charged you $300 for the same service they offered in other markets for $50 - would you be OK with that? I doubt it... I expect you'd complain. Even if you did not complain, I expect you'd be far less likely to purchase that service. Perhaps in your case, that's not the case - but in the case of many, it would be.
As mentioned before, there's a number out there where Exede could have priced their service equitably and limited the adoption - and just as there's a number out there where they could have done that, there's another number out there which would have been likely to tick you off. In my case, that number is 50%. Exede is offering me 480p and along with that, they are offering me the privilege of paying 50% more than in other markets. I'm offended. I can't be persuaded otherwise, I am offended by that business practice. And as a consumer, I absolutely have the right to complain when I feel they are treating an entire marketplace unfairly (and I consider my beam to be a "marketplace").
I understood when Freedom was only available in some markets, but not others. Congestion was an issue on my beam, I got that. I wasn't thrilled with it, but I understood the need to limit congestion.
I understood when Freedom was only made available for a brief time on some beams and then those offers were retracted. Again, due to congestion, it was important to manage the rate of adoption.
If Exede is concerned about adoption of Unlimited in this market, then they could have adopted the same approach with that service. They could have offered it for a briefer time - or perhaps not at all. They could have raised the price in all markets and limited adoption - equitably - in all markets.
And although not crazy about the high prices which Exede historically has charged, I understand their pricing - and have defended it - in these very forums. They put money back into the technology, I expect their margins are somewhat thin and I know their available market is limited.
AND - as I've said repeatedly, I totally get the need to limit adoption and to manage congestion. But what I am saying is that there is a way that could have been accomplished other than with glaringly unfair pricing practices. Instead, Exede chose to set up winners and losers and that's a business decision I am compelled to call them out on. It's not fair, it's not right, it's not (IMO) good business and I'm an aggrieved consumer who is questioning that decision.
Hopefully, there will be some kind of response from Exede.
Rique
Ron Strickland, incorrect. Look it up. Google Fiber's pricing in KC is $50 or $70, depending on which package you select (this is their internet access pricing). Their pricing in Atlanta? $50 or $70 - exactly the same.
Rique
Rique
Mr. Anderson:
"I think a 30+ percent price difference for the same product from the same company from the same satellite should be questioned, since we do not have the option to drive to the other store (beam) for the lower price."
Exactly! To argue "choice" is simply not true. Thank you for saying it so well.
"I think a 30+ percent price difference for the same product from the same company from the same satellite should be questioned, since we do not have the option to drive to the other store (beam) for the lower price."
Exactly! To argue "choice" is simply not true. Thank you for saying it so well.
VeteranSatUser, Champion
I wonder how many are really going to pay $150/month for the Silver plan. That is terribly overpriced, despite what other people might say. You can't even get HD quality video out of it.
it is a 25Mbps service, of course you can get HD quality video. Even with the 12Mbps service you can. I do not really understand the 360, 480, 720 they are attaching to each service. The only thing I can think of is that they are compressing the video or optimizing that bitrate for your (pricing tier)connection. But why would they do that?
It is almost as crazy as charging for HD tv service now. They have milked it long enough, but they still seem to make it like something other than the standard it has become. Some companies used to actually go through the trouble to downgrade the resolution, and probably still do. I would not know, I no longer pay for cable. Cable free since 2013. Went cold turkey (sorta), although I had my netflix to get me through it.
It is almost as crazy as charging for HD tv service now. They have milked it long enough, but they still seem to make it like something other than the standard it has become. Some companies used to actually go through the trouble to downgrade the resolution, and probably still do. I would not know, I no longer pay for cable. Cable free since 2013. Went cold turkey (sorta), although I had my netflix to get me through it.
That's Stricklin. You might even notice that it's even already spelled out for you and everything. Here's a nice little article from the Tennessean. http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/tech/2016/04/11/google-fiber-move-signals-higher-prices-plans/... But yeah the only variance seems to be fiber vs webpass upon actually checking the site. Regardless it's a variable pricing model. Your electricity for instance. During peak usage they charge more per Kwh.
@Mr Anderson I'd put it at an independent model but not unlike hughes and cell providers compressing videos.
@Mr Anderson I'd put it at an independent model but not unlike hughes and cell providers compressing videos.
(Edited)
VeteranSatUser, Champion
They are limiting the video streaming to 480p on the Silver plan to conserve data. 480p is video resolution over a decade old. It is not HD and not Blu-Ray. Now on a tiny tablet, you might not notice the difference.
"I've understood every decision they've made and I understand this one. That doesn't make it right"...... HERE HERE! Thank you for stating what a lot of people feel.
Ron Stricklin,
I apologize that I got your name wrong. I do appreciate the gratuitous sarcasm, that's always so very impressive and quite effectively supports any point one is trying to make. Nicely played.
Nonetheless... I compared Google fiber in the two markets you mentioned and the pricing was exactly the same. I didn't read articles in newspapers, I went directly to the source... Google's pricing page.
I could post screen caps of the pages in Atlanta and in KC, but that would be a waste of my time.
Electricity... is another comparison example which speaks not at all to my original point. Find a 50% discrepancy in differing markets served by the same provider. I don't believe you can find that and document it.
Rique
I apologize that I got your name wrong. I do appreciate the gratuitous sarcasm, that's always so very impressive and quite effectively supports any point one is trying to make. Nicely played.
Nonetheless... I compared Google fiber in the two markets you mentioned and the pricing was exactly the same. I didn't read articles in newspapers, I went directly to the source... Google's pricing page.
I could post screen caps of the pages in Atlanta and in KC, but that would be a waste of my time.
Electricity... is another comparison example which speaks not at all to my original point. Find a 50% discrepancy in differing markets served by the same provider. I don't believe you can find that and document it.
Rique
Gwalk900, Champion
In this case it's a matter of supply and demand.
Fiber is fiber. In the case of sat Internet areas are served by beams that cover a specific geographic area. Some beams are more heavily loaded than others.
Fiber is fiber. In the case of sat Internet areas are served by beams that cover a specific geographic area. Some beams are more heavily loaded than others.
It is the same technology, same offering, from the same company. This has nothing to do with any comparisons with other technologies.
I think we all know and would agree that satellite is different. The point here is that there are other means by which Exede can control adoption. I vehemently object to their setting a precedent where they can charge 50% more in one market than in another market for the exact same offering.
If we, as customers, accept this kind of treatment now - they will do it again. It's not acceptable, should not be accepted and I will continue to speak out about it. I think we, as customers, have the market influence to establish what is acceptable or not. If we collectively tell Exede that this specific business practice is unacceptable - if we publicly and loudly object and demand explanation and re-evaluation, we can exert that influence. If we meekly go along, even going so far as to be apologists for this business behavior, then we're just giving Exede cover to do the same - again and again and again.
This is not right - and should never be acceptable. Bear in mind we're not talking about different options in different markets because of congestion. Nor are we talking about limiting availability of an option to a brief period of time. We are literally talking about charging Gold pricing for Silver service. Where does it stop?
Exede, I object.
Rique
I think we all know and would agree that satellite is different. The point here is that there are other means by which Exede can control adoption. I vehemently object to their setting a precedent where they can charge 50% more in one market than in another market for the exact same offering.
If we, as customers, accept this kind of treatment now - they will do it again. It's not acceptable, should not be accepted and I will continue to speak out about it. I think we, as customers, have the market influence to establish what is acceptable or not. If we collectively tell Exede that this specific business practice is unacceptable - if we publicly and loudly object and demand explanation and re-evaluation, we can exert that influence. If we meekly go along, even going so far as to be apologists for this business behavior, then we're just giving Exede cover to do the same - again and again and again.
This is not right - and should never be acceptable. Bear in mind we're not talking about different options in different markets because of congestion. Nor are we talking about limiting availability of an option to a brief period of time. We are literally talking about charging Gold pricing for Silver service. Where does it stop?
Exede, I object.
Rique
Brad, Viasat Employee
Hi everyone,
Just wanted to hop in and address some of this. Unfortunately I am not tied to the marketing team or sales team so I can't answer much about the pricing other than "that's what we're charging".
Regarding these plans I understand the big question seems to be how this is different than the Freedom plan. Here's the best I can tell you of how that lines up
Freedom plan will give you 150GB a month. There is no slow down after because 150GB is a solid data cap. To get more speeds or data you'll have to buy more.
The New unlimited plans will give you unlimited usage BUT may slow after 150GB is used. We differentiate these plans based on video quality. 360p, 480p and 720p. We're suggesting these plans based on what devices you will stream on. A small device will look fine with a 360p but if you put that on a big screen it may not look the best. 480p is very much a DVD standard quality resolution. 720 is HD it's not quite 1080p but even with bunny ears that's probably the quality that your local networks may get to you. For those with a 4K TV set up, you might want to keep the Satellite TV or Cable if you want better TV resolution. It's basically a resolution vs data cap difference.
As for the slow down disclaimer. We are warming up to ViaSat 2 with this. Consider this the opening act. We hope that the 150GB limit gets passed and you can continue without any slow down. However we're still testing limits so we may opt to slow after 150GB is reached. Unlike the Freedom plan you are NOT being cut off at that point. If you are slowed I expect it'll be similar to the Liberty Pass.
Now the big question: Should you get this plan if you have Freedom plan? I think that depends. If you are on the Freedom plan and tend to go over this might be an attractive option. If you cut the cord and are utilizing Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Sling, DirecTVNOW, HBONow, ect for your entertainment then I would HIGHLY recommend doing this plan as this is a set of plans that are allowing streaming (remember how that was our Achilles Heel not too long ago?) now we have an answer for it!
On the other hand, we are NOT asking people to jump on these plans or to drop their Freedom plan in favor of this plan. You are allowed to be grandfathered into your plans and remain where you are. The only thing is that if you go on a vacation plan or move you will have to get whatever is being offered at the time but if you're paying month to month you can keep the plan you're on (we still have people on a old Wildblue plan from 2009 that are fine where they are!) so I guess the bottom line here is that if you have Freedom and are fine with it you're more than welcome to stay as you are and see how this plays out without any pressure.
Feel free to send an email to us at exedelistens@viasat.com if you still have questions.
Just wanted to hop in and address some of this. Unfortunately I am not tied to the marketing team or sales team so I can't answer much about the pricing other than "that's what we're charging".
Regarding these plans I understand the big question seems to be how this is different than the Freedom plan. Here's the best I can tell you of how that lines up
Freedom plan will give you 150GB a month. There is no slow down after because 150GB is a solid data cap. To get more speeds or data you'll have to buy more.
The New unlimited plans will give you unlimited usage BUT may slow after 150GB is used. We differentiate these plans based on video quality. 360p, 480p and 720p. We're suggesting these plans based on what devices you will stream on. A small device will look fine with a 360p but if you put that on a big screen it may not look the best. 480p is very much a DVD standard quality resolution. 720 is HD it's not quite 1080p but even with bunny ears that's probably the quality that your local networks may get to you. For those with a 4K TV set up, you might want to keep the Satellite TV or Cable if you want better TV resolution. It's basically a resolution vs data cap difference.
As for the slow down disclaimer. We are warming up to ViaSat 2 with this. Consider this the opening act. We hope that the 150GB limit gets passed and you can continue without any slow down. However we're still testing limits so we may opt to slow after 150GB is reached. Unlike the Freedom plan you are NOT being cut off at that point. If you are slowed I expect it'll be similar to the Liberty Pass.
Now the big question: Should you get this plan if you have Freedom plan? I think that depends. If you are on the Freedom plan and tend to go over this might be an attractive option. If you cut the cord and are utilizing Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Sling, DirecTVNOW, HBONow, ect for your entertainment then I would HIGHLY recommend doing this plan as this is a set of plans that are allowing streaming (remember how that was our Achilles Heel not too long ago?) now we have an answer for it!
On the other hand, we are NOT asking people to jump on these plans or to drop their Freedom plan in favor of this plan. You are allowed to be grandfathered into your plans and remain where you are. The only thing is that if you go on a vacation plan or move you will have to get whatever is being offered at the time but if you're paying month to month you can keep the plan you're on (we still have people on a old Wildblue plan from 2009 that are fine where they are!) so I guess the bottom line here is that if you have Freedom and are fine with it you're more than welcome to stay as you are and see how this plays out without any pressure.
Feel free to send an email to us at exedelistens@viasat.com if you still have questions.
Exede Brad,
Thanks for your clarifications, but it is somewhat off-topic relative to my opening post, which was to question the pricing policy.
Nonetheless, I understand you can't speak to business policies and I appreciate your info, even if just a bit off the original topic. Thanks again for that.
You seem to have confirmed this above, but I will ask directly to ensure there's no misunderstanding or mis-interpretation. If I (or anyone on my beam, for that matter) switched to Unlimited, then I could not switch back to Freedom if I were to decide that I did not care for the 480p restriction... (since Freedom is apparently no longer available on our beam) - correct?
Can you explain how streaming res is restricted? For example, with my Hulu plan, I can get 720p. If I were to watch Hulu on my Mac or through the Apple TV Hulu application, I am assuming there would be a technical means by which Exede could restrict that to 480p. Is that correct? The same would apply to a Netflix application, Apple TV rentals, etc... even though I can get 720p through any of those, Exede would somehow be able to restrict that downwards to 480p - is that correct? And if it is correct, how is Exede managing that restriction, technically?
Would you know if this wide discrepancy in pricing is going to persist long-term? I'm not going to repeat my objections, I've already stated it exhaustively in this thread. I will say that if this wide gap in pricing persists, I am going to have to re-evaluate my internet provider.
Are you able to share anything about what might be coming in the spring of next year, when ViaSat 2 is brought online?
Rique
Thanks for your clarifications, but it is somewhat off-topic relative to my opening post, which was to question the pricing policy.
Nonetheless, I understand you can't speak to business policies and I appreciate your info, even if just a bit off the original topic. Thanks again for that.
You seem to have confirmed this above, but I will ask directly to ensure there's no misunderstanding or mis-interpretation. If I (or anyone on my beam, for that matter) switched to Unlimited, then I could not switch back to Freedom if I were to decide that I did not care for the 480p restriction... (since Freedom is apparently no longer available on our beam) - correct?
Can you explain how streaming res is restricted? For example, with my Hulu plan, I can get 720p. If I were to watch Hulu on my Mac or through the Apple TV Hulu application, I am assuming there would be a technical means by which Exede could restrict that to 480p. Is that correct? The same would apply to a Netflix application, Apple TV rentals, etc... even though I can get 720p through any of those, Exede would somehow be able to restrict that downwards to 480p - is that correct? And if it is correct, how is Exede managing that restriction, technically?
Would you know if this wide discrepancy in pricing is going to persist long-term? I'm not going to repeat my objections, I've already stated it exhaustively in this thread. I will say that if this wide gap in pricing persists, I am going to have to re-evaluate my internet provider.
Are you able to share anything about what might be coming in the spring of next year, when ViaSat 2 is brought online?
Rique
Brad, Viasat Employee
Hi Rique
1. Switching to this plan could result in you not being able to go back to a Liberty Plan. You can only transition to the current plans in the area.
2. The 480p restriction means that it will be optimized to that resolution. Trying to stream at a higher resolution will likely cause buffering and playback issues. 480 is going to be standard DVD quality.
3. Pricing is determined by people that are way above me and I won't be able to answer that for you. After a lot of evaluation and research the prices were determined as the appropriate amount for these plans. The price is likely to remain unchanged much like how our Liberty and Freedom plans stayed the same price.
4. We still may have some surprises with ViaSat 2 next year. This is sort of the ramp-up/warmup act. Nothing has been announced yet.
1. Switching to this plan could result in you not being able to go back to a Liberty Plan. You can only transition to the current plans in the area.
2. The 480p restriction means that it will be optimized to that resolution. Trying to stream at a higher resolution will likely cause buffering and playback issues. 480 is going to be standard DVD quality.
3. Pricing is determined by people that are way above me and I won't be able to answer that for you. After a lot of evaluation and research the prices were determined as the appropriate amount for these plans. The price is likely to remain unchanged much like how our Liberty and Freedom plans stayed the same price.
4. We still may have some surprises with ViaSat 2 next year. This is sort of the ramp-up/warmup act. Nothing has been announced yet.
Exede Brad,
Thanks for the answers, although I notice you didn't explain what you mean by "optimized to that resolution" - how technically does Exede limit capabilities of my streaming? Can you answer that?
"Price is likely to remain unchanged" - that is very disappointing to hear! Especially if, after ViaSat-2 goes live, huge gaps in pricing and in offerings (based on what beam folk happen to be in) remain in place.
"May still have some surprises" - you know, in days and weeks leading up to the rollout of Unlimited, those of us in the Community read many comments both from within Exede and from others with connections with Exede that we would be "very happy with what is coming". Uh - no. I'm feeling quite the opposite right now.
In these past few days, any confidence that I have in promises made concerning any advantages and benefits we will derive from ViaSat 2 has taken a big hit. I'm terribly disappointed in what I am reading in these forums - and even more disappointed in what I am not reading.
Rique
Thanks for the answers, although I notice you didn't explain what you mean by "optimized to that resolution" - how technically does Exede limit capabilities of my streaming? Can you answer that?
"Price is likely to remain unchanged" - that is very disappointing to hear! Especially if, after ViaSat-2 goes live, huge gaps in pricing and in offerings (based on what beam folk happen to be in) remain in place.
"May still have some surprises" - you know, in days and weeks leading up to the rollout of Unlimited, those of us in the Community read many comments both from within Exede and from others with connections with Exede that we would be "very happy with what is coming". Uh - no. I'm feeling quite the opposite right now.
In these past few days, any confidence that I have in promises made concerning any advantages and benefits we will derive from ViaSat 2 has taken a big hit. I'm terribly disappointed in what I am reading in these forums - and even more disappointed in what I am not reading.
Rique
although I notice you didn't explain what you mean by "optimized to that resolution" - how technically does Exede limit capabilities of my streaming? Can you answer that?This is an easy one. Video streaming is done using UDP, web pages and the like use TCP/IP. The simple thing to do was regulate UDP streams but not TCP.
This will also regulate other UDP transmissions but video is probable the only use of UDP that requires such a high data rate that it's speed being regulated will be noticed.
Interesting... unlimited data, but your video streaming will be "restricted" even though the 12Mbps 25Mbps, or 30Mbps connection is able to handle it. I guess this is obviously aimed at Netflix, Hulu and the other streaming services now available, and don't forget YouTube.
Funny that the word "optimized" is used, when it really means "throttled, restricted, choked"
And here I thought optimized was some sort of special on the fly compression tool to reduce the stream size, but keep the quality. Wishful thinking I guess. Such as I can take a 5 gig video file that my DVR creates, run it through "Handbrake" and get a file that is 1/4 of the size with minimal loss of quality.
I still am giving Exede an A for effort, considering they actually have released an unlimited*** plan ahead of the time-frame of what many thought.
Funny that the word "optimized" is used, when it really means "throttled, restricted, choked"
And here I thought optimized was some sort of special on the fly compression tool to reduce the stream size, but keep the quality. Wishful thinking I guess. Such as I can take a 5 gig video file that my DVR creates, run it through "Handbrake" and get a file that is 1/4 of the size with minimal loss of quality.
I still am giving Exede an A for effort, considering they actually have released an unlimited*** plan ahead of the time-frame of what many thought.
Wow! A reasonable comment. You get an "A" too. :o)
Craig, thanks for your answer. That's exactly what I was looking for. You've earned an "A", also. :)
Rique
Rique
op·ti·mize
ˈäptəˌmīz/
verb
verb: optimize; 3rd person present: optimizes; past tense: optimized; past participle: optimized; gerund or present participle: optimizing; verb: optimise; 3rd person present: optimises; past tense: optimised; past participle: optimised; gerund or present participle: optimising
ˈäptəˌmīz/
verb
verb: optimize; 3rd person present: optimizes; past tense: optimized; past participle: optimized; gerund or present participle: optimizing; verb: optimise; 3rd person present: optimises; past tense: optimised; past participle: optimised; gerund or present participle: optimising
- make the best or most effective use of (a situation, opportunity, or resource).
"to optimize viewing conditions, the microscope should be correctly adjusted"- Computing
rearrange or rewrite (data, software, etc.) to improve efficiency of retrieval or processing.
- Computing
Brad, Viasat Employee
This is 1000% aimed at the likes of streaming services such as Netflix or Hulu and various similar options. Any downloaded shows like from iTunes or Amazon should play in a different resolution if I recall correct as that's not streamed online. Streaming will be reduced to reflect the plan you are on. Think of it as a toss-up. Streaming Quality vs hard data caps. We felt that gettting rid of the cap would be a better choice for our future goals. The satellite is still only able to hold so much hence why we picked the resolution types.
Brad, Viasat Employee
Also worth pointing out: Nobody is required to go with these plans. If it's not appealing, you don't have to sign up for it. You can stay on your current plan and be grandfathered in. You will remain on that plan until a change is made or if the service is interrupted.
(Edited)
Exede Brad:
"The satellite is still only able to hold so much hence why we picked the resolution types."
... and that is perfectly reasonable and understandable. But why charge Gold pricing for those beams which can only "hold so much" and are thus limited to Silver plans? The inequity in what is available is okay (I'm not a big fan of it, but it's "okay" in that it is understandable). The inequity in how long something might be available in some markets is also "okay" in the same sense as the above.
(As a matter of fact, I was checking "change my plan" 4-6 times daily, in the belief that, whatever flavor of Unlimited was made available, it would only be available briefly - and a didn't want to miss the window, if I decided it was an attractive option).
... but what's NOT "okay" is limiting what's available on my beam, yet charging for that as if it is a Gold plan. That's definitely NOT "okay" in my book.
If the concern was simply that the bird is "only able to hold so much", then only making 480p and/or 360p available addresses that concern, right? But that's not enough, correct? You had to limit adoption, you had to limit the rate of adoption - it wasn't just that my beam could not support 720p - it's also that it can only support a limited quantity of 480p consumers. You could have limited that by treating it like a movie theatre... once you're "sold out", you're "sold out". You chose to limit it in a manner that is not only patently unfair, market to market... it's unfair, consumer to consumer within the beam itself. Some can afford paying $1800 a year, others simply can't. You've created winners and losers when comparing markets to one another and you've created winners and losers when comparing consumers to one another. And this is right? It's a good idea? The more I consider what Exede has done here, the more flabbergasted and disheartened I am.
How your business folk missed that this unequal pricing would segregate "haves" from the "have nots" in a manner which would infuriate the "have nots", I can't explain. It's an awful business decision.
Rique
"The satellite is still only able to hold so much hence why we picked the resolution types."
... and that is perfectly reasonable and understandable. But why charge Gold pricing for those beams which can only "hold so much" and are thus limited to Silver plans? The inequity in what is available is okay (I'm not a big fan of it, but it's "okay" in that it is understandable). The inequity in how long something might be available in some markets is also "okay" in the same sense as the above.
(As a matter of fact, I was checking "change my plan" 4-6 times daily, in the belief that, whatever flavor of Unlimited was made available, it would only be available briefly - and a didn't want to miss the window, if I decided it was an attractive option).
... but what's NOT "okay" is limiting what's available on my beam, yet charging for that as if it is a Gold plan. That's definitely NOT "okay" in my book.
If the concern was simply that the bird is "only able to hold so much", then only making 480p and/or 360p available addresses that concern, right? But that's not enough, correct? You had to limit adoption, you had to limit the rate of adoption - it wasn't just that my beam could not support 720p - it's also that it can only support a limited quantity of 480p consumers. You could have limited that by treating it like a movie theatre... once you're "sold out", you're "sold out". You chose to limit it in a manner that is not only patently unfair, market to market... it's unfair, consumer to consumer within the beam itself. Some can afford paying $1800 a year, others simply can't. You've created winners and losers when comparing markets to one another and you've created winners and losers when comparing consumers to one another. And this is right? It's a good idea? The more I consider what Exede has done here, the more flabbergasted and disheartened I am.
How your business folk missed that this unequal pricing would segregate "haves" from the "have nots" in a manner which would infuriate the "have nots", I can't explain. It's an awful business decision.
Rique
I think maybe people would have been happier had the Unlimited service been called Freedom 150 + Liberty Pass or something like that. Unlimited means no limits. Clearly there are limits and the pricing is very high for what this package offers
@ Dallas Milton
A very good point.
All these conversations make me think of The Simpsons (Fox Broadcasting Co.), segments showing "Itchy and Scratchy." They will never stop the war between them.
The new unlimited plans were developed by engineers, absolutely brilliant people the the realm of electronics and communications. Their talents unfortunately do not include predicting human reaction. Their new plans have been taken apart feature-by-feature, prices here and prices there, and right about now they must be wondering what they did wrong to cause such an uproar over one of the biggest data packages sold in America, anywhere. I think they did it right for the situation Exede is in at the moment. These plans and prices are going to be short-lived, replaced with superior offerings in the very short from now future.
Nobody at Exede said "You are moving and this is where you are going." These plans are an offering of a better service nobody has to accept.
If people are so angry about different prices and video capabilities for the different beams, they should protest by not switching plans.
VeteranSatUser, Champion
Not sure what the rush was. Plan offerings will obviously change in a few months, with different price structures too. So why upset certain segments of your customers? The best plan I can get is the Silver for $150. I get why that is. I also know that will change with Viasat-2. But for now, it is cost prohibitive for what you get AND restricts streaming quality. I am not going to pay triple what I do today for lower resolution video.
I signed up for the new unlimited plan, I have had my finger hanging over the submit button and just pushed it. What have I done! I got a slight adrenaline rush.
I can say that I have only gone over 150gb two times in the past year with Exede. Even though I was on a 12Mbps plan, the speeds in the LNFZ were around 25Mbps.
I can say that I have only gone over 150gb two times in the past year with Exede. Even though I was on a 12Mbps plan, the speeds in the LNFZ were around 25Mbps.
VeteranSatUser, Champion
You can do a lot with the Free Zone, especially the 5 hour one. You just have to know how to queue up and manage downloads.
Brad, Viasat Employee
While I am not one of the people that come up with plans or names or decides when to launch said plans (I probably would be paid more and wouldn't be answering complaints if so haha) I believe Unlimited isn't a far off the mark branding. It's unlimited in the aspect that there's not a data cap and restrictions of speed is only during times that the network is at it's busiest, otherwise you're on you normal speeds. Liberty Plan can almost be compared to that but it has a definitive slow down the moment you go over whereas here it's only during the busiest time and that's only IF we need to utilize it. So in that way I don't feel that Unlimited is a misleading label for this plan.
While we would LOVE to be right there with Cable and DSL, the fact remains that this connection is still by a satellite and there are limitations even with this. The video quality limit on these plans was a compromise that had to be made to get rid of a hard data cap. Think of the 150GB mark as coming up to a school zone or something. MOST of the time you're going to be OK going your normal speed but there's a few times that you may have to slow down. 7:00 on a weeknight you're probably not going to blaze by like you would at 1pm and that's just a matter of more people being on. Cable and DSL is not immune to this, they see slower speeds at this time. We put this disclosure up front so people can have a expectation if this happens but it's not like a Liberty Plan where after you hit 150GB you're slowing immediately.
Hope that explains a bit.
While we would LOVE to be right there with Cable and DSL, the fact remains that this connection is still by a satellite and there are limitations even with this. The video quality limit on these plans was a compromise that had to be made to get rid of a hard data cap. Think of the 150GB mark as coming up to a school zone or something. MOST of the time you're going to be OK going your normal speed but there's a few times that you may have to slow down. 7:00 on a weeknight you're probably not going to blaze by like you would at 1pm and that's just a matter of more people being on. Cable and DSL is not immune to this, they see slower speeds at this time. We put this disclosure up front so people can have a expectation if this happens but it's not like a Liberty Plan where after you hit 150GB you're slowing immediately.
Hope that explains a bit.
Bev, Champion
It is Unlimited and, if we are honest here, it is possible, just less likely that you might see slower speeds during peak hours even if you haven't used 1GB yet for the month on ANY plan. That will be better once VS2 is online for us.
After 150 GB on unlimited, you aren't throttled, just deprioritized so, off peak you may still have full speed internet. Liberty and Freedom plans slow you regardless of congestion at the time. Unlimited does not, it only slows for congestion.
After 150 GB on unlimited, you aren't throttled, just deprioritized so, off peak you may still have full speed internet. Liberty and Freedom plans slow you regardless of congestion at the time. Unlimited does not, it only slows for congestion.
I am thoroughly disgusted. The freedom plan is offered in our zip code for 49.99/month for new customers for 3 months, increasing to 69.99 per month for 3 year guarantee. Now they want 150 per month for essentially the same plan?!!? (480P is useless as far as I am concerned, its not 1080P,and for our needs, 12mbps works just fine) I want the freedom plan at 12mbps at 69.99. Otherwise, not changing. I have my "unlimited" ATT cell phone plan that takes care of most of my FB/CNN/browsing, Netflix DVD plan works just fine for us. At this point, it may make more sense to put in a cell phone repeater and be done with satellite.
Bev, Champion
Have you ever used more than 22 GB, if I recall the soft cap for AT&T and, tested how well that performs once it's slowed? Also, that "Unlimited" is for the subscribed device only, not for hot spot or tethering, that's 10 or 11 GB per month.
Stephen Rice, Champion
The freedom plan for $70 a month sounds like a pretty dang good deal. They don't offer that on my beam. I'm not complaining, just saying they don't offer it in my area.
Bev - the tether cap for non-sponsored use is 11, between my husband and I, that is 22 GB. We are in the boonies so our tower does not tend to get congested so de-prioritizing is no biggie. Also, cell phone web use is less than computer due to mobile device optimization of web sites, however they do that. Sponsored date is unlimited (direct tv - though we are not big tv watchers.) New York State is in a big push to bring real, wired, broadband to the whole state including the underserved rural areas. So we will see what that brings, too.
Stephen - that 70 per month is what we wanted, too, but we are second class already customers so its unavailable. I would have paid that in a minute but anything more...we are retired, looking to reduce or contain costs, not expand by triple.
Brad, Viasat Employee
Hi Amy
You certainly are under no obligation to get this plan. We may have some similar plans to Freedom once the ViaSat 2 rollout starts early next year but this is sort of our ramp-up to what we can do.
You certainly are under no obligation to get this plan. We may have some similar plans to Freedom once the ViaSat 2 rollout starts early next year but this is sort of our ramp-up to what we can do.
The point is not that amymeme is obliged to get the plan or not, the point is that Exede has priced her out of any choice that she might have had by not providing a single affordable Freedom or Unlimited option within her market. That's the point. Get it?
(Edited)
Thank you for that Rique - what most got my dander up is that the customer service rep said something better than the Freedom plan for 69.99 was coming and I should wait a few days for an unlimited plan in the $70 range. Flying in the clouds I was...then it finally showed up in my dashboard: $150. Spittin' mad I became. Somebody else mentioned an ATT fixed wireless option at 60 per month for 160GB. It is not in our area yet but will be coming. My neighbors just use their cell phones tethered. I've started doing that with my Att plan. Even without a repeater, I can get 5-6 mbps and even watching a few tv shows while folding laundry, I've only used 1.8 GB in 11 days. So saving 100 per month on Exede fees by staying on my Liberty 12, I can save enough money to have a decent cell phone repeater in less than 6 months.
(Edited)
VeteranSatUser, Champion
Amymeme. I can understand how you would be frustrated. I am not real thrilled with the pricing structure either. However, as Brad indicated I expect more changes (and different price tiers) once Viasat-2 comes online. That is because there will be more available bandwidth. I think right now part of the reason for the pricing is they didn't want (nor could the current system support), everybody on unlimited. The premium prices today help with that.
