Mobile broadband at just $15,728.64 per GB anyone?

David Neiger
14 January 2009, 4:45 PM


How does the mobile phone company that claims "the best value mobile phone offer on the block" justify screwing its customers five times more than its competitors for casual data?


They may call themselves Virgin but they are not virgins when it comes to screwing subscribers big time for mobile data.  According to numerous threads on Whirlpool, Virgin customers from time to time arrive back from holidays having used their new phone as a modem only to find themselves with a bill that has more digits than their phone number.  Clocking up the bill from hell is quite easy to do if you haven’t read your contract carefully and mistakenly think you can use your phone for mobile data at a reasonable price.

Let's remember that Virgin Mobile are pitching their services at those who are frustrated by "long contracts, loads of small print, expensive products and companies who simply didn't 'speak' to their customers" so they should hardly expect their customer base to sit down and read all the fine print or to necessarily be tech savvy enough to fully understand the cost implications of hooking up their 3G phone to a computer to use the Internet.

If, however, you do read the terms and conditions of your phone service carefully (ignoring the "funky language" inserted by Virgin to make it more understandable for the hip generation, you will find that in most cases your cap does not include any mobile data so if you happen to use mobile data (either by accessing the Internet from your phone or using the phone as a modem for your notebook) you will be charged “casual data rates”. 

Now someone has forgotten to tell Virgin that the cost of mobile data has come down dramatically since the days of GPRS because they are still charging the same data rates that the telcos charged back when sending data over the GSM network was very expensive.  1.5c per KB of data might not seem that bad until you do the math and realise that Virgin are screwing their customers a whopping $15,728.64 per GB for casual data.  We fail to see how this can be justified unless Virgin is trying to force customers to subscribe to data packs.

What this means is that if you are naïve enough to connect your computer to your mobile phone and enable the phone as a modem you could well need a second mortgage just to pay your phone bill.  At this rate if your computer downloads a service pack of several hundred megabytes (which is not uncommon) you could be thousands of dollars worse off for the exercise.  Don’t even think about using peer to peer services unless you have tens of thousands of dollars to burn!

Of course you don’t need to hook up your phone to your computer to chalk up a monster bill either since many smartphones (and even many ordinary phones that run Symbian or Palm OS) regularly connecting to email (say 65Kb at 1.5c per Kb which equals 97.5c), download directions from Google Maps (say 200Kb or $3) and, of course, access the web.  The Virgin Vibe might be free to browse but set outside of the walled garden and the charges keep mounting up!

The solution, according to the Virgin website is to purchase a data pack where the same 1Gb of data would cost you just $15 or approximately 1/1000th of the price!

By comparison, Optus (Virgin’s parent company) only charges $3,145.72 per GB (although the first 5Mb are capped at $9.90) whilst 3 and Telstra are a ‘bargain’ at just $2,048 per GB.

But even if you have a data pack with Virgin, this does not guarantee you won’t get a phone bill that could scare you (or your other half) to death.  Go over your allocated data quota and your excess data rate is charged at the standard casual rate of $15,728.64 per GB!  As is standard industry practice with Australian telcos, both uploads and downloads are charged when using mobile data so it would not take much web surfing on your PC or web enable smartphone to end up wishing that you never heard of mobile Internet.  Whilst the other carriers also charge steeply for excess data usage, rates are more modest at around  $256 per Gb with Telstra or $358 to $512 per Gb with Optus (depending upon your contract).
 
Now we can’t say that Virgin are sneaky as their prices are on the web for everyone to see but if you don’t read your contract carefully or don’t fully understand how much using data on your new 3G phone can cost, mobile data can become an extremely expensive exercise.

APC confronted Virgin Mobile about this issue and were informed by Virgin's Media representative that after "doing some digging around... it appears that we are actually changing our casual data rates on the 1st Feb to 0.2c per KB ($0.002)" We also understand that customers are sent several warnings via SMS when they are about to exceed their data quota.

Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

Your Average Joe (User):

" .. They may call themselves Virgin but they are not virgins when it comes to screwing subscribers .." - APC

Just couldn't refrain yourselves, could you ? .... ;)

14 January 2009, 4:57 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Pauly (New user):

Kinda makes the $89.95 5gb shaped bigpond wireless broadband seem like a bargain and the most ethical. who would have thought!

14 January 2009, 5:05 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (User):

Well, there's always idiots out there. Personally I have no sympathy for the people that don't read what they are signing up to. Ignorance is no excuse when you're voluntarily signing something.

14 January 2009, 10:17 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

McBanjo (New user):

Quoting Tin:
when you're voluntarily signing something.

That's the thing, it's not really as voluntary and open as anyone would like. Virgin don't provide you with the contract details at all. They tell you to go to www.virginmobile.com.au and then somehow find the Standard Form of Agreement (they don't tell you where, just go and try to find it yourself.) Also, once you've read it, customers have zero bargaining power. You can't barter them lower or changes any conditions. That's why the Trade Practices Act and ACCC came into being, to protect consumers. A reasonable person would not expect any figure over $1000 a month on any reasonable phone bill.

Also, that funky language annoys the hell out of me. Sometimes I think they do it just cause they can. Seriously, kids don't talk like that, and it's pretty lame. It's like a 50 year old saying 'cool' all the time to stay in touch with the cool kids.

The data packs are the best value mobile broadband in Australia, but go just 2.5 MB over, even at their new rates, and you'd wish you'd gone with Hellstra. A reduction to 0.02c/KB, while better, is still pathetic. That's $2/MB! Telstra don't even charge that! At least people are being ripped off less now.

15 January 2009, 6:49 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Sen Sational (New user):

So, people don't read contracts, Virgin sends informative 'you have nearly used your quota' messages and they are adjusting their actual casual data quota for their mobile based internet access. Additionally they offer a REAL 'mobile prepaid' product. Of course, I wouldn't expect APCMag to actually report prominently on that since it's FAR more sensationalist to have a title like the one in this article.

15 January 2009, 8:23 AM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

todd_h86 (New user):

Thats why Im loving my iPhone plan even more! Included data mmmmmmmmmmmmm

15 January 2009, 10:06 AM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

nickSQ (New user):

Seriously, people in this day and age still don't check what they're paying for? If it weren't for the fact Virgin doesn't obviously disclose this (and therefore look unscrupulous), I'd say the customer gets what they deserve. Virgin shouldn't keep the profits though, it's almost a con job.

By the way, please get your facts right.
1 GB is 1000000kB, not 1048576kB. Even wikipedia gets this right.
I can't believe how many 'professionals' still get this wrong.

15 January 2009, 8:54 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Cy_Starkman (New user):

ahhh, sorry, you are the factless one.

The only time 1GB is 1000Mb and not 1024Mb is when a telco charges you for it. Unless of course you use non binary computers

What's worse, a professional or an arm chair professional

16 January 2009, 3:56 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Cy_Starkman (New user):

ahhh, sorry, you are the factless one.

The only time 1GB is 1000Mb and not 1024Mb is when a telco charges you for it. Unless of course you use non binary computers

What's worse, a professional or an arm chair professional

16 January 2009, 4:11 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

nickSQ (New user):

You'll actually find if you do some research the definition of 1 kB = 1024 bytes was redefined.
Due to all other scientific measures having a 'kilo' equalling 10^3, the standards bodies decided to rename the 2^10 version to kibibyte instead of kilobyte. This happened back in the 90s, so I'm not sure why people still don't understand this yet.
This means that 10^3 (1000) bytes is 1 kilobyte and 2^10 (1024) bytes is 1 kibibyte.
Therefore if someone is going to refer to the traditional 2^10 version, they should be calling it a kibibyte, not a kilobyte.
The whole point of standards is to ensure there is a common language that we all understand. We shouldn't have to sit there are ask someone which version of kilobyte they're referring to.

Quoting Cy_Starkman:
What's worse, a professional or an arm chair professional

Well, whoever is providing incorrect information.

But now it's starting to go off topic, so I'll leave it there.

18 January 2009, 11:02 AM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Cy_Starkman (New user):

Well then we are both right. But thank you, since I went and looked up the information and yes in 2000 it was agreed to change to kibi versus kilo and so on.

Having coded in assembly (various) and machine code (Z80B), having used actual binary I fell on my professional background which it would appear for 21 of its 29 years was correct and since 2000 in a genuine standards compliant conversation was not correct, though it is noted that is adoption has been limited.

It would seem that the "tradition" as you put it has yet to be broken. Which is probably why Telco's take pains to explain how they charge.

I'd still like to see the computer that internally uses these "standards" and perhaps nickSQ would like to take the entire marketing engine of all the computer companies to task for failing to use the "standard".

It would seem the IT world doesn't know...

I know I won't change any time soon, probably ever.

Thank you though, your comment was far more useful than the one I referred to.

Point still made, professional or arm chair professional.

19 January 2009, 11:47 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Cy_Starkman (New user):

Thanks, I read that it happened in 2000 and basically no one uses it.

I doubt actually that anyone you know really uses it either. It would seem that the computer industry doesn't use it, doesn't take much research to discover that no one is using it. I never used it for 21 years working in the industry, can't imagine I'll start anytime soon.

So it would be that only Telco's use it, but they used it before the IEC agreed to the change in 2000, so that's not the reason. Telco's do it because it lets the charge more for less.

I look forward to my base 10 computer sometime in an alternate reality.

19 January 2009, 11:47 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (User):

Quoting Cy_Starkman:
I doubt actually that anyone you know really uses it either. It would seem that the computer industry doesn't use it, doesn't take much research to discover that no one is using it.


It's actually quite commonly used among open source stuff. I've seen in heaps of places over the last 5 years or so.

20 January 2009, 1:20 AM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user