dslreports logo
 story category
Verizon App Store To Block Bandwidth-Intensive Apps
Welcome to Verizon's version of an open, mobile 'Net

Verizon's launching a new application store to compete with Apple, but despite a lot of talk about openness at this week's developer conference, it's not clear that Verizon's traditionally anti-competitive mindset has changed. It seems like only yesterday we were noting how the technology press has done a poor job holding the company's feet to the fire for failed promises, so this morning it's quite interesting to see a Venturebeat article that acts like an objective Q&A, but is "sponsored by Verizon."

Click for full size
In it, the website lobs a few softball questions at the carrier about how exciting Verizon's new initiative is, though even that can't contain some of the less "open" aspects of Verizon's not-so-open mobile network plans. Even though it's a bit of a fluff piece, Verizon's Brian Higgins still casually mentions that Verizon will be banning any applications that actually use bandwidth.
quote:
We know how much data costs us per megabyte. We need to take a look at each of these applications, case by case, to make sure that we’ve got applications which are completely upside-down relative to what we will be charging to consumers. Moving over to LTE, you will always have the same sort of sensitivities.
Higgins claims that once LTE arrives, more video-centric applications will be allowed through Verizon screening process. Of course real LTE deployment is years away, and whether Verizon really loosens the restrictions when it arrives is anybody's guess. Verizon already imposes a 5GB monthly consumption cap (with steep overages) on network use -- and it's unlikely that will disappear with added bandwidth. Historically, once in place, profitable restrictions usually stay in place because they're as much about control as they are network capacity.

Sure, Verizon has the right to prevent its network from harm. The problem has been that network congestion is used time and time again by carriers to justify anti-competitive behavior, and given that nobody has access to raw network data, confirming these claims with any carrier is impossible. As such, a carrier like AT&T can cripple or ban applications that threaten voice or SMS revenues under the guise of protecting the network, without a shred of evidence. Not that the press would ask. Particularly if you're cozy with Verizon.

No matter what rhetoric seeps out of this week's developer's conference and the seemingly sleepwalking thousands who are covering it for blogs and technology websites, having Ma Bell's remnants as gatekeepers to the future of high-bandwidth applications will never really lend itself to a truly open mobile web. Whether it's AT&T or Verizon, decisions are going to be made constantly that sacrifice innovation and usefulness in order to protect the incumbent operator's bottom line. This post was not sponsored by Verizon.
view:
topics flat nest 
myokitis
join:2004-06-19
Alexandria, VA

1 recommendation

myokitis

Member

And the issue here is . . . ?

So VZ Wireless won't allow apps that could bring the network to it's knees? Sounds like prudent network management to me.

CurGeorge8
join:2005-05-02
South Park, PA

1 recommendation

CurGeorge8

Member

Re: And the issue here is . . . ?

said by myokitis:

So VZ Wireless won't allow apps that could bring the network to it's knees? Sounds like prudent network management to me.
I agree, everyone complains how bad AT&T's data network is, but when Verizon does something to prevent the overcrowding that plagues AT&T, everyone complains again.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords

MVM

Re: And the issue here is . . . ?

said by CurGeorge8:

I agree, everyone complains how bad AT&T's data network is, but when Verizon does something to prevent the overcrowding that plagues AT&T, everyone complains again.
Nobody is complaining that AT&T's network is overcrowded or that AT&T is too liberal with the apps that they allow.

Look, this is the cellular concept. AT&T has an infinite number of options to fix their broken network and expand its capacity anywhere it is suffering! However, these options cost more money than issuing press releases and limiting user choices.
itguy05
join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA

itguy05

Member

Re: And the issue here is . . . ?

said by funchords:

said by CurGeorge8:
Look, this is the cellular concept. AT&T has an infinite number of options to fix their broken network and expand its capacity anywhere it is suffering! However, these options cost more money than issuing press releases and limiting user choices.
Dude you have no clue whatsoever.

AT&T's problem is mainly the Internet backhauls from its cell sites. Do you know how long it takes to get a data circuit ordered, installed, tested, and operational? Hint: Lots of time, even if you are the telco.

And then there's cell sites. Cost a couple hundred grand a pop and that's if you can put them where they will work best. You've got lots of NIMBY types that don't want them. And then there's working with landowners, getting it constructed, tuned, etc. Takes time and lots of $$.

It is getting better, it will take time.

Put down the Verizon Crack Pipe. Their network is not all that. Their advertising is top notch. Repeat anything long enough and people will believe it.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords

MVM

Re: And the issue here is . . . ?

said by itguy05:

Put down the Verizon Crack Pipe. Their network is not all that. Their advertising is top notch. Repeat anything long enough and people will believe it.
I've been using Verizon's DSL and wireless networks for years. I am quite familiar with them, directly.

There are also a pair of consumer surveys out there that rated VZW tops in most of its markets. Consumer Reports (12/2007) was one of these. »Verizon Wireless Again Tops In Customer Satisfaction [42] comments (JD Power) was another. Neither of these outfits are known for getting it wrong.
itguy05
join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA

itguy05

Member

Re: And the issue here is . . . ?

said by funchords:

I've been using Verizon's DSL and wireless networks for years. I am quite familiar with them, directly.

There are also a pair of consumer surveys out there that rated VZW tops in most of its markets. Consumer Reports (12/2007) was one of these. »Verizon Wireless Again Tops In Customer Satisfaction [42] comments (JD Power) was another. Neither of these outfits are known for getting it wrong.
You mean Consumer Reports who, last year had to stop giving Toyota an automatic Reccomend rating because of issues that had been mounting for years (sludging engines, broken engines, and a general lack of quality in their new cars). The same CR that waited almost a year to de-rate Toyota?

Or JD Power who, some claim is bought by the manufacturers for their ratings.

I have no issues with my FIOS service.

I have 2 phones, Verizon for work and AT&T for my personal iPhone. Guess which one sounds better, is more reliable, and drops less calls? The AT&T one.

Again, if you keep saying something all the time, people will believe it. And they will dismiss little issues. Why? If it's the best and it drops calls how much worse would the others be?

I've been there, used Verizon Wireless - The are not the best. Good, yes, best no way.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords to itguy05

MVM

to itguy05
said by itguy05:
said by funchords:

Look, this is the cellular concept. AT&T has an infinite number of options to fix their broken network and expand its capacity anywhere it is suffering! However, these options cost more money than issuing press releases and limiting user choices.
AT&T's problem is mainly the Internet backhauls from its cell sites. Do you know how long it takes to get a data circuit ordered, installed, tested, and operational? Hint: Lots of time, even if you are the telco.
Let me rephrase that, "However, these options cost more money than issuing press releases and limiting user choices and making lame excuses."

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

1 recommendation

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: And the issue here is . . . ?

Paying websites for sponsored softball Q&A sessions is also apparently cost effective.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88 to itguy05

Member

to itguy05
said by itguy05:

Dude you have no clue whatsoever.

AT&T's problem is mainly the Internet backhauls from its cell sites. Do you know how long it takes to get a data circuit ordered, installed, tested, and operational? Hint: Lots of time, even if you are the telco.

Its called microwave relay. Landline circuits are only a last resort nowadays.
itguy05
join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA

itguy05

Member

Re: And the issue here is . . . ?

said by patcat88:

Its called microwave relay. Landline circuits are only a last resort nowadays.
Still has to terminate into copper or fiber somewhere. And there's a finite bandwidth for those microwave relays as well. Fact is these networks were not ready for the data. Verizon's saving grace is that they don't have these huge data plan users like the iPhone. I'd also bet if Verizon had the iPhone we would see the same things.
fgoldstein
join:2003-01-21
Newton Highlands, MA

fgoldstein

Member

Re: And the issue here is . . . ?

Microwave relay only works in a minority of locations. Most cell sites nowadays, at least in built-up areas, are "stealth", such as brick-colored panel antennas on brick walls, or antennas inside steeples. Relay dishes just don't fit. Because the ILECs charge so much for backhaul ("special access"), the cellcos, especially the ones who are *not* ATT or VZ, are going to alternatives as much as possible. But it's not usually possible.

Adding cell sites in many areas is almost impossible anyway. Towns just don't want more antennas. The politics of NIMBY are incredible. So the realistic answer is to ration (hint: charge!) usage.

Those who want unlimited video streams on their ISP service, especially wireless, should only be allowed to use it when riding their pony. The pink one.

kyler13
Is your fiber grounded?
join:2006-12-12
Annapolis, MD

kyler13 to itguy05

Member

to itguy05
said by itguy05:

Dude you have no clue whatsoever.

AT&T's problem is mainly the Internet backhauls from its cell sites. Do you know how long it takes to get a data circuit ordered, installed, tested, and operational? Hint: Lots of time, even if you are the telco.

And then there's cell sites. Cost a couple hundred grand a pop and that's if you can put them where they will work best. You've got lots of NIMBY types that don't want them. And then there's working with landowners, getting it constructed, tuned, etc. Takes time and lots of $$.

It is getting better, it will take time.

Put down the Verizon Crack Pipe. Their network is not all that. Their advertising is top notch. Repeat anything long enough and people will believe it.
AT&T doesn't have time. LTE is right around the corner and Verizon is pushing it. AT&T won't get real 3G up and running widespread before they need to abandon it and go all out on LTE. AT&T's real problem here is GSM. They're plagued just as much by dropped connections as slow speed. Verizon's network is all that, thanks to CDMA technology which is better suited for a country this expansive. You get the worldwide support of GSM, implementing it in the US, but few other carriers abroad need to shoehorn it into a widespread market place like AT&T does here.
itguy05
join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA

itguy05

Member

Re: And the issue here is . . . ?

said by kyler13:

AT&T doesn't have time. LTE is right around the corner and Verizon is pushing it. AT&T won't get real 3G up and running widespread before they need to abandon it and go all out on LTE. AT&T's real problem here is GSM. They're plagued just as much by dropped connections as slow speed. Verizon's network is all that, thanks to CDMA technology which is better suited for a country this expansive. You get the worldwide support of GSM, implementing it in the US, but few other carriers abroad need to shoehorn it into a widespread market place like AT&T does here.
You really need to buy a clue.

AT&T's 3G is UMTS/HSDPA, which is a form of CDMA. The only GSM/TDMA left in AT&T is the legacy stuff and I think they are upgrading ASAP. That's the hard part for them - going from GSM (TDMA) to CDMA.

LTE is the natural progression from UMTS:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3G ··· volution

"LTE is a set of enhancements to the Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) which will be introduced in 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) "

So AT&T can go to LTE and does have plans to move there in 2011.

If you bother to read the article, UMTS, GSM, IS-95 (CDMA) and LTE are compatible.

I've used them both and Verizon's network is not all that. CDMA can and does suck in many circumstances (high usage when voice quality goes in the crapper).

I think you need to stop puckering up to the big red V.

kyler13
Is your fiber grounded?
join:2006-12-12
Annapolis, MD

kyler13

Member

Re: And the issue here is . . . ?

No, you need to learn more about what you're talking about. Just because you see the string of characters "CDMA" doesn't mean A=B. UMTS's use of W-CDMA is not compatible with the CDMA2000 family of standards we refer to when we talk about Verizon's network being CDMA (1xRTT, EVDO). Don't get caught up in the terminology. UMTS, like GSM/EDGE, doesn't have nearly the coverage area per cell site that the CDMA2000 standards have. Yes, you stand corrected.

I don't care where LTE comes from. Verizon is rushing it to market at the end of this year. Of course AT&T can upgrade to it, but they're either gonna sit on their hands, wait until 2011 as planned, and fall further behind, or they're gonna be pushed to keep pace with Verizon and scrap their continuing 3G upgrades. They can barely afford to update their current network so what makes you think they can do this and upgrade to LTE at the same time? And BTW, the standards aren't compatible. I think you're again getting confused by simple terminology. LTE supports seamless passing with all the other standards. That's wholly different than compatibility.

Forget about buying clues. I think you need to re-educate yourself. Good luck with that.
itguy05
join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA

itguy05

Member

Re: And the issue here is . . . ?

They are all based off of CDMA which has a whole different network tuning, cell spacing and placement, and other requirements than GSM.

Verizon has the advantage in that they have already built and tuned their system for a CDMA based technology. They have lots of experience with it.

I'd love to see how you think AT&T can "barely afford to upgrade their network". If you look at the stats, AT&T spends just as much as Verizon in network upgrades per year. They do have the disadvantage in that they have to support GSM, UMTS, and LTE but if they are smart, they will do what they did to the TDMA/Analog customers a few years ago.

I think you really need to stop thinking that VZW is the best and that everyone else will stand still. I'd love a pair of those red V tinted glasses.

Also, if you think LTE will be smooth and everywhere on VZW, I've got a bridge to sell you. I saw their rollout of 1X and it was slow, probably as slow as AT&T's 3G rollout.

I use them both and find Verizon's call quality to be subpar and their performance to be as good as AT&T. Not better, not worse but nowhere near the "God Carrier" that people think.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords

MVM

Re: And the issue here is . . . ?

said by itguy05:

I use them both and find Verizon's call quality to be subpar and their performance to be as good as AT&T. Not better, not worse but nowhere near the "God Carrier" that people think.
Who here is saying that?

kyler13
Is your fiber grounded?
join:2006-12-12
Annapolis, MD

kyler13 to itguy05

Member

to itguy05
said by itguy05:

They are all based off of CDMA which has a whole different network tuning, cell spacing and placement, and other requirements than GSM.

Verizon has the advantage in that they have already built and tuned their system for a CDMA based technology. They have lots of experience with it.

I'd love to see how you think AT&T can "barely afford to upgrade their network". If you look at the stats, AT&T spends just as much as Verizon in network upgrades per year. They do have the disadvantage in that they have to support GSM, UMTS, and LTE but if they are smart, they will do what they did to the TDMA/Analog customers a few years ago.

I think you really need to stop thinking that VZW is the best and that everyone else will stand still. I'd love a pair of those red V tinted glasses.

Also, if you think LTE will be smooth and everywhere on VZW, I've got a bridge to sell you. I saw their rollout of 1X and it was slow, probably as slow as AT&T's 3G rollout.

I use them both and find Verizon's call quality to be subpar and their performance to be as good as AT&T. Not better, not worse but nowhere near the "God Carrier" that people think.
Wideband CDMA does not have nearly the same coverage area as CDMA2000/EVDO, period. I know it's not GSM, but it suffers from the same issue of increased need for infrastructure. That costs AT&T more. Dollar for dollar comparison of investment between Verizon and AT&T is worthless. I'm sure it'll take years for Verizon to get LTE smoothly rolled out and I'm sure there will be growing pains. What I'm not sure of is where you got the idea I think it's like flipping a switch. I do know that getting a head start on building the network will help, since AT&T has stated they'll be starting a year later. With respect to network quality, your opinion and my opinion matter only to our personal experiences. The statistics speak for themselves nationwide. There will always be places where AT&T is better, but on average, Verizon seems to have the edge.

FYI, I know where you're located and I'm well aware that AT&T was the first mobile network in central PA so it's more mature. I spent time in State College for a few years and AT&T was the only carrier available.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords to itguy05

MVM

to itguy05
said by itguy05:

I've used them both and Verizon's network is not all that. CDMA can and does suck in many circumstances (high usage when voice quality goes in the crapper).
Maybe that's why VZW's voice quality is so poor. I've often wondered if that was a VZW thing or just the state of wireless in the USA (or world).

cameronsfx
join:2009-01-08
Panama City, FL

cameronsfx to funchords

Member

to funchords
said by funchords:

said by CurGeorge8:

I agree, everyone complains how bad AT&T's data network is, but when Verizon does something to prevent the overcrowding that plagues AT&T, everyone complains again.
Nobody is complaining that AT&T's network is overcrowded or that AT&T is too liberal with the apps that they allow.

Look, this is the cellular concept. AT&T has an infinite number of options to fix their broken network and expand its capacity anywhere it is suffering! However, these options cost more money than issuing press releases and limiting user choices.
Apple controls a lot of the apps. Funny how Apple refused GV.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory to CurGeorge8

Member

to CurGeorge8
said by CurGeorge8:

said by myokitis:

So VZ Wireless won't allow apps that could bring the network to it's knees? Sounds like prudent network management to me.
I agree, everyone complains how bad AT&T's data network is, but when Verizon does something to prevent the overcrowding that plagues AT&T, everyone complains again.
These companies are lying to us. They want to give us the "next generation" service. People want to use applications that use lots of data. So why market something you can not deliver. Don't blame the customer, we just fell for your marketing crap.

EdG
@eastlink.ca

EdG to CurGeorge8

Anon

to CurGeorge8
said by CurGeorge8:

said by myokitis:

So VZ Wireless won't allow apps that could bring the network to it's knees? Sounds like prudent network management to me.
I agree, everyone complains how bad AT&T's data network is, but when Verizon does something to prevent the overcrowding that plagues AT&T, everyone complains again.
Yours is the 2nd comment in the thread. Given that the poster above you is an astroturfer as well, where are these 'everyone' of whom you speak?

I fucking despise corporate shills, selling their civilization down the river....

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

1 recommendation

funchords to myokitis

MVM

to myokitis
said by myokitis:

So VZ Wireless won't allow apps that could bring the network to it's knees? Sounds like prudent network management to me.
If that was the thinking in 1992, then the World-Wide-Web would have never developed. We've collectively brought the net to its knees several times, and what's made the network great is that we've traditionally responded to usage peaks by adding more bandwidth to meet the demand -- not by restricting how consumers use it.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin to myokitis

Member

to myokitis
How do you know it would be brought to its knees? How do you know 5 GB caps are the "sweet spot" for limiting network congestion? Do you have access to the raw network data?

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords

MVM

Hey Verizon ... Oh, Nevermind - You Can't Hear Me Now

Once again, Verizon has the opportunity to show that they're not Comcast or AT&T ... that they're in the business of delivering alll the bandwidth that customers want and earning the premium prices that they charge for their services.

They're not the cheapest, but they're the best and because of that, they are STILL the most popular despite the price (when and where choices are available).

So please understand that's why crap like this makes me doubly disappointed at Verizon.

You've got a 5 GB cap, you've got lots of other billing options that you could try, so why do you have to tell users what lawful uses that they can and cannot do?

The only thing I expect out of Verizon is that it responds to complaints about misbehaving applications. But if something is working as it should, and it's hungry for the bandwidth, THEN BY ALL MEANS SELL IT TO THEM!
jimbo21503
join:2004-05-10
Euclid, OH

1 recommendation

jimbo21503

Member

Re: Hey Verizon ... Oh, Nevermind - You Can't Hear Me Now

said by funchords:

... The only thing I expect out of Verizon is that it responds to complaints about misbehaving applications. But if something is working as it should, and it's hungry for the bandwidth, THEN BY ALL MEANS SELL IT TO THEM!
You forgot to add: "at a fair price". Not the over-inflated "text-message" pricing they are trying to shoot at early bandwidth hogs.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

1 recommendation

SuperWISP

Member

Verizon is doing the right thing.

Who wants dropped calls or slow Internet? How about higher prices? (Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?) If you want these things, then go ahead and rage against Verizon for managing its network.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

1 recommendation

funchords

MVM

Re: Verizon is doing the right thing.

said by SuperWISP:

Who wants dropped calls or slow Internet? How about higher prices? (Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?) If you want these things, then go ahead and rage against Verizon for managing its network.
This isn't about slow internet .. it's about whether or not it can be called "Internet" when the ISP is blocking or directing consumers' choices of completely lawful applications.

That's not the "Internet," it's more like Prodigy or America Online.
Expand your moderator at work
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP to funchords

Member

to funchords

Re: Verizon is doing the right thing.

Of course it's Internet. Just because the device is restricted so that, sensibly, it is not capable of using too many of the network's resources does not mean that it isn't Internet. In fact, it's better Internet than it would be than if it were not managed.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker

Premium Member

Re: Verizon is doing the right thing.

said by SuperWISP:

Of course it's Internet. Just because the device is restricted so that, sensibly, it is not capable of using too many of the network's resources does not mean that it isn't Internet. In fact, it's better Internet than it would be than if it were not managed.
Yes I would love restricted internet. Oh and please arbitrarily take away programs that i would like to use.

absolutely the dumbest comment ever made on DSLR.

gball
Master Yoda
Premium Member
join:2000-11-28
South Bend, IN

gball

Premium Member

booo

Another reason why I won't use Verizons crippled phones.

It looks like I'm pretty much stuck with a wm or android phone on tmobile/att or sprint. Which is fine with me anyway since Verizon takes forever to release nice pda's anyway.

••••••••••••••••

Dread
On course
Premium Member
join:2005-02-28
Bronx, NY

1 recommendation

Dread

Premium Member

Verizon: Your world crippled

Working as intended.
Failing as expected.
alexmac
join:2009-07-23
New York, NY

alexmac

Member

Re: Verizon: Your world crippled

put perfectly

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

1 recommendation

morbo

Member

picture is hilarious

I like the picture.

I'm surprised more cell companies don't capitalize on competitors "change of service" get out of contract free instances. For instance, next time AT&T changes their TOS Verizon goes media blitz for that 30 days to steal away the customers.

Mike_
join:2003-06-24
Philadelphia, PA

Mike_

Member

Not suprised...

Why am I not surprised at all? You really thought Verizon was going to be oh so better than att? VZ has always been restrictive since they started out, why would they ever change that?

As they say, grass is always greener on the other side. Hence if the iphone went on Verizon, this same "congestion", etc. would be present, and probably in return VZ would lock down even tighter.

You've got to realize att isn't doing all that bad with the iphone. Especially since 3g for gsm networks had to be completely redesigned by installing w-cdma equipment. Also realize that w-cdma HSPA runs everything, voice, text, and data. EVDO (VZ, Sprint) is DATA only, text and voice are on 1x portion of network. So imagine if text and voice were all on EVDO as well if the carriers had gone foward to Rev. B, congestion and reliability would more than likely be affected.

•••

nycdude
@rr.com

nycdude

Anon

capacity

Every one complains about capacity and network integrity and good planing. You don't hear the cable co's saying youtube is bringing our network down. The wireless carriers need to understand that they need to become ISP's and fast like now. Its not that people are messing up there network, its them not prepared for the demand.