dslreports logo
Verizon's Announcement Is About Per-Byte Billing
Not about offering consumers the universe on a platter...

As we noted yesterday, Verizon Wireless has announced that at the end of 2008, they'll be offering users the option to connect any supported, CDMA device to their EVDO network. In other words, you'll be able to buy a data-only plan from Verizon, and use any supported device and application on the network -- with a catch. This is in contrast to Verizon's traditionally gimped software, crippled phones and "get it now" walled garden functionality.


Reactions to the press release seem boundlessly optimistic, though this is a company that would probably rather die than become a "dumb pipe" provider of bandwidth. While the press thinks this announcement is a consumer bonanza, we're unconvinced of Verizon's epiphany just yet.

Silicon Alley Insider's Dan Frommer was one of only a few writers who seemed to get what this announcement was really about -- getting some positive PR, and the injection of a per-byte billing model into consumer consciousness:
quote:
Some people think this will open the door to devices running new services, like free Internet phone service or video calling. But Verizon (VZ) has no intention of turning itself into dumb pipe. You can expect service plans for non-Verizon phones to include data-network fees based on usage -- meaning those "free" calls could cost a bundle.
Recently busted by the NY Attorney general for advertising 5GB capped service as unlimited, Verizon Wireless has been looking for an opportunity to sell consumers on per byte pricing, and this is likely it. It's a clever play by the company, who'll get to tell critics and regulators they they do in fact support open access, while charging you a premium for it.
view:
topics flat nest 

MarkO711
@cox.net

MarkO711

Anon

They do not have a Edge network

That is GSM not CDMA
wvcaver
Premium Member
join:2005-04-17
Millersburg, OH

wvcaver

Premium Member

Well good for them

I'm 98% sure i will get the G phone!
and will drop Verizon like a bad habit !
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Well good for them

Really? Where is it? What network does it use?

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

1 edit

1 recommendation

Matt3

Premium Member

Double-Talk

I also noticed in the article yesterday that the Verizon rep stated they would not impose limits on usage, but then turned around and stated that consumers can use any devices as long as they are willing to pay for usage.

That strongly reeked of "we're going to bill by the byte" to me.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Double-Talk

said by Matt3:

I also noticed in the article yesterday that the Verizon rep stated they would not impose limits on usage, but then turned around and stated that consumers can use any devices as long as they are willing to pay for usage.

That strongly reeked of "we're going to bill by the byte" to me.
It is about time that pay-per-byte starts getting used. It solves all problems. It monetarily penalizes bandwidth hogs. It funds infrastructure investment. It avoids the need to throttle content providers, protocols, etc.

If this model flies, then expect to see it start appearing on landline broadband as well.
bbenso1
join:2004-11-28
Baltimore, MD

2 recommendations

bbenso1

Member

Re: Double-Talk

said by FFH5:

It is about time that pay-per-byte starts getting used. It solves all problems.
Except that pesky problem of having to pay for data you didn't request. If I'm paying by the byte, is my ISP going to filter out all spam on the mail server before it gets downloaded to my email client? Is my ISP going to block unwanted popup ads on any web sites that I might visit? What about annoying, high-bandwidth flash content that I don't want to see? What about windows updates that get downloaded even though I told windows not to download updates?
emptywig
Huh? What?
Premium Member
join:2002-08-05
Pasadena, TX

emptywig

Premium Member

Re: Double-Talk

Damn tootin'...

wig
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9 to bbenso1

Premium Member

to bbenso1
Everything you mentioned was requested by you or your computer in some manner.

SPAM: IMAP is wonderful

Ads and Flash are relative to the sites that you request

Windows updates? Your OS is requesting them.

Piggie
Just A Pig With A Computer
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Orange Springs, FL

Piggie

Premium Member

Why even debate?

There are so many other choices in most places in the country why would anyone needing data service use Verizon?

They lied for 4 years and didn't stop until a Judge called them on the carpet.

Now they want pay per byte.

Simply remove them from your selection and go on with life.

PS: Most towns have more choices than just switching to GSM also. Sprint and Alltel are in a lot of places and have decent data plans.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK to bbenso1

Premium Member

to bbenso1
Amen and Amen!

If the Telecommunications companies want to get greedy, then bury them in their corporate greed by filing mass lawsuits and winning them all.

Get SPAM you didn't want? SUE. Stupid ads appearing on your screen you don't want to see? SUE. Companies like Microsoft and so on using YOUR bandwidth to phone home/bug fix etc? SUE!!!

And, the lawsuits will be easy wins because when paying by the byte, it will be automatic to prove damages. Sue, sue sue.

And then this stupidity will die before it can get started.

Jovi
Premium Member
join:2000-02-24
Mount Joy, PA

Jovi to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
It isn't about being a "bandwidth hog". Some use their connection more than others. Legally I might add. I am on the net more than watching television. That is my preferred entertainment.

But I must strongly say that with the bill by the byte system, it will finally quiet down the folks like you screaming about hog this hog that. The term "You get what you pay for" rings so true here.

Jeff
Connoisseur of leisurely things
Premium Member
join:2002-12-24
GMT -5

Jeff to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

said by Matt3:

If this model flies, then expect to see it start appearing on landline broadband as well.
I don't think we'll see that on home broadband. There is too much out there (from an innovative point of view) that requires high bandwidth consumption. If per-byte billing ever occurs at the home level on my Fios, I'm out of there. And I love Fios.

hhawkman
Premium Member
join:2001-02-08
Port Hueneme, CA

1 recommendation

hhawkman to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:


It is about time that pay-per-byte starts getting used. It solves all problems. It monetarily penalizes bandwidth hogs. It funds infrastructure investment. It avoids the need to throttle content providers, protocols, etc.

If this model flies, then expect to see it start appearing on landline broadband as well.


I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "BANDWIDTH HOG"
I Pay for bandwidth, and I use it. To NOT do so would be silly. The term "BANDWIDTH HOG" was created by 'the Syndicate' to cover up the overloaded nodes they created by overselling. PERIOD!
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

1 recommendation

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Double-Talk

You pay for a connection to the Internet for average, normal use. You don't pay for 100% of your bandwidth. If you did, your monthly bill would have a couple of extra zeros added to it.

hhawkman
Premium Member
join:2001-02-08
Port Hueneme, CA

1 edit

1 recommendation

hhawkman

Premium Member

Re: Double-Talk

said by openbox9:

You pay for a connection to the Internet for average, normal use. You don't pay for 100% of your bandwidth. If you did, your monthly bill would have a couple of extra zeros added to it.
No offence my friend... What IS normal use? And who the FRACK gave you that mindset? I pay for X download, and X upload. And I'm damn well gonna use it if I need to. If I can't Use it, I am being defrauded by my provider.

booticon
join:2007-07-31
East Lyme, CT

1 recommendation

booticon

Member

Re: Double-Talk

So you say "no offence" (sic), but then you trash on the poor guy?

Oh, and have you read your AUP lately? Acceptable use isn't saturating your connection 24/7, whether you think you *need* it or not.

hhawkman
Premium Member
join:2001-02-08
Port Hueneme, CA

hhawkman

Premium Member

Re: Double-Talk

said by booticon:

So you say "no offence" (sic), but then you trash on the poor guy?

Oh, and have you read your AUP lately? Acceptable use isn't saturating your connection 24/7, whether you think you *need* it or not.
Who said anything about saturating it 24/7?
However, I have that right if I so choose.

And again, the jury isn't necessarily out on the "idiot" thing. Go troll somewhere else.

booticon
join:2007-07-31
East Lyme, CT

1 edit

booticon

Member

Re: Double-Talk

Did you even read that first question?

Nice, I disagree with you, and that makes me a troll. I believe you are the idiot. And yes, I do mean that in an offensive way.

(Edited to add emphasis)

hhawkman
Premium Member
join:2001-02-08
Port Hueneme, CA

1 edit

hhawkman

Premium Member

Re: Double-Talk

said by booticon:

Did you even read that first question?

Nice, I disagree with you, and that makes me a troll. I believe you are the idiot. And yes, I do mean that in an offensive way.

(Edited to add emphasis)
We all have our opinions.
(edited to show that I don't care about your emphasis)
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9 to hhawkman

Premium Member

to hhawkman
said by hhawkman:

No offence my friend... What IS normal use?
There's a second word that you conveniently left out...average. Averages are extremely easy to calculate and hence very helpful in defining normal.
said by hhawkman:

I pay for X download, and X upload.
No, you pay for "up to" the capability to peak to X download and Y upload.
said by hhawkman:

If I can't Use it, I am being defrauded by my provider.
There is no fraud in your scenario. If you pay for guaranteed throughput and have the SLA to prove it, then you can claim failure by your service provider. I still wouldn't call it fraud, but you can use whatever semantics that make you happy.

FutureMon
Dude Whats mine say?

join:2000-10-05
Marina, CA

FutureMon

Re: Double-Talk

said by openbox9:
said by hhawkman:

No offence my friend... What IS normal use?
There's a second word that you conveniently left out...average. Averages are extremely easy to calculate and hence very helpful in defining normal.
said by hhawkman:

I pay for X download, and X upload.
No, you pay for "up to" the capability to peak to X download and Y upload.
said by hhawkman:

If I can't Use it, I am being defrauded by my provider.
There is no fraud in your scenario. If you pay for guaranteed throughput and have the SLA to prove it, then you can claim failure by your service provider. I still wouldn't call it fraud, but you can use whatever semantics that make you happy.
Get business class service and "Acceptable use" should be out the window. That's a case where you can be assured full usage of the bandwidth both up and down that you are paying for. Of course it costs about 4 times as much as residential, but rightly so since presumably you are running a business and require tighter SLA's on your connection.

- FM
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Double-Talk

You can get guaranteed full usage of your connection if you have a dedicated connection (not the "$359 Speakeasy Special"), which usually costs more than 4 times as much as a residential connection....and that's assuming only a circuit such as a T-1.

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3 to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:
said by Matt3:

I also noticed in the article yesterday that the Verizon rep stated they would not impose limits on usage, but then turned around and stated that consumers can use any devices as long as they are willing to pay for usage.

That strongly reeked of "we're going to bill by the byte" to me.
It is about time that pay-per-byte starts getting used. It solves all problems. It monetarily penalizes bandwidth hogs. It funds infrastructure investment. It avoids the need to throttle content providers, protocols, etc.

If this model flies, then expect to see it start appearing on landline broadband as well.
Except for the fact people (customers) don't want to keep up with it and it's going to be hard for providers to track it.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Double-Talk

Not really. It won't be much different that keeping track of your mobile minutes used. The providers simply need to provide that feedback mechanism for their customers.

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3

Premium Member

Re: Double-Talk

said by openbox9:

Not really. It won't be much different that keeping track of your mobile minutes used. The providers simply need to provide that feedback mechanism for their customers.
It's not quite that simple. What about all the spam email I receive or the phone home traffic of any software or devices I use? What if I piss someone off who decides to DDoS me?

There are methods and models to eliminate all the concerns I listed and to make bill-by-the-byte work, but I don't want my ISP in charge of any of them.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Double-Talk

Cost of doing business. If customers aren't willing to own up to being a netizen, then they shouldn't be connected.
Expand your moderator at work

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

It is about time that pay-per-byte starts getting used. It solves all problems. It monetarily penalizes bandwidth hogs. It funds infrastructure investment. It avoids the need to throttle content providers, protocols, etc.
Yeah, except for one thing. It will cost consumers more. I'm not talking about bandwidth hogs, but everyday, regular users. They'll be billed for "only what they use" problem is the rates will be 3x higher.
gaforces (banned)
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA

1 edit

gaforces (banned) to Matt3

Member

to Matt3
It'll be a cold day in hell before I pay by the byte.
I will also ridicule anyone I meet who does.
And talk crap about the company's that do it.

adisor19
join:2004-10-11

adisor19

Member

Re: Double-Talk

AMEN!

Adi
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

1 edit

openbox9 to gaforces

Premium Member

to gaforces
Do you do the same thing for existing mobile phone users?
gaforces (banned)
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA

gaforces (banned)

Member

Re: Double-Talk

said by openbox9:

Do you do the same thing for existing mobile phone users?
I'll give it a shot, those mobile phone users, paying by the byte, a new ringtone every week. Texting, pay extra, roaming, pay extra. Want to surf the net? Pay a LOT extra.

It's just a money sucking mini-vacuum hooked to your wallet/purse.

I got more ... next time
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Double-Talk

I was talking about minutes used since I have yet to see a flat-rate, all you can call mobile plan.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to Matt3

Premium Member

to Matt3
normal use is running at 100% sometimes and minimal others imo. i sometimes torrent things(wont discuss it) but then i can go for months where my only transfer is playing MMOs which use less bandwidth then surfing normal web pages(when not counting patches).

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Choice Already Exists

Get an unlocked GSM phone. As long as it works on USA GSM bands, you can use it with either T-Mobile or AT&T.

••••••••••••••
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

per byte pricing

Verizon curently charges $2 per MB and it's rounded up. Who is going to go for that?

••••••
tsmith20
join:2007-07-18
Cadillac, MI

tsmith20

Member

xboxlive

If I were connected at 1.2 mbps and playing on xboxlive 2 hours a day for the month. How much would that cost for being connected 60 hours out of a 30 day month?

VZW User
@rr.com

VZW User

Anon

Re: xboxlive

one guesses you wasent good on those train questions on tests, when one train leaves at x time/speed and another leaves at the same time at x speed, ect...
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to tsmith20

Member

to tsmith20
said by tsmith20:

If I were connected at 1.2 mbps and playing on xboxlive 2 hours a day for the month. How much would that cost for being connected 60 hours out of a 30 day month?
first of all they have a 5 GB a month cap but assuming there wasn't one I think that comes to $32,000

grobe
@iowatelecom.net

grobe

Anon

It depends on the pricing level

It all depends on the pricing level they set. If it were set so users in aggregate were paying the same as now (most users paying less, many significantly less) and heavy users paying significantly more it would be a good idea.

But I fear the result would instead be nobody paying less, but heavy users paying a lot more.

Ben
Premium Member
join:2007-06-17
Fort Worth, TX

Ben

Premium Member

Who In Their Right Mind Gets Pay-per-Use Data Transfer?

It just costs too much, in every case of it I've seen.

Artificially low caps are bad enough, but at least in those cases you either lose your Internet or get a slower connection for a little while, but aren't overcharged. It's still flat rate.

Once, someone made the argument of "why is pay-per-use bandwidth a problem, when your utilities are usually pay-per-use?" One key difference is that with utilities, you have supreme control over usage, it's all on your end. Only you decide if you turn on that light, run that faucet, or make that phone call. So why is the Internet different? You decide what sites you visit, right? I'll tell you why it's different, and why comparing the Internet to most utilities is comparing apples to oranges.

In the case of the Internet, data transfer is used whenever your Internet connection is used, regardless of whether that data is useful or not. Even if an unauthorized connection hits your firewall, you still receive data before your firewall rejects it. Plus, don't get me started on SPAM, which everyone gets from time to time, no matter how good their filter happens to be.

I have a better comparison. The SMS message, which was derived from pagers. In most cases you pay to receive, as well as send. Thing is, you can't control how many you receive, short of blocking them all together. So in essence, you're paying for something you have no control or something you have to pay for, and since it's pay per use you have no idea how much it's going to cost. The only solution, in most cases is to either A) not have a mobile phone/pager, or B) block them comprehensively. Fortunately, you can block SMS and see little to no difference. In the case of Internet, to block it or not have it defeats the purpose.

I see pay-per-use as being a last resort, for someone who absolutely *must* have Internet and has absolutely *no other options.* I know it's one of those things where I just won't stand for it. So far, I've never bought a connection with caps or pay-per-use, and I'm not going to start.

Plus, consider the fact that people generally have no idea how many KB or MB a website happens to be. I know it's something I'm not going to know. In addition, even if one did know, their estimates quickly become outdated. Nothing else is quite like computers and data, which keeps getting more bloated as time goes on.

I don't see how this can fly. The trend I see is towards flat-rate pricing, not away from it. Consider the telephone. Twenty years ago flat-rate pricing was very uncommon, though it did exist. Nowadays, for a home phone it's very easy to get flat-rate pricing for domestic calls, and only have pay-per-use for International calls. With my home phone, it doesn't cost me any more whether I call NJ, OR, or my neighbor next door. It's great since I can talk for hours on end if I want, and I only have to consider my schedule, and not have to think about the associated costs.
stufried
Premium Member
join:2003-10-13

stufried

Premium Member

Re: Who In Their Right Mind Gets Pay-per-Use Data Transfer?

If there was no monthly fee for the service, it might be handy for certain devices that only send a few bytes of data home a month, such as soda machine or a parking meter.
chuckkk
join:2001-11-10
Warner Robins, GA

chuckkk

Member

internet and cell phone providers

All the @#$^ aside, internet and cell phone providers are in fact guilty of deception and fraud in advertising and delivery of services.

The advertising promises the world, and the service contract takes it away, to a point that you agree to pay them for something they may or may not provide, and absolve them from any responsibility to provide what they advertised.
SimonGibson
join:2007-11-17
Crystal Lake, IL

SimonGibson

Member

Pay Per Byte is a Handicap to Progress

Funny - If I pay $30 or so per month to get cable TV - Is anyone telling me I can only watch it 3 hrs per day???
So they screwed up figuring out the network capacity. Everybody bought faster computers, expecting to get blazingly fast downloads and online applications.
I pay about $50 per month for fast DSL - And I expect to be able to pull/push 100 Meg backups / work from home or whatever and not get lost connections - If I pay for 7Megabit/sec I expect to get it. If some stupid sales folks at the big carriers over sold it - Tough, fix it and eat your sales commission. If an airline overbooks seats - Guess what? - They get to know about it real quick - Customers today are savvy and will walk to the next airline counter.
The technology is fast changing; the network technology improving all the time and we go thru' teething problems. My belief is we should expect to get permanent, always on connections. The market will be driven by improved technology and faster thru' put.
The main issue is to make sure we don't end up with monopolies that slow down the progress of technology. Without that continual drive for improvement in society we wouldn't have the high standard of living and health expectations.
Want to go back to the dark ages? - Then let a few monopolies control the market place. As much as we dislike government - They are our elected representative - So it is the duty of the FCC to look out for the interests of everybody.
There - that felt better!

NeedforSpeed
@verizon.net

NeedforSpeed

Anon

Re: Pay Per Byte is a Handicap to Progress

Interesting Discussion - Just my 0.02 cents.

Cable TV service is pretty much split into two types: Video broadcast and VOD. Video Broadcast is a one way broadcast (transmit only) from the main Video Hub that bundles all the video content (channels analog or digital) along carrier fiber optics rings (sonet or dwdm), coax, fiber optics all the way to the subscriber's house. The bandwidth usage has already been calculated so customers can watch TV 24/7 and not put any stressed on the network if design properly.

Video on Demand (VOD) uses the LAN / Internet connection to obtain content from a variety of sources: carrier owned servers or external servers (netflix, webcam, slingbox, goggletub etc...). Service provider can only guesstimate on the VOD take rate. Port utilization monitoring will dictate future capacity adds. Which is extremely easy to figure out. However it's very expensive to build out network infrastructures, unless Uncle Sam would like to pitch in.

So Verizon willingness to open its network is a blessing in terms of progress. This is just the first of many steps to come. Of course Verizon will need upgrade it's wireless network that will cost billions more. We all want unlimited data usage, but we don't want to pay for. It's just a matter of time before wireless data speed surpass today's LAN connection 500Kbps - 3Mbps and LAN internet will probably increased to the 50, 100, 200Mbps.

Yes technology is expanding quite rapidly, but the challenge is still in the last mile. The future will only be faster and richer in content. The network will be built one way or another. I'm rambling now. Nuff said.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to SimonGibson

Premium Member

to SimonGibson
VOD is also pre calculated as someone watching On-Demand in theory consumes no more bandwidth then someone watching the digital channels all day in normal modes.

winterforge
Premium Member
join:2000-07-23
Seattle, WA

winterforge

Premium Member

Local news

My local news had a short clip about that at the end of the broadcast. Except they said "One advantage is you could use your phone from AT&T and not buy a new one." Well that's incorrect right? Verizon = CDMA, AT&T = GSM so aren't they wrong?

karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Moscow, ID

karlmarx

Member

This is just greed

Repeat after me. There is NO UNIT COST to move a byte. There is only CAPITAL cost. If they build a network that can support X amount of bandwidth, then they should SELL X(bandwidth)/# of users. Very simple.

Again, the ONLY cost to TRANSFER DATA is CAPITAL COSTS. They need to BUILD the network, then it's almost FREE to run it. Apart from salaries, there is no reason to charge based on how much you use. It's PURE GREED by the companies looking to rip off the customer.

I predict this will die an ignominious death. No one in the US, or most of europe or asia (sorry if you're down under), will EVER pay for something as stupid as this.

•••

mufn8r
join:2007-11-29
Las Vegas, NV

1 edit

mufn8r

Member

I've been waiting for this...

I think pay per use is the fairest way to charge consumers.

huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ

huntml

Member

Re: I've been waiting for this...

I wouldn't be opposed to pay-per-byte if it was reasonable. Currently I use about 200 MB per month and pay $15 for my data plan. Everything I've seen suggests that I would have to pay several orders of magnitude more for the same usage under any per-byte scheme a carrier is likely to put forward.