Verizon's CEO Is Going To Find And Throttle You CEO again hints at his dream for higher LTE broadband pricing Wednesday Apr 07 2010 17:59 EDT Tipped by Gbcue Speaking this week at the Council For Foreign Relations, Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg said a lot of things, including the fact that the company has told Apple they're ready to offer the iPhone. Industry reporter Dave Burstein directs our attention to the full transcript of Ivan's interview this week, and it's worth a read. It's chock full of the usual telco speak, including the industry meme that U.S. broadband is simply the best, and if you think otherwise, you're not looking at the data correctly. But also buried in the conversation are some very interesting comments about Verizon hunting video users and throttling them: quote: But when we now go after the very, very high users, the ones who camp on the network all day long every day doing things that -- who knows what they're doing -- those are the --MURRAY: It's video, right? I mean, it's video. SEIDENBERG: But those are the people we will throttle and we will find them and we will charge them something else. Now, the dilemma we have is that government will come in and say well, I'm not sure we want you to do that. MURRAY: Net neutrality. We want -- SEIDENBERG: Net neutrality could be used against that.
Burstein wonders if this might be Seidenberg's "free ride on my pipes" moment that triggers another round of network neutrality fisticuffs. He's of course referring to former AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre's (who now runs GM) comments in 2005 that AT&T wasn't going to let Google get a "free ride" on their network. Those marginally-coherent comments really kicked off the modern network neutrality debate as we know it, given AT&T seemed to be suddenly saying they wanted to charge content companies (who already pay for bandwidth) prioritization fees to serve AT&T users (who also already pay a LOT for bandwidth) more quickly. Says Burstein of Seidenberg's gaffe: "those are the people (heavy users, users of video) we will throttle and we will find them and we will charge them something else." -Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg |
quote: Could this be Ivan's "they are not going to use our pipes" moment that ignited the battles in D.C? Every lobbyist in D.C., including Ivan's own, is shouting net neutrality is unnecessary because none of the carriers will do anything like throttling most video. Comcast has demonstrated that even on cable very, very few users take enough bandwidth to be any issue. "Far less than 1%," Comcast's Jason Livingood recently told D.C. With almost no traffic intervention, Comcast's bandwidth costs are so low (about $1/month/customer) they tell Wall Street they have 80% margins on cable modem service. Everyone technical knows the "congestion problems" are wildly overstated.
Of course we've repeatedly stated that while ISPs do face congestion issues, congestion is usually overstated for political, anti-competitive, or high price justification reasons. To be fair to Ivan, it does sound like he's speaking generally, and could be referring to more intelligent, marginally-noticeable bandwidth management techniques. In context, it also sounds like Seidenberg was thinking about wireless networks, not terrestrial. Given the more limited capacity of wireless networks that changes things -- but only to a point. Burstein still isn't buying the need to throttle Internet video users: quote: The new LTE networks will have ten times the capacity within three years and cost 70+% less per gigabyte carried. Wireless has limits, but they are so far above current usage on a decent network these just aren't big issues. Certainly not enough to suggest throttling all customers who regularly watch video.
Seidenberg goes on to insist he's simply interested in heavily monetizing the "10 percent that's abusing the system," but that they're not interested in impacting demand with these pricing models. Again, while industry executives keep talking about how they need new pricing models because of some nebulous sense of altruism -- the pricing models they implement (in addition to pricey ETFs and endless fees) aren't based on fairness or pure per-byte billing. They're designed with one goal in mind: having everybody pay more to offset expected losses in voice and SMS revenues. Fairness has nothing to do with it. Terms like "abusers" and "bandwidth hogs" are used to justify pricing policies that very often impact all users. Yes, there are a small number of users (usually less than 1%) who consume an inordinate amount of bandwidth. However, you need to ask yourself why dealing with these users requires a completely new pricing model that winds up kicking you in the teeth. Given how Verizon keeps hammering this talking point about fairness and the need for a new billing paradigm, you really have to wonder exactly what kind of pricing model Verizon is cooking up for their LTE wireless broadband service. Verizon already employs low caps and overages for wireless, and it sounds like users can expect more where that came from. Of course Verizon Wireless will only charge what consumers let them get away with -- and consumers let Verizon Wireless get a way with an awful lot. |
PDXPLT join:2003-12-04 Banks, OR |
PDXPLT
Member
2010-Apr-7 4:32 pm
Verizon already CAPS wireless broadbandForget throttling, VZ already does worse - they have a 5 GB cap on the "unlimited" wireless broadband plan. Above that, you pay through the nose, per MB. | |
| | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2010-Apr-7 4:38 pm
Re: Verizon already CAPS wireless broadbandSigh...VZ does not offer "unlimited" any longer and hasn't done so for quite some time. | |
| | | PDXPLT join:2003-12-04 Banks, OR |
PDXPLT
Member
2010-Apr-7 4:43 pm
Re: Verizon already CAPS wireless broadbandwelll whatever they call it. "heavy user", "unmetered", "unlimited", etc. The point it, it's capped, at a very low level. I don't think it's gonna change when they migrate to LTE, so I don't think this "throttling" is news - they're doing it already. | |
| | | | MRCUR join:2007-03-09 Lancaster, PA |
MRCUR
Member
2010-Apr-7 6:08 pm
Re: Verizon already CAPS wireless broadbandUh, just an FYI - 5GB is the industry standard for 3G data card caps. | |
| | | | | |
Re: Verizon already CAPS wireless broadbandDoesn't mean it's right.
And the metering is so inaccurate and out of date that it's difficult to know how much you've actually used.
And overages are outrageously priced.
Of course if Verizon monopoly in our area would offer something better than intermittent 21 kbps dialup we really wouldn't be bothered by their wireless data shenanigans.
Actually I wouldn't mind metered billing if it was accurate, you could see what you had used and were being charged in close to real time, and if was fairly priced. | |
| | | | | | fiberguy2My views are my own. Premium Member join:2005-05-20 |
Re: Verizon already CAPS wireless broadbandOkay... 'nuff of the simply bitching routine that it's not "fairly priced".. while I agree that it's expensive service, answer this:
1) What WOULD be fairly priced, in your opinion.
2) WHY would your price be more fair?
There is a lot of people up in arms about the price of mobile broadband, but no one says "why" and what they believe is "fair".. even though there is nothing in our laws or constitution that guarantees "fairness" in life.
Personally, I use mobile broadband and pay the $59.99 a month for Sprints unlimited plan, grandfathered. I don't mind the higher prices for broadband and don't mind the caps - as the networks stand, in current time, this means that I'm going to be able to use the service and get close to what is expected of the service.
If they price the service at what I believe you'd say is "fair"... then I can guarantee you that the service would be over sold as the network can't handle the service for the type of use I think it would get. (iPhone & att anyone?) Wireless data cards aren't a replacement for landline service nor is it going to be priced in line with such either, thank god!
They're making it pretty clear that mobile broadband isn't necessarily ready for the masses just yet with the fact they're keeping the prices at where it is right now. Mobile service is still largely a luxury at this stage.. as time goes on, it too will lower in price as the networks can handle it.
So.. to the questions I asked above.. what say you? | |
| | | | | | | |
Re: Verizon already CAPS wireless broadbandFirst of all don't tell us to quit complaining.
I know that $59 per month is overpriced for the simple fact that US Cellular is selling it for $49 per month and pushing it hard.
Without getting into politics about fairness remember that these are the public airwaves that they're using so it's not strictly about business.
I don't think that mobile Internet access is a luxury, especially where we are and given the fact that we have companies like Verizon and AT&T that won't give us wired data - so we have to go with wireless.
And they don't seem to be really worried about data congestion, they're more than happy to sell you video over wireless... | |
| | | | | | | | fiberguy2My views are my own. Premium Member join:2005-05-20 1 edit |
Re: Verizon already CAPS wireless broadbandFirst of all, don't tell me to tell people to quit complaining - and thanks for putting words in my mouth - next time, please try to read my post.
There's something called "context" and you missed it.. my point was very simple even a 5th grader could figure it out...
"Stop bitching about what's wrong and say it's not "Fair" and start saying what IS "fair".. "
And now on to your post..
Just becuase US Cellular is selling it for $49 doesn't mean that Verizon is over priced... that's just simply, and I'm not going to say absurd, it's just simply stupid reasoning.
Also, there you are, focusing on "fairness" again.. there is not legal right to "fairness".. and just becuase they are public airwaves doesn't mean that the just becuase the public asks for something that the public gets it... you need to read up and study up on what it means to operate in the "public airwaves"...
While you don't "think" that mobile internet is a luxury.. it still is. Sorry. You don't "NEED" to be mobile with the internet.. hell, you don't even "need" it in your home. The government, so far, believes that the internet is available for everyone.. simply go to the public library and it's all yours.
A lot of your logic and reasoning is flawed.
By the way... thanks for not answering the question I posed in the first place - I believe that's called Hijacking my post. And, like so many that do "bitch" and bring nothing to the table, your reply to my post proved my point.. all you can do it bitch about what you don't like and not say what IS right... so yea, thanks for proving my point - clear as day. | |
|
| | | | | | |
to fiberguy2
To quote: "Mobile service is still largely a luxury at this stage.. as time goes on, it too will lower in price as the networks can handle it." How is this the case when VZW has recently moved to require a data plan on phones that do not require data to operate? This says to me that not only is mobile broadband no longer a luxury, but it's a necessity, which is completely wrong. | |
|
| | | | | axus join:2001-06-18 Washington, DC 1 edit |
to jameswade
A cap is the fairest way to deal with it. A cap by itself has no network neutrality issues, because the type or destination of the data isn't discriminated.
After that, it becomes a business question. How much is a data plan worth to you with a 5GB cap? Can you find a better deal from a competitor?
Things that artificially impede you from canceling service and switching to a competitor are unfair, though.
Data plans aren't worthwhile to me, yet, so I don't have one. Nobody is putting a gun to my head. The people who are willing to pay more have more bandwidth available because I'm not. I do think that a more competitive market would cause prices to go down, and make more "network" available. | |
|
| | | | PDXPLT join:2003-12-04 Banks, OR |
to MRCUR
said by MRCUR:Uh, just an FYI - 5GB is the industry standard for 3G data card caps. Which is my point - wireless "throttling", via caps or what have you, is nothing new. Why is this being touted as "news"? | |
|
| glinc join:2009-04-07 New York, NY |
to PDXPLT
yeah? well then I'm sure you can name a major carrier who doesn't have the 5GB cap on data cards. | |
| | | SimbaSevenI Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT |
Re: Verizon already CAPS wireless broadbandI could say of one.. Alltel..
But they got absorbed into Big Red.. Hopefully they hold out in my state for a little longer before AT&T takes the network over (s#1t). | |
| | | ke4pym Premium Member join:2004-07-24 Charlotte, NC |
to glinc
AAAAH to be grandfathered on the old plan! | |
|
|
Consumers can change thingsThat's so right to say that consumers let Verizon get away with a lot. It's going to take a large number of consumers to stand up and fight them too. I just wonder how much longer Verizon and others will continue to get away with their bogus fantasy that, the internet is so great in this country. | |
| | |
Re: Consumers can change thingsMost consumers don't even bother to look at their bill each month (I think something like 87%). Revolution isn't in the cards, I'm afraid. | |
| | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2010-Apr-7 5:42 pm
Re: Consumers can change thingssaid by Karl Bode:Most consumers don't even bother to look at their bill each month (I think something like 87%). Revolution isn't in the cards, I'm afraid. So then, who is at fault? | |
| | | | |
Re: Consumers can change thingsI've never argued that idiotic and lazy consumers are NOT part of the equation. If this website were called "LAZY AND IDIOTIC PEOPLE" I might write more about the subject.
Both consumers and carriers are at fault. One for being idiotic and lazy, the other for being predatory and amoral. | |
| | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK |
KrK
Premium Member
2010-Apr-7 6:09 pm
Re: Consumers can change thingsWhich is why it blows to be in the middle: Hard-working and moral, but aware of what's going on and being ripped off and can't do very much about it | |
|
| | | N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano Premium Member join:2003-11-11 Philly burbs |
N3OGH to FFH5
Premium Member
2010-Apr-7 9:46 pm
to FFH5
Who's at fault? Sometimes no one. It's just what it is.
As a species we seem inclined to assign "fault" to just about everything.
If folks think the service isn't worth what provider "A" is charging, then leave. If you think it's worth it. Pay up, sucker. | |
| | | | | |
Re: Consumers can change thingsEvery action has reaction and every cause has an effect.
So yes, someone is always at fault. | |
|
| | |
to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:Most consumers don't even bother to look at their bill each month (I think something like 87%). Revolution isn't in the cards, I'm afraid. I don't look at my bill, but I know how much it's supposed to be, give or take $0.50 each month, and you can bet I'd be on the phone getting it straightened out if it was outside of my expected range | |
|
|
Yet Another Annoying CEOHe talks about US internet penetration as being the best in the world. He never actually says the word 'broadband' with 'internet penetration.' He's using the usual smoke and mirrors to confuse the average consumer.
I'm tired of these people. I'm tired of their doubletalk and consumer manipulation. Of their greed and their selfishness. Of their elitism... he *laughs* at the idea of standing in line to get an iPad... he had someone else do it for him!
Jerks like this need to be put in their place. | |
| | |
Re: Yet Another Annoying CEOAnd more people like you and I are getting more and more tired of this continuing. The question is, when will it end?
I completely agree with you about putting this guy in his place. It needs to be done NOW | |
| | toddbs98 join:2000-07-08 North Little Rock, AR |
to TheRogueX
Its the same as the AT&T ads stating they reach 97% of Americans but fail to mention that very few of them are covered by 3g. | |
| | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2010-Apr-7 6:47 pm
Re: Yet Another Annoying CEOsaid by toddbs98:Its the same as the AT&T ads stating they reach 97% of Americans but fail to mention that very few of them are covered by 3g. AT&T 3G is less than Verizons, but hardly can be categorized as "few". All data coverage is 97% or 330 million people 3G data coverage is 75% or 233 million people » www.wireless.att.com/cov ··· p_3g.jsp | |
| | | | SeleniaGentoo Convert Premium Member join:2006-09-22 Fort Smith, AR |
Selenia
Premium Member
2010-Apr-8 8:32 am
Re: Yet Another Annoying CEO...and still EDGE service is usually not dialup speed. I got 3G areas all around me and stable EDGE service home(but don't have to go far at all for 3G, even just to work is enough). Anyways, that's still above claiming "internet penetration" where an old 56 modem connecting at 24 kbps would still count. Of course, that's not the internet Ivan's got, so it don't matter to his rich CEO ass. | |
|
neftv join:2000-10-01 Broomall, PA 1 edit |
neftv
Member
2010-Apr-7 4:47 pm
CEOsCEOs think because they get paid millions of dollars plus bonuses so does everyone one else so they can afford higher costs. Exec's should get a taste of middle America and get a reality check!
EDIT: Oh yea and anyone that befriends the Council of Foriegn Relations is not a friend of the United States and the Constitution but that is another topic. | |
| fiberguy2My views are my own. Premium Member join:2005-05-20
1 recommendation |
Verizon CEO Going To Find And -Throttle- YouI dunno.. the headline makes BBR sound like it's gone kinky if you ask me.. | |
| |
I'm not convincedthat he's referring solely to the "abusers" of the system. I can see them determining that ANY high bandwidth video (or general data for that matter) is going to be spotted and throttled, regardless of if it's happening for ten minutes or ten hours per day.
That is of course, unless the video content originates from another VZ business unit. Then it'll be an all you can eat up to 5GB and then $$$$ over that model. | |
| |
"Abuse"...anyone doing anything that uses more bandwidth/capacity than I think they should (unless I can force them to pay me more money for it)--regardless of whether or not there's any network congestion involved. | |
| | |
Re: "Abuse"...Just look at Bell Canada's treatment of independent ISPs in Canada -- for the sake of congestion control -- to notice how congestion is used as a red herring to justify shitty, anti-competitive behavior. | |
|
MTU Premium Member join:2005-02-15 San Luis Obispo, CA |
MTU
Premium Member
2010-Apr-7 6:31 pm
ThrottleThe tel-corps will say & do whatever it takes to keep their 'numbers' (capacity/coverage) in the dark, and to keep the FCC from ever setting standards above what keeps the brokers happy.
Be it cellular, FIOS, or DSL, it's always been 'do the least for the most' ($). There are not too many corps.that do otherwise.
How about nationalizing the lot as a national security issue? No worries about big-brother, as they've already done that. | |
| |
Kill IPTVThat's what Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast really want to accomplish with caps and throttling--think about it--IPTV would ruin their (FIOS or cable TV) business models. | |
| | |
Re: Kill IPTVsaid by Alex G Bell:That's what Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast really want to accomplish with caps and throttling--think about it--IPTV would ruin their (FIOS or cable TV) business models. In wireless, there is a kind of collusion consensus coalescing around some kinds of caps for wireless broaband.. whether it be for cannibalizing other services such as video or voice, wireline or other ROI reaons. There is also another move for the established incumbents to keep out NEW competitors such as clearwire and others from deploying next generation wireless broadband ONLY services which could end up carrying voice, video and other services and be UNLIMITED & UNCAPPED for LE$$ than the incumbents. Ah, thus is competition 2010. Greed is alive & well. | |
|
|
Enough
Anon
2010-Apr-7 7:12 pm
When is enough, enough?A simple solution is for an organized effort to be made by consumers to switch there services to another provider at the same time and in effect force ISP's to acknowledge the fact that we do NOT have to use there services if they chose to exploit us. If the chosen ISP then decides to apply the same corrupt practices a new switch is made and the process repeats till new companies replace the old ones or the practices of existing companies change. Internet is only necessary because we as a society made it so...it stands to argue that we as a society can make it obsolete just as easily. Example: 60% of the vol Customer base switches to comcast or whatever at the same time...bang vol is like WTF? Now they are listening. I know this is a pi[e dream because its easier to complain then it is to force change but I am just saying that we as a society have the power if we choose. Having worked for a major ISP I can tell you that without a doubt...you do NOT matter to them at all as it stands. You need them, not the other way around. We are trained to politely not help...a focus on customer service(politely saying I don't want to help or cannot help) and not FIXING the issue. I for one feel horrible for our Customer base. I have been getting allot of people I know and meet to dump Rogers and Bell where I am in order to facilitate this kind of change but its slow going because people get scared to rock the boat. Maybe when they start charging us by content or dictating whats acceptable to do on the internet, people will finally do something...maybe. | |
| Gbcue Premium Member join:2001-09-30 Santa Rosa, CA |
Gbcue
Premium Member
2010-Apr-7 7:24 pm
US is NUMBER ONE!! Love this part!quote: MURRAY: So on the measures that matter most to you, where does the United States rank in terms of --
SEIDENBERG: One. Not even close.
MURRAY: Number one?
SEIDENBERG: Yes. Verizon has put more fiber in from Boston to Washington than all the Western European countries combined. All. We have -- if you look at smart phones -- not us, Apple, Google -- they have exploded this market in the U.S. Ask any European if they're not somewhat envious of the advancements of smart-phone technology in the U.S. So it just seems to me this is just not even close.
Love this part! | |
| | •••• | CamaroQuestion everything Premium Member join:2008-04-05 Westfield, MA
1 recommendation |
Camaro
Premium Member
2010-Apr-7 10:26 pm
I am not a verizon customerBut i am sure some his customers would like to find him and throttle his neck. | |
| | SeleniaGentoo Convert Premium Member join:2006-09-22 Fort Smith, AR |
Selenia
Premium Member
2010-Apr-8 8:50 am
Re: I am not a verizon customersaid by Camaro:But i am sure some his customers would like to find him and throttle his neck. He's easy enough to find =) » 'Freak With Bullhorn' Visits Verizon CEO | |
|
|
justanitpro
Anon
2010-Apr-8 2:30 am
I don't get itWhy is everyone so upset over this. Obviously, Verizon does not want any users taking advantage of their network unless they can pay alot of money for it. This ensures that Verizon does not have excessive bandwidth utilization and when they sell their service to large businesses and the aircard ends up at the hands of a remote location user that will never see the actual bill and possibly not be aware that after the first 5GB their company is getting screwed, they can charge high rates while the payer does not have much control over the usage or not paying attention to what Verizon is charging them.
They do not care about small businesses or individuals that will inspect the bill every month.
With this in mind, I would suggest that the people that complain here are not the people that should have wireless access (at least from Verizon) nor the people that Verizon wants as customers at this time. | |
| C0deZer0Oc'D To Rhythm And Police Premium Member join:2001-10-03 Tempe, AZ |
C0deZer0
Premium Member
2010-Apr-8 11:42 am
Anybody that can, should...Take this as advice to get out and find another provider.
For me, that involved going to MetroPCS. It wasn't just the fact that there was no contract involved, but the fact that I knew how much I would be paying instead of trying to deduce how much extra I'd get sacked in taxes with the misleading ads that Verizon and AT&T use, and because I couldn't get half of the features I get now with Metro for even close to the same price as I would with AT&T, Verizon Wireless, or (most) anyone else.
Metro might not have wireless broadband, but that has yet to be a consideration for me, either; most places I would go to away from home have Wi-Fi anyway. | |
| |
Amiee
Anon
2010-Apr-9 6:12 pm
Verizon Wireless UnlimitedI have the verizon wireless unlimited. They throttled me because I downloaded too much in one day. Not in a month but in one day. I had bought a new computer and was doing updates with microsoft. I did not go over the 5gigs for the month however. Just according to them, too much for one day. I don't understand that. | |
|
| |
|
|