Verizon Unsurprisingly Loves AT&T's Awful '1-800 Data' Idea

Well, the content providers are already paying.
I'm already paying.

Why are we paying AGAIN?

(note: bitter, sarcastic, rhetorical question)

Microsoft proved this model can survive and thrive in a connected online environment with XBox Live. First pay TV, then XBL... the model is proven. It will happen and then we're back at square one.

This isn't even the same scenario or business model.

I agree with you my friend. Another reason why I gave up on XBL. If you want to use an app like Crunchyroll(anime and asian drama Legal streaming..which you pay a membership fee) if you want to watch that App content you have to pay Microsoft to allow you to use it. So yes MS is the one that gave the telcos another crazy quick cash scheme.

ummm, i pay directly to CR, and I can use it on a multitude of devices, without paying MS a dime.

(edit) deleted post

Same here(iPad,iPhone,Panasonic tv) . But what i was referring to is if you want to watch it on the Xbox you have to pay MS again in order to use your crunchyroll app.

Verzion is already slowing down the Youtube site. So, they want to charge an extra $10 just to access the page. Isn't that messing with people's data and illegal?

If you read; this isn't on wired data plans/services. its on MOBILE devices.

and for the record there is no such thing as Net Neutrality nor has ever been.

No they aren't. Verizon in no way shape or form can throttle data that goes over their 700 MHz 4G LTE spectrum. That rule was set by the FCC in 2008 to the company that won that spectrum which of course ended up being Verizon.

Fixed that for you.

Fixed it to properly reflect the loophole verizon put in there themselves. Network management is always a reason to throttle stuff.

Then they would throttle your entire connection not just Youtube. Also Verizon states vey clearly even if you have unlimited data they reserve the right to throttle your 3G connection they will not however throttle your 4G connection. If they COULD throttle 4G you'd think the would. Also they wouldn't get rid of unlimited data they would just do like everyone else and say "unlimited' then throttle after 5 GB. I know people doing 50 GB a month over 4G with no throttling.

never have. Also last time I check NN violation was if a content provider was paying for PRIORITY access. Under this scheme no ones traffic is getting priority over the network vs another content provider.

Also explain this ESPN can prevent customer of any ISP that doesn't pay up access to have WatchESPN. This is apparently ok. If the ISP does it then it's wrong. Also what's prevent ESPN from going to at&t and Verizon and denying them access to WatchESPN unless they allow their content to not count against the cap? As I said are already doing something similar with wired ISPs. Have an XBOX 360 and the proper IP? You can watch WatchESPN( as long as you pay the $5 a month XBOX Live fee too ) have the proper ISP but have a PS3 or just a Roku? Ooops too bad you're out of luck. How is that not a NN violation?

Well if we don't like it we can just build our own internet, right?

/sarcasm off

At least that is what the trolls are going to come here and claim.

It drives me batshit crazy when these goons says "So I think you're going to see that change." Because it directly translates to "We're going to push as hard as we can to make that change", except it plays it off like they're not the ones doing it.

As if, the change is happening out of their control, they have no say.

I think Al Gore should invent another internet because this one is going to suck.

When I was a young kid back in the '80s and '90s, the cost of a telephone call was determined by where and who you were calling. And the phone was connected to the wall using an RJ11 connector.

If you called in town, the call was included in your plan. If you made an in-state long distance call, you were charged one rate. If you called out of state, you paid another rate. In-state long distance was more money than out of state. Our phone company at the time was US West for local and in state and the old AT&T for interstate long distance. Now that the telephone network has matured, now most phone plans do not discriminate between local and long distance because they are unlimited and the same goes for cell usage.

Broadband on the other hand, is still kind of in its infancy because it is not universally available and networks still need to be deployed in remote areas. The same can be said about the telephone network during my grandma's youth (she was raised by her aunt and they did not get their first telephone until 1949 when grandma was in high school).

What I will agree with is there needs to be oversight in how these companies do business. I personally think they should be subject to oversight by state DPUs unless there is meaningful competition.

The internet is in it's infancy??? I don't think 1969 is really a new technology. One reason tolls existed back in the day is because the networks were deployed as CIRCUIT SWITCHED, meaning that to call from NY to LA you would need a dedicated circuit trunk all the way, and it may have to traverse a number of networks including the regional bell monopolies. The reason why in-state cost more is because DING DING the regional Bell monopoly was the only place to shop...Long distance there was some modicum of competition back then. Once they migrated to packet switched (remember Sprint) the old toll system at that point was simply a cash coffer until VOIP and the internet wiped out those greedy bastards, and here they are again fat dumb and happy monopolizing wireless. We are back in the 70's...

The internet is even cheaper than it was one year ago. Transit costs have plumetted and most major telcos/cable have tier1 networks/CDN so their transit costs are minimal. The variable cost to provide 1GB vs 1TB is a few dollars a month...

Back to caps, they are dreamed up like Alice in Wonderland. The actual way the net runs is on peak/prime bandwidth, not on capacity, so caps to begin with are DREAMED UP BS.

Now if I'm Disney/ESPN and paying $7 a GB (say bulk rate) to deliver over the Verizon CDN, you better bet 100% that there is a QoS attached to that "tag" and that means that while johnny is streaming basketball, Joe is waiting for his web page to load. And of course to not charge the end customer $7/GB, they will have to slice and dice your private data 100 ways to Sunday and resell it to appear to have a decent price.

Interestingly enough I recall that the original "theory" that we needed wireless caps is because their networks would COLLAPSE if everyone had unlimited. So now they offer unlimited toll bits and all of a sudden collapse is passe and greed is good. Great move Gordon, er I mean T and VZ. I guess in the case of Sprint they were right

My theory is based on high speed Internet in terms of end users. While the Internet is mature (but not as mature as the telephone), universal access is not yet achieved. While urban areas have excellent availability of broadband access, rural areas lack basic access (DSL). There was a time where the phone company would not run their lines to rural areas due to low ROI and focused on urban areas. It wasn't until the subsidies came in that they were bringing twisted pairs to the farm country.

I remember the Internet becoming widespread in 1996 and the first webpage I accessed was Nintendo(dot)com in a school library. I was in 6th grade. It was on a computer using a dial-up connection and the computer crashed (froze up). They wired the building for Internet (using Ethernet) during my 7th grade year and it went online shortly after.

These were in the days before Facebook and Twitter and I had issues with being bullied at that school to the point that I ended up in the hospital (private personal matter so I won't go into detail). Imagine the damage that bullies do today courtesy of social media. Phoebe Prince and Carl Walker Hoover here in Western Mass are just a few examples of the harm that kids can do to other kids on the Internet.

2 Things.

1.) USF is that subsidy they supposedly use to expand into rural.
2.) The internet has matured more in every year it has existed than the entire telecom industry did in every one of the 100+ years it has been around.

In both the Verizon and AT&T forms of this,

Who is accountable to actually verify that the phone-user isn't billed the data anyways? - This open for abuse by the wireless company...

Just trust us. Cramming a la carte...

... We make bad things happen, then you pay us for "Insurance" to make sure we don't make bad things happen.

Verizon tried to do broadcast video way back in the early 2000's when the technology wasn't ready. Service was spotty, even in Verizon stores.. and if you moved around alot, you'd lose the video from time to time.

While video is better due to the internet and LTE, the prices charged aren't much different than the early 2000s using the subscription model except, the prices charged for the rest of the data have skyrocketed from unlimited plans to ~$10/gb.

This is what happens when you have a greedy duopoly..