'toll free' data plans

[jet1000]

How can they cry about a lack of spectrum and then turn around offering unlimited service to preferred customers? It's rather disingenuous.

The lack of spectrum is a future condition anticipated by both Verizon and AT&T based on projected growth estimates of data usage.

Capacity has been and is being expanded on existing spectrum to meet current demands. Nonetheless, increased data use is a revenue source and both companies will continue to maximize revenue and profit from that area as any good business would.

How is a consumer losing if Google is going to pay for all the data used when they watch YouTube?

The answer, of course, is that the consumer isn't losing. If any company wants to subsidize the cost of data and the consumer wants to opt in it just adds more choices for the consumer which is always a good thing.

For companies and consumers that choose not to participate, nothing changes. It's a great idea and one I hope to see implemented swiftly.

[spdickey]

For companies and consumers that choose not to participate, nothing changes. It's a great idea and one I hope to see implemented swiftly.

Problem is that...

They (the carriers) want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. And they want to discriminate in favor of their own apps, services and content — while slowing down or blocking competitors’ services.

Ask Netflix if their paying a toll to reach wireless customers is a good idea. While a carrier sponsored competitive streaming service gets moved to consumers without counting against tier caps or throttle limits.

Carriers "should apply caps equally to all, or not at all." Reid Hastings, Netflix CEO.

[Vatothe0]

Problem is that...



Ask Netflix if their paying a toll to reach wireless customers is a good idea. While a carrier sponsored competitive streaming service gets moved to consumers without counting against tier caps or throttle limits.

Carriers "should apply caps equally to all, or not at all." Reid Hastings, Netflix CEO.

They already can reach wireless customers though. It may not fit every businesses model, it may fit other's very well. Paid, bandwidth intensive services like Netflix may not be a good fit without changing pricing, if at all.

Companies like Amazon, Best Buy or other retailers may be a better fit to encourage online shopping.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[spdickey]

They already can reach wireless customers though. It may not fit every businesses model, it may fit other's very well. Paid, bandwidth intensive services like Netflix may not be a good fit without changing pricing, if at all.

Companies like Amazon, Best Buy or other retailers may be a better fit to encourage online shopping.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Yes they are, and wireless customers pay for that bandwidth. Even though its capped with tiered cost plans or throttled. If AT&T starts their own movie service that isn't counted against those limits, that would not be good for Netflix who is capped and throttled.

As for your shopping example, smaller online stores that don't pay the AT&T fees will be have less access to wireless customers under this scheme since that data will count against their caps and throttling limits. I don't expect online shopping to be a big player here, most likely bandwidth intense apps like streaming movies and audio would.

All a part of the network neutrality provisions that the wireless providers are fighting against.

[Vatothe0]

Yes they are, and wireless customers pay for that bandwidth. Even though its capped with tiered cost plans or throttled. If AT&T starts their own movie service that isn't counted against those limits, that would not be good for Netflix who is capped and throttled.

As for your shopping example, smaller online stores that don't pay the AT&T fees will be have less access to wireless customers under this scheme since that data will count against their caps and throttling limits. I don't expect online shopping to be a big player here, most likely bandwidth intense apps like streaming movies and audio would.

All a part of the network neutrality provisions that the wireless providers are fighting against.

Why shouldn't a company have the opportunity to pay for improved access to consumers? Should advertising be illegal too then? Should the development of mobile friendly sites be mandated as free?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[jarrodpd]

http://www.fiercewireless.com/print/node/129210



So, AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile are considering this. Possibly Netflix will be toll free (fee of data charges)? I doubt it. I wonder what would be likely candidates for a service like this?

Carriers in other countries have something similar to this already, the carrier Three in Europe and Australia have a thing called planet three on the Internet and you can go through an look at things that have a citation meaning no data charges.

[spdickey]

Why shouldn't a company have the opportunity to pay for improved access to consumers? Should advertising be illegal too then? Should the development of mobile friendly sites be mandated as free?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Because its not net neutral when some content providers are able to pay for better access to consumers, that's why.

This was written a couple of years ago suggesting that carriers would cry of scarcity in order to extract more money from those willing to pay for better access to customers.

There are many arguments against that, such as the possibility of ISPs creating an artificial scarcity situation by which to extract more money from those who are willing to pay extra.
http://www.ictineducation.org/home-p...ood-thing.html

And here where it was determined that net neutrality is a good thing for the economy.

The Federal Communications Commission's proposed rules for net neutrality would do more to insure economic stability than the proposal from Google and Verizon, according to a new report from New York University think-tank.

The report from the Institute of Policy Integrity at the NYU School of Law was released Wednesday and argues the Google-Verizon proposal would increase economic uncertainty by weakening the open framework of the Internet. The authors instead endorse net neutrality principles laid out by the FCC last November.

“We can take a cautious approach by protecting net neutrality," said Michael Livermore, executive director of Policy Integrity. "The government should move forward with their plan to keep net neutrality in place in order to preserve the open Internet we have come to rely on and the economic benefit we gain from it.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-va...or-the-economy

[Steveanderson13]

Why shouldn't a company have the opportunity to pay for improved access to consumers? Should advertising be illegal too then? Should the development of mobile friendly sites be mandated as free?

Your post is unclear to me. Would you elaborate, particularly why you would favor it?

[Vatothe0]

Your post is unclear to me. Would you elaborate, particularly why you would favor it?

Someone has to pay for the data transfer. Why not allow a business the option to do that?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[spdickey]

Someone has to pay for the data transfer. Why not allow a business the option to do that?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

The content providers do pay for data transfer, to their content delivery system. Now AT&T wants an ADDITIONAL payment for premium (not counted against cap) access to customers.

Just ask Netflix. Who right now is ripping Comcast over their system of not counting Xfinity content against caps while counting the bits used by Netflix and other streaming services.

Data from the Xfinity streaming app on the Xbox doesn’t count toward the company’s broadband data cap of 250 GB, while data from others (including Hulu, HBO Go and, yes, Netflix) does. Wrote Hastings: “If I watch last night’s SNL episode on my Xbox through the Hulu app, it eats up about one gigabyte of my cap, but if I watch that same episode through the Xfinity Xbox app, it doesn’t use up my cap at all.”

Indeed, this practice artificially inflates Xfinity streaming’s popularity, while prompting users away from competitive offerings. If competitors go bust, then the streaming industry could wind up like the cable operators: A few major players controlling the content, packaging and prices.

“Comcast no longer following net neutrality principles. Comcast should apply caps equally, or not at all,” he wrote.
http://www.technobuffalo.com/home-en...0-gb-data-cap/

[Vatothe0]

The content providers do pay for data transfer, to their content delivery system. Now AT&T wants an ADDITIONAL payment for premium (not counted against cap) access to customers.

Just ask Netflix. Who right now is ripping Comcast over their system of not counting Xfinity content against caps while counting the bits used by Netflix and other streaming services.

The content providers are not paying for the transfer from the wireless provider to the user, the user is. If a content provider wants to encourage people to use it by paying for their bandwidth, why not allow that?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[jet1000]

Someone has to pay for the data transfer. Why not allow a business the option to do that?

Of course. Permitting them to do so opens up more choices for the consumer. It's outrageous that some protest groups want to restrict consumer choices. The marketplace should decide if these new services are wanted by the consumer or not. If people don't want them, they won't be successful and they will go away.

[spdickey]

Of course. Permitting them to do so opens up more choices for the consumer. It's outrageous that some protest groups want to restrict consumer choices. The marketplace should decide if these new services are wanted by the consumer or not. If people don't want them, they won't be successful and they will go away.

Its outrageous that some carriers want to limit consumer choice by putting toll booths on the internet. Yes the marketplace should decide, not the carriers who wish to limit choice by erecting barriers to open competition in favor of the certain few willing able to pay for premium unrestricted access.

Perhaps a look at the discussion from 2010 would be helpful...

Net Neutrality or Internet Toll Booths?

Google and Verizon recently announced a “legislative framework” for Internet regulation that some critics say could put an end to net neutrality, or the openness of the Internet, by creating a two-tiered data system. In a recent video, Senior Fellow Darrell West takes a look at net neutrality and the Google-Verizon plan.

http://www.brookings.edu/up-front/po...eutrality-west

[Vatothe0]

Its outrageous that some carriers want to limit consumer choice by putting toll booths on the internet. Yes the marketplace should decide, not the carriers who wish to limit choice by erecting barriers to open competition in favor of the certain few willing able to pay for premium unrestricted access.

Perhaps a look at the discussion from 2010 would be helpful...

I still don't see the problem with a system that allows a pay for premium access tier, even though that's not what this is. We already have it on the freeway with HOT lanes. Seems the government already thinks it's ok.

Nobody is being denied access for not paying. Nobody is being slowed down for not paying.

Consumers still have the final choice.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[spdickey]

I still don't see the problem with a system that allows a pay for premium access tier, even though that's not what this is. We already have it on the freeway with HOT lanes. Seems the government already thinks it's ok.

Nobody is being denied access for not paying. Nobody is being slowed down for not paying.

Consumers still have the final choice.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

You might not have a problem with it, but it is a problem for the content providers who would be forced to pay an additional toll to AT&T to reach its customers without restriction. That would be a limit to competition, especially for the smaller content providers whom consumers would bypass when sponsored content is provided "toll-free." And of course there is no free lunch here, the consumer would end up paying for the content, if not directly through AT&T, but via payments to the content provider, or because advertising has to be added to help subsidize the extra costs.

And yes content will be slowed down after some users reach there limits, and other customers would have to pay more for content that doesn't pay the toll. Consumers don't have a choice, since its the carriers erecting the toll lanes, not the customers, nor the content providers.