Verizon’s mobile video won’t count against data cap, but Netflix does

[Guest Kloaked]

Original article: http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/02/verizons-mobile-video-wont-count-against-data-caps-but-netflix-will/

 

 

Here we go again with Verizon pushing against the new net neutrality rules. Obviously customers of mobile services use a lot of data, and streaming video uses quite a lot. Verizon of course agrees, so they are not counting their own video service against data caps, but Netflix and other video streaming services do count against it if they don't pay up to Verizon.

 

 

Quote

Verizon Wireless is testing the limits of the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules after announcing that it will exempt its own video service from mobile data caps—while counting data from competitors such as YouTube and Netflix against customers' caps.

 

The only way for companies to deliver data to Verizon customers without counting against their data caps is to pay the carrier, something no major rival video service has chosen to do. While data cap exemptions are not specifically outlawed by the FCC's net neutrality rules, the FCC is examining these arrangements to determine whether they should be stopped under the commission's so-called "general conduct standard." The FCC is already looking into data cap exemptions—also known as zero-rating—implemented by Comcast, AT&T, and T-Mobile USA.

 

Netflix obviously isn't going to pay up for this, as they are one of the many supporters of net neutrality. Google might, for Youtube, in my opinion.

 

All this tells me is that Verizon, after all that bitching about congestion of their services, are just wanting to throw dirt at other video providers (namely Netflix since they have combated practices like this) while they continue to lie about their service. I mean, there may be something else going on that "allows them to have such high bandwidth with their own video service", but come on.

[Deadly Duck]

Still on an grandfathered unlimited data with Verizon. Hate how they act but dame the service is good

[DeathRtH]

Well people have been saying this was going to happen since before the rules were finalized. It sucks but its not a surprise.

[samcool55]

Well, i think this proves why net neutrality is important! 

[Deusrex]

I didn't think net neutrality applied to cellphone providers.

[Guest Kloaked]

23 minutes ago, Deusrex said:

I didn't think net neutrality applied to cellphone providers.

It does, as they provide internet, not just a phone service.

[SImoHayha]

Basically if your use our stuff we won't charge you a dime ! Even though its the same exact thing ! 

 

I love these corporations I really do. They are always trying to bob and weave and trying to do whatever they can to stop losing money and have people pay them money to fill their pockets. 

 

From a business stand point I can see why this was necessary. More streams of data being used for Netflix means more towers they have to purchase and more INTERNET they must provide.

 

From an comsumer stand point. I see them as being greedy and not basically allowing with one does with " Unlimited Data " even though am paying a pretty penny to use it. So instead of billing me more and more for using  "too much " " Unlimited Data " I want a flat price per month like every goddamn thing in the world.

[Vanderburg]

I don't really understand the problem here. "If you do nothing, nothing changes. If you pay us, then your video won't count against users' data". What does net neutrality have to do with that? It's not like Verizon is slowing down data or making is LESS accessible for providers that don't pay (As far as I can tell; that would be a problem). In fact, if you regularly watch video from someone that does pay, then that makes the video from those that don't even more accessible, because you now have a bit extra data to work with.

[KuJoe]

I don't see a problem here. It costs Verizon $0 to stream their own content inside their network, on the other hand it costs them considerably more to stream content from outside of their network. Why are people upset that Verizon is doing something nice for their clients by not charging them for something they don't have to pay for either?

 

A good way to look at it is like this:

 

If you stream video from your home server to your desktop you are still on your LAN and not using your ISP bandwidth. If you stream that same video from Netflix/YouTube/Hulu/Amazon/Whatever then you're using the WAN at this point and you pay for your ISP bandwidth whereas you are not paying for your LAN bandwidth and can stream 100Mbps/1Gbps/10Gbps+ all day without impacting your monthly payment (and even more so if you have a monthly data cap with your ISP).

[Deusrex]

12 minutes ago, KuJoe said:

I don't see a problem here. It costs Verizon $0 to stream their own content inside their network, on the other hand it costs them considerably more to stream content from outside of their network. Why are people upset that Verizon is doing something nice for their clients by not charging them for something they don't have to pay for either?

 

A good way to look at it is like this:

 

If you stream video from your home server to your desktop you are still on your LAN and not using your ISP bandwidth. If you stream that same video from Netflix/YouTube/Hulu/Amazon/Whatever then you're using the WAN at this point and you pay for your ISP bandwidth whereas you are not paying for your LAN bandwidth and can stream 100Mbps/1Gbps/10Gbps+ all day without impacting your monthly payment (and even more so if you have a monthly data cap with your ISP).

 

16 minutes ago, Vanderburg said:

I don't really understand the problem here. "If you do nothing, nothing changes. If you pay us, then your video won't count against users' data". What does net neutrality have to do with that? It's not like Verizon is slowing down data or making is LESS accessible for providers that don't pay (As far as I can tell; that would be a problem). In fact, if you regularly watch video from someone that does pay, then that makes the video from those that don't even more accessible, because you now have a bit extra data to work with.

By changing the cost of different services they're not treating bits equally, hence not a neutral party, and have inherit bias toward their content. This how it violates net neutrality.

[KuJoe]

2 minutes ago, Deusrex said:

 

By changing the cost of different services they're not treating bits equally, hence not a neutral party, and have inherit bias toward their content. This how it violates net neutrality.

That's how life works. If it costs me $1 to buy widgetA and $2 to buy widgetB, I'm not going to sell them both for $2, of course I could sell them both for $3 and the buyer would suffer.

[Deusrex]

2 minutes ago, KuJoe said:

That's how life works. If it costs me $1 to buy widgetA and $2 to buy widgetB, I'm not going to sell them both for $1, of course I could sell them both for $3 and the buyer would suffer.

Right but their a common carrier. Think about it this way, lets say I owned a road and I also owned a shipping company, if I don't charge people on my road a toll for using my delivery services than I have an unfair advantage in the market on that road. The bits cost the same to go over the network, just as it causes as much wear and tear on the road for other transport to use my road. 

[KuJoe]

Just now, Deusrex said:

Right but their a common carrier. Think about it this way, lets say I owned a road. And I also owned a shipping company, if I don't charge people on my road a toll for using my delivery services than I have an unfair advantage in the market on that road. The bits cost the same to go over the network, just as it causes as much wear and tear on the road for other transport to use my road. 

It does not. It costs Verizon a fraction to use their internal network (look at it like their LAN) than it does when they have to get data from outside of their network. Now if they were peering with Netflix's data centers and didn't have to pay for uplinks to Level3, XO, Cogent, HE, etc... then that's a different story.

[Deusrex]

4 minutes ago, KuJoe said:

It does not. It costs Verizon a fraction to use their internal network (look at it like their LAN) than it does when they have to get data from outside of their network. Now if they were peering with Netflix's data centers and didn't have to pay for uplinks to Level3, XO, Cogent, HE, etc... then that's a different story.

It's going to be in a data-center, somewhere and it's likely going to be on a cloud provider, as IAAS is all the rage these day, which means it's going to be on Amazons cloud, or Microsoft's which means it's coming from outside of their network. And if it's hosted on Amazons then they're literally coming from the same servers as Netflix. 

[MonkeyFace]

That part of the net neutrality rule was struck down by U.S. court of appeals. ISPs can discriminate data until that decision is overturned or Internet becomes an eminent domain, otherwise it's not going to change.

 

Until the big content providers push back, this is going to be a standard internet practice in America.

[spartaman64]

On 2/7/2016 at 8:12 PM, KuJoe said:

I don't see a problem here. It costs Verizon $0 to stream their own content inside their network, on the other hand it costs them considerably more to stream content from outside of their network. Why are people upset that Verizon is doing something nice for their clients by not charging them for something they don't have to pay for either?

 

A good way to look at it is like this:

 

If you stream video from your home server to your desktop you are still on your LAN and not using your ISP bandwidth. If you stream that same video from Netflix/YouTube/Hulu/Amazon/Whatever then you're using the WAN at this point and you pay for your ISP bandwidth whereas you are not paying for your LAN bandwidth and can stream 100Mbps/1Gbps/10Gbps+ all day without impacting your monthly payment (and even more so if you have a monthly data cap with your ISP).

no it takes them the same amount of effort to stream content from their servers to your phone as it does to stream the content from other servers. 

[Puma911]

This exact scenario resulted in an AT&T customer getting an outrageous bill for streaming netflix. Like thousands of dollars. He took AT&T to court and didn't have to pay the bill due to anticometitive behavior on AT&T's part.

[Misanthrope]

It occurs to me, do this dumbasses ever considered that closing down the internet affects them as well? On paper, I'm sure you all have wet dreams about being the one ISP to rule them all, one ISP to find em, one ISP to BRING them all! And in the darkness BIND THEM!!

 

 In reality though, they won't be able to quickly get all content creators to support their service either. Even Netflix that can offer the media companies a massive audience struggle to get all of them in line, yet ISP specific services are supposed to make a compelling argument? Media companies are not gonna go backwards to the days of cable and won't sell the complete package to just anyone, everybody would want exclusivity deals and bigger cuts to take content away from others and all of them will be tiny and shitty libraries that customers will abandon.

 

Every way you look at this, not supporting net neutrality hurts them more in the long run more than it helps them.