Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Announces Pay-Per-Use 'Turbo Boost' For Smartphones
renek writes "In one of the most brazen attacks on net neutrality to date, Verizon has announced it will offer a so called 'Turbo Boost' for smart phones that run on its wireless network. 'Verizon will publish an API that could allow consumers to 'turbocharge' the network bandwidth their smartphone apps use for a small fee, executives said Tuesday. Verizon anticipates that a customer running an app on a smartphone will have the option to dynamically snatch more bandwidth for that app, if network congestion slows it down, said Hugh Fletcher, associate director for technology in Verizon's Product Development and Technology team. The app, however, must be running what Verizon referred to as the network optimization API it is currently developing, and hopes to publish by the third quarter of 2012.'"
this is simply local cache (like Akamai), which is what it sounds like, it's a service, not a violation of net neutrality.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Nobody tell David Hasselhoff, ok?
...from an ISP offering (for example) 1Mbps and 10Mbps connections at different prices?
It's actually better for the consumer, since you can buy the increased speed for a small amount of time as opposed to being forced to buy for a month or even multiple years at a time.
As long as this API is open to all developers, it's not a violation of Net Neutrality.
So now software developers will have to pay a fee to get "good" data speeds?
And to top that off now developers will need to design 2 versions of their application for every type of version phone / OS and everyone else. Way to go guys.
TruePunk | Games
I've been around long enough to remember the Turbo Button - it slowed the CPU to 8Mhz to be compatible with some games.
Didn't we leave this turbo marketing turd behind in the 80's? Please get NASA started on the B ark, before its too late. I think I saw turbo toothpaste just recently and it lessened my will to live.
They can have my command prompt when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
This sounds like (on the CDMA system) that they simply allocate more channels to the device. The way CDMA works is every device speaks and listens at the same time, but only pull the the data they asked for.
On Cable "turbo boost" just temporary allocates more channels in the same way.
It's like saying "I have a pipe 14Mbits big, how many 1Mbit pipes are available?" with the network normally giving you only 6 pipes unless you trigger the boost, and drops one pipe from 6 other users who aren't really using it.
They need to put a special switch on the phone, and a 7-segment LED readout. Sounds like more hassle than it's worth. Just paint '33' on your phone and it'll do the same thing.
"for a small fee"? When has a cellphone company done that on an ala carte basis? Usually things are only affordable if you buy way more of it than you need; if you need something on a one-time basis, they typically charge you a thousand times more for it.
"We'll sell you on bandwidth speed we don't have, and then charge you to actually use it."
This is bullshit for quite a few reasons.
Yeah! Charging someone more for a faster internet connection is so anti net neutrality!!!
... wait ... uh ... urrrr...
it's like this.
I can pay 14.95 for dialup,
25.95 for dsl
42.95 for cable modem
64.99 for fios
or 499 for a t-1 fraction.
I choose to connect to vdio or netflix, after I pay for my connection.
the payee is the USER of the web service, which every service they choose to use, verizon will charge the user for bandwidth
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
How about a discount when I agree to run slow. Or maybe they could pay me when I don't use my phone or it's off.
Nothing seems to work so great without "turbo boost"..
You know, the vast majority of the time, I and my cell phone are in range of a wifi network. If my cellphone's a suitably unlocked Android and can connect to an Asterisk server somewhere out there on the internet using Sipdroid, the vast majority of the time I really don't need to talk to a cellular service at all. The more Version and the other cellular services make me say they can blow me, the more effort I'm going to be putting into making that strategy viable. So keep it up, fuckers, because one day it will be revealed to people that you are no longer necessary, and when that day comes I'll be quite happy to tell you you can blow me for the last time.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
As many already said, this has nothing to do with net neutrality. However it has everything to deal with fraud.
You, as a customer, are buying a cell phone and a plan that comes with it. You are expecting certain performance of the wireless link, and you are getting it for the moment. But later the cell operator decides to sell your bandwidth to the highest bidder! In the end everybody pays the "turbo" fee to get any bandwidth at all, but everybody is back to square one... except the cell company who has now more money. Time for the "hyper-turbo" sales campaign then, to fleece the sheep once more?
So much for their incentive to upgrade. Now if their network is overloaded, it's a selling point. Brilliant marketing actually, even if it is a slap in the face to net neutrality.
What if the "turbo boost" is still within the advertised, agreed upon, paid for bandwidth.. how can "network congestion" magically appear and disappear from within the same level of service?
Berners-Lee definition is "If I pay to connect to the Net with a given quality of service, and you pay to connect to the net with the same or higher quality of service, then you and I can communicate across the net, with that quality of service," and its a very useful definition. I don't see anything wrong with Verizon charging more for better service. This would be a violation of net nuetrality if Verizon made decisions based on the content. This may be nothing more than the ability to dynamically pay for better service.
Umm can we get slower but unlimited data back, please? I don't need tens of megabits to download email.
This stupid-ass nickel and diming is why banks are having to kiss the asses of half a million people.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Make sure this becomes their greatest failure - either slapped down by court with hefty fees, or driving away customers in droves, and nobody is buying it.
If this fails dramatically, chances that others will copy it are very much reduced.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Ignoring the technical impracticality of this idea, the most equitable solution would seem to be one based on bidding. When local network usage is low and bandwidth isn't constrained its cost is very, very low, and there are hardly any restrictions on both total usage and maximum rate. When local network usage is high and bandwidth is at a premium, each potential user is forced to bid on it. It's a limited resource; those willing to pay the most get whatever amount they're willing to pay for.
I don't see this as a network neutrality thing at all, but rather--especially when "micro-transactions" are mentioned--as a temporary SLA boost. As I read the description, if the network is loaded down and you just HAVE to have whatever you're doing get through and are willing to pay for it, you can pay the fee and *BAM* your network priority went up for that app for that transaction or specified period of time: other than the temporary nature, I don't see this as any different than prioritization of traffic based on an SLA you'd see on any other provider. Since it's the customer (app user) and not the app author who pays, this is network-neutral by definition.
Now all that said, what this *DOES* exacerbate is the argument about having to shell out $10/GB: you're already paying through the nose, and now you have to pay MORE just to be able to use your device (or app) at certain times of day? Here's a better idea: do what they do with phone minutes and have peak and off peak times, with off-peak being unlimited. It's a lot more fair and you know what you're getting. Good luck getting a modern wireless company to think in terms of real "fairness", of course...
If this capability is in use, then wouldn't Verizon have an incentive to make their regular, non-turbo service, well, crap? If people are satisfied with the regular service, they'll have no reason to pay extra for the turbo mode. I doubt Verizon will deliberatly drop packets, but I imagine that once the turbo money rolls in they'll be in no hurry to upgrade their network and thus reduce demand for their new turbo service.
"I think one of the things that you could do is guaranteed quality of service,"
"I think you could anticipate that maybe you'll have a Skype call that starts going bad," Fletcher said. "Wouldn't you like to be able to hit the turbo button and have that come back up to be a good call?"
"The network optimization API will likely expose attributes like jitter, latency, bandwidth, and priority to app developers, Fletcher said."
"When asked if Verizon would put the turbo button as an option that would be presented to the customer using the phone, Fletcher replied, "Absolutely, yes.""
so it's not about local cache. it's about getting network priority by paying extra per day. NOTHING FUCKING ELSE. it's not a violation of net neutrality per se, as anyone could buy that turbo access. but it's about selling you a service and then selling that same service to someone else if he pays more or putting you at the same level if you pay more. and uh wanna bet that they just happen to non-optimize for skype on their non turbo service..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Time for a car analogy! Cellular bandwidth is like the traffic on your morning commute. Recently there have been complaints of traffic jams, delays, and generally slow transit speeds. However, adding more lanes to the roads is expensive, so instead the road operator has come up with a fantastic solution. They will sell Turbo Boost buttons for drivers to install in their cars. If wielders of a turbo button feel that their commute is too slow, then by pressing the button they can technomagically force all other drivers to exit the lane the button user is driving in, thus clearing a fast path for them. Of course the lane changes aren't forced on other button wielders.
This amazing innovation is sure to solve the traffic problems in no time.
Alphanos
When you go to a theme park, you can buy a "Fast Pass" which allows you to jump the queue. Everybody has paid for entry, but some can pay extra for special access, stroll up and jump on without waiting 40 minutes. Personally, I hate the things, as *I'VE*ALREADY*PAID* but it does make a good day out a great one, sometimes.
This is exactly the same, except that in the theme park, you *know* that the park is busy, and so can make the decision. But online, you can't see the length of the queues (or even how busy the car park is). As others have said, the provider can screw you by artifically limiting your bandwidth, in the hope that you will buy a "boost." In the theme park, it's apparent when you need to buy a pass. with mobile comms, it's not.
And, this is nothing to do with net neutrality, which is more like "I'm gonna delay your skype packets because you should be using our VOIP product or our residential telephone service." Unless, the boost API is only built into certain apps. I'm expecting a seperate phone-wide applet that says "gimme n minutes of boost for $x".
Note to ACs: I won't mod you up, even if you are being funny or insightful. So take a chance! It's not real life!
Letting customers prioritize the relative importance of their own data transfers sounds like a feature to me. This might help shift the bandwidth of the network from content users don't care much about to content they care more about.
Of course, I'm sure there are lots of ways to game the system; perhaps a devious app could wait in the background until the user clicks the "Turbo" button, and ~then download updated advertising content. And while it doesn't sound like this violates net neutrality, it might help create even more on an incentive to do so in the future. Advertisers are very interested in which content people are willing to pay extra for, both in aggregate and on a per-user basis. It's a well known fact that users pay more attention to ads inserted into content that they paid for. Magazines give away many free issues (while maintaining a high sticker price) to try to increase readership without hurting the perceived value of their publication. I'm sure web editions will be eager to advertise "Pre-boosted for free for a limited time only!"
No, this isn't Net Neutrality. It is fraud. Getting you to pay extra to actually use your plan you paid for. The problem? Well, maybe 1% of Verizon customers read /. or have a clue what is "really" happening behind the scenes and being this is Verizon, there will be nothing done legislatively (they own most of the spokes hole politicians in Kalifornia at least. What this means is most will begin paying extra until the only way to use your phone will be to pay for the upgrade. Verizon figured out yet another way to pinch a little piece of your pay check.
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
Does no one think that they won't intentionally slow data streams to encourage the use of their shiny new profit maker?
Perhaps, perhaps not - but UNTIL they do lets keep to the discussion to what is ACTUALLY ANNOUNCED, not if they will slow down your data feed or start grinding up babies for executive lunches.
There is NOTHING wrong with offering a higher quality of service for an increased price, so long as everything else operates at the same speed. I don't even care what the speed is, as long as I can judge WHAT the speed is then I can choose services intelligently and on top of that decide if I way to pay for higher rates for some services.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If we have a 5 megabit pipe and you and I are each paying for a 2.5Mbps connection, we can both download 2.5Mbps at the same time. If we're both downloading using our full bandwidth, and you suddenly pay more to get say, 3Mbps, now there's only 2Mbps available for me, even though I'm paying for 2.5. No matter how you spin it, giving some customers' packets priority over other customers' packets when the network is at max capacity reduces the effective speed for those other customers.
I might buy a Verizon phone just so I can sue them for fraud.
From the article:
"One of the things that we are right now is very democratic in terms of allocating spectrum and bandwidth to users. And just because you request a high quality of service doesn't mean you're gonna get it. [The network] will try to give it to you, but if there's a lot of congestion, a lot of people using it, it won't kick people off." (Brackets in original.)
Translation: If you pay us enough, we'll make sure the network will give you what you want whether it screws all our other customers or not.
Another translation: The new network will be like Washington, DC.
Hey, we're selling this grand dual core 3GHz server grade processor today! And if you ever want to upgrade, simply let us know, pay a fee, and we'll flip a switch on the chip to turn it into a four core 3GHz server grade processor! Why, yes, the dual core is way more expensive than other dual cores at its level!
Or..
Yes, sir, your phone does come with GPS. Oh you can't use it without paying a monthly fee for us to unlock it.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
They are already charging you at least a 100 a month for smartphone service with a (capped) data package, why not try to squeeze out a couple extra bucks to download some apps too?
Now I think it is worth it to buy your phone at full price from boost mobile, virgin mobile, or metro pcs. The monthly bill with them is between 40-60 bucks for unlimited voice, text, and data and no contract.
as a "small fee" when it comes to american cell phone providers.