Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Verizon's Mobile Video Won't Count Against Data Caps -- but Netflix Will (arstechnica.com)

Posted by timothy on from the what's-worth-what-to-whom dept.

Earthquake Retrofit writes: Ars Technica has a story about how Verizon Wireless is testing the limits of the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules; Verizon has announced 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.

8 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. Well, that's pretty much a textbook violation. by NotInfinitumLabs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's hope that the FCC shows that its net neutrality enforcement has teeth.

    1. Re:Well, that's pretty much a textbook violation. by rmdingler · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The FCC has been dragging their feet before ruling on Zero-Rating, so hopefully they will get this one right.

      If Verizon is allowed to abuse this as a loophole, others will follow, and sponsored content will reign.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:Well, that's pretty much a textbook violation. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Is it?
      They are not preventing Netflix or YouTube, There isn't any sign that they are slowing down their performance. It is just they are counting the data the same as any other internet download.
      The only twist is that Verizon isn't charging for bandwidth for its own service.
      You could say the cost of Verizon mobile is being paid from the service fee, and you are actually paying more then than the data cap fees.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  2. Re:It's their network, they should be able to by paiute · · Score: 4, Funny

    If they get too heavy handed with it, people will bail.

    Damn straight. If Comcast pulls this shit, I will dump them for Xfinity.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  3. Re: No transit costs. by ByTor-2112 · · Score: 4, Informative

    You are wrong. Netflix will put servers physically next to Verizon's. The cost is that of a few feet of fiber and some ports. It's probably cheaper because your "general" incoming bandwidth isn't used.

  4. Re: No transit costs. by ByTor-2112 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And it's about antitrust. Since the telcos have what us basically a government approved monopoly, they have to agree to certain rules that might seem weird in a free market. Such as net neutrality.

  5. Just a Few Thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Doesn't this prove by example that there is no last mile scarcity on Verizon's wireless network? The reason for limits on wireless has always been this bottleneck, transit costs over fibre are small, if not free for a tier 1 provider. These costs are easily covered by a cellphone agreement. What is the IP transit cost for a 95% average line that does 2GB a month to Verizon $.05?

    With this move, Verizon is demonstrating that caps are unnecessary. With this evidence, one might even argue that caps are an arbitrary and capricious with the sole purpose of extorting money from customers and content providers.

    1. Re:Just a Few Thoughts by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Still, it's an indication that carriers and ISPs are not being completely honest. They basically keep claiming that they need special protections, they need the ability to throttle and limit service, and that services like Netflix can't perform because it's simply not possible to deliver the bandwidth people are demanding. They imply (I'm not sure they've said it outright) that it's not a problem of their unwillingness to upgrade their network, but that people's expectations are just out of whack-- that people using more than a few gigabytes per month are bad actors, using up all the bandwidth, and that there is not any possible way for them to fulfill the demands on their network.

      But now they're saying that everything is fine, so long as they can cut Netflix out of the market and take those profits for themselves. If they're allowed to have a monopoly, then suddenly all the technical problems go away.