That's cause their P/E is sky high. They have about $1.7b in cash and a free cash flow under $3b / yr. Verizon is spent $23b on the initial rollout of FIOS and that was an already existing network in place.
Not quite that bad about 1/3rd of consumer traffic. There is a lot of non-consumer traffic. But regardless it is a ton of traffic.
It would behoove a company that sells Internet service to provision sufficient bandwidth to the part of the Internet their customers are paying so much to access
Why? Why wouldn't they want Netflix to pay given their usage?
Maybe Netflix should just get into the fiber business and start collecting that $100/month instead of a measly $12 since they are already providing half the service anyway.
Going into last mile delivery is incredibly expensive. Netflix couldn't afford it. On the other hand signing their own peering agreements and paying Verizon, Comcast... some of the cost of delivery would solve the problem.
Comcast has already said the same thing. There are only about a 1/2 dozen vendors that could handle a surge like that at all. So let's say they push the traffic to AT&T. With AT&T getting their own Netflix's traffic plus Verizon's Netflix traffic they might complain as well.
At some point Netflix is just going to have to pay for asymmetrical traffic and create an agreement.
Your entire post is based on the fallacy that each bit I transmit costs them money. This is simply not true.
Verizon's cost on cellular isn't the cost of data from the tower through the rest of the network. That costs something, but very little. The cost is buying, maintaining and upgrading the tower. If your tower is really that empty except for a few people like you, then they could rent out the bandwidth to a regional provider and just buy access for their own customers make revenue off that once you stop using so much of it. I doubt the situation is that one sided though, they didn't build that tower just for you.
$70-150 g of cellular data probably cost them between $350-$1200 / month to provide. They will be thrilled to lose you as a customer. You are exactly the problem. You aren't paying for what you are using.
"why haven't cellular data providers figured out a way to offer more than 5 GB per month at a reasonable price in the past decade".
They have. The FCC has. They need much more of the spectrum to do it which means shutting off broadcast TV which no one uses. The Republicans in congress turned the FCC down, because you know we can never do what Obama wants.
A decade of serious "innovation" in the wireless data space and we're still looking at exactly the same caps?
The amount of data they are carrying on wireless today is far greater than the amount they were carrying in 2004 by over an order of magnitude. You are simply dead wrong about this. The retail caps were mostly meaningless when it was EVDO. It is because LTE is so much better that they matter.
Well, if you don't have a cellular option, you're SOL.
No you aren't. If you are using that much data buy a business plan. Verizon (or dozens of other carriers) will be happy to sell you as much ethernet landline bandwidth as you want you just have to pay for it.
The problem is that Verizon, and the other carriers, are unwilling to spend money on more towers. They already have towers that have existed since the days before cellular data was a thing, and there was only voice. They want to keep using those same towers forever, and not build any new ones. It looks good for the bottom line when their cash on hand doesn't go down because they're spending money for the future.
That's just not true. Verizon has done tremendous network expansion. Read their earnings reports.
Cellular data has the POTENTIAL to be a fully adequate replacement for wired internet,
No it does not have the potential. Doubling the usage between now and 2017 is going to cost the carriers about $100b. Replacing wired all together would be trillions. Who is going to pay for that?
Verizon is happy to sell you dedicated bandwidth for landlines that way. Business buy it for landlines, consumers don't. For cellular you want that kind of bandwidth build your own towers, connect them to a verizon access point and everything will be fine. Until you do that, you are on a shared resource which means your usage affects other people.
You are seriously clueless. Verizon publishes earning reports. The target across the industry for cell (all providers) is $37 billion in LTE capex and $56 billion in opex. That's not failing to spend.
Verizon doesn't care how much LTE data people use who pay for it. Then the heaviest users are helping to pay for the infrastructure they are consuming. The problem with these unlimited plans is they aren't paying for the infrastructure.
They are saying that Level3's peering agreement never included the kind of volume that Level3 carrying Netflix implies. Verizon isn't obligated to provide peering if the relationship with Level3 isn't roughly peer to peer anymore but rather mostly one way. I.e. by Level3 adding Netflix the argument is they are sending far more traffic to Verizon that Verizon is sending to Level3 so Level3 should be paying Verizon to carry the traffic. Otherwise they throttle to get things back to something closer to peer to peer.
Netflix is the cause of the contractual dispute but not a party to it, which makes the whole thing more complex.
Verizon spends a fortune adding capacity. They are doing that. But that doesn't address the problem that whatever the capacity is today has to be shared today. And there are choices between how that is allocated.
I agree. Verizon should never have grandfathered these plans in their current pricing model doesn't allow for it. I had unlimited EVDO data which is very different than what unlimited data would be today.
Verizon charges their customers quite an extra $5 / gig for 4G data. . Data is a common resource heavy users tax the system everyone else uses. Heavy users who are paying help to grow the network. Heavy users who aren't are a tragedy of the commons. They shouldn't have grandfathered these plans in at all.
Which is precisely the same thing that happens with any firewall. You just specify port / host and or you let specific hosts cut holes for specific periods of time. None of that changes.
How do you [Slashdot users] see IPv6 transition actually happening?
a) Carriers and ISP have support (mostly done) b) Cellular (mostly done) c) Default is switched for home / small business (mostly not done). Then they have a shared pool of v4 addresses for v4 traffic rather than one address per location. d) Enterprises start running dual stack e) v4 is mostly retired
Will each internet user have dual stack?
Probably each carrier. You'll see the v4 address space living inside some subnet at an IP address inside your ISP's allocation.
IPv6 is much more complex, how will companies support users who barely understand IP addressing when IPv6 is going to seem like a long string of meaningless characters?
What do end users care? How do companies support their end users not understanding all the details of ARP vs. IP addressing. They don't they just make is seamless.
The ability to actually block or unblock what you need how you need it rather than randomly just disallowing a bunch of stuff and then punching huge holes in the wall that anything get through when you need to get out.
No lots of people dislike it. However it has some major advantages in terms of allowing screens to be more complex with a higher degree of understanding.
Deference — less competition between UI elements and application elements. What is expected is less noticeable Clarity — text is legible at every size, icons are precise and lucid, elements are subtle and appropriate, and a sharpened focus on functionality motivates the design Depth — visual layers and realistic motion are used to assist users’ understanding
That wasn't achievable with older hardware an OSes. Now that it is achievable it will allow for better applications.
Slashdot Mirror
That's cause their P/E is sky high. They have about $1.7b in cash and a free cash flow under $3b / yr. Verizon is spent $23b on the initial rollout of FIOS and that was an already existing network in place.
Exactly. It is obscene to be using cellular data for movie viewing. Far cheaper to be mailing DVDs than to be delivering this over the air.
Not quite that bad about 1/3rd of consumer traffic. There is a lot of non-consumer traffic. But regardless it is a ton of traffic.
Why? Why wouldn't they want Netflix to pay given their usage?
Going into last mile delivery is incredibly expensive. Netflix couldn't afford it. On the other hand signing their own peering agreements and paying Verizon, Comcast... some of the cost of delivery would solve the problem.
Comcast has already said the same thing. There are only about a 1/2 dozen vendors that could handle a surge like that at all. So let's say they push the traffic to AT&T. With AT&T getting their own Netflix's traffic plus Verizon's Netflix traffic they might complain as well.
At some point Netflix is just going to have to pay for asymmetrical traffic and create an agreement.
If you get a /64 you can do whatever you want on it. If you get a /60 then you have 16 subnets you can do whatever you want on.
Nothing. I sell a lot of Level3 so if anything the other side pays me. But that doesn't mean Verizon is in the wrong.
I doubt it. Verizon's cost on LTE bandwidth averages out around $5-8 / gig month. Those heavy users are consuming far more than they are paying for.
Verizon's cost on cellular isn't the cost of data from the tower through the rest of the network. That costs something, but very little. The cost is buying, maintaining and upgrading the tower. If your tower is really that empty except for a few people like you, then they could rent out the bandwidth to a regional provider and just buy access for their own customers make revenue off that once you stop using so much of it. I doubt the situation is that one sided though, they didn't build that tower just for you.
$70-150 g of cellular data probably cost them between $350-$1200 / month to provide. They will be thrilled to lose you as a customer. You are exactly the problem. You aren't paying for what you are using.
They have. The FCC has. They need much more of the spectrum to do it which means shutting off broadcast TV which no one uses. The Republicans in congress turned the FCC down, because you know we can never do what Obama wants.
The amount of data they are carrying on wireless today is far greater than the amount they were carrying in 2004 by over an order of magnitude. You are simply dead wrong about this. The retail caps were mostly meaningless when it was EVDO. It is because LTE is so much better that they matter.
No you aren't. If you are using that much data buy a business plan. Verizon (or dozens of other carriers) will be happy to sell you as much ethernet landline bandwidth as you want you just have to pay for it.
That's just not true. Verizon has done tremendous network expansion. Read their earnings reports.
No it does not have the potential. Doubling the usage between now and 2017 is going to cost the carriers about $100b. Replacing wired all together would be trillions. Who is going to pay for that?
Yes. Tethering is free on the metered plans.
Verizon is happy to sell you dedicated bandwidth for landlines that way. Business buy it for landlines, consumers don't. For cellular you want that kind of bandwidth build your own towers, connect them to a verizon access point and everything will be fine. Until you do that, you are on a shared resource which means your usage affects other people.
You are seriously clueless. Verizon publishes earning reports. The target across the industry for cell (all providers) is $37 billion in LTE capex and $56 billion in opex. That's not failing to spend.
QoS is about prioritizing some traffic over others. That's precisely what they are doing. Prioritizing paying traffic over free traffic.
Verizon doesn't care how much LTE data people use who pay for it. Then the heaviest users are helping to pay for the infrastructure they are consuming. The problem with these unlimited plans is they aren't paying for the infrastructure.
They are saying that Level3's peering agreement never included the kind of volume that Level3 carrying Netflix implies. Verizon isn't obligated to provide peering if the relationship with Level3 isn't roughly peer to peer anymore but rather mostly one way. I.e. by Level3 adding Netflix the argument is they are sending far more traffic to Verizon that Verizon is sending to Level3 so Level3 should be paying Verizon to carry the traffic. Otherwise they throttle to get things back to something closer to peer to peer.
Netflix is the cause of the contractual dispute but not a party to it, which makes the whole thing more complex.
Verizon spends a fortune adding capacity. They are doing that. But that doesn't address the problem that whatever the capacity is today has to be shared today. And there are choices between how that is allocated.
I agree. Verizon should never have grandfathered these plans in their current pricing model doesn't allow for it. I had unlimited EVDO data which is very different than what unlimited data would be today.
Verizon charges their customers quite an extra $5 / gig for 4G data. . Data is a common resource heavy users tax the system everyone else uses. Heavy users who are paying help to grow the network. Heavy users who aren't are a tragedy of the commons. They shouldn't have grandfathered these plans in at all.
Which is precisely the same thing that happens with any firewall. You just specify port / host and or you let specific hosts cut holes for specific periods of time. None of that changes.
a) Carriers and ISP have support (mostly done)
b) Cellular (mostly done)
c) Default is switched for home / small business (mostly not done). Then they have a shared pool of v4 addresses for v4 traffic rather than one address per location.
d) Enterprises start running dual stack
e) v4 is mostly retired
Probably each carrier. You'll see the v4 address space living inside some subnet at an IP address inside your ISP's allocation.
What do end users care? How do companies support their end users not understanding all the details of ARP vs. IP addressing. They don't they just make is seamless.
You block a range. And it actually works because there is no NAT!
Far more. The minimum subnet is a /64 which is 1.8 million trillion.
The ability to actually block or unblock what you need how you need it rather than randomly just disallowing a bunch of stuff and then punching huge holes in the wall that anything get through when you need to get out.
It actually contributes quite a bit to functionality. An equally unskilled user can handle more complex screens and those screens can scale better.
No lots of people dislike it. However it has some major advantages in terms of allowing screens to be more complex with a higher degree of understanding.
Deference — less competition between UI elements and application elements. What is expected is less noticeable
Clarity — text is legible at every size, icons are precise and lucid, elements are subtle and appropriate, and a sharpened focus on functionality motivates the design
Depth — visual layers and realistic motion are used to assist users’ understanding
That wasn't achievable with older hardware an OSes. Now that it is achievable it will allow for better applications.