WOW, I never saw THIS coming: "Verizon CEO Wants To Charge You More If You Use Too Much Internet"

[Miles Archer]

Verizon CEO Wants To Charge You More If You Use Too Much Internet

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/27/verizon-ceo-net-neutrality_n_4860652.html

Netflix streamer? File sharer? If Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam gets his way, you may soon start paying more for broadband.

At an investor's meeting on Monday, McAdam used his closing comments to clarify Verizon's position on net neutrality, or the rule that internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all types of web traffic equally.

"I think it is only natural that the heavy users help contribute to the investment to keep the web healthy," McAdam said. Those "users" could be companies that use a lot of bandwidth -- like Netflix -- or even individual consumers -- like people who stream a lot of Netflix. Essentially, McAdam's saying that if you're using too much Internet, you should pay up.

"Some who stream a lot of movies and use data-intensive applications may pay a bit more," Verizon spokesman Edward S. McFadden told HuffPost when asked about McAdam's comment.

[democratisphere]

1. If a lot of something is used, usually a better price is provided; volume discount.

So NOW in the price gouging world of Verizon, use more, pay a higher rate. There is NOT enough competition in the broadband market. The Comcast/Time Warner merger should NOT be allowed to happen, as it will only result in higher prices for every user too!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

2. Your example is completely illogical.

Right now, it is a fairly flat rate charges for specific upload/download speeds.

Your volume discount only comes into play assuming they do have tiered pricing based on use.

From his statement of "charged a bit more" this could very well be volume pricing. Use 0-10gig of data transfer...base price. 11-25gig...some marginal cost below base price and so on.

Should we expect every user to pay the same regardless of usage? That doesn't happen with electricity, water, etc. why should it be so for data streaming?

[democratisphere]

6. Verizon already has tiered pricing for data; use more data, pay less/GB.

Now if more data is used, it appears that the higher volume data user will additionally be paying a higher rate/GB. THAT is illogical.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

9. Nothing in the article speaks of charging high users a higher marginal cost

For each additional GB than would be charged for low volume users. You made that up.

[democratisphere]

10. I'm not sure what you are reading or how you are interpreting this article BUT......

"Some who stream a lot of movies and use data-intensive applications may pay a bit more," Verizon spokesman Edward S. McFadden" (said). Seems like a pretty clear statement about higher rates for higher data users.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

11. My Comcast business account is unlimited data and

Has published broadband speeds that I pay for and expect. I don't pay a dime more if I stream NetFlix for days on end vs. normal web browsing. It sounds like they want to charge extreme high volume users more overall--not more per GB. I guess we'll have to see how any price structure changes shake out.

Right now, the comments are too inconclusive to make a definitive statement either way.

[democratisphere]

12. Agreed. We shall see.

[Aerows]

19. I already pay the same usage fees

on my phone and use about 30 MBs (yes, MBs) per month as someone that uses 2 GBs. It balances out. And before you refute that, understand that I know a thing or two about network traffic, bandwidth and ways to prevent spikes in data usage.

[upaloopa]

33. Where do they get that right? Is it more costly to

Verizon to let me watch Netflix? I don't think so. They are middlemen wanting more money for the same thing. If it costs them more let them charge Netflix and let me pay Netflix more.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

38. that's ludicrous. the best method is charging user fees. not amortizing over everyone's costs

this isn't insurance. it is purchase of a service. the more service you use...the more you should pay in most business models.

[woo me with science]

3. The administration has no plans to stop it.

Pretty speeches aside, they have no serious intention of defending net neutrality.

U.S.A. now rates 46th in press freedom
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024488117

[democratisphere]

7. Agreed. And it really burns me up!!!!

[jeff47]

17. Sure, as long as the FCC writing new net neutrality rules is "no plans". (nt)

[woo me with science]

42. "No plans" is exactly what it is. They are aggressively doing nothing.

except ensuring that the ongoing consolidation of corporate control of the internet is not interrupted.

The Obama administration could direct the FCC to reclassify broadband right now, but they refuse. They are heavily funded by these corporate vultures, and they have no intention of interrupting that gravy train. Look at the opportunities they had this week, and how they responded. They declined to use the FCC to reclassify broadband. They declined to appeal the court ruling throwing out net neutrality rules. They flatly refuse to act on *any* of the things that they could do immediately to stop this consolidation of corporate power and defend net neutrality. Instead, we get vague, election year promises that they won't let anything bad happen from this increased corporate control that they are deliberately allowing to happen. They promise to rewrite the rules....sometime down the road.

It's an election year. The fact that they are kicking this can down the road when they could do some concrete things immediately and when doing something immediately would be immensely popular with the voters, shows clearly that their intentions are elsewhere.

That, and this administration's extensive history of pretty election year rhetoric versus actual action on behalf of corporate donors.

FCC won't appeal court ruling throwing out "net neutrality" rules
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024527150

White House says it won't direct FCC to reclassify broadband
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57619081-94/white-house-says-it-wont-direct-fcc-to-reclassify-broadband/

Revolving Door: Top Obama Admin Antitrust Officials Tied To Comcast
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10024497324

Comcast, Time Warner execs have been big Obama/Dem supporters
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024494813

Would Teddy Roosevelt have stood by while Comcast bought the internet?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024494701

110 years ago our president used the Sherman Act to DISMANTLE the trust that controlled RR lines...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4494306

Let's see.....Net neutrality is killed off. Then two largest cable/Intrnet companies merge
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024495645

US Plummets In Press Freedom Rankings
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024487392
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024488178

[jeff47]

43. It's a lovely theory. The problem is the FCC IS creating new rules.

Here's a nice, fluffy CNN story on it:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/27/technology/open-internet/

The court ruling was on a small technicality. Instead of appealing that, they're rewriting the rules to avoid it.

They're in the public comment period if you'd like to send them your thoughts.

[woo me with science]

45. From your own article:

The FCC now faces the challenge of crafting new net neutrality regulations that will withstand legal scrutiny. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said last week that the agency plans to do just that.

Your argument is based on faith. Faith that this administration will move against the interests of its major corporate donors to act on behalf of voters sometime in the future, even though they refuse to take clear opportunities to act right now and even though NOT acting now vastly consolidates the corporate power they claim to be so concerned about.

Your argument relies on faith against all current circumstances and past and current behavior. The administration squandered that sort of credibility long ago.

[jeff47]

49. Well, if you happen to have a time machine, we can shortcut that.

But if you don't, we're going to have to go through the FCC rulemaking process, which has things like comment periods.

EVIL, SATANIC COMMENT PERIODS WHERE OBAMA WILL PERSONALLY DESTROY YOUR INTERNET ACCESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

even though they refuse to take clear opportunities to act right now and even though NOT acting now vastly consolidates the corporate power they claim to be so concerned about.

Because common carrier means more than just net neutrality.

For example, it's likely it would also require adding them to the universal access regulations. Meaning we'd get to pay for AP&T not bothering to roll out coverage to large swaths of Alaska.

You're also assuming that the ISPs would cheerfully become common carriers despite the massive increase in requirements, and would not sue to stop it.

Alternatively, they could tweak the old rules to avoid the legal technicality.

[woo me with science]

51. You know, once we're at the point where corporate governments

have not only looted the middle class out of existence, but are mass-targeting their own citizens with manipulation and disinformation on the web, collecting images of their sexual activity to store for later, and orchestrating campaigns to smear and discredit political enemies, your attempts to mock cynicism about corporate *behavior* by those governments with cries of "evil, satanic" conspiracy theories(!) fall a bit flat. So do your rationalizations above.

Now, unless I'm mistaken, there's some sort of rule you follow about having the last word here...so I'll let you do that.

Be assured, though, that none of the corporate talking points fly anymore.

FCC won't appeal court ruling throwing out "net neutrality" rules
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024527150

White House says it won't direct FCC to reclassify broadband
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57619081-94/white-house-says-it-wont-direct-fcc-to-reclassify-broadband/

Revolving Door: Top Obama Admin Antitrust Officials Tied To Comcast
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10024497324

Comcast, Time Warner execs have been big Obama/Dem supporters
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024494813

Would Teddy Roosevelt have stood by while Comcast bought the internet?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024494701

110 years ago our president used the Sherman Act to DISMANTLE the trust that controlled RR lines...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4494306

Let's see.....Net neutrality is killed off. Then two largest cable/Intrnet companies merge
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024495645

US Plummets In Press Freedom Rankings
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024487392
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024488178

[fredamae]

4. No one should be surprised

this is Going to happen - Net Neutrality Protected us and Now it's Gone. They'll All charge you what ever they want - New plans will be surfacing in the upcoming months.
You'll pay for access, I understand - pretty much based upon Cable Services Models. The more access you want and the faster you want that access will depend upon how Wide you want to open your wallet.
The power and control belongs to whomever owns the "copper cable" that gets it or pays to get services to you.

Enjoy what'cha got now.

[jeff47]

15. How is that different?

Before the net neutrality decision, Time Warner offered me plans from 15mbps to 100mbps. If I wanted "more access" in the form of higher speed, I had to pay more.

In other words, "The more access you want and the faster you want that access will depend upon how Wide you want to open your wallet" was already true.

Now, if they want to copy the "channel lineup" model from cable TV, that's radically different (ex. access to Netflix costs $5/mo. Google costs $2/mo). And that's the danger with no net neutrality.

But you always paid more money for a fatter pipe.

[Aerows]

21. You do always pay more money for a fatter pipe

The problem here is that the intention is to make you pay more money for a tap that dribbles if you dribble too much, which will eventually become if you dribble from a place they don't like. Nothing *ever* stops at something innocent and reasonable.

If you've ever been involved in telecom, you know this to be a fact!

[jeff47]

23. You mean the business pricing model.

Back when your business had to get a T1 line for Internet access, you paid for the 1.5mbps rate, and you paid per megabyte. It's also the plan used for every 4G Internet service.

The new danger is adding destination on top of metering - making it cost more to go to Netflix than to go to another video provider.

Don't get me wrong, I think we should push for "free" municipal WiFi. But we can't pretend metering is new.

[Aerows]

24. Destination

is the problem.

[fredamae]

26. The way I understand it

you are correct-it's not really different-it's just going to be a Lot worse with a lot more applicable fees that will-just to keep what you have now-be much more expensive. It reminds me of the consequences post the Repeal of Glass-Steagall and the unfettered abuses that occurred in the years that follow...We "got had".

[woo me with science]

46. And this is about much, much more than costs. This is another axe to democracy.

We are watching the seizure of the internet by corporate interests, through their bought and paid for politicians. This is deadly serious. The US has now plummeted to 46th in terms of press freedoms. This administration and the previous one have been systematically dismantling every remaining avenue for Americans to fight back against the corporate takeover of this country: our right to assemble and protest, our free press, private communication, protections for journalists and whistleblowers...

And now they are implementing corporate control of the internet. Take a look at the vast wasteland of corporate TV and see what happens when corporations have the power to control access and content. We lose our free and open internet...they succeed in establishing corporate control of our last free access to unfiltered information and communication...and we lose all hope of ever reclaiming this country.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. Color me shocked

but do it in a non bandwidth intensive way please

[The Straight Story]

8. So he wants to raise taxes?

"I think it is only natural that the heavy users help contribute to the investment to keep the web healthy,"

Yeah, we think something like that as well....

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

37. Oh, you and your silly analogies

[joeglow3]

13. I agree with his argument

Why should I, as a low bandwidth user, be forced to subsidize your heavy usage?

[DJ13]

16. You will NOT get a break on what you pay

That would undercut the greed behind this decision.

[joeglow3]

27. You want the additional usage for free because you know there is value

You know you are getting something for free (heavy usage). That is why you are upset with this decision.

[DJ13]

29. You already pay for a given speed

If the provider cant keep up they have a poor business model that doesnt provide an adequate margin for network maintenance.

[joeglow3]

30. EVERYONE makes decisions on how they think things will go and then re-evaluates

Like I said, you are pissed and trying to pretend like this is morally wrong because you KNOW you have been on the winning end of this proposition.

And, if they are as poor at their business as you say they are, their competitiors will not follow suit and will put them out of business.

[1awake]

36. Why do you care?

Your bill will not be going down one way or the other so... what is it to you?

[El_Johns]

34. It's obviously not "for free" as the telecoms are profitable.

[upaloopa]

35. How are you subsidizing anything? You are not getting a discount

They are going to pay more

[joeglow3]

40. If what you are saying is true, you have nothing to worry about

Their competitors will continue to offer the unlimited plan and put them out of business. Thus, what are you worried about?

[SwankyXomb]

14. I pay for a certain allotment of bandwidth

As do you. If I choose to fully use it, for whatever purpose, why should I be charged more?

[Bad Thoughts]

18. +1. eom.

[joeglow3]

28. And they analyze their business decisions when there is sufficient history

They now realize there are many more people who abuse the unlimited plan than they originally anticipated. As such, they are needing to re-draw the lines of their plans. You will not be getting as much for "free". You know this, which is why you are pissed.

[Marr]

32. This is about crowding out competitors and getting monopolistic control of content, not

making a few extra nickles off of consumers.

[joeglow3]

39. That doesn't make sense

If it cost nothing, the competitors will continue to offer unlimited usage and will put them out of business.

[Marr]

41. Huh. Odd that they aren't out of business then.

Because things like NetFlix aren't new.

[joeglow3]

48. New? No. Gaining in popularity? Yes

How many people do you know with no cable who stream Hulu/Amazon Prime/ Netflix instead? I know a hell of a lot more today than I did five years ago. The model was probably built on a certain percentage of people being heavy users. As people's habits are changing, they are probably seeing more and more people in that heavyuser bucket. They could see a trend and say "lets correct this BEFORE it increases to the point that we go bankrupt."

Honestly, I think you are trying to be obtuse. You have no legitimate discussion beyond you want free (or near free) shit.

[woo me with science]

47. ^^^^^^^This is the correct answer.^^^^^^^

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024573972#post46

[laundry_queen]

53. That's exactly what it is. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

20. Never knew there was such a thing as Too Much Internet ...

Me, I can never get enough of it

[yuiyoshida]

22. I can just imagine it...

"Lets see...How can we Milk our customers for more money! OH!! Hey, we need to charge them for using too much time on the internet. Make it a penalty... OVER USE OF the Internet is now prohibited.. or you may use it by paying 30 DOLLARS extra for 30 minutes! Brilliant! Lets do that! All in favor..vote Aye!"

baka yaro!

[Shankapotomus]

25. If you're a gamer, that includes you

One of our few hopes of freeing ourselves:

https://www.outernet.is/

Be sure to support. Tweet, post, spread.

[Initech]

31. Call it what it really is: blackmail.

These CEOs are fucking thieves and criminals.

[jsr]

44. It should be a public utility.

[dipsydoodle]

50. What else do you buy where the total price you pay isn't a function of volume used or bought ?

[airplaneman]

57. You pay more if you watch four hours of TV instead of two??

[woo me with science]

52. The impact re: prices will pale in comparison to the impact on citizens from

corporate control of the internet.

[woo me with science]

54. kick

[airplaneman]

55. good old Verizon

My last two local telephone bills from them were $65.00 and $75.00 they were dinging me for Local Long Distance specifically it was costing me $2.00 for any call from or to a cell phone in my small little town (local land-line to local cell phone). Does anyone remember the $700.00 or $500.00 or $250.00 cell phone bills that lots of people were getting because they were not telling you when you exceeded your limit? I have done considerable reading on the 250 gig limit and its pretty simple. Its a way to keep the rich weal ty and prevent any hope of a small guy making it big via the internet. The absurdity of this whole idea is simple. I pay Comcast $50 per month so I can download at the rate of 50 megabits per second. With a 250 gig limit per month I cannot download at maximum speed for more than 3 minutes a day without a bust on the 250 gigs and then it is big time extra charges - a return of the $700 cell phone bill I would say. More specifically the internet was supposed to allow anyone to have their own TV, radio, or music or video exposure but to have even a modest following would bust the daylights out of your 250 gig limit and shut you down if not bankrupt you. Since when has there been any documentation that excessive usage has have anything to do with internet quality or availability. Its just like the bankers. Do you really believe it cost them $25.00 to deny payment on a check or $49.00 for you to be one day late in payment or $0.01 over your limit when they are already charging 28% interest in the first place? The reason it all has been going to the top is because the top will gouge the hell out of you to no end for no good reason. They thrill at the thought of sticking it to you and preventing you from being any form of competition to them. The goal is plain and simple.
-Airplane

[frwrfpos]

56. DU rec

expose this fraud by verizon

[woo me with science]

58. kick

[LiberalEsto]

59. Comcast is probably ready to do the same

It's a toss-up which I hate more, Comcrap or Sleazizon.

[JCMach1]

60. Jeesh with all the corporate whining, you might actually think they provided a good service...

NOPE...

Broadband and 3G are still at Third World speeds in America.


Actually, I used to get higher and more reliable 3G/4G internet taking pictures of lions on the Serengeti in Kenya.

[hack89]

61. Until the government owns and funds the internet backbone

is what's going to happen. Someone has to pay for all the fiber, routers and servers.

[Blue_Adept]

62. This'll cause some hits.

You can expect it to impact membership on Netflix as people opt out of using it entirely - I know I would - just to ensure you don't hit the caps and pay higher rates.

There's a slew of smaller video services out there that get impacted as well that do streaming. You'll become choosier with what you watch or just drop it entirely. For those that do a lot of work from home, they'll likely stop doing a lot of it as well since transfering large files between home and office will impact home use, so on and so forth.

I'd pretty much be done with streaming when it happens since a good chunk of my day involves it for work purposes. I'll redirect my efforts elsewhere which means smaller companies lose my business.

Then you add in cutdowns on youtube usage, porn viewing, gaming, music streaming and so on.