Posted on 12/19/2010 9:27:16 PM PST by MamaDearest
That slide above is no joke -- it comes from a marketing webinar put on by two companies that count Verizon, AT&T and Vodafone as clients, and it describes a system that identifies customer internet activity and charges a different rate for using Facebook than watching YouTube, while allowing access to Vodafone services for free. Yes, that's basically the nightmare scenario for net neutrality advocates. The two companies behind the slide are Allot Communications and Openet, which sell subscriber-management tools to carriers around the world -- tools that Allot's director of marketing says can scan even encrypted packets to determine what service customers are using and charge accordingly. We're not making this up -- here's the direct quote from the webinar:
[We use] a number of different methods to accurately identify the application -- methods like heuristic analysis, behavioral and historical analysis, deep packet inspection, and a number of other techniques. What's key is that we have the best application identification available on the market, which means that even applications that are encrypted or use other methods to evade detection will be correctly identified and classified... We essentially feed this real-time information about traffic and application usage into the policy and charging system. Each subscriber has a particular service plan that they sign up for, and they're as generic or as personalized as the operator wants.
Yeah, that's not how anyone actually wants the internet to work -- except carriers, who've been saying increasingly insane things about charging even smartphone manufacturers for customer data usage lately. What's more, it's rumored that the FCC will cave to Verizon and AT&T and exempt wireless internet service from major parts of net neutrality regulation it's expected to pass next week, so this nonsense could very well hit the US sooner rather than later. We'll be keeping a close eye on things -- we'll let you know. Meanwhile, listen to the webinar yourself immediately below.
In all seriousness, these dweebs that watch movies on a 3 inch cell should pay $8 for the bandwidth. Go to the freekin movie house! I'm sure there are many ways to cut the wasted bandwidth usage without charging for lurkin at FR or Facebook.
If Netflix is the new normal, big changes have to come. ATT and Verizon can't handle the load. It's not about reading e-mail anymore. Watching YouTube and sending movies to your "list" is mucking up the works.
Then the companies charge more for the more bandwidth consumed.
Internet bandwidth is a commodity, it’s not going to be any different from AT&T versus Comcast versus Verizon.
So why are the internet companies trying to use a beautique pricing scheme? Oooh, if you go to Facebook it’s costs XX, but Myspace is YY, and YouTube is ZZ.
It’s all the same 0’s and 1’s, it’s just that some places use more than others.
At the start of the dial-up era, internet pricing was handled that way. And when the capacity caught up, then you started to see the ‘unlimited internet’ packages. So either the industry’s business leaders are incredibly stupid, or they have decided that the old business model, which handled the exact situation you’ve described... is not good enough.
The marketing weasels are "enhancing" the customer experience. I just want a pipe to the internet.
Depends on what you mean by "wireless."
If you mean Wireless connectivity four your computers at home, you need either (1) DSL, which uses phone lines to your house; (2) Cable modem, which uses the local cable provider with a drop to your house, or (3) a satellite dish of a type similar to satellite TV.
With (1), you may or may not need to order a regular telephone along with the internet. With (2) or (3), you may or may not opt to get TV service along with the internet.
In all the above cases, you can opt for wiring from your computer to the modem, or use wireless (WiFi) connections if you get the modem with the WiFi option.
Now, if you're talking about wireless access away from home, e.g., a handheld phone or device, then you connect to a network of cellular stations that use a hierarchy of various technologies (copper pair, fiber, microwave) to hook up to the internet.
I think you just made up a new and potentially useful word there. ≤}B^)
But seriesly, if we had an actual free market in data transmission services, the provider would be free to adopt whatever pricing model he wanted, and bear the consequences.
One credible model would be not to care what the customer's bits were being used for, and adopt a uniform rate. This rate would be set according to the provider's capacity to supply and the aggregate of his user's demand at the offered price. He would charge a price that would result in the fullest utilization of his facility, without clogging the network resulting in a wave of pissed-off customers who would take their business elsewhere. If his network was maxing out too often, he would have to choose among the options of price increases, additional investment, and dissatified customers.
A dramatic rise in network demand might be coming from a specific class of users, for instance hand-held wireless movie watchers. The provider would consider raising the rates on this particular class of user. Obviously, this class of user, already paying more than other users because of the volume of his demand, would be none too happy. But the provider would have a right to allocate his product (i.e., bandwidth) among his customers so as to produce maximum revenue to himself. A goodly part of the provider's strategy would be to maximize customer satisfaction--or, better put, minimize customer dissatisfaction.
Now, in a truly free market, information providers would have full ownership of their networks. It would be within the rights of a provider to charge different prices per bit to different classes of users (as defined by the provider). Each user would tend to seek out the provider who offered the most advantageous rates for his type of usage. Competing business models would reward some providers and penalize others. All providers would take notice.
As with most everything else, we do not have a free market in telecoms, and never have had one. When any good has become as pervasive as phone/internet service, the nation makes it into a political football, and (to mix metaphors) its providers into political pincushions. Then, different classes of users become political adversaries, getting the government to bring force to bear on the industry. Industry responds politically, with lobbying efforts to influence legislation and regulation.
I think that it comes down to the fact that over time everything of economic value comes to be viewed as a "right." People in general little realize how much these "rights" eventually cost them.
Given how much spam a spammer generates, even a penny per message would do.
But it does come down to the question of how to decide what's spam. And who does the deciding.
On the other hand, if you could somehow charge everybody a penny per outgoing email, then the distinction would not have to be made at all.
But then, how do you charge everybody (worldwide) for each origination of an email? And who gets the money? The internet and its providers are not presently set up for this, and they would encounter furious opposition to it. (See my comments on politics in my post above.)
Ping!...............
I have three phones with Verizon. Two of them are past their contract periods, and I have about a year left on the last one.
I will NOT be renewing any of them. In fact, my phone is a smartphone and, while it is cool to be able to access the internet and e-mail with it, I don’t have to have those functions, and it’s costing me $30 extra a month for the data plan on that one phone alone.
I may just go back to a plain jane cell phone and save the $30. My average cell bill is $135 every month. Anyone remember when we all we had was landline service for $20 a month?
I guess they could take "technically" over the GOV, but what a surprise when they come up against the most well armed citizenry on the globe.
Go to your closest WalMart and see the new TV's. Most all have, YouTube, NetFlix, Facebook and Twitter apps built in. The issue is being forced upon us and the carriers cannot be expected to just take it lying down. If you remember back when the IPhone 4G came out, the carriers did away with cheap "unlimited" service. They put a cap on data. Sprint is the only one I know of with "cheap" unlimited data plans. That's probably because no one uses Sprint. If Sprint catches on, they too will be doomed to higher prices. It's already been determined we will go this way, the questions are just how to pay for it. Soon the desktop will go the way of the Dodo bird and life will center around the Tablet, Cell Phone, and TV. Just think of a life sitting in the Lazy Boy, watching Sarah Palin taking the oath of office while blogging on FR on a 60 inch 3D HDTV. I don't know if I could take the 3D glasses blogging though.
you said: Sooo... We are getting a crappy tiered internet because telecoms triple charge users and made taxpayer pay for their infrastructure?
That sounds reasonable.
Having taxpayers bailout large businesses for their expenses is called what again?
The FCC should be regulating the flow of traffic like it always has. Never content.
**********************************************
It’s always nice to know that liberal morons post here on FR...
It seems you’re unable to comprehend the difference between cellular wireless internet and whatever you get via wired from the telco or cable or fiber or whomever. This disqualifies you from having a valid opinion... Sheesh. The same ignorant rants go on and on and on. Internet costs LESS today, with lower latencies and higher capabilities than it EVER has, in it’s short life.
The fact that you know absolutely NOTHING about the provision of internet services does not qualify you as a moral critic.
I did drop back from a Samsung i730 (Windows Mobile) smart phone to an LG enV for a long time. I simply wanted the reliability. The smart phone perpetually crashed. The Android based Droid doesn't crash and frees me from having to fire up my netbook in the evening to check my non-company e-mail. Sometimes for weeks at a time.
FaceBook could become interesting. BoobBook even moreso.
Yep. We wouldn’t even be talking about ‘net neutrality’ if there was open and free markets in telecommunications.
“Will corp greed and govt corruption kill the internet?...”
as far as the Rinocratic Oligarch’s are concerned...best thing that could happen.
Shutting down the free flow of information about their tyranny and corruption would have allowed Globull Wurming to become law.
I guess that if the email ends up in the spam-box or caught by a spam-filter, then it’d qualify.
LOL
If you are on the web and on this board, you are NOT too old.
96 and in a home maybe too old, but not even then in some cases....
Try
http://www.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone.htm
OR use the word PRIMER for any kind of tech article. YOu will likely find something useful.
Have fun!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.