[Editorial] VZW's CEO Claims Heavy Internet Users Should Pay More Than Everyone Else

[jspradling7]

Sorry Jspradling7.... I usually agree with you but IMO your way off on this one. They MUST keep up with the times.... Because 4% of my salary.... Thats a lot of money to me!! Sincerely the Average American Worker!

No need to apologize for that. : )

It would be difficult for me to express my view any clearer than what wagman67 wrote in post 25. Normally I can draw a straight line between free enterprise business and government. The post office and roads are government ran and cannot be lumped in with privately owned businesses when discussing "What they should provide". The fuzzy part of this issue for me is the funds providers receive from government (tax money). From a business standpoint, Verizon mustn't do anything. Their actions are based on providing a service and charging the maximum amount the market will bear. They only please you through their own self interest. They aren't trying to do what's right for you or me or anyone else... other than themselves. Capitalism, I love it. If you don't like their service you are free to find a replacement service. If they could get 20% of your pay they would.

Their decisions to keep up with demand or not or how to charge for their service is decided by what they think will keep them in business and making as much money as possible. If they make the wrong call, their competition will over take them. Easy as that.

 

[akhenax]

"Should our state and/or local government charge heavy drivers more for using the roads more? The internet and the U.S. roadway/highway system are very similar in that they are designed to get important "traffic" from one place to another quickly. There are definitely folks out there who use the roads far more or far less than others. Should we charge the truck drivers and heavy commuters a premium price to use the roadways?"

Commercial truck drivers are charged more. Bad example.
Governments in many states are looking at the use of roads for future taxes due to better fuel mileage. Bad example.
And in most states, the more costlier the vehicle the higher the license plate fees. And weight is the only deciding factor in road damage from a perspective of a vehicle (weather and shoddy construction are big factors too).

We do this with roads NOW, well, maybe not roads but road entrances:
Bridges
Tunnels
Tolls

The more you use these items, the more you pay. If I use a bridge more than the next guy, I'm going to pay more. I take the train more than most, so I'm going to pay more to take the train than the next guy.

The math works.

 

[Yellowhammer]

Dear Verizon. I do pay more than the average user. I pay: $59 for a 3G USB modem for home use. $59 for a 2nd 3G USB modem for home use. $69 for a 4G USB modem for home use. $90 for one cell phone with unlimited data. I pay you $277/month, for about 35GB of data each month. Cut me some slack jack.

 

[kodiak799]

Also, as I mentioned in my reply post later on, eventually these arguments will be rendered moot by the continuing advance of technology as bandwidth will outpace our ability to consume data.

If people don't pay for their use, now, where does the capital for investment come from?

It's not infinite - if that was the case, our speeds wouldn't slow dramatically during peak hours. And you are forgetting about maintenance and upgrade costs, not to mention the marginal cost is not 0 (you have electricity, among other things).

 

[dgstorm]

If people don't pay for their use, now, where does the capital for investment come from?

It's not infinite - if that was the case, our speeds wouldn't slow dramatically during peak hours. And you are forgetting about maintenance and upgrade costs, not to mention the marginal cost is not 0 (you have electricity, among other things).

When I said infinite, I wasn't referring to bandwidth. I was referring to data itself as a concept... information. There is no upward limit to the data/info that the human race will be able to create and consume. Despite this, bandwidth will eventually outpace our ability to use it all.

Also, I have not forgotten about any of those factors. It will take money and time for these companies to upgrade the infrastructure... I get that, but as CK said, "That's just the cost of doing business." Furthermore, when an ISP upgrades their network, what is the one reason they do it? To get more customers and more income.

I never suggested ISPs should offer their services for free or even for cheap, but the idea of "metering" data/information doesn't work either. We simply can't assume that it is okay to look at the internet and the knowledge sharing that it provides in the same way that we do anything else. We need a new model and a new way of thinking perhaps, but giving individual companies the power to regulate (and potentially censor) the data flow themselves is a recipe for disaster.

It is mostly true that our governments rarely have our best interests at heart, but that also holds true for corporate interests. Capitalism is the single greatest engine for change and growth on the planet, but to assume that it is infallible, and/or "will always works itself out," and/or doesn't need mild regulation is zealotry.

 

[kodiak799]

...but the idea of "metering" data/information doesn't work either. We simply can't assume that it is okay to look at the internet and the knowledge sharing that it provides in the same way that we do anything else. We need a new model and a new way of thinking perhaps, but giving individual companies the power to regulate (and potentially censor) the data flow themselves is a recipe for disaster.

Why not? What is more pure or fair than paying for what you use? As everyone uses more, then the metered rate will decline. But the idea that I should subsidize someone who torrents movies and tv shows is simply ridiculous. There is no rational and reasonable argument why I should pay the same as someone using 10X the bandwidth as me.

What is inherently more special about the internet than tv, radio, magazines or newspapers? Yes, there's that quick & easy transfer of research and other data - but you know that's a very small portion of what people actually use the internet for. When you strip away all the BS, the internet really isn't "different" in a way that would dictate new and innovative pricing models. It's little more than the evolution of distribution of content.

 

[dgstorm]

Why not? What is more pure or fair than paying for what you use? As everyone uses more, then the metered rate will decline. But the idea that I should subsidize someone who torrents movies and tv shows is simply ridiculous. There is no rational and reasonable argument why I should pay the same as someone using 10X the bandwidth as me.

What is inherently more special about the internet than tv, radio, magazines or newspapers? Yes, there's that quick & easy transfer of research and other data - but you know that's a very small portion of what people actually use the internet for. When you strip away all the BS, the internet really isn't "different" in a way that would dictate new and innovative pricing models. It's little more than the evolution of distribution of content.

As several people have already pointed out, the ISPs don't charge people less for using less, but they want to charge us more for using more. That is not a "metered" system. That's simply profiteering. Perhaps a metered system might work, but then we come back to my argument that anything which slows down the data flow (regardless of how inane and useless that data might seem subjectively), will hamper growth and innovation.

If you have a metered system, then there are a number of examples where the potential to use a high bandwidth internet for greater purposes will be hampered, just because all you can focus on is the guy with Netflix. What about the specialized doctor that can perform remote surgery with a hi-def internet based video conferencing system? That will use up the same or more bandwidth as the Netflix guy, but we don't want to hinder those types of advances by making it cost more (thus putting pressure to slow down innovation).

Finally, it seems to me that you are the one who can't see the forest for the trees. By focusing on the idea that you shouldn't have to pay an equal amount as the guy who uses more Netflix, you missed another overall point which has been made here. Eventually (and not too long from now) internet delivery technology will evolve beyond this argument. Eventually, even streaming 4K video across the web will be a drop in the bucket for the massive bandwidth which will be available. When that happens, what point will there be to meter data other than simply increasing corporate profits?

Your thinking seems too focused on the now and the short term, instead of the overall benefits of helping technology evolve. These are several rationale and reasonable arguments.

Finally, I submit that you aren't paying for data... you are paying for a connection to the internet and the vast data flow that it provides. Think about that and let it sink in. It shouldn't matter how much you use that connection. Who knows, maybe some day you might see something on the internet and have a crazy brilliant idea which cures cancer. That possibility should not be hindered by profiteering.

 

[Hugh Jass]

And here it comes...

As several people have already pointed out, the ISPs don't charge people less for using less, but they want to charge us more for using more. That is not a "metered" system. That's simply profiteering.

[/thread]

 

[kodiak799]

As several people have already pointed out, the ISPs don't charge people less for using less, but they want to charge us more for using more.

So what? Metered plans can take many forms. There can be a base plan, and then metered beyond that.

The dirty, awful truth behind all this is these companies have to cover the entire US, which is VERY expensive. When you see all these super-fast, super-cheap internet in countries it is A) subsidized heavily by govt and B) much more densley populated countries. But common sense ALWAYS gives way to entitlement in these arguments. America is becoming a country of whining, entitled ignorants.

People want the ISP's to upgrade and provide faster service and more capacity, but they don't want to pay for it. The service is just fine for me - again why should I pay more?

I have never, EVER heard a remotely rational and strong justification for why I should subsidize someone being a data hog.

 

[FunN4Lo]

​

Should our state and/or local government charge heavy drivers more for using the roads more? The internet and the U.S. roadway/highway system are very similar in that they are designed to get important "traffic" from one place to another quickly. There are definitely folks out there who use the roads far more or far less than others. Should we charge the truck drivers and heavy commuters a premium price to use the roadways?

Obviously this isn't a direct comparison since it's actually tax dollars contributed by all of us which help build and repair the roads. In fact, some folks do pay more for the roads (even if they don't use them more). For the most part roads are built using property taxes. If someone owns more expensive property than the next person, they technically paid more for the roads, yet everyone gets to use the roads as freely and openly as they want.

Of course, we don't pay for internet use with our tax dollars. It isn't a "public" service per se. Yet, perhaps it should still be regulated as if it were... After-all, having our internet stay as "free and open" as possible will continue to improve competition and innovation. If different levels of customers had to pay more for different levels of internet usage, then the incentive would be to use it less, not more. That doesn't seem like a concept which will "keep the Web healthy."

Perhaps in this instance, the divide is too great between Mr. McAdams corporate-focused perspective and the perspective of our national interests as a whole. What do you think?

Wildly inaccurate info on your tax dollar comparison. Nearly 100% of property taxes pay for schools. While differing states and counties and municipalities throw in a few other things into property taxes, the very large percentage is still for schools. If you are a property owner, that is obvious in your property tax statement. Gas taxes pay for roads. Many (not all) states post the percentages right on their pumps. So those who drive more do pay more for road use. Diesel fuel has a higher tax rate than gas, and trucks get largely lower mileage than a car, so truckers do pay more for road usage.

Paying more for using more is almost a law of nature. Your water, electricity, and natural gas bills are based on usage. A Big Mac costs more than the child's burger, Veneti is more than Tall at Starbux etc. VZW model needs some tweaking. For instance, if I use a little more electricity, I pay a little more. If I use a just a little more data, I get bumped into a much larger bill, as they go in increments that are disproportional to actual use. But pay for use is a reality. Users would benefit themselves to focus on the "how" the use is charged, rather than "I am entitled to all I can eat".... well just because I am entitled

 

[Red Droid]

First of all, Verizon offered their data plans in a buffet style and promoted them as unlimited dining.

Verizon is now offering Voice and Text in a buffet style with unlimited dining.

Verizon wants to jack the data prices up because they see more profit in that arena for the moment.

Buffet's base their pricing on what the average customer will consume. Some eat less, a few eat more. It all balances out in the restaurants favor at the end of the day.

Yes, pricing does go up from time to time as costs increase, but it is across the board.

I'm not too worried about Verizon's profitability. Q3 2013 profits were up 40%. Doesn't look like the "data hogs" are doing too much damage to the bottom line.

I have included a link to the NY Times article about Verizon's financial situation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/business/verizon-profit-up-40-as-wireless-revenue-gains.html?_r=0


Oh, and one final comment about the early comparison of the small cell phone company with a single tower and 100 happy users. That little company will want to continue adding subscribers and making even more money. At what point should they consider building the second tower to deal with the next 100 customers, after the overcrowdingarises, or when the capital improvement outlay is available and sustainable to support the new equipment (investment in the future).

 

[Hugh Jass]

Just to put that into perspective, that Q4 profit you mention was 7.9 BILLION dollars. In three months. Excuse me while I give not one %#^@ about Verizons opinion on profiteering the public and suggest THEY pay the difference for us to enjoy Netflix.

 

[dgstorm]

So what? Metered plans can take many forms. There can be a base plan, and then metered beyond that.

The dirty, awful truth behind all this is these companies have to cover the entire US, which is VERY expensive. When you see all these super-fast, super-cheap internet in countries it is A) subsidized heavily by govt and B) much more densley populated countries. But common sense ALWAYS gives way to entitlement in these arguments. America is becoming a country of whining, entitled ignorants.

People want the ISP's to upgrade and provide faster service and more capacity, but they don't want to pay for it. The service is just fine for me - again why should I pay more?

I have never, EVER heard a remotely rational and strong justification for why I should subsidize someone being a data hog.

I don't appreciate your implication that just because I have a differing opinion than you do about what the internet is and how it should be regulated, that I am whining, ignorant and have a sense of entitlement. This forum is about sharing ideas and making logical arguments for education, information and entertainment. Resorting to name-calling and personal attacks (even if it isn't focused directly at a person) is beneath someone of your intelligence. I appreciate your earlier arguments and agree with many of them, but I would have expected more from you than this last post.

It's obvious we both have differing opinions about what the internet is, what it represents and how it needs to be nurtured and developed. I would have no problem if this nation decided to help subsidize the expansion and upgrading of our internet infrastructure in order to get competitive again. There is no excuse for the greatest nation on earth to have worse internet than some third world countries. I will simply agree to disagree with you.

 

[jackiescivic]

Personally, I believe people that use a lot of data should have to pay for it. I, for one, am glad they got rid of unlimited. You abuse the system, things are going to be taken away.

Sent from my Droid Maxx

 

[dgstorm]

Wildly inaccurate info on your tax dollar comparison. Nearly 100% of property taxes pay for schools. While differing states and counties and municipalities throw in a few other things into property taxes, the very large percentage is still for schools. If you are a property owner, that is obvious in your property tax statement. Gas taxes pay for roads. Many (not all) states post the percentages right on their pumps. So those who drive more do pay more for road use. Diesel fuel has a higher tax rate than gas, and trucks get largely lower mileage than a car, so truckers do pay more for road usage.

Paying more for using more is almost a law of nature. Your water, electricity, and natural gas bills are based on usage. A Big Mac costs more than the child's burger, Veneti is more than Tall at Starbux etc. VZW model needs some tweaking. For instance, if I use a little more electricity, I pay a little more. If I use a just a little more data, I get bumped into a much larger bill, as they go in increments that are disproportional to actual use. But pay for use is a reality. Users would benefit themselves to focus on the "how" the use is charged, rather than "I am entitled to all I can eat".... well just because I am entitled

You might have missed later on in the thread where I admitted that my analogy was flawed, but it was intentional to generate more interesting discussion. You definitely make some valid points if we compare the consumption of data directly to the consumption of everything else. Philosophically, I am suggesting that data/information/ideas should not be directly compared to "other goods and services." Ultimately, metered usage of data would decrease the data flow which would stifle/slow down innovation. My concept is simply that the data flow is a vast stream of shared ideas amongst humanity. We should pay for a connection to that data stream, rather than try to figure out how to meter the volume of bits and bytes.

For example, how do you determine what information is more or less valuable than another piece of information? Going back to your own analogy about a Big Mac versus a hamburger, doesn't your argument break down when trying to make a direct comparison? It seems like it shouldn't be too hard to distinguish between certain types of data as more valuable than others; however, there are a great deal more subjective grey areas when comparing the relative value of ideas to the value between a Big Mac and a hamburger. Two doctors sharing their research over the web in a forum is obviously more valuable than joe-shmoes porn collection, but compare that same research to two physicists working on quantum computers and it becomes a bit more difficult to discern.

Do we start to create a vastly complicated system in which we try to determine multiple levels of value and prices to different organizations, companies, universities, schools, governments, etc.? That seems unrealistic at best...