Verizon Planning on "Turbo" Network Speed Mode with Micro-Transaction Tiered Data

[WildcatRudy]

Consider this: Next year EVERYONE is on 4G, there is no prioritization scheme in place, and everyone is doing Netflix over 4G. That is not a sustainable reality for Verizon. There is a limit to what they can support. I already envision better but not optimal speeds on 4G. The more people that go to that network the more congested it will become.

I have a few thoughts about all this (and I'm not in favor of "turbo" either)...

1. Unless someone is grandfathered into an unlimited data plan (which a small number of users have probably found is not unlimited), they are going to be paying for all that data consumption they burn through. 4G just makes it easier/faster for them to burn through the consumption tier they chose. If users start going nuts on their 4G access, they will soon hit the wall and get that nice fat bill of overusage charges. VZW has to be loving this.

2. That sort of applies to the turbo mode also. Once users keep hitting that turbo button, they'll see how inflated their bill has become, and back off on the usage of it. As was pointed out earlier, the rich won't care, but the other millions of us do. Queue up that Mario Bros. cha-ching for VZW!

3. If Netflix is the service consuming bandwidth, then throttle that, not the rest of us. Make them pay for a special data tier. I don't feel those of us who are trying to use the smartphone for what it was intended (to communicate--phone, email, text, Skype, VoIP, etc.) should pay because some don't want to wait until they are at home to watch a movie. (However, once we throw tablets into the mix, which are all about "entertainment" per se, this could be an even greater source of consumption.) But, streaming a movie is very bandwidth-intensive and consumption-heavy, and I would think self-defeating once those overusage charges start hitting customers' bills. In essence, the turbo customers are subsidizing those who are consuming all the bandwidth. If it's true (as one source stated) that Netflix is consuming 33% of total Internet bandwidth, then a subset of those users are also on 4G.

4. Something has to give: there is only a fixed amount of bandwidth per Internet connection, so if turbo users are getting preference, that will indeed lump all of those Netflix and other high-consumption users into the general pool with the rest of us. Get out of the way--Mr. Moneybags clicked the magic button!

 

[SquireSCA]

I have a few thoughts about all this (and I'm not in favor of "turbo" either)...

1. Unless someone is grandfathered into an unlimited data plan (which a small number of users have probably found is not unlimited), they are going to be paying for all that data consumption they burn through. 4G just makes it easier/faster for them to burn through the consumption tier they chose. If users start going nuts on their 4G access, they will soon hit the wall and get that nice fat bill of overusage charges. VZW has to be loving this.

2. That sort of applies to the turbo mode also. Once users keep hitting that turbo button, they'll see how inflated their bill has become, and back off on the usage of it. As was pointed out earlier, the rich won't care, but the other millions of us do. Queue up that Mario Bros. cha-ching for VZW!

3. If Netflix is the service consuming bandwidth, then throttle that, not the rest of us. Make them pay for a special data tier. I don't feel those of us who are trying to use the smartphone for what it was intended (to communicate--phone, email, text, Skype, VoIP, etc.) should pay because some don't want to wait until they are at home to watch a movie. (However, once we throw tablets into the mix, which are all about "entertainment" per se, this could be an even greater source of consumption.) But, streaming a movie is very bandwidth-intensive and consumption-heavy, and I would think self-defeating once those overusage charges start hitting customers' bills. In essence, the turbo customers are subsidizing those who are consuming all the bandwidth. If it's true (as one source stated) that Netflix is consuming 33% of total Internet bandwidth, then a subset of those users are also on 4G.

4. Something has to give: there is only a fixed amount of bandwidth per Internet connection, so if turbo users are getting preference, that will indeed lump all of those Netflix and other high-consumption users into the general pool with the rest of us. Get out of the way--Mr. Moneybags clicked the magic button!

So VZW already charges a lot of money for data. They charge more per MB than any ISP, by far.

And so now we want them to not only be charging for data tiers, but also for speed on top of that, and then add in something where they charge more for Netflix? They should start charging for whatever app you happen to be using?

That is retarded. It should be like this... You buy a block of data each month. You use that data however the hell you want. If I want to stream Netflix, cruise the net, listen to Pandora and send a gazillion texts or pictures, it should be up to me.

Shell charges you for a gallon of gas. They don't then charge you premiums based on where you want to drive with that gas.

This is the crap that I am talking about. At some point, are we willing to pay as much for a stupid cell phone as we do for an economy car payment? At what point do we say enough?

They advertise the "blazing fast speeds". They promote "doing more", and "streaming movies" and all this crap. And then they complain when people actually do and use what they were sold, and they tell us we are using too much and that they have to charge more?

Since when has the bait and switch become such a tolerated and even promoted business practice? I thought that such things were frowned upon? Why are we embracing this crap?

 

[jerkwad]

This is why at some point, there will be a new carrier. Someone who sees the increasing demand for a solid, reliable service that doesn't look for every absolute opportunity to rape you, and when they figure it out, people will flock to it in droves.

I pay $130 a month for my unlimited plan. I don't need to pay more to get the performance that I am supposed to be getting right now. At some point we as consumers have to ask ourselves, who much is enough?

Everyone knows that companies want to make profits, but they are making money hand over fist. When do we get fed up and tell them to piss off? I already pay more for my cell phone than I do for DirecTV with my HD package, DVR, HOB and Starz pack, etc... My cell phone already costs double what my cable modem costs. My cell phone is already higher than my water bill and garbage bill combined. My cell phone already costs 3x as much per month as my HOA fees. My cell phone already costs more per month than insuring my truck and my motorcycle.

So I ask again, how much is enough? They keep adding new fees, new caps, new limits and don't give us anything in return for the higher prices that they demand. They keep charging more, and delivery less and I cannot wait for the day that someone steps into the market with a true, nationwide everything plan for like $50 a month. Because when they do, people will flock to it.

No one here is arguing about the high cost of Verizon, but you admitted what we already know: "I cannot wait for the day that someone steps into the market with a true, nationwide everything plan for like $50 a month. Because when they do, people will flock to it."

And that's my point. If you don't like it, go somewhere else that provides the same level of service. You can't? Didn't think so. Neither can I. I don't like that any more than you or the next guy paying $100+/month. However, this discussion is about those complaining about Tiered Data and "Turbo" settings w/in the application. Which, as I mentioned earlier is most likely NOT a big deal. I can't count the number of threads/posts that have people complaining about costs. This isn't the thread for that. It was supposed to be about Verizon's decision to start letting people pay for higher bandwidth/priority/etc. I'm fine with that, I do it at home. My 25Mbps speed is faster than my neighbor who chooses to pay less and only gets 15Mbps. I don't see the big deal here, but I guess me and "TheOldFart" post above me, are the only ones missing "it"?

On a side note, how in the world are you paying $130/month for a single line?! Voice is $30, data is $40, and add in 15% for taxes that still only comes out to about $81.00. If you are using more than 450 minutes or need an exorbitant amount of txt msgs then of course you are going to pay more, but that isn't the "bottom line" plan costs. (btw, i think it is a total farce that they charge for txts, but that's a different topic).

 

[WildcatRudy]

That is retarded. It should be like this... You buy a block of data each month. You use that data however the hell you want. If I want to stream Netflix, cruise the net, listen to Pandora and send a gazillion texts or pictures, it should be up to me.

............

They advertise the "blazing fast speeds". They promote "doing more", and "streaming movies" and all this crap. And then they complain when people actually do and use what they were sold, and they tell us we are using too much and that they have to charge more?

Preach it, Bro. Squire!!

I do get your point about using what you pay for. I do stream Pandora sometimes for a few hours a day, but I know it doesn't consume what a video stream does. I'd be curious to find out how much data is actually consumed by a typical two-hour Netflix movie delivered to a mobile device, mainly as a way to gauge limits. ("OK, I can stream two movies a month without going over my plan.")

To me it almost seems like they woke up one morning and realized that oops, their 4G can't handle all the traffic that they are so heavily advertising can "do more." Or maybe the CEO's kid couldn't download the latest Angry Birds update fast enough.

It makes me wonder, though, if their elimination of the unlimited data plan was their feeble attempt at capping what we use. Once we know we have limits in place, it is supposed to make us responsible in order to avoid paying higher fees.

My big worry, being on the unlimited plan, is that there will be those who abuse it by streaming content for hours a day on 4G, and that they will eliminate that plan down the road for the small handful that abuse it.

 

[jerkwad]

I have a few thoughts about all this (and I'm not in favor of "turbo" either)...

1. Unless someone is grandfathered into an unlimited data plan (which a small number of users have probably found is not unlimited), they are going to be paying for all that data consumption they burn through. 4G just makes it easier/faster for them to burn through the consumption tier they chose. If users start going nuts on their 4G access, they will soon hit the wall and get that nice fat bill of overusage charges. VZW has to be loving this.

2. That sort of applies to the turbo mode also. Once users keep hitting that turbo button, they'll see how inflated their bill has become, and back off on the usage of it. As was pointed out earlier, the rich won't care, but the other millions of us do. Queue up that Mario Bros. cha-ching for VZW!

3. If Netflix is the service consuming bandwidth, then throttle that, not the rest of us. Make them pay for a special data tier. I don't feel those of us who are trying to use the smartphone for what it was intended (to communicate--phone, email, text, Skype, VoIP, etc.) should pay because some don't want to wait until they are at home to watch a movie. (However, once we throw tablets into the mix, which are all about "entertainment" per se, this could be an even greater source of consumption.) But, streaming a movie is very bandwidth-intensive and consumption-heavy, and I would think self-defeating once those overusage charges start hitting customers' bills. In essence, the turbo customers are subsidizing those who are consuming all the bandwidth. If it's true (as one source stated) that Netflix is consuming 33% of total Internet bandwidth, then a subset of those users are also on 4G.

4. Something has to give: there is only a fixed amount of bandwidth per Internet connection, so if turbo users are getting preference, that will indeed lump all of those Netflix and other high-consumption users into the general pool with the rest of us. Get out of the way--Mr. Moneybags clicked the magic button!

All good points! I WISH they could do something like giving netflix a back seat to other data types, but the reality is THAT would certainly violate Net Neutrality laws, right? Limiting a business's, such as Netflix, ability to reach it's customers can't be encourage by Net Neutrality proponents. On top of that, if they charged netflix for higher bandwidth/prioritization we would just get upchaged by netflix (consumers are always on the hook for paying those things, just like cable tv (espn charges carriers and the carriers pass that along in the cable bill). And finally, let's say they DID charge netflix, and netflix DIDN'T charge us anymore money, then we are right back where we started: Netflix gets priority and consumes 33% of our available bandwidth ;-) We can't win lol

 

[SquireSCA]

No one here is arguing about the high cost of Verizon, but you admitted what we already know: "I cannot wait for the day that someone steps into the market with a true, nationwide everything plan for like $50 a month. Because when they do, people will flock to it."

And that's my point. If you don't like it, go somewhere else that provides the same level of service. You can't? Didn't think so. Neither can I. I don't like that any more than you or the next guy paying $100+/month. However, this discussion is about those complaining about Tiered Data and "Turbo" settings w/in the application. Which, as I mentioned earlier is most likely NOT a big deal. I can't count the number of threads/posts that have people complaining about costs. This isn't the thread for that. It was supposed to be about Verizon's decision to start letting people pay for higher bandwidth/priority/etc. I'm fine with that, I do it at home. My 25Mbps speed is faster than my neighbor who chooses to pay less and only gets 15Mbps. I don't see the big deal here, but I guess me and "TheOldFart" post above me, are the only ones missing "it"?

On a side note, how in the world are you paying $130/month for a single line?! Voice is $30, data is $40, and add in 15% for taxes that still only comes out to about $81.00. If you are using more than 450 minutes or need an exorbitant amount of txt msgs then of course you are going to pay more, but that isn't the "bottom line" plan costs. (btw, i think it is a total farce that they charge for txts, but that's a different topic).

It is not about people paying more to get higher bandwidth. It is about them holding back what we are paying for now, and charging a second time to get what you were supposed to get when you paid the first time.

And once you open the door for that, you open the floodgates for charging for specific applications that "they feel use more", etc... VZW is not your friend. They don't care about you getting value. They care about one thing, stock price. They will look for any way to take any last dime that you have, while giving you nothing in return, so long as it doesn't piss off too many customers and force the lost revenue from canceled subscriptions to outweigh the revenue of them nickling and diming you.

And I am currently searching to see what else is out there, because I don't relish the thought of 2 years from now, paying $200 a month for cell phone service and getting less than I am getting today, because that is where we are headed.

Typically, when new technology comes out, the price is high. Over time the costs to produce it come down. Think of any other consumer electronics item. Blue Ray. Cost an arm and a leg, but as manufacturing costs came down, economies of scale kicked in and now they practically give them away.

But not cell phones for some reason...

 

[WildcatRudy]

&nbsp;It was supposed to be about Verizon's decision to start letting people pay for higher bandwidth/priority/etc. I'm fine with that, I do it at home. My 25Mbps speed is faster than my neighbor who <em>chooses</em> to pay less and only gets 15Mbps. I don't see the big deal here, but I guess me and "TheOldFart" post above me, are the only ones missing "it"?

<br><br>Part of the perception may be that 4G via the cell towers can't deliver the same as what you'd get through a "wired" connection (cable or DSL internet, for instance. &nbsp;Point being that higher 4G traffic leads to congestion if that connection is over-subscribed. &nbsp;A good internet provider (yeah I know, an oxymoron ) plans for that capacity so no one neighborhood is oversold and bogged down when traffic gets heavier during peak hours. &nbsp;My WOW internet used to be really good during peak hours, and even my lowly cheap AT&amp;T DSL seems to hold its own.<br><br>On my modest little network at home, limits do apply. &nbsp;If I'm downloading some large work files, for instance, it taps out everyone else on the network. &nbsp;I can set QoS on my router so certain services get higher priority over others, which I feel is how Verizon may be handling the "turbo" option, similar to a prioritized QoS setting that lets certain apps consume more bandwidth at the expense of others. &nbsp;That is why I'm guessing that&nbsp;the "turbo" option may end up eating into bandwidth from the general pool of users, rather than be a different tier of usage like we get with a hard-wired internet connection at our home or business.<br><br>Just my two cents...and you know what that'll buy you these days...

 

[jerkwad]

Preach it, Bro. Squire!!
...To me it almost seems like they woke up one morning and realized that oops, their 4G can't handle all the traffic that they are so heavily advertising can "do more."

Yep! That's just like any other new (awesome) technology: Market the shi* out of it until you can't, then find the next generation and market the shi* outta that until you can't, and then...."

I know SquireSCA used the term "bait and switch" but I bet not one single person on 4G LTE is saying they can't download fast enough. So while there might be a disconnect in what we expect and what verizon provides, I challenge anyone to find a majority of angry 4G LTE customers at this time. Sure, 4G isn't perfect but it is a lot better than 3G and they aren't even charging us extra to use it! It does suck to be capped (if you aren't unlimited) on 4G bec you can blow through that in no time, but at some point we, as the consumer, DO need to take responsibility for our data plans and how we use them. I don't know if it is a generation thing here where everything is about "me, me, me" "give, give, give", "i can do whatever i want", etc...that just seems to be the vibe i get from some people. Not calling anyone out, just a generalized comment about what i've noticed in our society in the last decade (that probably makes me sound OLD lol)

 

[WildcatRudy]

All good points! I WISH they could do something like giving netflix a back seat to other data types, but the reality is THAT would certainly violate Net Neutrality laws, right?

I thought about that just after I wrote it...and Net Neutrality is one thing we're all fighting for!

 

[jerkwad]

It is not about people paying more to get higher bandwidth. It is about them holding back what we are paying for now, and charging a second time to get what you were supposed to get when you paid the first time.

Why do you think they are holding back on what you are paying for now? Can you show me a guaranteed speed that you are paying for, in your contract? They are NOT capping us at 200Kbps so that WHEN the "Turbo" people push that magic button they get the rest of the data pipe. They are setting priorities on traffic, and I think that is good. They should be doing that anyway - Facebook/Angry Birds downloads should take a backseat to my Corporate and Gmail data but that would violate Net Neutrality laws ;-) But I understand we are all paying the same price so we should all get the same priority. And verizon isn't changing that at all, they are changing priority for customers who PAY MORE, that is common across EVERY market. I paid more for my Corvette Z06 than the next guy did for his Corvette base model Coupe. But he isn't complaining that Chevrolet is sticking it to him and nickel-diming for a 7.0L engine. Maybe not a perfect example, but it sure comes close. Ebay does it too: you want to win the auction, pay more than the other guy, simple. The cool thing about Ebay is that the market dictates prices. That is no different than Verizon. If you don't want to go faster, don't pay for it. Let this idea flop and Verizon will realize "wow, that was a dumb idea, i can't believe we thought our customers were going to pay MORE so that they could get their facebook updates sooner", etc etc.

VZW is not your friend. They don't care about you getting value. They care about one thing, stock price. They will look for any way to take any last dime that you have, while giving you nothing in return, so long as it doesn't piss off too many customers and force the lost revenue from canceled subscriptions to outweigh the revenue of them nickling and diming you.

Show me one business that isn't like this lol It's the American (and International) way!

Typically, when new technology comes out, the price is high. Over time the costs to produce it come down. Think of any other consumer electronics item. Blue Ray. Cost an arm and a leg, but as manufacturing costs came down, economies of scale kicked in and now they practically give them away.

But not cell phones for some reason...

Are you saying that 4G LTE isn't new tech? Are you saying that our phones aren't constantly getting new tech? I think they are, thus you will not see a decrease in prices. As much as I don't like Apple, they do the same thing. You will never pay substantially less for a NEW MacBook, the tech changes, the prices stay the same.

 

[jerkwad]

I thought about that just after I wrote it...and Net Neutrality is one thing we're all fighting for!

Yep, ironic isn't it? :icon_eek: It's cool if we all get what we want, but ONLY if I get what I want first lol

 

[WildcatRudy]

But I understand we are all paying the same price so we should all get the same priority. And verizon isn't changing that at all, they are changing priority for customers who PAY MORE, that is common across EVERY market.

I think it's the execution of the Turbo feature that we don't like. I fully understand paying more for a higher level of service and can't argue on that point at all. It's our way of life in this society of ours. Anyway...

If they offered different bandwidth tiers, it would be different--it would be like having 2Mbps/4Mbps/8Mbps maximum speed tiers, and those who wanted the highest speed tier would pay the most. But that also assumes that the connection at the tower (a network node, so to speak) would never be saturated or oversubscribed. I mean, heck, what happens if I decide to invite all of you at the forum here to a BBQ at my house, three or four hundred show up (be sure to bring lawn chairs--I don't have quite that many), and we all hop on our 4G phones to start surfing the web or streaming different radio or video feeds? We're only going to split that bandwidth between all of us, and drop those it can't handle. It's not like Verizon is going to say, "Sorry, we can only support 50 4G users on this node," and magically have another tower appear to satisfy the bandwidth so we all get "advertised" speeds.

In a sense, it's either the Turbo users get higher priority, or the rest of us get pushed to a lower priority. Either way, it is the same net result in the end. I don't know how 4G works from a networking standpoint (re: nodes, routing, etc.), but it almost seems like they are going to be manipulating QoS (Quality of Service) settings, where certain processes get higher priority over others, since they can't limit the number of "nodes" connected to a particular "neighborhood" (cell tower) at a time. Or to put it another way: if the pipe is a fixed size, something has to give. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, as the old saying goes.

Overall, my gut feeling is that the Turbo feature will get little usage, especially once some users start seeing the fees pile up on their Verizon bills.

My worry is how the Turbo priority will affect the rest of us, speed-wise. If it's used minimally though, we may be worrying about nothing. VZW can do what they want with the Turbo--it's not a product for me, so I won't need it.

Hope that makes sense...

 

[Xplorer4x4]

2. Verizon isn't throttling anyone here, Verizon is prioritizing those that choose to pay more, and why shouldn't they?!

In order to prioritize, they must throttle those who did not pay for turbo. Think about it. Say the tower is capable of producing 100Mbits. You divide that to 10 customers, they get 10 Mbits each. So now 2 of those customers pay for turbo. The 8 customers who did not pay must be throttled to create that extra bandwidth for the turbo customers.

 

[SquireSCA]

Why do you think they are holding back on what you are paying for now? Can you show me a guaranteed speed that you are paying for, in your contract? They are NOT capping us at 200Kbps so that WHEN the "Turbo" people push that magic button they get the rest of the data pipe. They are setting priorities on traffic, and I think that is good. They should be doing that anyway - Facebook/Angry Birds downloads should take a backseat to my Corporate and Gmail data but that would violate Net Neutrality laws ;-) But I understand we are all paying the same price so we should all get the same priority. And verizon isn't changing that at all, they are changing priority for customers who PAY MORE, that is common across EVERY market. I paid more for my Corvette Z06 than the next guy did for his Corvette base model Coupe. But he isn't complaining that Chevrolet is sticking it to him and nickel-diming for a 7.0L engine. Maybe not a perfect example, but it sure comes close. Ebay does it too: you want to win the auction, pay more than the other guy, simple. The cool thing about Ebay is that the market dictates prices. That is no different than Verizon. If you don't want to go faster, don't pay for it. Let this idea flop and Verizon will realize "wow, that was a dumb idea, i can't believe we thought our customers were going to pay MORE so that they could get their facebook updates sooner", etc etc.


Show me one business that isn't like this lol It's the American (and International) way!



Are you saying that 4G LTE isn't new tech? Are you saying that our phones aren't constantly getting new tech? I think they are, thus you will not see a decrease in prices. As much as I don't like Apple, they do the same thing. You will never pay substantially less for a NEW MacBook, the tech changes, the prices stay the same.

Why should my Angry Birds or Netflix take a back seat to your gmail or corporate email? We both pay for an Unlimited data plan, why should yours be worth more?

And you know that when they start throttling everyone back and only allowing the Turbo folks to get the real LTE speed, their hopes is that everyone will start paying for Turbo. They are creating the environment where we will be scaled back and get less than what we sighed up for and are paying for, and then charge us to essentially restore it.

 

[SquireSCA]

In order to prioritize, they must throttle those who did not pay for turbo. Think about it. Say the tower is capable of producing 100Mbits. You divide that to 10 customers, they get 10 Mbits each. So now 2 of those customers pay for turbo. The 8 customers who did not pay must be throttled to create that extra bandwidth for the turbo customers.

Bingo, hence we are going to get dinged and restricted from what we were sold and paying for.