11–20 of 31 posts
I think the worse news is the transcoding proxies they are announcing, not-so-transparently lowering the quality of any JPEG and MPEG files you download. This is why the Internet needs end-to-end encryption on by default.
I think the worse news is the transcoding proxies they are announcing, not-so-transparently lowering the quality of any JPEG and MPEG files you download. This is why the Internet needs end-to-end encryption on by default.
Could I set up proxy that strips flash ads out of other people's content and replaces them with my own tasteful text ads? How is that different from scraping their content and reposting it on my server?
I was really excited that Verizon was going to be offering unlimited data with the iPhone. However, they've just said that they're actually going to be offering less data. The difference is that they're throttling while AT&T is offering full-speed with the risk of overage. I guess Verizon is worried about a ton of high-usage iPhone users degrading their network and has decided that they'll simply degrade service for high-end users.
It's disappointing, but I do appreciate that there are realistic concerns about keeping networks running. The introduction of the iPhone on Verizon is likely to double the number of high-data smartphones on their network and that will mean that the shared bandwidth available will become scarcer. I understand that networks are shared resources, but I'm disappointed in Verizon. After saying that their network had the capacity, they announce that they're going to be throttling at amounts less than AT&T's plan.
Information from AT&T comes from http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=17991&cdvn=news...
Talking to a co-worker, who used to work in customer service at a different US wireless carrier, this is common practice. His example was customers who use terabytes of data a month would get throttled for the remainder of the period, similar to what Verizon's proposing. It'd be interesting to know how much data the top 5% of users use.
On plans sold as "unlimited" there is actually a usage cap. When the cap is exceeded, bandwidth throttling is employed through the end of the monthly billing cycle. For the newer $50/mo data plans, the cap is 5GByte/mo. For the newer $80/mo data plans, the cap is 10GByte/mo.
The data transfer tech currently deployed by Verizon is EVDO Rev.A in most places. Some areas only have the older EVDO Rev.0 deployed. The new new Verizon LTE ("4G" I hate that definitionless acronym) launched in December 2010 is only available in some areas, but they're still building out that network.
The typical download throughput I see with EVDO Rev.A is 1.1Mbit/s. If I hit the bandwidth throttle point by exceeding the cap, the download throughput drops to 200Kbit/s.
AT&T has stated that 98% of its users use less than 2GB per month. If Verizon is going to throttle the top 5% of its users, Verizon is probably anticipating throttling a good bit below 2GB for a couple reasons. First, data usage is exponential. According to AT&T, 65% of data users use under 200MB meaning that only 33% use between 200MB and 2GB. So, capping the top 5% might mean throttling at 1.5GB or 1GB. Second, Ver…
Talking to a co-worker, who used to work in customer service at a different US wireless carrier, this is common practice. His example was customers who use terabytes of data a month would get throttled for the remainder of the period, similar to what Verizon's proposing. It'd be interesting to know how much data the top 5% of users use.
I'd estimate that the top 5% of users starts between 1GB and 1.5GB. AT&T has said that the 65th percentile is below 200MB and the 98th percentile is below 2GB. Usage is likely exponential, but even plotting linearly gets you to 1.6GB for the 95th percentile. So, at most it's 1.5GB, but it's likely considerably below 1.5GB. 1GB, 1.25GB: those figures seem to be likely.
Oh good, Verizon Wireless . I have other reasonable choices than Verizon Wireless .
Maybe the poster should have kept the first half of the original title for context.
I think the worse news is the transcoding proxies they are announcing, not-so-transparently lowering the quality of any JPEG and MPEG files you download. This is why the Internet needs end-to-end encryption on by default.
I've always been curious with these transcoders and copyright law. Why are they allowed to alter and redistribute content without the permission of the author? Could I set up proxy that strips flash ads out of other people's content and replaces them with my own tasteful text ads? How is that different from scraping their content and reposting it on my server?
That is, it is not "alteration" in that the song or image is still recognizably the same - they are not changing the rhythm of the song or the height of the buildings in the image.
"may reduce your data throughput speeds periodically for the remainder of your then current and immediately following billing cycle to ensure high quality network performance for other users at locations and times of peak demand." "Verizon says it will only do this if you fall in the top 5% of the company's data users" To me this sounds fair to users and good for business. I'm part of the 95% and would prefer to do b…
Good for business? Yeah, and when those 5% of users quit the service, you can get rid of the next 5%. Keep repeating until you have no customers.