Verizon Doesn't Like The Idea Of Open Internet” – Appeals FCC Net Neutrality Decision

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I wonder if anyone else has considered the Netflix thing... Just as a mental excercise...

What if VZW started charging to use your HDMI port for streaming any kind of video that was not physically stored on the SD card?

Take the tethering argument, so the people that claim that simply paying for 5 plates of food at the buffet doesn't mean you can eat it any way that you want... That taking the phone and using that to provide data to other devices is "not the same data that you paid for in your standard data plan"....

Apply that to HDMI and Netflix, or YouTube, etc... Where I plug my phone in to my 50" flat panel and watch a Netflix movie... I am using bandwidth from my phone in order to provide data and functionality to a secondary device.

How is pumping Netflix from my phone to my TV, any different than pumping it to my laptop via tethering? Other than the fact that Verizon hasn't figured out a way to charge us for plugging our TV into the HDMI port, what's the difference?

Sharing data with a second device either way, no?
 
Well, I wonder if anyone else has considered the Netflix thing... Just as a mental excercise...

What if VZW started charging to use your HDMI port for streaming any kind of video that was not physically stored on the SD card?

Take the tethering argument, so the people that claim that simply paying for 5 plates of food at the buffet doesn't mean you can eat it any way that you want... That taking the phone and using that to provide data to other devices is "not the same data that you paid for in your standard data plan"....

Apply that to HDMI and Netflix, or YouTube, etc... Where I plug my phone in to my 50" flat panel and watch a Netflix movie... I am using bandwidth from my phone in order to provide data and functionality to a secondary device.

How is pumping Netflix from my phone to my TV, any different than pumping it to my laptop via tethering? Other than the fact that Verizon hasn't figured out a way to charge us for plugging our TV into the HDMI port, what's the difference?

Sharing data with a second device either way, no?

mirrored image to using data to give data to another device, end of argument, well there is no argument
 
Well, I wonder if anyone else has considered the Netflix thing... Just as a mental excercise...

What if VZW started charging to use your HDMI port for streaming any kind of video that was not physically stored on the SD card?

Take the tethering argument, so the people that claim that simply paying for 5 plates of food at the buffet doesn't mean you can eat it any way that you want... That taking the phone and using that to provide data to other devices is "not the same data that you paid for in your standard data plan"....

Apply that to HDMI and Netflix, or YouTube, etc... Where I plug my phone in to my 50" flat panel and watch a Netflix movie... I am using bandwidth from my phone in order to provide data and functionality to a secondary device.

How is pumping Netflix from my phone to my TV, any different than pumping it to my laptop via tethering? Other than the fact that Verizon hasn't figured out a way to charge us for plugging our TV into the HDMI port, what's the difference?

Sharing data with a second device either way, no?

Streaming is not the same as tethering. I'm beginning to think that you don't understand the distinction. Your TV is not connected to the internet when you mirror.
 
mirrored image to using data to give data to another device, end of argument, well there is no argument

Not good enough. You are taking a data stream and it is being used on another device. In one case, a large LCD screen. In the other, a smaller LCD screen on a laptop.

Same amout of data being used, in both cases, the end result is data being used on a secondary device other than the phone. All that changed was the physical link... HDMI cable or a wireless connection, but the result is the same.

It's a very thin technicality, I know the difference between an HDMI cable and a wireless link, but the point is that in the end, you are using the phone and data plan and bandwidth in order to provide a service or function to a secondary device...
 
Not good enough. You are taking a data stream and it is being used on another device. In one case, a large LCD screen. In the other, a smaller LCD screen on a laptop.

Same amout of data being used, in both cases, the end result is data being used on a secondary device other than the phone. All that changed was the physical link... HDMI cable or a wireless connection, but the result is the same.

It's a very thin technicality, I know the difference between an HDMI cable and a wireless link, but the point is that in the end, you are using the phone and data plan and bandwidth in order to provide a service or function to a secondary device...

not good enough?? So to you there is no difference between a mirrored image and tethering???? I have no response to that.
 
Not good enough. You are taking a data stream and it is being used on another device. In one case, a large LCD screen. In the other, a smaller LCD screen on a laptop.

Same amout of data being used, in both cases, the end result is data being used on a secondary device other than the phone. All that changed was the physical link... HDMI cable or a wireless connection, but the result is the same.

It's a very thin technicality, I know the difference between an HDMI cable and a wireless link, but the point is that in the end, you are using the phone and data plan and bandwidth in order to provide a service or function to a secondary device...

How is data being used on your TV if you're streaming? So if I have a TV that does not have wifi capabilities, by streaming, my TV suddenly becomes an internet connected device?
 
Well, I wonder if anyone else has considered the Netflix thing... Just as a mental excercise...

What if VZW started charging to use your HDMI port for streaming any kind of video that was not physically stored on the SD card?

Take the tethering argument, so the people that claim that simply paying for 5 plates of food at the buffet doesn't mean you can eat it any way that you want... That taking the phone and using that to provide data to other devices is "not the same data that you paid for in your standard data plan"....

Apply that to HDMI and Netflix, or YouTube, etc... Where I plug my phone in to my 50" flat panel and watch a Netflix movie... I am using bandwidth from my phone in order to provide data and functionality to a secondary device.

How is pumping Netflix from my phone to my TV, any different than pumping it to my laptop via tethering? Other than the fact that Verizon hasn't figured out a way to charge us for plugging our TV into the HDMI port, what's the difference?

Sharing data with a second device either way, no?

The tv is considered an external display. The device is still downloading and consuming the data on its own using its own protocols and higher compression. You are just displaying it on another display. Your argument would be like Apple charging you to enable a second monitor. Not going to happen. If they were that concerned they would just have not allowed the HDMI port or at least blocked HDMI mirroring.

Sent from my brain using human to phone transport technology.
 
Not good enough. You are taking a data stream and it is being used on another device. In one case, a large LCD screen. In the other, a smaller LCD screen on a laptop.

Same amout of data being used, in both cases, the end result is data being used on a secondary device other than the phone. All that changed was the physical link... HDMI cable or a wireless connection, but the result is the same.

It's a very thin technicality, I know the difference between an HDMI cable and a wireless link, but the point is that in the end, you are using the phone and data plan and bandwidth in order to provide a service or function to a secondary device...

As I pointed out a moment ago the same amount of data is NOT being used. Netflix mobile app uses 10-20% of the data that the PC or integrated TV solutions do.

Sent from my brain using human to phone transport technology.
 
Streaming is not the same as tethering. I'm beginning to think that you don't understand the distinction. Your TV is not connected to the internet when you mirror.

I understand the difference in the mechanism, but the end result is the same.

Using the same phone, the same data plan, the same bandwidth and data, etc... in order to provide it to another device. All that changes is the link from the phone to that second device. One uses a physical cable, one uses a wireless connection.

But the end result is the same. Increased data usage in order to share it with another device.

See, you are doing what you always do, arguing semantics. I am arguing real world end results, and I think that is why we clash. You want to argue the minutia and try to portray them as different, but the end result is that they really aren't different in practice or results.

Or how about some of the Android devices that dock into a "laptop"? Should we pay extra for tethering, if the laptop is something that the phone snaps directly into? I mean, with a full keyboard and large screen, wouldn't you be likely to use more bandwidth? More likely to stream movies and do lots more email and things than one would from a phone?

You define tethering only in one narrow sense, but I am simply saying that there are other areas where we "tether" and "share data with other devices" that will usually "consume more bandwidth"... that's all.
 
How is data being used on your TV if you're streaming? So if I have a TV that does not have wifi capabilities, by streaming, my TV suddenly becomes an internet connected device?

I guess that in the end result, it has the same effect, no? You use your phone to provide streamed video to it, using up tons of VZW's bandwidth on their network in the process.

Dude, get away from semantics and focus on what I am actually asking. The end results are the same, even if it goes over a different set of wires...
 
As I pointed out a moment ago the same amount of data is NOT being used. Netflix mobile app uses 10-20% of the data that the PC or integrated TV solutions do.

Sent from my brain using human to phone transport technology.

Ok, point taken on it consuming less.

If the mobile version of Netflix was the same bandwidth, would your opinion change?
 
Ok, point taken on it consuming less.

If the mobile version of Netflix was the same bandwidth, would your opinion change?

No. If you can stream it to the phone or connect an external display and it uses the same bandwidth then it would be no different than watching on your tiny screen. If plugging in the HDMI cable entitled you to higher quality and 10x the bandwidth then yes, but I prefer facts to hypotheticals.

Sent from my brain using human to phone transport technology.
 
Last edited:
I guess that in the end result, it has the same effect, no? You use your phone to provide streamed video to it, using up tons of VZW's bandwidth on their network in the process.

Dude, get away from semantics and focus on what I am actually asking. The end results are the same, even if it goes over a different set of wires...

Are you kidding me? The two things you are arguing are fundamentally and completely different. Tethering is not the same as mirroring in any way.

The end results are not the same... in one case your mirroring your phones display, in another your extending your phones connection. I'm sorry but dismissing things as "semantics" when you're blatantly wrong doesn't work.
 
I understand the difference in the mechanism, but the end result is the same.

Using the same phone, the same data plan, the same bandwidth and data, etc... in order to provide it to another device. All that changes is the link from the phone to that second device. One uses a physical cable, one uses a wireless connection.

But the end result is the same. Increased data usage in order to share it with another device.

See, you are doing what you always do, arguing semantics. I am arguing real world end results, and I think that is why we clash. You want to argue the minutia and try to portray them as different, but the end result is that they really aren't different in practice or results.

Or how about some of the Android devices that dock into a "laptop"? Should we pay extra for tethering, if the laptop is something that the phone snaps directly into? I mean, with a full keyboard and large screen, wouldn't you be likely to use more bandwidth? More likely to stream movies and do lots more email and things than one would from a phone?

You define tethering only in one narrow sense, but I am simply saying that there are other areas where we "tether" and "share data with other devices" that will usually "consume more bandwidth"... that's all.

I see your concession on the data usage below so I won't bring that point up here. As to the lapdock, there are so few of those actually in use that it does not cause issues. Plus it is still technically using only the phone and you are limited to just the web browser, not torrents or other high bandwidth services. Sure the bandwidth consumed by that could be higher than the phone, but you are a. paying nearly the cost of a laptop to them to buy it and b. that is why they have the excessive use data throttling for the top 5%.

It is too new to judge it since Verizon has only had it for weeks. It could change in the future if it catches on enough to pose a problem though.

Sent from my brain using human to phone transport technology.
 
Ok, let me attempt to clarify what I am saying, because some people are not getting the point here...

Verizon is challenging this ruling that they cannot block apps that compete with their own services. As I see it, they really only have two decent arguments to try to make:

1) "We should be allowed to restrict apps that cause issues with our networks and infrastructure, or that allows people to use excessive bandwidth that can degrade our performance and impact other paying customers."

On that, I would agree with them. Go after the people that are degrading your performance by using too much bandwidth. Throttle them and give them a warning, if they do it again, enroll them in a more expensive tier. Or charge them more. If they continue to abuse it, suspend their service.

Nobody disputes that. I simply dispute them automatically blaming "tethering" itself in a "preserving our network and performance" argument because they have yet to show that a) Tethering causes that, and b) that non-tetherers don't also use excessive badwidth consumption. Many of us tether and end up using LESS than we paid for, so how are we degrading performance? So in this argument, I feel that they are wrong. If performance and service is the argument and issue, then go after the people abusing that and don't automatically assume that anyone tethering is in that top 5%, because at least with us 3G customers, we probably are not. VZW 3G is crazy slow, barely faster than dial-up. Nobody is using dial-up speed as "free ISP". Maybe with LTE, but again, if they are, they will be in that top 5% with a huge bullseye on their backs and easy pickings.

2) "We have a right to protect our other paid services by blocking apps that allow customers to obtain what we offer, but for free."

If they use that argument, the question becomes, what about free IM clients costing them texting plan revenue? Google Voice and other VoIP apps allowing people to have "unlimited calling plans" while only paying for data and the minimum calling plan? What about free music and video streaming thwarting VCast plans?

See, if they win on the tethering issue based on this argument, then they will have a precident to do the same in those other areas if they decide to. That's my problem with it. This argument can EASILY be applied to many other areas if they are successful.

And as for "this is Capitalism"... Capitalism doesn't mean a free for all. It doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with no consequences. A Free market is only as free and unlimited as we allow it to be. If a company is gouging people or nickle and diming them to death, the flip side of Capitalism is that the consumer is the checks and balance, and occasionally the government does have to step in and enforce or allow something.

Auto makers used to be able to void your warranty if you had your car serviced, even an oil change, at a mechanic that was not a factory dealership. That way they could force you to pay more and use the dealership, else they would just void your warranty. But the government stepped in on the side of consumers and passed a law that said that you can buy a car and use a non-dealer mechanic or do the work yourself without automatically voiding your warranty. Now, the flip side is that if the dealer can PROVE that your problem was the RESULT of doing it yourself, or using a non-dealer mechanic or aftermarket part, then they could charge you for the repair. But they had to prove that what you did was what CAUSED it.

So the Capitalist system allowed dealers to screw consumers before the law was passed, but the government did need to play a role and step in and find some middle ground that was fair to the consumer, but didn't screw the dealerships and manufacturers either.

So while I don't like a lot of government intervention, there are times when it sorta has to, because Capitalism is not perfect, and things can go to far when a company gets too big and starts screwing customers and we might not have the power to fight back when there are only 2 or 3 carriers and they all loosely agree to use the same tactics...

So if VZW wins on the "we reserve the right to protect our paid services", my concern is that they could take that same argument and apply it to texts, VoIP, audio and video streaming, etc...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top