More Reading

Post navigation

53 Comments

  • “Verizon will stick a “bee” icon (see below) next to content around the web that has been paid for.”

    Where around the web? If a site is being served over SSL/HTTPS (as most respectable websites are these days), Verizon can’t inject content into the page. This also doesn’t work for in-app content, which makes up a large majority of mobile data usage. Given these limitations, I don’t see how users will be aware of this program and know what content is free.

  • The thick stench of greed has long ago consumed anything good in verizon. All they do now is deal data like its smack.

    My udp is for sale, if you put a pox on my name, you can buy it for yourself.

  • I see this as… “click here and don’t get charged for any data you likely wouldn’t have used anyhow”.

    • “Much like BingeOn, as well as Comcast’s StreamTV service, the concept seems to sail close to the Net Neutrality wind. While zero-rating isn’t explicitly banned by the rules, it certainly sits in a gray area that leaves the company open to complaints by the FCC and consumers.”

      Did you even read the article? They didn’t support it at all.

      Seems more like you’re fishing for upvotes while hoping people don’t read what Engadget actually wrote. The article is clearly supposed to be an objective explanation of what is going on, not an opinion piece.

  • As long as they are not giving preferred access to the bandwidth (ie: not giving the sponsored feeds higher speed), and as long as they don’t insert their own pop-up pages on the sites I visit – I really don’t have concerns about this.

    The article hints at companies who pay “jumping to the front of the list or front of the page to get their content seen by you first” – what list? what page? I visit so few Verizon controlled pages, I’m curious what theoretical list is being hinted at hear? Even if I did visit more Verizon managed pages, how would this be any different than Google placing advertiser’s results at the top of search results?

    • actually they can divert your eyes it isn’t hard to do. What the article is alluding to is that this is a road that we don’t want to go down because of the unintentional side effects. However, I saw this coming a long time ago (it was inevitable). What they haven’t talked about is now when you go to these sites you may start seeing even more ads to offset the cost of this model or even what you have been seeing with the likes of YouTube a premium service to eliminate the “ADS”.

  • and this is why the binge on program needed to get all the flack and attention it did.

  • This is much ado about nothing. It’s their network, their servers, their bandwidth. If they want to do this, they are free to do so.

    If you don’t like it, you are free to leave according to the terms and conditions you signed and find a better network that better suits your wants.

    • Except, when all providers start to do this, what provider do you go to that doesn’t filter the internet?

    • They won’t have a ‘network,server, bandwidth’ if no one pays for their service! Let’s not forget the customer in all this, k…

  • So I don’t really care what Verizon does, because if they screw me over I will just jump ship. But I would like to point out the hypocrisy the tone of this article from a site that makes it’s money by making me scroll past a ton of adds to get to the comment section or the next story saying that a company taking money for promoting services to it’s costumers for free is bad.

    Don’t really understand why you all are fans of net neutrality:

    Government regulation of weed = BAD
    Government regulation of internet = Good?!?!

    Tell me something that the government hasn’t screwed up royally, then tell me that this new found power they have is a good idea….

    • They aren’t actually saying that Government regulation of the internet is good. They are saying that all connections on the internet should be equal. Also, they are a site that only makes money off ads sold. This is nothing like what Verizon is doing. Verizon is telling companies that if the company pays for the data, they won’t charge it to the customer in the hopes that the customer will view the data. In effect, the Company is paying verizon in the hopes that the customer will then view whatever content there is, including whatever ads the company has. Droid-life is putting the ads on their website but isn’t paying anyone to have viewers come to their website to then view the ads.

  • Concept sounds similar to free hulu, Pandora radio, and even YouTube these days. Yes it’s bad for lay consumers and great for rich corporations. Our future at this rate will resemble something like the movie They Live… maybe aliens are replaced by greedy corps and even more greedy share holders therefore just anyone of us, or it could also be aliens have invaded us and we don’t even know. At least we have the smarts to detect when we are on the verge of being enslaved. Yet we appear to be quite powerless to stop it.

  • The issue I am seeing here is this: If all the big companies decide to pay Verizon’s ransom (yes I mean that literally) in order to get their content to their users, then Verizon has more reason not to ever offer an unlimited data plan. This is because Verizon can just say, well Netflix and Amazon and Spotify and google don’t count against your data, so why do you need unlimited data?? This is TERRIBLE. We need get away from our ISP’s being gate keepers. They MUST treat all data equally if the internet is to remain open. I left Verizon years ago because they are EVIL. And nothing will ever get me to go back. I will not support their vision of the future.

  • It is almost like Verizon saw all of the flack T-Mobile has gotten from Binge On and decided they were being left out for some sick reason.

      • They both are. One of them directly benefits the consumer, so we mostly decide to look the other way.

    • I’d take a look at Droid Life itself there. If you read the articles they wrote for Binge On there is a serious roar about it .. but for this it seems to be nothing more than a meow.

      Edit : The already received downvote should be telling enough.

  • Not agreeing with / defending verizon at all, just purely commenting on this comment:

    “You see, not everyone can pay for their product or news outlet or app to be seen because they aren’t a multi-billion company”

    Thats already the case. As a business owner I know full well (and DL as a blog should as well) that to be seen [on the web], you either have to spend a lot of money or time developing content…neither one is cheap or free.

    If you own a business and want to / need to acquire a large portion of your business on the web, you HAVE TO either spend significant time and/or money to do it – PERIOD.

    • I agree. Take a look at google search. It’s not purely coincidental that amazon shows up first on every product search. Pay to play is all over that internet but for some reason, the phone companies get the brunt of this criticism.

      • When searching for products to buy via Google, I have had several instances when other web-stores show up first before the amazon store does for products.

    • I am reading this incorrectly (or it’s not coming across to me as you intended it to). I think I may be too cynical. I am quite certain you didn’t actually mean to say:

      “If I want success, I have to actually spend time, effort, and money to make it happen…I can’t become successful on the cheap/for free.”

      But on the off chance you actually did mean it that way…

      Well, yeah. 😛

      • Yea, you missed it :-/ what I commented on suggested exactly what you apparently thought I was saying and criticized.

    • While this certainly holds true, this could tip the scales further. This creates an avenue in which big dollar companies can compete for favor, and Verizon (or any other adopter for that matter) would be more than happy to take their money. This would drive up the cost of marketing and potentially make online advertising out of reach for smaller companies.

      • Well sure, but I just don’t agree that this is a completely black / white issue. There’s a massive amount of grey area here. My main issue with net neutrality in general is turning it into a utility, because that’s worked out so well for gas/electric etc. I can’t see that as a positive thing for internet connectivity.

        “There has to be a better way”

  • This is wrong on so many levels. I’m not a fan of Binge On, but at least T-Mobile isn’t taking money from companies in order to give their customers free access to those services. Not only will this be bad for net neutrality, but again T-Mobile’s data-free services are easy to remember, like music and video streaming. Verizon’s plan will be scattered among the internet with customers not knowing what counts and what doesn’t, or looking for a stupid bee on content to know if it’s free.

  • Glad i left them. Anyone wanna buy my unlimited data line. Still has the upgrade from when they made that latest change.

  • i would be outraged at this, except it will be a disaster and fade into obscurity in no time. so why get riled up?

    • No need to yet, until Verizon doubles-down and actually grabs their crotch to say to the FCC “Paid content shows up faster!”

      • i felt the same until T-Mo bested them in my area and specifically where i currently live. Plus im unlimited everything, and saving $$ over what the VZW bill would of been even with my jobs discount.

Comments are closed.

Related Posts

back to top