Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Networking Verizon Wireless Networking

Verizon Announces Pay-Per-Use 'Turbo Boost' For Smartphones 129

Posted by timothy
from the insert-coin-insert-coin-insert-coin dept.
renek writes "In one of the most brazen attacks on net neutrality to date, Verizon has announced it will offer a so called 'Turbo Boost' for smart phones that run on its wireless network. 'Verizon will publish an API that could allow consumers to 'turbocharge' the network bandwidth their smartphone apps use for a small fee, executives said Tuesday. Verizon anticipates that a customer running an app on a smartphone will have the option to dynamically snatch more bandwidth for that app, if network congestion slows it down, said Hugh Fletcher, associate director for technology in Verizon's Product Development and Technology team. The app, however, must be running what Verizon referred to as the network optimization API it is currently developing, and hopes to publish by the third quarter of 2012.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Verizon Announces Pay-Per-Use 'Turbo Boost' For Smartphones

Comments Filter:
  • If... (Score:4, Informative)

    by msauve (701917) on Friday November 04, 2011 @10:28PM (#37954674)
    this is simply local cache (like Akamai), which is what it sounds like, it's a service, not a violation of net neutrality.
  • Re:If... (Score:2, Informative)

    by icebraining (1313345) on Friday November 04, 2011 @11:04PM (#37954858) Homepage

    It favors those who pay more. That's the whole problem that net neutrality is against.

    Essentially, it promotes monopolies by ensuring that big, established companies can degrade the (relative) quality of competing services by smaller companies, who can't afford to pay for the privilege.

  • Re:If... (Score:5, Informative)

    by msauve (701917) on Friday November 04, 2011 @11:19PM (#37954966)
    "It favors those who pay more. That's the whole problem that net neutrality is against."

    Huh? You don't pay your ISP more for more bandwidth today? It's not reasonable/acceptable for an ISP to charge on that basis?

    If anything, this seems like a good thing, since it's granular, and pay-as-you-go -- instead of simply paying for monthly bandwidth you may or may not take advantage of, simply buy a minimal level of bandwidth, and pay more as needed.

    Finally, you're wrong. Net neutrality is all about preventing service providers from charging unfavorable rates for access based on the service (especially competitive services, e.g. charging more for Netflix bandwidth than for a cable Internet provider's own IPTV offerings). There's nothing to indicate that is the case in this instance, that they would charge less for increased B/W to their own services than other ones.

If a 6600 used paper tape instead of core memory, it would use up tape at about 30 miles/second. -- Grishman, Assembly Language Programming