Techdirt. Stories filed under "charges" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories filed under "charges"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:08:56 PST Verizon Charging You More, As Bandwidth Costs Them Less Timothy Geigner http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130123/12010721767/verizon-charging-you-more-as-bandwidth-costs-them-less.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130123/12010721767/verizon-charging-you-more-as-bandwidth-costs-them-less.shtml give up their pretend need for data caps due to the pretend costs of delivering service. The story they told essentially was that, without data caps, congestion would clog the interwebz tubes and that laying bigger tubes was way too costly. Perhaps noteably, this rarely resulted in actual hard caps on data, but rather provided a convenient excuse to charge more for more data service, regardless of the effect or cost of delivering that service.

Now Verizon's 4G LTE money-making machine is giving us a glimpse into exactly how profitable providing bandwidth is becoming as the cost for delivering service drops and prices to consumers go up.
Verizon (VZ) posted a pretty impressive holiday quarter (one-time charges aside) with a good outlook on Tuesday, and the company’s share price rose as a result. There were also plenty of interesting takeaways from the carrier’s earnings call, but The New York Times’ Brian X. Chen zeroed in on one item of particular interest. Verizon launched new “Share Everything” plans last summer that make smartphone data more expensive for many users. The best thing about these plans for investors — and, not coincidentally, the worst thing about the plans for subscribers — is that Verizon is now making more money off of smartphone data as costs associated with transmitted that data are falling.
It really doesn't get much simpler than that. The 4G LTE network is efficient to the point that delivering the service costs less than the 3G network, yet the price to consumers is going up. To be clear, the problem here isn't that Verizon is making money. Rather, the problem is that this comes from the same company that built a business model around low caps and high overage costs while also claiming that caps were the sign of a "competitive market." For those of you playing along at home, it's precisely because of a lack of competition that Verizon can at once have its costs drop while raising prices on its services. Were there more competition, someone new would compete on price or value of service. As it stands, Verizon can use their faster service and low caps to further the aforementioned business model.
As an added bonus, Chen noted that Verizon’s faster data networks also cause users to eat through their data allowances more quickly. This eventually prompts them to buy more expensive plans with higher data caps, which of course net Verizon even more cash.
As a Verizon customer myself, these kinds of signs that there isn't enough competition for my dollar are quite frustrating. On top of that, the model is specifically designed to provide a great service and then drop a bunch of obstacles in its path... it's maddening.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> caps-and-pap http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130123/12010721767 Tue, 18 Sep 2012 07:24:14 PDT US Government Ups Felony Count In JSTOR/Aaron Swartz Case From Four To Thirteen Tim Cushing http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/17393320412/us-government-ups-felony-count-jstoraaron-swartz-case-four-to-thirteen.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/17393320412/us-government-ups-felony-count-jstoraaron-swartz-case-four-to-thirteen.shtml Aaron Swartz case over the past year as the wheels of "justice" slowly grind their way to an eventual court date. Swartz, the executive director of Demand Progress, was charged with violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a catch-all designation for "computer activity the US government doesn't like."

Swartz had accessed MIT's computer network to download a large number of files from JSTOR, a non-profit that hosts academic journal articles. US prosecutors claimed he "stole" several thousand files, but considering MIT offered this access for free on campus (and the files being digital), it's pretty tough to square his massive downloading with any idea of "theft."

Not only that, but JSTOR was not the entity pressing charges. It had stopped the downloading and secured the "stolen" content, along with receiving assurances from Swartz that the files would not be distributed. Despite this, the feds felt compelled to arrest Swartz and charge him with four felony counts (one each for Wire Fraud, Computer Fraud, Theft of Information from a Computer and Recklessly Damaging a Computer). At this point, Swartz was looking at a possible 35-year sentence and over $1,000,000 in fines.

Whoever's pushing this case must really dislike Swartz and/or his activities. A "Superseding Indictment" (pdf) has been filed, raising the number of felony counts from four to thirteen. Seth Finkelstein at Infothought has a brief rundown of the new charges (h/t to Nate Hoffelder for the link):

There are now 13 felony counts in the new indictment, derived from claims of multiple instances of breaking those four laws. In specific:
Wire Fraud - 2 counts
Computer Fraud - 5 counts
Unlawfully Obtaining Information from a Protected Computer - 5 counts
Recklessly Damaging a Protected Computer - 1 count

It's beyond my pay grade to figure out how many years in prison that all could be, when taking into account the complexities of sentencing law. Let's leave it at a large scary number. Enough to ruin someone's life.
The new filing basically realleges all the original charges but ups the felony count by providing specific dates for each action, turning each marked date into its own felony charge. The allegations refer to Swartz's "repeated" actions as spanning several months, but the feds have pulled some arbitrary dates into the mix to add years and dollars onto his possible sentence. And, again, we have to ask: for what?

JSTOR only showed up because it was subpoenaed and if anyone's the "victim" here, it would be JSTOR. MIT has remained silent on the whole issue. So, either someone's got a deeper interest in this case than they're willing to admit publicly, or the feds found someone with enough "hacking" activity under their belt that they feel comfortable turning the defendant into an "example." Or perhaps this is a belated payback for his thorough gaming of the PACER system during a "free trial" period, something the feds briefly investigated him for back in 2009. It went nowhere as the documents involved were public records, but it had to gall them a bit that he managed to download nearly 20 million pages of text, about 20% of the entire database, before being stopped. (The government likes to collect 8 cents a page for PACER documents, meaning Swartz's stunt "cost" it nearly $1.6 million, assuming you have no idea how to properly measure "costs.")

So, how do the new charges stack up in terms of a sentence? Tough to say. Each of the charges carries the possibility of a fine and imprisonment of up to 10-20 years per felony. Depending on how many of the counts Swartz is found guilty of, the sentence could conceivably total 50+ years and fine in the area of $4 million. All this over publicly accessed research documents that JSTOR doesn't even feel the need to pursue further than it did.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> trumped-up-kicks http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120917/17393320412 Wed, 18 Jul 2012 05:11:48 PDT AT&T May Try To Charge FaceTime Users, Raising Net Neutrality Questions Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120717/15395619734/att-may-try-to-charge-facetime-users-raising-net-neutrality-questions.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120717/15395619734/att-may-try-to-charge-facetime-users-raising-net-neutrality-questions.shtml planning to charge extra to use FaceTime over cellular. This came out when testing iOS6 and receiving a popup requiring "activation." Here's the screenshot of what 9to5 saw:
This does not absolutely mean that they're going to charge. Currently, FaceTime only works over WiFi, but iOS6 is set to enable it for cellular. It's possible that this popup is just because iOS6 is still in beta, and it's just a generic message for a service that is not yet available. But it's at least raising concerns about the intentions of AT&T, with groups like Free Press already warning that this would violate existing (if contested) FCC rules on net neutrality (which, it should be noted are very, very limited when it comes to mobile services). To be honest, I'm not sure why AT&T would actually go down this path. It's already trying to cap and/or meter mobile bandwidth, so it already has a natural restriction on usage. Furthermore, since the iPhone is now widely available on other platforms, charging extra for FaceTime seems like a perfect strategy for driving iPhone users to other mobile operators.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> or,-time-to-find-another-carrier http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120717/15395619734 Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:40:00 PDT Visa Accidentally Charges People $23 Quadrillion Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090715/1931395560.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090715/1931395560.shtml debit of $23,148,855,308,184,500.00 on her debit card for a purchase at the local drug store. That's $23 quadrillion -- or 2,000 times the national debt. CNN is now reporting that a bunch of folks were hit with this charge (the identical number). Most are also dealing with insufficient funds charges. Visa, not surprisingly, is apologetic, promising to sort things out and agreeing to get rid of any excess charges due to this. However, it does make you wonder... shouldn't Visa's debit cards have some sort of "reality check" included?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> yes,-that's-a-real-number http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090715/1931395560