Verizon to offer YouTube on cell phones

YouTube, the leading online video sharing site which was bought by
Internet search leader Google Inc. this month, said it hopes to expand
beyond computers to phones
Verizon Wireless said that it would deliver selected video clips from
YouTube to cell phones starting in December in a bid to increase
subscriptions to its mobile media service
http://www.latest-technology-tools.blogspot.com

Is this such a big deal? I have been doing this for a month with Kinoma
Player and my Treo700p.


"Stella" <rajeshsharma7778@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165153979.872914.300560@73g2000cwn.googlegro ups.com...
> YouTube, the leading online video sharing site which was bought by
> Internet search leader Google Inc. this month, said it hopes to expand
> beyond computers to phones
> Verizon Wireless said that it would deliver selected video clips from
> YouTube to cell phones starting in December in a bid to increase
> subscriptions to its mobile media service
> http://www.latest-technology-tools.blogspot.com
>

The difference is that when you surf to YouTube on your own, it's against
Verizon TOS and could lead to termination of your contract. But presumably
when Verizon provides the same content for you from within their "walled
garden" it's not.

"Verizon User" <anonymous@anon.com> wrote in message
news:R2Dch.252$Qa7.96@trnddc03...
> Is this such a big deal? I have been doing this for a month with Kinoma
> Player and my Treo700p.
>
>
> "Stella" <rajeshsharma7778@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1165153979.872914.300560@73g2000cwn.googlegro ups.com...
>> YouTube, the leading online video sharing site which was bought by
>> Internet search leader Google Inc. this month, said it hopes to expand
>> beyond computers to phones
>> Verizon Wireless said that it would deliver selected video clips from
>> YouTube to cell phones starting in December in a bid to increase
>> subscriptions to its mobile media service
>> http://www.latest-technology-tools.blogspot.com
>>
>
>

Bill Marriott wrote:
> The difference is that when you surf to YouTube on your own, it's against
> Verizon TOS and could lead to termination of your contract. But presumably
> when Verizon provides the same content for you from within their "walled
> garden" it's not.

That's it all right. Interesting that I've been doing it under Sprint
service for the same length of time without that problem.
g

"g" <wh@t.me.worry> wrote in message
news:45731178$0$34501$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Bill Marriott wrote:
>> The difference is that when you surf to YouTube on your own, it's against
>> Verizon TOS and could lead to termination of your contract. But
>> presumably when Verizon provides the same content for you from within
>> their "walled garden" it's not.
>
> That's it all right. Interesting that I've been doing it under Sprint
> service for the same length of time without that problem.

Thats because verizon's data service is toy access. Currently, only Sprint
offers a enterprise grade high speed data network.

Todd W.

"Todd W" <trwww@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:g4Fch.15634$qO4.13231@newssvr13.news.prodigy. net...
>
> Thats because verizon's data service is toy access. Currently, only Sprint
> offers a enterprise grade high speed data network.

Yea but VZW has better customer service, and everyone knows that is all that
matters. <d&r>


--
Mike

At 03 Dec 2006 18:55:08 +0000 Todd W wrote:
>

> > That's it all right. Interesting that I've been doing it under Sprint
> > service for the same length of time without that problem.
>
> Thats because verizon's data service is toy access. Currently, only
Sprint
> offers a enterprise grade high speed data network.

But, arguably, Sprint isn't planning well for the future. How does that
"enterprise grade" network stay useful for enterprise users if Sprint
lets every teenager with a cellphone stream video on a $15/month Vision
plan? It's hard to take something away from customers once they're used
to it.

Verizon, by rigidly defining prohibited uses now (regardless of whether
or not they enforce them yet), protects themselves from their data
network slowing down as more sophisticated users pile on with PDA phones,
VoIP phones, etc. in the future.

Keep in mind that currently relatively few mobile phone users take
advantage of mobile data, but those numbers will only go up, and someday
there may not be enough bandwidth for a bunch of low-dollar/high-speed
users, without impacting your high-dollar PC-card-using enterprise
customers.

(Or maybe Sprint figures they'll have moved the enterprise customers to
WiMax before it's a problem...)

I'm not taking sides, BTW, and I use neither Verizon nor Sprint- I'm just
playing devil's advocate.

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:ekv9b0$qfh$1@aioe.org...
> At 03 Dec 2006 18:55:08 +0000 Todd W wrote:
>>
>
>> > That's it all right. Interesting that I've been doing it under Sprint
>> > service for the same length of time without that problem.
>>
>> Thats because verizon's data service is toy access. Currently, only
> Sprint
>> offers a enterprise grade high speed data network.
>
> But, arguably, Sprint isn't planning well for the future.

You know Sprint's internal road map?

I for one am concerned with what I can do right now.

People said, 10 years ago, that the Internet could not support widespread
broadband (or even unlimited dialup). They were wrong.


>
> Verizon, by rigidly defining prohibited uses now (regardless of whether
> or not they enforce them yet), protects themselves from their data
> network slowing down as more sophisticated users pile on with PDA phones,
> VoIP phones, etc. in the future.
>

If that's their intention, and I doubt it is, they are crazy. The bandwidth
they would be "conserving" for tomorrow cannot be saved. If it's not used
today it's gone.


--
Mike

Todd Allcock wrote:

> How does that
> "enterprise grade" network stay useful ...
>
> Verizon, by rigidly defining prohibited uses now (regardless of whether
> or not they enforce them yet), protects themselves from their data
> network slowing down as more sophisticated users pile on with PDA phones,
> VoIP phones, etc. in the future.
>
> Keep in mind that currently relatively few mobile phone users take
> advantage of mobile data, but those numbers will only go up,

> (Or maybe Sprint figures they'll have moved the enterprise customers to
> WiMax before it's a problem...)
>
> I'm not taking sides, BTW, and I use neither Verizon nor Sprint- I'm just
> playing devil's advocate.

You ask an excellent and, to me, interesting question. The crux of this
is "how will the present, inadequate infrastructure be changed to allow
for true 3G and 4G?". In the short term, one vendor may allow it and the
other not but the situation can't continue as users and datarates
increase.
Whether one views it as a 'coverage' or a 'capacity' problem, the
bottom line is as the (user*bandwidth) product goes up (as it does when
we all move to full 3G and beyond), "What will the carriers do?" One
user hogging all of an EVDO carrier for broadband uses the same
resources as 60 users did for 1xRTT voice.

Notice that this is not about protocols (GSM, TDMA, CDMA etc) but about
what a user can do with a battery and antenna limited handheld device
within a given infrastructure. It's a worldwide problem.
The solution requires cell sizes to get smaller (and antennas lower)
and that requires a big change.

g

At 03 Dec 2006 13:30:35 -0700 Tinman wrote:

> > But, arguably, Sprint isn't planning well for the future.
>
> You know Sprint's internal road map?

No, I don't, hence the word "arguably..."

> I for one am concerned with what I can do right now.

Which is fine- I'm not suggesting you switch to Verizon- I only made the
argument that Verizon is laying down the law now, so when and if there's
a problem in the future they can enforce the agreement as signed. If
Sprint, in a year or two brings out a new more restrictive agreement
they'll either have to grandfather in old "abusers," or torque people off
who signed up under a different expectation.

> People said, 10 years ago, that the Internet could not support
> widespread
> broadband (or even unlimited dialup). They were wrong.

Yet my broadband DSL provider has made me agree to a lengthy list of
things I'm not allowed to do, including host a server (even for personal
use.) Do I expect them to cancel my service if I host a few files for
access when I'm on the road? Of course not, but it gives them something
to justify cancelling me if I, in their opinion, exceed the limits of my
"unlimited" service!

> > Verizon, by rigidly defining prohibited uses now (regardless of
> > whether
> > or not they enforce them yet), protects themselves from their data
> > network slowing down as more sophisticated users pile on with PDA
> > phones,
> > VoIP phones, etc. in the future.
> >
>
> If that's their intention, and I doubt it is, they are crazy. The
> bandwidth
> they would be "conserving" for tomorrow cannot be saved.
> If it's not used today it's gone.

I'm not suggesting their saving bandwidth for the future- I'm suggesting
that if, in a year, use of mobile video, mobile Skype, or mobile
"something-we-haven't-thought-of-yet" explodes, and there isn't enough
bandwidth to keep the $80/month corporate PC-card users happy, Verizon
has already covered their a**, and Sprint hasn't.

I'm not suggesting either method is the correct one- as businesses often
say, having too many customers is a problem they'd love to have, so maybe
(over)loading the network is the way to go- those $15 data customers
can't complain too much about future congestion considering what they're
paying, and Verizon many lose so many potential customers with their
terms (and prices) that bandwidth will never be a problem!

I just find the contrast in styles interesting, that's all. Personally
I'm with T-Mobile and pay $5 for unlimited (albeit slow) EDGE data with
very loose terms- T-Mo essentially lets you do anything you are able to,
and instead blocks certain types of usage technologically rather than
through a terms of service agreement (i.e. blocks ports, limits download
sizes, etc.)

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:el0d88$brk$5@aioe.org...
> At 03 Dec 2006 13:30:35 -0700 Tinman wrote:
>> I for one am concerned with what I can do right now.
>
> Which is fine- I'm not suggesting you switch to Verizon- I only made the
> argument that Verizon is laying down the law now, so when and if there's
> a problem in the future they can enforce the agreement as signed. If
> Sprint, in a year or two brings out a new more restrictive agreement
> they'll either have to grandfather in old "abusers," or torque people off
> who signed up under a different expectation.

Since most test results are in Sprint's favor, I don't know why you would be
concerned about them running into data issues (compared to Verizon). And IMO
their performance right now gives them a head start when it comes to
implementing new technologies in the future.

This is assuming the demand for data (and associated revenue) does indeed
increase tremendously. So far it hasn't been the gravy train the carriers
had hoped for.


>
>> People said, 10 years ago, that the Internet could not support
>> widespread
>> broadband (or even unlimited dialup). They were wrong.
>
> Yet my broadband DSL provider has made me agree to a lengthy list of
> things I'm not allowed to do, including host a server (even for personal
> use.) Do I expect them to cancel my service if I host a few files for
> access when I'm on the road? Of course not, but it gives them something
> to justify cancelling me if I, in their opinion, exceed the limits of my
> "unlimited" service!
>

You and millions of other people--included me--are using broadband daily.
Critics said the Net could not support it. Yes, wireless is a bit different.
But if the demand is there for it, it will happen. Lots of technologies out
there that haven't even been implemented yet.


>>
>> If that's their intention, and I doubt it is, they are crazy. The
>> bandwidth
>> they would be "conserving" for tomorrow cannot be saved.
>> If it's not used today it's gone.
>
> I'm not suggesting their saving bandwidth for the future- I'm suggesting
> that if, in a year, use of mobile video, mobile Skype, or mobile
> "something-we-haven't-thought-of-yet" explodes, and there isn't enough
> bandwidth to keep the $80/month corporate PC-card users happy, Verizon
> has already covered their a**, and Sprint hasn't.

You are basically saying if something big comes around, Verizon ain't gonna
be in on it due to their precious business users? Guess I don't see that as
a good thing.


--
Mike



>
> I'm not suggesting either method is the correct one- as businesses often
> say, having too many customers is a problem they'd love to have, so maybe
> (over)loading the network is the way to go- those $15 data customers
> can't complain too much about future congestion considering what they're
> paying, and Verizon many lose so many potential customers with their
> terms (and prices) that bandwidth will never be a problem!
>
> I just find the contrast in styles interesting, that's all. Personally
> I'm with T-Mobile and pay $5 for unlimited (albeit slow) EDGE data with
> very loose terms- T-Mo essentially lets you do anything you are able to,
> and instead blocks certain types of usage technologically rather than
> through a terms of service agreement (i.e. blocks ports, limits download
> sizes, etc.)
>
>

At 04 Dec 2006 00:23:58 -0700 Tinman wrote:

> Since most test results are in Sprint's favor, I don't know why you
> would be
> concerned about them running into data issues (compared to Verizon).
> And IMO
> their performance right now gives them a head start when it comes to
> implementing new technologies in the future.

Perhaps- as I said, I use neither. I was just hypothesising why Verizon
would couple the highest data prices with the most restrictive tems in a
competitive marketplace!


> This is assuming the demand for data (and associated revenue) does
> indeed
> increase tremendously. So far it hasn't been the gravy train the
> carriers
> had hoped for.


Agreed. I'm a nerd, so I've played with mobile data ever since I was
connecting a Palm-Sized PC (the WinCE predecessors to Pocket PCs) to a
data interface on an old analog cellphone at 4800bps!

On the other hand, my wife, who could sit in front of a PC for hours on
end, won't even look up the weather on a mobile because of the small
screen, and akward UI. I'm not sure there could be a "killer app" to
make her use mobile data regularly.

> You are basically saying if something big comes around, Verizon ain't
> gonna
> be in on it due to their precious business users? Guess I don't see
> that as
> a good thing.

I'm not saying Verizon wouldn't be in it, I'm suggesting they won't allow
a bunch of $10-20 data customers "ruin it" for the $80 customers.

Personally, if I was in the market for EVDO, I'd take Sprint over Verizon.

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:el1kul$439$2@aioe.org...
> At 04 Dec 2006 00:23:58 -0700 Tinman wrote:
>> This is assuming the demand for data (and associated revenue) does
>> indeed
>> increase tremendously. So far it hasn't been the gravy train the
>> carriers
>> had hoped for.
>
>
> Agreed. I'm a nerd, so I've played with mobile data ever since I was
> connecting a Palm-Sized PC (the WinCE predecessors to Pocket PCs) to a
> data interface on an old analog cellphone at 4800bps!
>
> On the other hand, my wife, who could sit in front of a PC for hours on
> end, won't even look up the weather on a mobile because of the small
> screen, and akward UI. I'm not sure there could be a "killer app" to
> make her use mobile data regularly.

Yep, and I suspect she is more like average users than you (or me, for that
matter). I know people who, after seeing the charge on their bill,
immediately had data removed from their plans. And this was only at $10-$15
per month--before even getting into the "unlimited is not really unlimited"
nonsense.


--
Mike

Todd Allcock wrote:

> On the other hand, my wife, who could sit in front of a PC for hours on
> end, won't even look up the weather on a mobile because of the small
> screen, and akward UI. I'm not sure there could be a "killer app" to
> make her use mobile data regularly.

Agreed that the darn things are too small (for my eyes and thumbs
anyway). However, I'm wondering if your wife has had occasion to see/use
any mobile search apps. I'm finding that I'm using even basic ones like
Google (standing in the aisle of the hardware store trying to decide
about something or other), Google Maps and GPS+Street Atlas a LOT... in
spite of the silly little screen.

Maybe new cars fill this need but I can't afford one at the moment to
see (:>)

I also find it awfully convenient to check my mail while on-the-go.

I think the novelty apps (YouTube?) will probably wane for me and I'm
not about to develop a large software project on one but have to admit
that I'm getting awfully accustomed to my smartphone/PDA.

g

"g" <wh@t.me.worry> wrote in message
news:45733645$0$34531$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Whether one views it as a 'coverage' or a 'capacity' problem, the bottom
> line is as the (user*bandwidth) product goes up (as it does when we all move
> to full 3G and beyond), "What will the carriers do?"

The same thing the broadband Internet service provides do... expand their
infrastructure to keep up and, in areas where that can't happen fast enough or
doesn't make economic sense to do so, simply make everyone slower... and
perhaps start selling business plans with guarantee bandwidth.

Just like most residential cable modem & DSL plans, none of the mobile data
carriers *guarantees* any particular data rate. However, also like the cable
& DSL guys, *on average* something like EVDO really is going to be "fast
enough" for the uses envisioned. For those who require guaranteed bandwidth,
I fully expect the carriers will offer it for a premium price, just as
Internet service providers due to businesses (or really well-heeled
individuals).

Note that over time the price of cell phone voice call on a "per minute" basis
and that of a data call on a "per bit" basis has gotten cheaper and cheaper:
This directly reflects advances in technology and economies of scale, and
industry forecasts are generally that this will continue to happen.

> The solution requires cell sizes to get smaller (and antennas lower) and
> that requires a big change.

That's one solution, there are many others: More spectrum (a lot of people are
salivating at the thought of getting a chunk of the old UHF TV broadcast
spectrum -- there's a huge amount there, and these days you can make a good
argument that its present utilization is poor), simply adding more sectors to
present antennas, "smart" (electrically reconfigurable) antennas (very close
to being commercially implemented), perhaps higher power transmissions if
battery life and safety concerns can be addressed, etc. There are literally
thousands of people working on expanding mobile data capacity every day, and
plenty of them are quite bright.