Verizon: Pay Attention To What We Do, Not What We Say
from the hypothetical,-huh? dept
The network neutrality issue continues to get a lot of attention, with both sides talking around the issue rather than addressing the real issue (the lack of competition). The latest is that a VP from Verizon is claiming that the idea that Verizon would discriminate with its service is entirely hypothetical. That's true... except for the fact that just a few months ago this guy's boss made it clear that he wanted Google to pay Verizon for using its pipes. So, while it's true that Verizon might not be discriminating right now, the company has publicly made it clear that it would like to. To then say it's "hypotethetical" seems a bit misleading. That's not to say net neutrality legislation would help the situation, but for the telcos to be claiming that there's no problem at all is to ignore all the public statements the telco execs made over the last few months.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Heh
The net should be neutral.
Nuff said!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Heh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paying for pipes...
This is the typical mindset of companies today: Hey Company A has a boatload of money. There MUST be some way we can get some of it by doing absolutely nothing...
What ever happened to providing good service and keeping your customers happy? Is being the leading cell phone provider for the US not good enough? If you aren't making enough money, apparently it's time to find a new market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paying for pipes...
Yes but why does everyone think that is the end all-be all of this argument?
Our tax dollars paid for our roads but as more people use them and costs to operate them and improve them go up so do our tolls. Why is this any different. The internet pipes that many people today think of as a god-given right of everyone cost the telco companies BILLIONS to build most of which is being financed. BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR since if they allow Google and others to use them at no cost than the operators will raise their cost to cover their expenses. Back to my Road analogy, the alternative option is saying that the larger trucks cause more damage, drive more miles, etc... and they should be required to pick up the extra fees. Those trucks are Google, et al who seek to monetize the application based services without properly paying for the network based service it sits on.
Bash away if you will but too many of you think that this stuff will have no additional costs as these more advanced services roll out.
One more thing is this is no different whatsoever than SLA agreements that have been in place for years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Paying for pipes...
In addition wouldn't paying for tolls equate to the customer paying for the service, no the McDonalds that is on the exit ramp?
Just a question, it's early for me I am still asleep, so this might be a difficult train of thought to follow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Paying for pipes...
GOM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Paying for pipes...
- Yes it is being financed, by the customers who use it.
"...if they allow Google and others to use them at no cost."
- Where is the rock your living under so I can find it and kick it off of you? Let's follow the money trail....
GOOGLE buys bandwidth from CARRIER A.
CARRIER A buys bandwidth from CARRIER B to accomodate.
CARRIER B buys bandwidth from CARRIER C to accomodate.
CARRIER D buys bandwidth from CARRIER D to accomodate.
CARRIER D sells you bandwidth as well.
You browse to GOOGLE...everyone along your path to GOOGLE is paying for the bandwidth.
What Verizon (heck all of them) is saying is: "I'm CARRIER B and I'm not going to route your traffic as quickly to CARRIER A, even though the bandwidth is there, unless you pay us EXTRA." In most dictonaries that is called Extortion.
"...this is no different whatsoever than SLA agreements"
- I work with SLA agrrements and those determine how much bandwidth, in my example above, CARRIER D is willing to provide me out the other side to CARRIE C. I do not have an SLA with CARRIER C. CARRIER D willl buy more bandwidth from CARRIER C to accomdate selling me an SLA.
Any of this sinking in.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
charges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a scam!
So, Verizon is just wanting to be paid to do something the probably couldn't do. It would actually cost Verzon (or any other Telco) a bunch of money to set up Internet QoS, so that doesn't make sense. They aren't going to implement a "feature" that will anger users and especially cost themselves money.
Just threaten and hope someone pays up, as a source of free money, and hope no one looks behind the curtain to see the real wizard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
new game
but instead its GREEDY GREEDY CEOS!!
they grab and grab and grab for as much cash as possible ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
better customer service
I do not like Verizon because of how I was treated as a customer of them when I had their cell phone service while living out west. I just moved to the east coast and they are the local service provider for home phone service here. I went out of my way to not use Verizon for my local phone service. (I have VOIP from the cable company)
If they would just have a little more customer service to keep their customers happy, they would not need to resort to extortion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For Rizzle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]