Verizon's Last Tiny Shred Of Credibility On Net Neutrality Just Died
from the can-you-actually-hear-yourself? dept
You'll of course recall that the FCC's original 2010 net neutrality rules didn't do much of anything and exempted wireless networks completely, in large part because they were written by Verizon and Google. As such, companies like AT&T and Comcast actually really liked the rules, because, from their perspective, they effectively "settled the conversation," but in the process didn't even cover the biggest emerging technology in the history of the Internet (wireless), and generally allowed all manner of shenanigans provided ISPs were just clever enough with the presentation (or blamed the network congestion bogeyman).But Verizon couldn't help itself and sued the FCC anyway, much to the chagrin of AT&T and Comcast. Verizon had hoped to strike a killing blow to FCC authority for years to come, but instead is almost single-handedly responsible for the agency's emboldened decision to now go the Title II route. Not just for its lawsuit, but thanks to a long history of anti-competitive Verizon behavior (remember their attempts to block GPS? Bluetooth? Tethering? Google Wallet?) repeatedly highlighting that the Internet and consumers really do need some form of codified protection from big red's relentless but clumsy ambition.
So it's more than a little amusing to see Verizon pout over at the company's policy blog about the FCC's decision to pursue tougher Title II-based rules when it's largely thanks to Verizon's actions:
"Heavily regulating the Internet for the first time is unnecessary and counterproductive. It is unnecessary because all participants in the Internet ecosystem support an open Internet, and the FCC can address any harmful behavior without taking this radical step."Except the FCC tried to do that, and Verizon responded by suing them. Like AT&T and Comcast, Verizon makes it clear it would really prefer it if the public supported the net neutrality rules being proposed by Senator John Thune and Representative Fred Upton, in large part because the broadband industry wrote them to ensure they don't do anything useful. Verizon hopes you'll believe it when the company says it really just want to settle the issue "once and for all":
"Moreover, Congress is working on legislation that would codify open Internet rules once and for all. It is counterproductive because heavy regulation of the Internet will create uncertainty and chill investment among the many players -- not just Internet service providers -- that now will need to consider FCC rules before launching new services."So basically Verizon sued to overturn weak neutrality rules that most on the ISP side of the aisle were happy with. Now Verizon really wants everybody to support the same kind of flimsy rules it originally sued to destroy, or the company will sue. Verizon's position on the issue has veered well past good humor and into a sort of painful surrealism.
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
Filed Under: fcc, net neutrality, open internet
Companies: verizon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Dear Verizon
> is unnecessary and counterproductive.
Heavily regulating the Internet for the first time
would be unnecessary if you were doing your job.
Your Job: to route packets closer to their destination.
Not Your Job: inspecting them, 'prioritizing' them, mis-routing them, playing games with DNS, being the copyright cops for a private industry that has it's head so far . . . well, let's just say it's not your job to do anything but route packets.
As for your lawsuit. Boo Hoo. You brought all of this on yourself.
Sincerely,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dear Verizon
The only reason they should be able to differentiate themselves from other isps should be the speed they sell and the price and the lack of caps for those poor soles that have them.
There is no reason they should be allowed to sell their services on top of internet connectivity unless people want to buy them, If i want a clean 1gb connection to browse then i should be able to get it.
I don't want to have to purchase phone connections and tv channels and other services they force onto consumers.
hopefully this solves that but i am suspicious, this has been too easy and their are too many loopholes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So it's not really a surprise or surreal. It's more of the same. They are fighting for what will benefit them the most and now the riskiest card (lawsuits) may be the only way to *TRY* to get a better scenario.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You sued over already pathetic regulations and now its coming back to bite you in the ass. Title II is closer than ever and its well past time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now, he gets to play D-grade hardball. And AT&T, Comcrap et al are pissed at Verizon for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the title, you say that their 'last tiny shred of credibility' died. How does something that never existed in the first place die? It's like losing something you never had, you just can't do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If verizon doesn't like the FCC they will close them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If verizon doesn't like the FCC they will close them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If verizon doesn't like the FCC they will close them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And that's why we're completely against any sort of rules that try to enforce an open Internet!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bah...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WDJ Editorial
I stopped reading it about half way through. Yes, they have a good point, that government rules always add friction. And in an ideal world, we would not have them.
But the rest of the editorial was the same old BS. It works perfect now! Why are we breaking it then? No company would dare piss off if its customers by implementing discrimination (despite all evidence to the contrary).
Man that letter ticked me off. I guess when Verizon buys full page ads in your paper, they get to write the editorials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WDJ Editorial
That's right, but when that friction is making it harder for companies to abuse the public, then it's a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WDJ Editorial
If we allowed real, open competition in the provision of telecoms, Verizon would never have been able to get away with this bullshit - their customers would have walked away.
But we let VZ and their cronies write the rules to keep out competitors. So now when they abuse their quasi-monopoly we write more rules telling them not to do that.
I have a feeling this is going to end badly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WDJ Editorial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WDJ Editorial
Isn't the WSJ generally pro-big business? I don't read it but my impression is they don't need outside help to promote those interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WDJ Editorial
They must be: their website is paywalled!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WDJ Editorial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WDJ Editorial
In an ideal world big corporations also don't use their financial power to kill competition and screw their customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verizon is really trying here...
I'd probably save a lot of money by ditching cable, too- it's mostly used for my wife to watch QVC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Verizon is really trying here...
Sprint would actually be a good option for wireless broadband, if you're in a location where you can get a strong signal.
I have a feeling though that you're likely moving from one duopoly to another. Plus, wireless is great for streaming but not so great for ping times. If you're planning to do anything real-time over the internet, wired is still king.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Verizon is really trying here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Verizon is really trying here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Verizon is really trying here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Heavily regulating the internet"
The ISPs are NOT THE FUCKING INTERNET!!!
This regulation should actually make sure that ISPs themselves can't regulate the internet as they see fit :-/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not sure who that "chilling investment" line is aimed at, since not even Verizon actually believes it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder what their threshold for "harmful behavior" is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Masses Have Unconstrained Power
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Credibility killed the Cat
I really had no idea that Verizon had one Last Tiny Shred Of Credibility On Net Neutrality, left.
I actually thought that Verizon believed that honesty and integrity were undesirable things that were both unprofitable and counter-productive and thus not a part of their corporate structure at all.
Has anyone actually seen this "last tiny shred", cuz I think if it exists, its actually just a dead cat they dressed up to look like a bit of Credibility.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]