Verizon's Last Tiny Shred Of Credibility On Net Neutrality Just Died

from the can-you-actually-hear-yourself? dept

Thu, Feb 5th 2015 6:02am — Karl Bode

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

33 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

DannyB (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 6:14am

Dear Verizon
> Heavily regulating the Internet for the first time
> 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 thread ]
Ninja (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 6:15am

Self awareness has no place in this battle Karl. They plaid a risky card back them to make the FCC go for good and lost pretty big. I'm sure they could go with the rules proposed but they wanted less regulation and free pass with the FCC out of the way to screw customers and milk those with no choice dry of their money.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 6:31am

Verizon wants it's cake and ice cream too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 6:40am

Hey Verizon: Careful what you wish for...

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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 6:42am

I'm confused.

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 thread ]
Reality bites, 5 Feb 2015 @ 6:44am

If verizon doesn't like the FCC they will close them.
Corporations always get their way and your money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 6:49am

"all participants in the Internet ecosystem support an open Internet"
And that's why we're completely against any sort of rules that try to enforce an open Internet!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 6:51am

It's amazing how their behavior is not unlike a spoiled child's behavior who suddenly ran face first into a parent that realized the error of their ways and has decided to put their foot down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 7:16am

Bah...
No matter who 'wins' this, the lawyers get richer...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
yankinwaoz (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 7:19am

WDJ Editorial
In today's Wall Streek Journal editorial page, top letter from the WSJ was bitching about this move by the FCC and how terrible it was for the American way of business.

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 thread ]
Oblate (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 7:22am

Verizon is really trying here...
It seems like Verizon is trying to make me actually want to switch to Comcast (those being the two pathetic choices we have for internet/cable here). Seeing stuff like this actually makes me want to ditch cable and wired internet and go all wireless (i.e. no business with Verizon, but with another somewhat-less-evil corporation).

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 7:23am

Re: If verizon doesn't like the FCC they will close them.
who is they, and who is them
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 7:26am

Re: WDJ Editorial
"Yes, they have a good point, that government rules always add friction."

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 thread ]
nasch (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 7:26am

Re: WDJ Editorial
I guess when Verizon buys full page ads in your paper, they get to write the editorials.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 7:45am

Re:
Yup. Wheeler played nice and Verizon, in its greed, sued, stopping Wheeler from taking an easy-loophole step.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 7:46am

Re: Re: WDJ Editorial
Isn't the WSJ generally pro-big business?

They must be: their website is paywalled!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 8:38am

Re: WDJ Editorial
Yes, they have a good point, that government rules always add friction. And in an ideal world, we would not have them.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 9:45am

Re: Verizon is really trying here...
Out of curiosity, who are your options for wireless? I presume it's more than just re-branded Verizon and AT&T offerings? Sprint or T-Mobile maybe?

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 thread ]
retrogamer (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 9:49am

Re: Re: Verizon is really trying here...
Just adding to that, I find this whole situation hilarious as an American who has NO options for wireless. I have one wired option for anything that is not telephone, that being Time Warner.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 9:58am

Re: Verizon is really trying here...
In my opinion, wireless broadband remains something that really isn't quite there yet. It's substantially worse than wired, but better than satellite (it mostly shares the same problems as satellite, but to a lesser degree.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 9:58am

So Verizons argument is that they can't compete in the market if they have to treat their customers data fairly. Then they should die, fail, go away and let the corporate raiders distribute their parts far and wide.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oblate (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 10:08am

Re: Re: Verizon is really trying here...
We actually do have Sprint for wireless, and although we're about a mile from a 4G tower according to their coverage map, we only get spotty 4G and decent 3G service at home. The other carriers probably use the same tower, so switching probably wouldn't provide any benefit. As much as I hate to admit it, Fios works well even if it is overpriced. And the cable company tombstone near our house is almost continuously left open exposing the interior to the elements, which probably doesn't have any positive effect on reliability. There's really no other good choice for now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
OldMugwump (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 10:13am

Re: Re: WDJ Editorial
And yet again we introduce new rules and regulations to ease the symptoms instead of addressing the disease.

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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 10:37am

Re: Re: Re: WDJ Editorial
Yes indeed. I think we would all prefer an actual competition in this space (well, all of us who aren't the telecoms), but the odds of that happening are infinitesimal so we need to find other solutions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
andyroo, 5 Feb 2015 @ 10:56am

Re: Dear Verizon
Their greed came back to bite them very hard in the butt and i am happy abut that.

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 thread ]
relghuar, 5 Feb 2015 @ 11:17am

"Heavily regulating the internet"
I'd really like to hear someone finally say it loud and clear:

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 thread ]
Zonker, 5 Feb 2015 @ 11:41am

"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."
That's strange because according to their own stock price after the FCC's announcement, investors seem to be thrilled with the new Title II rules. How is that "chilling investment"? If their stock went up so much with just the announcement, think of how far it will go up when the rules are actually implemented.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl Bode (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 12:43pm

Re:
Well and this is also a company that also just spent $10 billion at wireless auction, after their CFO basically admitted investment won't be impacted one way or the other by Title II (though he then backtracked after a stern talking to).

I'm not sure who that "chilling investment" line is aimed at, since not even Verizon actually believes it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 3:12pm

Re: Re: Re: WDJ Editorial
Big, sturdy paywalls make the best echo-chambers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Whatat Oolsack, 5 Feb 2015 @ 3:35pm

Re: Re: If verizon doesn't like the FCC they will close them.
If you had basic comprehension skills, this would not be a puzzle for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
orbitalinsertion (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 5:12pm

...the FCC can address any harmful behavior without taking this radical step.

I wonder what their threshold for "harmful behavior" is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dan G Difino, 6 Feb 2015 @ 9:50am

Masses Have Unconstrained Power
Until the masses who feed these giant conglomerates show everyone who's really the boss, the masses are going to continue to suffer at the hands of unconstrained greed and rule.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GEMont (profile), 9 Feb 2015 @ 4:32pm

Credibility killed the Cat
Well, I'm shocked, and frankly quite amazed.

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 thread ]