Verizon At Least Shows It Has A Sense Of Humor About Net Neutrality, Even If It's Incapable Of Respecting It
from the look-ma-I-made-a-funny dept
Sure, Verizon may be endlessly misleading when it comes to everything from the spectrum crunch to network investment. And when it comes to anti-competitive telecom behavior it wrote the book. Hell, Verizon's even in many ways directly responsible for this week's net neutrality ruling by suing to overturn the original flimsy net neutrality rules -- rules every other ISP had absolutely no problem with. But while you can say a lot of things about Verizon, you can't say the company doesn't have a sense of humor.As you might expect, Verizon took to the company's blog to protest the FCC's new TItle II based net neutrality rules. Amusingly however, it posted the entire thing in Morse code -- piggybacking on the oft-repeated ISP mantra that applying older Title II regulations to broadband is a dangerous and historically backwards proposition (because all old laws are automatically bad laws, get it?).
If you look for a translation, you're further directed to a press release (pdf) that appears to be written on an old typewriter. In that, Verizon trots out ye olde bogeyman that the FCC is using "antiquated regulations" for a modern era:
"Today’s decision by the FCC to encumber broadband Internet services with badly antiquated regulations is a radical step that presages a time of uncertainty for consumers, innovators and investors."Of course if we were to stop using laws just because they smell like mothballs, we'd be in for quite an adventure. After all, the Constitution is pretty old, right? As is the Communications Act of 1934 and the revamped Telecommunications Act of 1996, which govern spectrum allocation and without which Verizon couldn't function as a company. Stupid old laws. So unnecessary! It's an overly-simplistic argument, made more so by the fact that Verizon's FiOS network -- and the voice component of their wireless network -- are governed by Title II in some instances to glean Verizon some lovely tax breaks.
Verizon stumbles forth unabated, insisting that it has your best interests at heart:
"What has been and will remain constant before, during and after the existence of any regulations is Verizon’s commitment to an open Internet that provides consumers with competitive broadband choices and Internet access when, where, and how they want."Yes, so committed is Verizon to an open Internet, it has violated the principles of Internet and device neutrality more aggressively than perhaps any other company, whether that's trying to block GPS radio functionality unless you use their navigation software, or charging completely illogical fees to use basic functionality embedded in phones (like tethering, or Bluetooth). Verizon's also fairly insistent on ignoring the fact it was their lawsuit that pushed the FCC toward Title II in the first place, so if there's "regulatory uncertainty" at play, the lion's share of the blame belongs on Verizon's shoulders.
Still, you've got to hand it to Verizon for at least showing a sense of humor about the whole thing. That's more than Comcast or AT&T were capable of.
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: net neutrality, open internet, snark, telecom act, title ii
Companies: verizon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Copyright laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright laws
I agree. And that Constitution thing, it's so 1787, we shouldn't keep going back to those pesky amendments in the Bill of Rights either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We should throw out all old laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also Ironic.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"If only Romney had been elected!" cries the CEO, sobbing his tears into his lobster and caviar dinner as he sips his champagne. "Then I'd be able to wallet-rape consumers with this 'fast-lane' internet shit!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If innovation had been left up to the phone company, we'd all be learning Morse Code in school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regulations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Whine away, chicken boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh? Then you shouldn't have a problem pointing out where they said those laws were flawed simply because they're from the '80s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150204/16525829913/can-som e-internet-memes-finally-get-congress-to-pass-new-legislation-to-protect-your-privacy-online.shtml
ht tps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140816/06282828233/ron-wyden-its-time-to-kill-third-party-doctrine -go-back-to-respecting-privacy.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131205/09442825467/irs-sec-w ant-to-snoop-through-your-email-without-warrant-dont-let-them.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles /20131120/17144925314/tell-white-house-that-it-should-get-warrant-if-it-wants-to-read-your-email.sht ml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150217/11185730056/nominee-attorney-general-tap-dances-around- senator-frankens-question-about-aaron-swartz.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130328/1525212 2499/law-professor-eric-goldman-cfaa-is-failed-experiment-get-rid-it.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/a rticles/20130328/12342124825/fenderson-should-learn-the-google-or-get-sense-of-humor.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But here's a though, Fenderson: Why don't just try that search box up in the corner of your screen. Search for ECPA. Search for CFAA. Or you can follow the keyword tags for those terms. You will find many, many stories with lines like this:
"We've written a few times about the urgent need to reform ECPA -- the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which is woefully outdated, having passed in 1986."
Or this: "For many years, we've written about the drastic need for ECPA reform. ECPA is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which was passed in 1986. As you can imagine, it's exceptionally outdated and convoluted (such as claiming that any emails on a server for more than 180 days should be considered "abandoned" and available for law enforcement to read -- a concept that makes no sense in an era of hosted email with tremendous storage)." (And just to correct Mike's quote in that post, nowhere does the statute to which he is referring use the word "abandoned." I am not sure where he is getting that quote, but it's not the statute itself.)
Or this: "ECPA -- the Electronic Communications Privacy Act -- is woefully outdated. Passed in the 1980s, when the internet was just a small network that connected a few universities, it has allowed law enforcement and other government officials to snoop on your email based on some very outdated definitions and assumptions. As we've discussed in the past, one very obvious example, is the idea that, under the law, emails stored on a server for over 180 days are considered "abandoned" and that there's no need to get a warrant to view those emails. Of course, that was back when people expected old emails to be either deleted or downloaded. No one predicted "cloud" computing with virtually unlimited storage."
So Fenderson, why don't you enter the digital age and learn to use a search engine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In all of the links I looked at in that list, the age of the law was certainly discussed, but also the actual, practical reasons why the law was objectionable. I don't see an example of anyone arguing that a law is bad purely due to age.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But the original AC didn't make that claim about Techdirt. Which makes sense, because neither did Verizon's press release make that claims about Title II.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verizon is right...
One hundred years filled with numberless examples of collectivist failures and a nation founded on principles of liberty socializes one of its greatest accoutrements.
There is never a free lunch in these things. Maybe Netflix won't have to raise prices to its customers in order to pay Comcast to shovel the load, but the cost of providing its bandwidth will still have to paid. Comcast customers who don't stream Netflix will be subsidizing those who do. Hell, if I were Netflix now, I'd cut my prices in half, and let the content delivery boys deal with the cost of the increased traffic on their end.
Long live the unintended, short-sighted, consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Verizon is right...
Netflix always has paid for the bandwidth they use. Your argument is a straw man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Verizon is right...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Verizon is right...
I was saying that going forward Netflix wouldn't have to raise prices to its customers because the onus is now on the delivery agent to recoup the costs of the "net neutrality" service now mandated by government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Verizon is right...
Netflix is popular. Xfinity TV Go is not so popular (not even available to people without Comcast cable service). Even Hulu (partially owned by Comcast) is not as popular. Comcast would rather not live in a free market, so they strangle the competition to leverage their own products. This is the American way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Verizon is right...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Verizon is right...
Actually, that is the free enterprise, and American, way.
The thing is, though, that Comcast, et. al., for many years, has been granted monopoly status by state and local governments, across the U.S. It enjoy, in many places, exclusive rights to place its wires on the poles, etc.
That's the nub of all the contention, but you won't read much about that as everyone focuses on the SQUIRREL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the one hand, TechDirt is a sturdy espouser of the free market in the tech world, and a steady critic of government malfeasance and overreach in numerous realms including surveillance, copyright, etc.
On the other hand: Cheer leading the FCC and the government in their latest endeavor.
There is a disconnect somewhere that I just can't reconcile.
As I undoubtedly will continue to read TechDirt, I suppose I am to be happy that my local ISP will not be permitted to block it (et. al.), but I still wish that they had the freedom to do so if they deemed it necessary for their own personal economics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Whilst I am as hesitant as you regarding government intervention, I believe that this is one of the cases where it was absolutely required in order to reduce the extortions of the major telcos. Which is arguably a part of what government is for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The free market machinations between such entities as Netflix and Comcast are merely the market sorting itself out in times of great change, which is only natural. And which will be worked out by mutual consent by mutually consenting parties according to their abilities.
A lot of those natural tussles are off the table now. Netflix and Comcast will now have to take a number at the new DMV FCC window, to wait while surly bureaucrats paw over the particulars with their surly bureaucrat eyes on the continuance of their surly bureaucrat careers.
Importantly, "what government is for" ought not to encompass the particular terms of contractual obligations, but to preserve the rights of people to enter, or not enter, into such contracts. The government is now (in yet another arena) prohibiting certain mutually agreed upon contracts. We are less a free nation for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wrong. Free market principles only apply when conditions of freedom exist in the market. This is not the case in the ISP sector, which is dominated by anti-competitive monopolies and duopolies. At this point, free market economic principles break down and are replaced by monopoly economics, which are based on economic coercion, not freedom, and it absolutely is the government's job to limit such coercion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your "monopolies and duopolies" are also not products of the free market. Such exist because of previous government interference in the telecommunications/cable market, mostly at the state and local levels.
In effect, government is trying to fix the problems it itself has caused, without remedying the underlying dislocation of market resources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is Nonsense. With a capital N.
The laws of supply and demand always apply, no matter how free the market.
And that's why the new regs are going to increase costs to the Internet consumer and decrease innovation in the tech sector.
There is never a free lunch in economics.
When governments get involved, markets distort. Since government doesn't produce anything of itself, its decrees can only distort in one of two ways. Prices can increase, or supply can decrease. Often both happen. That's the nature of outside, coercive interference in markets.
You may wish that it were otherwise, but it's science.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Probably because net neutrality isn't "government engendered". Net neutrality protects what already exists, it's not the government inventing something new.
You're confused because you're contemplating a fiction. Try the real-life version now, you'll feel better.
"TechDirt is a sturdy espouser of the free market in the tech world"
This is true. Now, consider the broadband ISP market in most US jurisdictions. Most have one (maybe 2 if they're lucky) options. Not exactly a free market, is it? On top of that, consider that the trend among those ISPs is to collude and block competition. Also consider that they've already demonstrated a willingness to negatively impact competing video streaming service, for example.
This is good to you? Or, would you agree that something needs to keep them in check? If you agree, where are those checks going to come from, considering that there is zero competition in many areas for unhappy customers to move to and affect the market that way?
"I still wish that they had the freedom to do so if they deemed it necessary for their own personal economics."
You realise that this means you're supporting their rights to maintain monopolies and rip you off wherever you can, without so much as a competitor to move to if you disagree? Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Net neutrality wouldn't exist at all without government coercion. And net neutrality, in and of itself, is not self-evidently a good thing. It's like saying I should be able to buy a Whopper at McDonalds.
As to competition in allegedly low competition regions (which I guess is where I live), what exactly will "net neutrality" do for me? The new law is ostensibly a boon to content creators, but I don't buy my Internet from them.
I consider myself a somewhat heavy Internet user, but most of my neighbors are not, yet they pretty much have to buy the same plan I do. What's the sense of that? And going forward there is going to be no relief in such regards, as even upstart Joe Schmoe ISP will have to present the entire web just the same as the Bell South does, despite possibly wanting to serve a smaller niche.
And I'm not particularly concerned with "monopolies", except for those facilitated by government edict. Free market "monopolies" have a way of disintegrating due to natural market forces. The new government edicts are very likely to preserve exactly those entities you now erroneously decry as monopolistic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The internet itself wouldn't exist either. So?
"It's like saying I should be able to buy a Whopper at McDonalds."
No, it's saying that if McDonalds own part of the path that leads to the food court, they can't built a toll booth in front of the part that leads to Burger King.
Please, understand the actual issue instead of reacting in a knee jerk fashion because you read the "government".
"As to competition in allegedly low competition regions (which I guess is where I live), what exactly will "net neutrality" do for me"
It means that your ISP has to treat every packet that you access equally, not filtering their competitors, slowing down some of the services you use in order to drive you to their preferred partners, creating high barriers to new competitors entering the market, charging you extra to have full speed on the services you want, etc., etc.
Again, read up on what the issue ACTUALLY is about, not whatever you falsely assumed it was.
"What's the sense of that?"
Well, you asked that the ISPs be able to maximise their profit. That's the result you get. Since there's no competition, who do you want to get them to offer lower priced plans to your neighbours?
"And I'm not particularly concerned with "monopolies""
Then, you *really* don't understand the issues and behaviour being discussed and the issues that led to this discussion in the first place. Hell, your own example of your neighbour indicates exactly why a monopoly is bad (if there were competition, your neighbours could move to a cheaper competitor offering the plan that suits them, without competition, the ISP isn't going to lower their prices).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If McDonalds "owns" the path to Burger King, that's Burger King's problem.
Again, as to monopolies, between the two, Verizon and the U.S. government, I know which "monopoly" is a real threat and which one isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, that infrastructure that wasn't profitable for decades, and the web that grew completely from free and open standards would definitely have appeared in the same way if corporations built it from the ground up :rolls eyes:
OK, so you're anti-government nutball who doesn't mind getting screwed so long as it's by a corporation rather than someone he can vote for.
It's a shame you can't see the actual issues being discussed, but you're clearly so biased that no actual facts will get through to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The side of freedom is always in the marketplace and ends with "someone he can vote for". There isn't even a modicum of choice when the government brings its boot down.
You decry Comcast's alleged monopoly, but then welcome the massive unelected bureaucracy.
Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not if it's not a free market, which you wilfully ignore doesn't exist in your ISP area, even though you freely admitted it.
"There isn't even a modicum of choice when the government brings its boot down."
Just for the record, I'm from an "OMG teh sochilismz" country. The telephony "market" ripped everyone off left and right until the government stepped in and forced BT to split up. Decades later, we not only have far more choice than the US, but pricing is cheaper and the are many, many more competitors than there were when BT had the monopoly. Government "interference" actually created a vibrant competitive market for private enterprise.
But, continue your ignorant support of people removing your rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Government Owns The Streets, to Mike Soja, #23
As a general rule, McDonald's refuses to buy into shopping mall food courts. Food courts are usually full of "casual dining," type outlets like SBarro, Subway, Panda Express, Arthur Treacher's Fish and Chips, etc., firms which have specialized in the food court ecosystem. If you are in the fast food business, you practically have to decide whether you want to be "drive-thru" or "food court." If you are talking to a mall manager about a lease in a food court, his main interest is usually to maximize the mall's diversity, so that people will come there to window-shop in the first place, and his starting question is going to be "what do you have, that we haven't already got." There's no percentage in letting everyone sell burgers and French Fries. They generally allow one store, specializing in hot dogs, for little kids who simply won't eat anything unconventional, on pain of hissy fit, and beyond that, they push for diversity. There are all kinds of differences in practice which follow from that policy. A food court restaurant needs to choose a menu which lends itself to an attractive and appetizing counter display. I doubt there's any way you can make a Big Mac photogenic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Government Owns The Streets, to Mike Soja, #23
Really?? Because I literally can't think of a single shopping mall food court that doesn't have a McDonald's in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except McD's doesn't own the path to Bking, it owns the path I am using to get to the highway that leads to all other restaurants, including BKing. And I've already payed mcD's to get to that highway. Now on my way back with my order, mcD's is attempting to make me pay twice. Cause let's face it, BKing has to pass the cost on to the customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If so, McDs still owns the path. Who owns the path to your house? If you don't like who owns the path you ought to ask how they came to own the path, rather than assume you have the right in retrospect to commandeer that path just because you don't like the current ownership of it.
The new FCC regs undermine the ownerships of the paths.
If you value the ownership of the path to your own house, you should be against the confiscation of the paths to other people's houses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It most certainly would not.
A large, international network probably would, but it wouldn't be anything even remotely like the internet. At best, it would be more like CompuServ or AOL of old -- which means it would be substantially less valuable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
what a coincidence the telecoms wouldn't exist as a monopoly without the government coercion.
" It's like saying I should be able to buy a Whopper at McDonalds."
yeah that comparison works cause McDonalds is a monopoly or duopoly. The reality is if I had as many choices for ISP as I do for restaurants there would be no need for net neutrality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
On the other hand: Cheer leading the FCC and the government in their latest endeavor.
There is a disconnect somewhere that I just can't reconcile.
Out of curiosity, do you find the First Amendment to be a burdensome government regulation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're being a little coy there, so it's hard to tell, but isn't that the same goddamned tripe that shows up every once in a while in free speech comment thread where somebody says, "I've got a big important message that needs to be conveyed and I have a right to your radio station in order to efficiently convey that message, the First Amendment Sez So!"?
I dunno, you tell me: When was the last time you read about the politically stacked First Amendment Agency (3 Dems, 2 Pubs) pretending to "hold a conversation" with the American people via a cheesy website just before said agency eructed 300 pages of Constitutionally questionable lawyer fodder? I bet it has been a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
- FCC Chair Tom Wheeler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The First Amendment prohibits government involvement in certain things.
FCC Wheeler is announcing government involvement in the conduct of ISP business.
His rhetoric is dishonest nonsense. And, if his rhetoric is dishonest nonsense, the law he's pushing can only be a complete horrow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Free Market" as an idea implies that everyone can participate in it; and it actually works best if everyone is supplier and consumer at the same time, because, obviously, innovation will be at its peak, and also consumer choice. That's the macro-economic perspective of it.
On the purely micro-economic perspective, for a lone actor, the most interesting system is the one where everything belongs to him, and he's the only supplier of everything. But quite clearly, this cannot be called "free market" by any stretch.
So the idea is to build a level playing field for all actors. Laws that regulate employment, destruction of environment, declaration duty, monopolies and so on are all geared towards that. And net neutrality as well.
Of course, for individual actors, it can be beneficial to game the system, getting laws that allow dumping of toxic waste, allow government-granted monopolies etc., thus gearing that playing field. TTIP and suchlike are obvious attempts at doing this, and inherently anti-free-market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry Verizon
You couldn't do that.
Live with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry Verizon
In fact, the new FCC regs amount to nothing more than the codifying of a certain type of fraud as legitimate.
It's the fraud that all Internet consumers are equal, that they want and need what the government decides they want and need.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sorry Verizon
There is no such thing as the free market and no for-profit entity would have been able to create the internet. They'd have an an inTRAnet at best, and patented technology to connect with other intranets.
Development would have been restricted to those working for incumbents, resulting in stalled innovation for decades as they fought to keep out the competition.
The last thing any free market enthusiast actually wants is a free, open market because competition reduces profit margins.
Next up: you'll be calling for referees to be banned from sport and let the audience decide who scores.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sorry Verizon
Sorry, but you're still attacking a phantom that only exists in your own imagination. It's the ISPs who would restrict what people can access - by throttling traffic, or charging more for access to competitors. Net neutrality ensures that they cannot do that, and that consumers can access everything equally without restriction.
Your fear of the government boogeyman actually has you rooting for the people who want to reduce your freedom for profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sorry Verizon
And now the choices of such ISPs have been "socialized" for the alleged greater good.
The right of people to conduct their ISP businesses as they see fit has been usurped on the basis of illegitimate, picayune, political grounds.
When the government controls the particulars of your business model, no matter how anodyne that control may seem, can you really say you own that business, anymore?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry Verizon
If ever you get your head out of your ass, you might realise this isn't necessarily a bad word. Look into the effects of privatised roads vs socialised ones, as an example.
"business model,"
Sigh... you do know that this isn't a magic term, and there are not only bad business models, but horrific ones as well? Government interference is the reason why American rivers are no longer on fire, why transportation isn't built on the corpses of Chinese slaves and why you actually get a living income. Unfettered capitalism is a bad thing, as evidenced by history. Sure, unfettered socialism is also bad, but you're nowhere near that in the US. The recent recession is down to lack of regulation. Just because your ISP might not kill anyone or make someone bankrupt, that down't mean they should not be regulated to stop screwing you outright.
In short, you're such an ignorant moron that while complaining about the way your neighbours are treated, you not only support them being treated that way, you're also demanding the same treatment for yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sorry Verizon
I'm pretty sure it's different than the definition the rest of the world is using.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This law is a bad law because it's taking rules for an infrastructure that no longer exists and applies them to a new infrastructure which is being abused.
Everything is digital now. This means everything is being transferred over the same line. Television, "radio", movies", hell, even books. Phone calls are now digital and many people have taken to using the internet for their everyday tasks, such as paying bills.
So why is it we're still regulating this as a communication platform? It's absurd. It needs to be regulated as a digital transfer platform, whereas nothing can be "held back".
Because of Title II, the age-old (and yes, they are terrible) laws now regulated how that information is transferred to us digitally.
It means cable "stations" have to pay far more for the exact same content as other avenues.
It means fees can be assessed unnecessarily because "this portion of the communication platform says they can be applied".
It's a ridiculous and stupid decision to use Title II, a law written when Morse Code was the communication platform, to regulate what comes across the digital line.
This may be a step forward, but that's just it. It's a step, and one that'll take years to show fruits of its labor.
The FCC should have reclassified the structure by writing a completely new law from scratch, safeguarding our privacy from government and corporate spying, preventing companies from selling our information, and of course, getting rid of the stupidity of charging people up to 3x for the same goddamn service.
So... hurray. Verizon may be joking, but they're spot on. It's just too bad we have a corrupt government which doesn't service the people.
Enjoy that $200+ cable bill. It's not going anywhere. Ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You honestly think it would have magically reduced if the provider could carry on as they were and block out their competition in the meantime? Please...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Limits of Law, to Violynne, #24
Based on cost estimating, working out the lengths of various wires, and how much they cost per foot, and what their service life is, my figure is that broadband telephone/internet service, with no caps and unlimited global long-distance, ought to cost about thirty dollars a month. In short, it should be in the same price range as water. If you put enough pressure on Verizon, it will begin selling chunks of local plant to local water authorities, and at that point, the public telecommunications infrastructure can be sanely managed in the public interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Limits of Law, to Violynne, #24
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Limits of Law, to Violynne, #24
The Ninth Circuit said they couldn't because the cable internet service qualified as not just an "information service", but also as a "telecommunications service" under the Telecommunications Act. Because it qualified as a "telecommunications service", it was subject to the FCC's common carrier rules (and the rest of Title II for that matter) thus forbidding Portland from attaching any conditions or franchise agreements to cable internet services like AT&T's:Unfortunately, the FCC decided to forbear all of its authority to actually make cable internet service subject to the "telecommunicans service" rules (like actually be a common carrier) that forbade Portland from requiring AT&T to make any agreement to allow competition on their network.
So if Violynne wants cable internet service to be treated as an "information service" instead of a "telecommunications service" then I would be happy to see the Ninth Circuit case reversed and Comcast internet (bought from AT&T) in Portland finally be required to open their infrastructure to competing ISPs like dial-up internet was in the 1990s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It means cable "stations" was to be written as It means internet "stations"...
It's morning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Winning by Losing
Title II Recovery Costs: $32.00
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pro-market vs. pro-business regulation
While the devil is in the details, and the issued regulations seem to be long enough to hide several hells worth of devils, as excerpted in the media, they seem to do something very useful to the preservation of free markets: prevent combined ISP/content-providing companies or cabals formed by ISPs and content-providing companies from using their position as what used to be called a "vertical trust" to kill competition.
To my fellow free-market-loving rightists: THIS IS A GOOD THING. Regulations to establish net neutrality, per se, are pro-market (which is why incumbents in the market who want a regulatory environment that supports predatory pricing, leveraging current market position against not only existing competitors, but new start-ups and even new disruptive technologies, are howling about it). Whether there are any actual freedom-killing "devils" in the details we have yet to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ad novitam fallacy
the opposite is also a fallacy: contending something is right because it's old.
experience is a better basis for evaluating any proposition.
our experience is that monopolies need to be regulated.
cable broadband clearly qualifies,-- we don't want 5 sets of cables handing on the poles.
this is and will continue to be a contentious issue.
Here in Michigan the Title II rule will bring broadband under the purview of the Michigan Public Service Commission -- which will give us a channel in which to resolve service issues -- a bit more effective than getting called an a-hole by some a-hole company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope all you pro-regulation suckers will enjoy your Netflix/Amazon Prime Video/Hulu on your 3GB/monthly allowance! Unless perhaps you opted for the platinum tier 10GB/month plans for $999/month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Where does it say in the rules that ISPs must have metered rates?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What we truly need goes beyond telecom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What we truly need goes beyond telecom...
How about a federal law that says idiots can't propose federal laws every time they have a notion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suppose Netflix/Hulu/etc cut their prices and their customers base doubles- ISP networks will be saturated with traffic that ISPs will be forced to carry, but there won't be anyone forcing them to pay for equipment upgrades to handle all that new traffic- hence they will probably start metering usage to consumers who otherwise have no incentive to economize on their network usage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ISPs are making money hand over fist and and are not re-investing in network upgrades. That's why the US lags behind Fucking Estonia in available broadband. As long as they have an unregulated monopoly, they have zero incentive to upgrade. FCC regs will light a fire under their asses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In the case of Comcast, who was allowed to vertically integrate with their purchase of NBC/Universal, they are now content providers as well as ISPs in direct competition with Netflix for viewership. Bandwidth caps are a means to force Netflix subscribers to either pay Comcast more for viewing Netflix content or switch to Comcast's content instead by leveraging the fact that they control the delivery infrastructure against content providers like Netflix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Suppose Netflix/Hulu/etc cut their prices and their customers base doubles"
Suppose the ISPs actually use the massive amount of public funds they've been given to increase capacity to actually do it? Why is it that people like you think it's impossible for the US to do what every other first world country is doing without resorting to such measures?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newspaper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whiny F-ing Babies...
Machines don't discriminate one datagram packet for another. Bandwidth isn't running out,... Even with Netflix at peak usage hours. At least they don't unless you go way out of your way to do deep packet inspection in order to rig the game...
If you want to use Gov't authority to get electromagnetic spectrum or authority to run physical lines across other people's property, it isn't really "your network," and you have no business saying it's fair market forces at work. They have a fucking monopoly, and they lie about the scientific facts (broadband utilization/congestion mitigation) and try (successfully) to convince simpletons that it is a "freedom from gov't interference" issue. Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Time-Warner, Disney, CBS, NBC, et al. need to just take the boot up the ass that they just got, go home and deal with it. They tried to game the system and it backfired. Just desserts...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To Keep In Mind
Testing Regions are indicated here for comcast side: http://customer.comcast.com/help-and-support/internet/data-usage-trials-what-are-the-different-plans -launching
Def was more to it I believe for them, hence the major outcry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]