Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is Verizon a Network Hog?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the their-pipes-their-rules dept.

pillageplunder wrote to mention a piece in BusinessWeek asking whether or not Verizon has the right to set aside bandwidth for its own projects. They're planning a television service, and have allocated a swath of their bandwidth (which could otherwise be used for net and phone traffic) to back this service. From the article: "Leading Net companies say that Verizon's actions could keep some rivals off the road. As consumers try to search Google, buy books on Amazon.com, or watch videos on Yahoo!, they'll all be trying to squeeze into the leftover lanes on Verizon's network. On Feb. 7 the Net companies plan to take their complaints about Verizon's plans to the Senate during a hearing on telecom reform."

8 of 310 comments (clear)

  1. Verizon's recent purchase makes this subject moot. by jhill · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since Verizon's recent purchase of MCI, they have more bandwidth, both lit and unlit, than they know what to do with. Making the whole point of squeezing anything totally a non issue.

  2. They Paid For It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why shouldn't they be able to do what they want with it?

    1. Re:They Paid For It by $1uck · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Did they pay for it? I mean really did they pay for all of it? All companies that lay wire/pipe/cable/radio frequencies etc they all make use of emminent domain (AFAIK) when they run things through your property do they ask your permission? do they pay you rent? Most of these companies are effectively monopolies (at least in the areas they server) or were at one time. I think when it comes to things like pipes/roads/canals and most other conduits the evil-hated socialist word applys. You can't make a useful network/roadwork radio communication with out going through almost everyone's property, so the resource should belong to everyone. Power company's shouldn't own the power lines (maybe we could actually shop/compete for where to buy energy -this happens to a limited degree now). People should be able to pay for the channels/shows they want and not have to buy the service from the cable company.

    2. Re:They Paid For It by blamanj · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Amen. If you look at your phone bill, you'll see a variety of charges that the carriers have gotten the government to allow them to charge. There's the Federal Access Charge, the Federal Universal Service Fund, and a number of others that vary from state to state (e.g., see Colorado).

      The money from many of these fees goes directly to the phone company to "enable them" to build networks to outlying areas, improve their infrastructure, etc. These fees are basically taxes and as such we the people have been paying for their expansion.

  3. If it's their network... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let's play devil's advocate. It is their network, why shouldn't they be able to do with it what they want? I mean we hear the I own the software I should be able to do anything I want with it all the time. How is this any different?

    1. Re:If it's their network... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Let's play devil's advocate. It is their network, why shouldn't they be able to do with it what they want? I mean we hear the I own the software I should be able to do anything I want with it all the time. How is this any different?

      OK, here are a few differences. Does the government grant you a localized monopoly on using the software, enforced by federal agents? Does the government grant you immunity from prosecution for anything you do on behalf of your customers using your software in exchange for you not using your software in the proscribed way? Finally, did the government subsidize the creation of your software and facilitate its construction by seizing land and right of ways via immanent domain?

      If you can answer "yes" to all of these, then I think the government should have a say in how you use your software.

  4. Sure than can - provided they keep speeds up by us7892 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's simply a matter of competition. If Comcast or another local cable provider can provide better bandwidth for a similar price, then go with the competitor.

    I'm supposed to get 768/128 throughput. I actually get more like 640/100 with my Verizon DSL. If Verizon can't maintain something close to this even with their pipe-grab, then I would simply switch to broadband from 1 or 2 of the other options available.

    If it's a matter of shared phone lines and other DSL providers being choked out too, then that's a good reason to go with cable or over-air altogether.

  5. Re:Verizon's recent purchase makes this subject mo by walt-sjc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't believe this is about the long-haul backbones, this is probably about the local POP / loop, and the POP connection to the regional backbone. If a Verizon FIOS "hub" has a total of 1G bandwidth, and verizon is taking 800M of it, then all the other internet traffic can only use 200M split over who-knows-how-many end users. Furthermore, the POP to POP links may be allocated the same way. VOL will probably end up doing some massive video on demand system that will suck down most of the total bandwidth.

    This would put any video on demand service that Google may (will) have at a severe disadvantage.

    Even if a gob more dark fiber is available for all these pipes, it costs serious amounts of money to light them up. Obviously if VOL can "reserve" a big portion of bandwidth on the existing links to the point where they can offer all their value-add services, they don't have an incentive to light up more fiber.