Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Challenges FCC's Net Neutrality Rules
GovTechGuy writes "Verizon filed an appeal on Friday asking a federal court to strike down the FCC's net neutrality rules, which are scheduled to take effect on November 20. A federal judge tossed the FCC's previous attempt at enforcing net neutrality against Comcast last May, and more legal challenges are expected in the coming days."
I think that all of the net neutrality challengers should get together and head over to http://www.privateislandsonline.com/oceania.htm, where they could buy a volcanic island. Perfect for the super villain that has everything except an evil lair!
/. readers could petition the local government to allow multi-tiered internet provision and drop all evil enterprises to the bottom of the list, throttling them back to dial up speeds! Mwha, mwha, mwha!!!
Once set up,
They ALL assert that they are committed to net neutrality. The problem is, they want to define what neutrality is. When you've cut away all the verbiage, to get to the heart of the matter, the telcos only want their monopoly to remain unchallenged, so that they can continue to rape the consumers. To them, "neutrality" means "anything goes, as long as WE approve of it, and it increases profits".
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Whomever Congress legislates and gets the Supreme Court to agree with, can.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
The customer is limited by design. It's either play by their [ever changing] rules in order to engage with society and business or don't play at all.
These people are operating vital utilities. They require regulation. It is every bit as simple as that. When the internet was "novel" it was one thing, but now it is as important as the telephone network and will be more important than the telephone network in a short while.
History has shown the telcos required regulation after the DoJ and the courts system found them to be abusive beyond their ability to self-regulate. Only the medium is different.
Who can?
The usual song-and-dance from these folks is that the market will regulate it, because those customers who are unhappy with non-neutral service will go to another vendor. There are two major problems with this argument:
1. If there are only a few vendors, and new vendors can't get into the market (which they basically can't due to network effects, economies of scale, relationships with phone manufacturers, etc), then the various vendors can all provide non-neutral service and the customers have nowhere to go for neutral service. They don't have to engage in any kind of illegal communication about it, either: They can just do it, let the other guys discover they're doing it, and wait for them to follow suit. It's the same process that caused all the different US airlines to start charging for luggage within very short order, even though customers hate it.
2. Customers typically don't know that their connections are being throttled. It's sort of like how lemons get sold off to people who don't know what they're buying (technical term here is information asymmetry). If they don't know about it, they can't make buying decisions based on it.
I am officially gone from
Umm... you just described any average company. They all want to maximize profits.
Companies have a commitment to their shareholders/investors to maximize profit... if they don't do that, the investors would be stupid to invest.
We've defeated the old communists so that this system can dominate the world. Don't complain now.
Does the phrase "too big to fail" sound familiar?
If you buy their services and make no attempt to correct policies you don't like, then you implicitly approve of their policies. This sort of helplessness isn't interesting to me because it indicates a complaint without a serious attempt to fix the problem, ie, a whiner.
Where I live, I can use landline DSL that's too far from the DSLAM so I'm capped at 384/384 on a perfect day, often less.
Or I can pay through the nose for a 7.2 mbps mobile connection with a 5GB cap that throttles to 40 kbps after the cap is reached, effectively making any modern website time out.
Considering that nothing seems to get cached anymore, ie. Youtube videos, videos on newspaper and TV websites etc. those 5 GB are spent awfully fast through normal surfing and gaming.
Those are my options. Short of paying for a company to come out and lay fiberoptic cables all the way to the nearest large city I'm screwed. Tell me again how I have options to play by other rules?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Nope. Capitalism was never meant to give industry ownership of everything. Fact is, a lot of that infrastructure, over which the telcos have been given a monopoly, has been paid for by the taxpayers. We paid for a lot of it with taxes, and we're forced to pay again through all the various fees.
Don't get me wrong - yes, I agree that the corporations have an obligation to maximize profits for their shareholders. That's fine. But - politicians, judges, and regulators like the FCC have an even greater obligation to represent taxpayers, voters, consumers, and/or citizens. And, those politicians have basically sold out to the corporations under discussion.
Balance is what I'm looking for here. Yeah, we owe the corporations a profit, if they are going to be responsible for running things. But, they owe it to US, to give us what we want, in exchange for those profits. Ever heard, "The customer is always right"? Hey - there's not one sleazy sumbitch on Wall Street that believes that anymore. They look at us as a farmer looks at cattle. We're an asset to be exploited, nothing more, and nothing less. They owe us nothing - not even the service they promise, and most certainly not good service!
What is your internet speed? First, the advertised speed, then your real speed? The telcos are infamous for over subscribing, then throttling. Hey - if I'm paying for 56k, I WANT my 56k. If I'm paying for 56MB, then I WANT my 56MB. And, if I happen to be filthy rich, and I'm paying for 56GB, then, by god, I WANT MY 56GB download speed! And, it's none of the telco's business how I might be using all of that bandwidth - I paid for it, it is mine.
The telco is most certainly NOT the enforcement arm of RIAA, MPAA, or any other alphabet agency.
Let's just say that I'm very unhappy with the way things are going in this country, and that I support those protestors who are "occupying Wall Street" this morning. I just wish they would get their act together, and tell both Wall Street and Washington what is wrong, and that it's time to fix it.
Communism? Nope. Under communist rule, corporations lose, but so do the citizens. Take another look at what I'm bitching about - as well as those protesters.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
You have a horrible misunderstanding of the public internet.
They participate with the public internet, and in exchange for that participation, they get to charge people to access it. Charging people for access is all they should be allowed to do. Instead, they want to throttle, re-route, re-direct, inspect, block and all manner of things which is contradiction to their participation in the public internet.
But let's look at it this way.
There is no public telephone system either. There is a public telephone network. How pissed would you be to find that when you want to call your bank or your grocery store that your call quality was intentionally decreased or that your calls were blocked or redirected to the competitors of the parties you wanted to call? It's all the same damned thing. How you fail to see it amazes me.
The courts (pretty much all of them) don't understand the issue and will get it wrong, handing the carriers a huge gift and the public an ass-reaming like they have never had.
Don't get me wrong - yes, I agree that the corporations have an obligation to maximize profits for their shareholders. That's fine. But - politicians, judges, and regulators like the FCC have an even greater obligation to represent taxpayers, voters, consumers, and/or citizens. And, those politicians have basically sold out to the corporations under discussion.
So, don't complain about the companies. Instead, complain about the politicians, judges and regulators who sold out to them.
Companies just do their part of the deal: to get as much money as possible for as little effort as possible... and get away with it without losing customers.
Customers should switch to another company if the current internet provider seems a bad deal.
Governments should make sure you have a choice - that there is competition rather than a cartel where all companies basically offer the same product at the same price.
It seems to me that the companies do their job: they're earning money.
It seems to me that you're doing your job too: you're an angry customer and you want change. Me too, btw.
It seems to me however that there is no choice, and that means that some regulators are screwing up and letting the companies get away with being a cartel or a monopoly, and getting away with throttling.
Capitalism is a fine system, but it is my belief that it requires some regulation... and that's been lacking for a while now.
Well, since it was ruled in court that police have no obligation to protect you, only to investigate crimes, you basically are better off with a gun.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Stop using this argument. Now. This argument is fucking stupid (excuse my cursing but this irritates me). You apparently live in a different reality than the rest of us. Let's not even address the fact that most people have a choice between dial up or one provider (hell I'm not even sure I can get DSL and I live near one of the biggest cities in the country...Phoenix) and just look at the plain and simple fact that a choice between DSL or Cable internet is not a choice. This has been discussed so many times here it is ridiculous and I see this same dumb ass line parroted over and over again and it infuriates me. They have GOVERNMENT MANDATED MONOPOLIES. By DEFINITION you do not have a choice. It's a FUCKING MONOPOLY.
The free market works well in MOST situations but not every single one. For starters, this type of industry is nearly impossible to enter into unless you have billions of dollars to invest or you have government help. Guess what all the telcos had? Both (hah) but they got government help. You know what that means? That means WE own those lines. The telcos don't get to decide what we get to do with the lines that we paid for. This isn't the free market...sometimes you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Seriously though, why do people keep saying this? Is it this libertarian movement thing where people think that every single thing can be decided by the market? I really feel as if people that say this are honestly not even thinking about what they're saying and just repeating something they saw someone else say. I have to be honest...I'm definitely starting to see this a lot here. I feel strange not being a zealot to some cause sometimes...like is it that hard for some of you people to stand back and think harder on these situations? Are you so completely bound to your idealism that it like...warps reality? Some of the shit I see people say on here is honestly just brain dead. Really. They don't think about what they're saying or consider actual situations so much as they have a knee jerk reaction that suits whatever mantra they hold. It's irritating and quite frankly makes for shitty discussion. I mean there is a difference between my having a different opinion on a matter and someone just like...I don't know...not even paying attention to facts? It's like watching politicians debate. We get mad at them for this kind of retarded shit and then do it ourselves. Do you really think this or were you trying to score some free karma?
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
The fact that Verizon's unhappy with the very weak net neutrality legislation that has loopholes big enough to drive an aircraft carrier through sideways tells me Verizon has some SERIOUSLY evil plans in store...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
New companies see the consumers broadband connection as a free resource to exploit. The ISPs would like these companies to share in the burden they are placing on their networks.
That, my friend, is a detestable rewording of the issues intended to evoke sympathy from the masses.
Share the burden? Exploit resources for free? That's called framing. Was that your intent?
New companies see the consumers broadband connection as a resource the consumers have paid for.
New companies see the consumers broadband connection as a resource the consumers will use to get goods and services.
People thinking about starting new companies see an opportunity to start new business using the consumers broadband connection to deliver goods and services.
People thinking about starting new companies can create innovative new products and services using the consumers broadband connection.
Let's all go back to the pre-iPhone model where the telcos were gatekeepers of phone apps. In those days you were lucky to get Tetris on a phone. It wasn't the vibrant ecology of business we now have, but at least no one was "exploiting" the user's "resource".
Grow some integrity. Get a job working for someone who doesn't pay you to lie.
Imagine if your power provider wanted to charge different prices for your power based on whether you used it for toasting bread or watching TV; even further, what if it charged more for your toaster power if you used a brand of toaster that has not paid the power company for 'better' rates. The courts would never allow such a business practice.
No. Some people have dial up that is not DSL. Do you think the entire country has access to multiple broadband providers because you do? Do you think that even if they DO have access to the 2 providers (whoop dee doo) that they aren't both doing the same thing? Do you know why they are both doing the same thing? Because they can. That's a duopoly and that's what most places have. There is no competition because the companies know that if they do the same shit, people will pretty much even out between the both of them.
Let's say all the customers in Phoenix have a choice between Century Link DSL and Cox Cable (because that is in fact the case). Now if you leave Cox, where do you go? Century Link. If you leave Century Link where do you go? Cox. If they're both throttling, limiting bandwidth, blocking Hulu to make you buy cable from them, etc...what exactly do you do? Can a smaller competitor come swoop in and funnel away all their customers? Nope. Monopoly on the phone and cable lines. Is this scenario common? Yup. We aren't talking hypotheticals really...all the cable and DSL companies do the exact same things to varying degrees (it is even worse in Canada). Some (like Cox) are generally more benevolent (they don't really enforce their bandwidth caps...which is great)...but for now. Realistically, they have absolutely no reason whatsoever to continue doing this and in fact in other areas, Cox Cable are actually a bunch of bastards. We're just lucky that in the Phoenix Metro area, they're nice guys. Century Link (formerly Qwest)...no they're bastards. Or at least they have been before.
Now remove the cable or DSL provider from the scenario. You're looking at a fairly large portion of the country. What do these people do? They can't even leave one company to go to another because there isn't one. Yeah, maybe they have Comcast available but guess what? They're too far away from the phone company for DSL. Yeah sure they can get dial up internet but they can't get DSL. Great. What happens when Comcast (or say...Time Warner) institutes a 50gb bandwidth cap per month. Oh I'm sorry, did you want to watch Netflix and download games on Steam? Sorry you're going to need to pay overage charges on that. What are you going to do about it? Is that a free market? Is either of these scenarios really a free market? Is this not really just the illusion of a choice? Just because you get to pick which company is screwing you doesn't mean you actually have good choices and that's why this isn't a free market. The companies are large, embedded, and have been given monopolies on their lines. No one can compete with them BY LAW. If you are REALLY lucky you get to choose between DSL and Cable but there is nothing stopping them from doing the same thing. You start introducing 3 or even 4 companies and doing the same thing gets a lot harder.
Same with the cell phone market. Why do you think AT&T wants to buy T-Mobile? Because they're getting flak for being assholes while T-Mobile is generally just a good company. They don't try and hide things from their customers or try to screw them. What they're doing is right out in the open and they try to be as fair as possible. Do they limit bandwidth? Yes but instead of charging you overages, they knock your speed down to give you a chance to still use the service and not get raped with fees. That seems legitimately like they're trying to keep you from raping their networks rather than trying to make extra money on overages. They lower your monthly bill if you buy your cell phone outright or if you live out your contract terms and continue service with them after the contract has expired. What was AT&T planning to do after they bought T-Mobile? Raise rates. Fuck people. Look up the memo that got leaked from AT&T. This is what happens when you eliminate competition. The less players you have, the more the players left can abuse you. If the only big games in town are Verizon or AT&T, guess what's going to happen? Fuck you, that's what.
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
Keep thinking that. I live in the heart of Silicon Valley. Granted, it's probably the cheapest place within a 5 mile radius, but it is the fucking center of Silicon Valley. No cable, too far from the DSLAM to get anything more than 1.5 Mbit down. And that's after ATT fixed their noise problem that had me throttled to half that. Yes, I could move to a more expensive place. I don't want to. I can afford it, but I don't see the point. The Internet is now a utility like water and electricity. If corporations can't be arsed to provide it in one of the densest places in the US, right where it turned from a University project into the keystone of the US economy, they need to be regulated until they do. I know that makes me a dirty commie, but American society will be better off in the long run if the telecom infrastructure is regulated until the Telcoms cry Uncle.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
So, don't complain about the companies.
So, don't complain about the entity that is actually doing this shit?
Fuck that, they are completely responsible for their actions. If they aren't, then they shouldn't have any rights whatsoever, and should be regulated up the ass.
Companies just do their part of the deal: to get as much money as possible for as little effort as possible... and get away with it without losing customers.
This is NOT a good thing. Not for consumers, and definitely not for employees. And this is NOT an excuse for the behavior they've been exhibiting.
Customers should switch to another company if the current internet provider seems a bad deal.
Hey, that sounds awesome! I'll just look up at what ISPs are in my part of Orange County, CA. Looks like there's Cox, whom I have already, and .... Cox.
It's the outbound queues. Your torrent client floods your own router with outbound packets, and your game packets can't get out. As I mentioned above, I use Toastman's QOS rules, which are rather - complicated I guess is the right term.
I can be gaming, and all three of my sons can start a torrent, or any other kind of download, but they don't affect me. In effect, I've cut the top 5% of my own bandwidth, then the QOS rules put everything into classes. ANYTHING that exceeds 512k is put into "bulk", and the outgoing packets are severely throttled to ensure that interactive stuff isn't impaired. The router doesn't care what protocol is being used, it doesn't care that other priorities might have put that larger transfer into a higher class - the instant anything asks for transfers larger than 512 k, it gets booted into "bulk".
It gets complicated, and you simply can't set the rules up on a stock router from any of the manufacturers. (well, not on a "consumer" class router, anyway)
Take a look here, if you have the time: http://www.linksysinfo.org/index.php?threads/using-qos-tutorial-and-discussion.28349/
Or, if you don't have the time, maybe you can bookmark it for future reference.
I can almost assure you that your ISP isn't doing that to you - it's happening right there, inside your own network! (I say, "almost" - there do seem to be some credible accounts of ISP's doing what you say!)
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Except that we as a society have decided exactly that: it is a function of government to regulate certain vital markets in order to compensate for those markets' failures to distribute resources to all citizens. You can argue that Internet shouldn't be considered vital enough to deserve that protection. I suppose you can argue that YOU don't think government should force "them" to provide everyone with electricity, but it seems most people disagree with that. Within a certain framework that we as a society agreed to, government's responsibility is whatever we as a society decide it is. And if that framework chafes too much, we as a society can agree to change that, too. Any company (or citizen) that doesn't want to play by the rules set by society is welcome to not play.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
I tried, actually. The reply was that there ARE no bigger plans than the 5 GB one. Try again to be condescending, please.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Being two miles from the nearest town is too far from civilization now? Sure, I live two miles to the wrong side, towards the coast, but come on, it's not like you drive for hours through Nothing to get here. Can make a round trip to the nearest McD's in under half an hour on a busy day.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-