Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Verizon's Plan To Turn the Web Into Pay-Per-View

Posted by samzenpus on from the making-it-worse dept.

snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Bill Snyder writes of Verizon's diabolical plan to to charge websites for carrying their packets — a strategy that, if it wins out, will be the end of the Internet as we know it. 'Think of all the things that tick you off about cable TV. Along with brainless programming and crummy customer service, the very worst aspect of it is forced bundling. ... Now, imagine that the Internet worked that way. You'd hate it, of course. But that's the direction that Verizon, with the support of many wired and wireless carriers, would like to push the Web. That's not hypothetical. The country's No. 1 carrier is fighting in court to end the Federal Communications Commission's policy of Net neutrality, a move that would open the gates to a whole new — and wholly bad — economic model on the Web.'"

63 of 332 comments (clear)

  1. Aren't they just... by Derec01 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...trying to offer us the web a la carte, like we wanted for cable? The whole web is one big bundle! There's tons of crap I don't want to pay for! :)

    1. Re:Aren't they just... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      If not for NSA, I would feel weird talking to my self. Now I don't feel so alone anymore. :(

    2. Re:Aren't they just... by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This would be funny if weren't so likely to be taken seriously by the regulatory agencies which SHOULD currently be waterboarding Verizon's CEO for even suggesting this. With boiling hot oil.

    3. Re:Aren't they just... by paiute · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...trying to offer us the web a la carte, like we wanted for cable? The whole web is one big bundle! There's tons of crap I don't want to pay for! :)

      That's right! I will get a huge discount in my Comcast bill when I give them the short list of domains I am interested in!

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    4. Re:Aren't they just... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Informative

      "This would be funny if weren't so likely to be taken seriously by the regulatory agencies which SHOULD currently be waterboarding Verizon's CEO for even suggesting this. With boiling hot oil."

      It ISN'T being taken seriously by the regulatory authorities. That's why there is a lawsuit. The regulatory authorities (FCC) realize full well that this would not be in the public interest, even if it were workable.

      Verizon is trying to fight their regulatory authority in court. That's what it's all about. Verizon doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of succeeding, but they are trying anyway.

    5. Re:Aren't they just... by davester666 · · Score: 2

      Pay Per Packet is most Profitable. Its like the internet via SMS.

      I bet all the executives at the major ISPs in the US have just spent themselves in their pants.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    6. Re:Aren't they just... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It seems more like a store trying to charge Pepsi or Coca Cola to sell their products.

      Or it seems like we'll only be able to see the information from the people who can afford to pay for us to see it.

  2. Same old song and dance by postbigbang · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're a carrier. To expect Verizon or AT&T etc to behave like a wonderful, equitable business partner is to expect the earth to move from orbit on the propulsion of sparrow flatulence.

    Charging for stuff is what they do, and they will relentlessly continue to try. And each time, like every other time, we'll crush them.

    Do your part: tell those crazy telecom guys: monopolies were granted, not earned. We'll take away your easements, your rights of way, your utility company plates, and your seat at the table-- again. Your bribes to Congress and the legislature, and your armies of highly paid lawyers will lose once more, but you big bad boys-- you'll go back to your shareholders and exclaim one more time: we tried!!

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    1. Re:Same old song and dance by flayzernax · · Score: 2

      As a carrier they have a financial duty to not piss off their end users and contribute to the collapse of western economic systems which in turn will destroy all their assets and their property.

      As a monopoly they have a right to run their business how we tell them to and make a small profit. Should be run as an NPO with extreme oversight (albiet you will never have an NPO that size without a little corruption). I.e. monopolies can't be for profit ever. But its no better then socialism.

    2. Re:Same old song and dance by MatthiasF · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We should stop beating around the bush and just label them common carriers. That is what they are; apply all common carrier laws to them and stop all this nonsense.

    3. Re:Same old song and dance by binarylarry · · Score: 4, Funny

      I believe, when used with verizon in context, the correct term is "Fadouchiary Duty."

      I could be wrong though.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    4. Re:Same old song and dance by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How are they supposed to charge the website when they don't know who I'm communicating with? Just another reason to use HTTPS for everything, or even use a VPN in conjunction with HTTPS.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    5. Re:Same old song and dance by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a carrier they have a financial duty to not piss off their share holders

      FTFY

      and contribute to the collapse of western economic systems which in turn will destroy all their assets and their property.

      Unless we somehow end up in the dark ages, why would they care. Hell, some kind of dystopian Mad Max world would be great for them. That way they can just go out an burn down your house if you go over your bandwidth cap too many times. Now they have to issue warnings and pay lawyers and worry about those pesky laws and such.

      As a monopoly they have a right to run their business how we tell them to and make a small profit. Should be run as an NPO with extreme oversight (albiet you will never have an NPO that size without a little corruption). I.e. monopolies can't be for profit ever. But its no better then socialism.

      I'm a fairly big believer in capitalism, to a point. But some things just need to be socialized. We currently have a hybrid system, and the sooner we embrace that the better. Social Security is socialized. If congress wouldn't have raided the trust fund so often over the years, it'd have been in a lot better shape for longer than it was(but that's a different discussion). Healthcare should be socialized too. If people would get over this myth that the US is a strictly capitalist society, then we wouldn't have the abortion that is the affordable care act. If we're lucky, it will be bad enough that the country will figure out that socialism isn't always a bad thing and we can move on to something better. It's painfully obvious that what we have in the telecommunications industry is heading towards a train wreck. Maybe we can also stop privatizing profits and socializing losses while were at it too.

      I think I hear the ghost of a junior senator knocking on my door.

    6. Re:Same old song and dance by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You think for one minute that Verizon and Comcast want a "free market"?

      Is it a free market when there are only a very few players? Are you old enough to remember when there were hundreds of ISPs in every city? When there was actual competition?

      The problem is, we're not really Verizon or Comcast's customers. None of us choose them because we like those companies or the services they offer. We choose them because there are no other choices. So now Verizon pays $130billion (with a "B") for Vodaphone, and the only reason they do is because interest rates are near zero (look at the bond prices, not the prime rate). Forget for a moment that if we actually had any enforcement of the law, that merger would get laughed out of court. For that to be worthwhile, interest rates would have to stay near zero for 20 years. But Verizon sees the writing on the wall. They figure they can take out another competitor and then just soak the people who pay them for service (not customers mind. the customers are their "strategic partners", production divisions, advertisers, and the people who they sell your information to).

      You're not a consumer, you're the commodity. You're what they selling. You're trapped. Go ahead, move to Comcast and Comcast can say, Go ahead, move to Verizon. They don't give a fuck because they're gonna get paid either way. 'Cause where you gonna go?

      Welcome to Corporatism 2013: End-stage Capitalism.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Same old song and dance by Fjandr · · Score: 3

      They have common carrier status already; they do not exert editorial control and thus are not liable for crimes or civil infringements that their network carries.. What they need is to lose that status if they get their way, thus becoming liable for all content passing across their network.

    8. Re:Same old song and dance by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sure, there were hundreds of ISPs, but that's not real competition, because to use any of those ISPs, you were forced to purchase service from the local telco monopoly. That's not competition at all.

      These days, because there's no real way for hundreds of ISPs to install physical infrastructure to your house/apt, and because dial-up speeds are impossible to use with modern internet applications, the telco and cable monopolies have become the ISPs as well.

      The simple fact is that there's no way to have anything resembling a free market with ISPs, and there never has been. Last-mile connections are a huge capital expense. The only way to do it is to have a monopoly or duopoly, and have government regulation to keep these companies in line. Or have the government provide ISP service directly, as has been done in several small cities already.
       

    9. Re:Same old song and dance by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or have the government provide the infrastructure, and let other companies offer you the internet access over it on an equitable basis...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Same old song and dance by Tanktalus · · Score: 4, Funny

      I am not in favor of capitol punishment.

      I am. I think the entire capitol is in need of punishment. Unfortunately, some of them probably will like that.

      However, we're now straying dangerously close to off-topic here, so I'll stop now.

    11. Re:Same old song and dance by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      Or have the government provide the infrastructure

      That's effectively what a public utility with a rate board is, but since they still need to make a profit they tend to keep their size (and their service) as low as they can get away with. Of course, with the government in charge you'd get the extra size, but probably little in the way of extra service. :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    12. Re:Same old song and dance by kheldan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cause where you gonna go?

      I'll go off the Internet, that's where. If they manage to price it out of the reach of most people, the Internet will die. Cheer up though, we lived fine without it before, we'll live fine without it again -- if necessary. Here's the thing though: The Internet is not just a bunch of wires strung up between the West Coast and the East Coast of the United States, it's a world-wide network of connectivity providers. The entire planet is using it now; millions of businesses and billions of people in every country. Do you really think that the rest of the world is going to put up with one or two U.S.-based companies fucking with the Internet on this level? I think not. There are other backbone providers than Comcast and Verizon, and the reality is that there is only the most tenuous of agreements between all of them to make the Internet, as a whole, work as a global network. In the same way that the Internet can reroute itself around damage, it can be rerouted around Verizon and Comcast, leaving them in walled gardens of their own design if that's what they want.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    13. Re:Same old song and dance by belmolis · · Score: 3

      Exactly. This is a very important point. If they become responsible for content, their liability will be enormous and they will be unable to exert editorial control over so much material. They'd be nuts to accept such exposure. As long as we can ensure that they do not receive an exemption from current law, net neutrality should be safe.

    14. Re:Same old song and dance by wvmarle · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In many countries public utilities are run by a commercial company, for profit.

      Sounds odd? Not really. There are two quite easy ways to control them, and push them to provide good service while maximising their profit and keeping prices to the end user reasonable.

      Power companies in Hong Kong, are commercial. They have their monopoly, they have limited pricing power (they must apply to the government to change prices), and have certain supply obligations, like must provide power to anyone within their area. They can make a profit, which is a percentage of their fixed asset investment. Invest more, be allowed to make more money. As a result we have exceptionally reliable power for a reasonable price. An improvement here would be to separate infrastructure and supply, but it's not that bad as it stands.

      Telephone/internet (ADSL) infrastructure, like in The Netherlands, is owned almost entirely by KPN, the former state-owned telephone company. They have the job to provide the infrastructure, and accept other ISPs on that same infrastructure at a fixed price. All ISPs pay the same for access to the homes. And KPN makes profits by keepking their cost lower than the set price they may charge for access. Currently there are dozens of ISPs available for end users, competing with one another, keeping their price low and their service quality high.

      In Europe there are more such separations of infrastructure and supply: power lines and power supply. Gas pipes and gas supply. Railways and train services. Not all of it runs perfectly well, but it's at least the correct direction.

      So yes sure it takes some kind of government regulation - but not necessarily government taking part in the company. The key problem in the US is probably that ANY governmnet intervention is frowned upon, even if it helps freeing a market from a monopolist's stranglehold and allowing many more players to take part.

    15. Re:Same old song and dance by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Informative

      So now Verizon pays $130billion (with a "B") for Vodaphone,

      Hah, hah, that's a good one. No. Verizon is buying the part of Verizon Wireless that Vodaphone currently owns. Vodaphone is not being bought out, or merged. If anything, it is a demerger.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    16. Re:Same old song and dance by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      They have common carrier status already;

      At one time, I thought of creating a /. called "ISPs are not common carriers".

      No, ISPs are not common carriers. They have some of the same protections that common carriers enjoy, but they are not common carriers. If ISPs were common carriers, we would not even be talking about the possiblity of losing net neutrality.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    17. Re:Same old song and dance by AdmiralWeirdbeard · · Score: 2

      while you are correct that verizon's free speech argument is bullshit, net neutrality is not a free speech issue as such. Freedom of speech is a freedom from government interference with speech. Net neutrality certainly promotes speech that is already free, but its absence would not constitute government censorship.

      --
      Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
    18. Re:Same old song and dance by kermidge · · Score: 2

      Indeed.

      That's where I think it went wrong, when a cable company would come to a city with a take-it-or-leave-it deal. The city should have let out for bids, and then let the voters decide. That way the cable companies - and now the ISPs - would be really competing to get the consumers, rather than the common occurrence of the b.s. choice of cable or ADSL at exorbitant fees and limits. (Yes, I'm leaving out dial-up and satellite, each, for various reasons.)

    19. Re:Same old song and dance by AdmiralWeirdbeard · · Score: 2

      you seem to not understand how constitutional law actually works or what freedom of speech actually means. Tons of laws have been passed and held constitutional that restrict speech. Laws against inciting violence or physical harm, defamation, fighting words, and obscenity. The first amendment was written and ratified by men not that far removed from ancestors in England who were clapped in irons and literally branded, on the face, a seditious libeler for vocally disagreeing with the government. It is first and foremost a protection against tyranny. It is not a protection from any private action that limits your speech that would not otherwise be a crime or actionable as a civil matter.

      I also don't see the relevance of contracts law, except insofar as Verizon would like the ability to force its customers to sign contracts allowing them to shape bandwidth and determine what sites customers may and may not visit, etc.. Which is, of course, a bullshit move. But it is bullshit not because the contract would be held void for violating the constitution (it wouldn't) but because the FCC is totally within its powers to regulate the internet. It is bullshit because ISPs should be reclassified as common carriers, as they clearly provide a public necessity.

      The thing is, this is enough of a reason to despise them and their corporate greed. This is enough reason to enact legislation limiting their ability to control the way their customers access information. I'm in no way disagreeing with your general sentiment, just pointing out that you don't know your ass from your elbow when it comes to the law and the constitution.

      --
      Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
    20. Re:Same old song and dance by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      A good start in the US would be to separate the infrastructure and content provider aspects of the business. Right now, Time Warner Cable has an incentive to slow down, block, or otherwise limit other video sites because they could cause a drop in Time Warner Cable's video services. They use their monopoly of the infrastructure to protect their content provider business.

      Imagine if the company was separated, though. Let's call them Time Warner Internet (TWI) and Time Warner Television (TWT). TWI would only get its money from Internet connection subscriptions so it wouldn't have an incentive to limit online video services. Meanwhile, TWT wouldn't be able to enforce its Cable TV service via its Internet access monopoly. You might even get TWI allowing other cable providers to offer their service via TWI lines leading to cable competition in markets that - until now - have been monopoly domains.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    21. Re:Same old song and dance by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      HTTPS doesn't protect against the ISP knowing who you are communicating with. As for VPN, we're already seeing some places blocking VPN. If ISPs turn their Internet offerings into pay-per-view, how long until VPN and all similar technologies are blocked?

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    22. Re:Same old song and dance by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      It's the other way around. Democracy works best in good times; in horrible times, you want a dictatorship. People don't want to take risks or accept short-term hardship for long-term rebuilding and stability; if the economy is terrible and the world is terrible and everything is terrible, people don't want to bleed a little to relieve the pressure so they can get better. They're in too much pain, they don't want more pain. Somebody has to force them down and make them bleed.

      People make horribly thought out emotional decisions. Put them in a broken world and they will make horribly thought out emotional decisions, mostly selfish, and usually wrong. They'll try to make things better for themselves, try to fix perceived problems that don't exist, and put in place perceived solutions that only make things worse.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    23. Re:Same old song and dance by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Joe Dumbass buys Verizon Internet Access for $49.95/mo plus fees*. *2.18 Federal taxes, $7.32 Additional Fees, $3.07 Internet Fees, $11.23 Technology Obsolescence Fees.

      BrickPackets Inc. purchases an OC-192 pipe from Level 3 Communications for $75,000/year plus $145,000 one time fee to run the lines (nice discount).

      Joe Dumbass has purchased the service of having access to the Internet, to be able to address and communicate with other things that have access to the Internet.

      BrickPackets Inc. has purchased the service of having access to the Internet, to be able to address and communicate with other things that have access to the Internet. BrickPackets Inc. has a much bigger pipe, and their TOS doesn't restrict their usage patterns with caps or usage guidelines (i.e. they're allowed to host network services like Web sites or streaming video servers).

      It's completely fair that Joe Dumbass isn't allowed to host Web servers or streaming media or whatever. It is, however, a fact that Joe Dumbass has a connection to THE INTERNET, and BrickPackets Inc. has a connection to THE INTERNET, and Joe Dumbass is going to use his connection to watch live news streaming from BrickPackets Inc.'s servers. Verizon's service contract to Joe Dumbass says that he will have access to THE INTERNET, and thus blocking BrickPackets Inc. streaming media content from Joe Dumbass is infringing on their service contract with Joe Dumbass. If they do so, they can't bill themselves as providing "Internet Access" anymore.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
  3. Simple solution by breser · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seems like there's a simple solution. Verizon's only choice is to try and degrade service for sites that don't pay. If all sites refuse to pay then customers will complain about the degraded service and possibly choose other ISPs. Customers that want to prevent this sort of behavior can simply refuse to visit or given business to sites that do work these sorts of deals. Thus discouraging both sides from doing this. Vote with your wallets people.

    1. Re:Simple solution by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Verizon is the only carrier with reliable data coverage in one's area, how can one vote with his wallet?

    2. Re:Simple solution by Ichijo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can create an ISP cooperative and bring fiber to your neighborhood.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    3. Re:Simple solution by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As people have noted, educate your community about other internet options.
      http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/05/community-fiber/
      Understand your State, your local laws and then read up about what other people did in choice limited regions.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Simple solution by alostpacket · · Score: 2

      This is Verizon Telecom (eg FiOS) not Verizon Wireless. (Though they will soon be one in the same). The FCC only regulated wireline ISPs in it's Open Internet Rules. Thus Verizon Wireless can play all the games they want and sell their paying customers to content providers at will.

      However, the case that went to federal court this week was brought by Verizon Telecom so that they could charge Netflix, YouTube, et al.. And they don't even need to degrade service, they just need to drag their feet on peering agreements.

      What they are doing is purely evil. It's hostile to their own customers and they are already causing these problems. Now they are suing to be allowed to make it worse.

      Another good read:
      http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/fccs-wishy-washy-rulemaking-might-doom-net-neutrality-in-court/

      --
      PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
    5. Re:Simple solution by alostpacket · · Score: 2

      Depends on how intensive your purposes are. :)

      --
      PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
    6. Re:Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your logic is ridiculous. The part where you claim it's not a sacrifice just because we used to not have it.

      We lived without toothbrushes once. We lived without cars once. We lived without deodorant once. We lived without houses once. When nobody had those things it wasn't a sacrifice. When you live in a world that expects you to have those things, it is.

      Now, one could argue that it's a *worthy* sacrifice, but that's a completely different concept.

    7. Re:Simple solution by citizenr · · Score: 2

      oh its simple, you buy a ski mask and set fire to Verizon infrastructure at night for few months in a row.

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    8. Re:Simple solution by westlake · · Score: 2

      You can create an ISP cooperative and bring fiber to your neighborhood.

      Where do I find my upstream provider?

      How do I compete with the mass market pricing of the Telco or cable service?

      The Telco has been here since 1896 - and suburban development has never strayed far from the old land lines.

    9. Re:Simple solution by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      This is stupid. You think people should be willing to give up their careers and livelihoods and become homeless so they don't have to use a company's services? Not having internet service leads directly to unemployment for many, many people (and probably most Slashdotters) these days.

    10. Re:Simple solution by ohnocitizen · · Score: 2

      If you depend on your internet connection to do you job, can you sacrifice your connection? What if most of the people who live in your area are ok with a censored web, because most people just don't care. Do you think voting with your wallet will have any impact?

    11. Re:Simple solution by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      Or, to put it another way: "Dat's a nice website you have dere. It'd be a shame if something were to HAPPEN to it. You know, like slowing to a crawl or something? But if you just pay us for Super High Speed Service, we'll make sure our customers see your site just fine."

      As for ISP's customers, many don't have a choice. If I want high speed Internet, my choices are Time Warner Cable or nothing. Verizon has DSL service, but they've shown that they are increasingly ditching it so jumping to that would be leaping onto a sinking ship. It might buy me some time above water, but it's not a long term solution. (FIOS doesn't reach me and Verizon has no expansion plans.) Given that I do my work online, going without Internet isn't an option so I'm stuck with TWC no matter what ridiculous restrictions they impose. (And, trust me, they know the position their customers are in.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  4. Might be ok by djupedal · · Score: 3, Funny

    Because by the time this happens, I'll be on a beach in Panama, with no electricity, no internet and no need for either. Just me, a case of rum, a nice cool breeze and the sound of waves gently lapping at my feet. Verizon & FB can suck it.

    1. Re:Might be ok by torkus · · Score: 2

      ...and two weeks later when the rum runs out you won't be able to conveniently order another case on your phone without leaving the hammock. Unless you're not an alcoholic like me and it last long enough to set up your own still I suppose.

      Seriously though, the vast majority of the 1st world (and a good # of the 3rd) depend on communication being readily available. While I know these companies are looking for new, creative ways to scratch out a few more % profit they're going about it backwards. Don't try to take away, corrupt, slow, or interfere with what we already have now. Embrace and expand. Offer something original or unique. Grow and diversify your business.

      Oh...you wanted to be a one trick pony with guaranteed profits and no competition? Boo hoo.

      This won't fly. It can't. It would basically destroy the underpinning of of the communication age if it stuck.

      Sadly I can almost forsee this going the way of electrical power at the dawn of the nuclear age. 'Power too cheap to meter' ... yet out electricity costs MORE.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
  5. Take what you can... by slick7 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Monopolizing greed only benefits the greedy. I see this as the writing on the wall, goodbye Verizon, the consumer has spoke. I sought a different carrier after dismal service from Verizon. If this is the future of phone service, then I'll go back to a land line with a rotary dial. Since few people will understand my last statement, it will be the most secure system ever.

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  6. Charge back? by retech · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can website owners charge Verizon for coming to the site? It'd be fun to see how they handle a bill for usage. Oh, and add in admin fees, billing fee, premium use fee, primetime use fee, off peak use fee, per byte use fee, admin fee for counting byte usage, server usage charges, server maintenance charges, gov't tax fee, cross border off-set fee, environmental off-set fees, off/on season fees, grounds fees, snack fees, and general labor fees.

  7. Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl by breser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can't fathom what you mean by content providers wasting bandwidth.

    I pay for a pipe, I expect to be able to send and receive packets to whomever I want. It's up to me as the user to decide if I'm wasting bandwidth. If I don't want to pay as much and save money then I should consider how to use less bandwidth.

    The problem is that ISPs have been getting away with overprovisioning, underdelivering on bandwidth promises and pocketing the massive profits. If you can't make money with people using the bandwidth you sold them then perhaps you should price your product accordingly. If you're selling burst speeds and not explaining to customers your limits then it's your own fault.

  8. Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl by breser · · Score: 3

    Hosted for free? No. Your user is paying you for the transit in both directions.

    If your users aren't aware of how much bandwidth they are using perhaps you as an ISP should so something to educate them.

    Quite frankly, if ISPs want to limit bandwidth usage then they should be required to show the bandwidth usage that has been used and should be required to provide exact limits as to what customers are provided. This shouldn't be any different than how cell phone companies have to show minutes used.

    Instead they've been getting away with marketing burst speeds and creating the appearance of unlimited bandwidth usage (when in reality most of the big ones will start threatening to turn you off if you're using too much).

    You keep brining up Google. What service does Google have that turns a users system into a server in order to access the service?

    In my particular case I know exactly how much bandwidth I'm using. I actually have Cacti graphs. The only major thing that I can think of that I use that turns my system into a server without being obvious is the downloader for some game updates that uses bittorrent. As an ISP I'd think you'd be thrilled because these clients typically prefer to talk to IPs that are in the same blocks and often save a lot of transit across your peers.

  9. Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl by gclef · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you run an ISP and still don't understand that you're not the interesting part of the internet, then you have never understood your place on the 'net. ISPs exist for one reason, and one reason only: to allow people to access content. Period. The "Economic Balance" isn't "tipping towards content companies"...the content companies *are* *the* *things* *your* *customers* *want*. The only thing they want from you is to get to those companies (or each other). You are a conduit, a tube, even. Nothing more.

    The regulations prohibit ISPs from charging more when content providers waste bandwidth

    If your users want the traffic, then the content providers aren't "wasting" it...your customers (who are already paying you for those bits, I should point out) are using what they've paid for. Saying that content providers are wasting bandwidth is basically complaining that your users are actually *using* what you sold them...which is really not a winning argument.

  10. Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl by NouberNou · · Score: 2

    Were you also fired for being insane?

  11. Time to reboot the Internet by FuzzNugget · · Score: 2

    Back to the days when it was just dumb pipes.

    I wonder if it would be possible to build our own truly decentralized "swarm-net" using a mesh of devices that talk directly to each other. Because it's looking more and more like we need something exacly like that.

    I'm envisioning some sort of wireless uplink bridging device with a zero-configuration discovery protocol that seeks out and automatically connects nearby sibling devices. It would need to a wireless protocol with better range than 802.11, have distributed DNS and be IPv6-only between nodes. Such a device could be connected to a router's WAN port to serve as the single uplink or to a LAN port and serve as a bridging device to connect to Internet and "swarm-net" sites. We could keep on using all of the great Internet technologies and protocols. Everything would be encrypted. E-VREY-THING.

    Obviously, adoption would be the biggest hurdle. But, yeah, we need something like that.

  12. Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look, I pay for a class of service (5Mbit down, 640Kbit up.) Deliver that level of service. Period.

    As long as I'm happy with the responsiveness of my system with that level of service, it's none of your god damned business what applications or websites I'm using or visiting to chew up what I've paid for.

    Your "throttling" attempts and "bandwidth caps" are nothing more than trying to steal back what I've already paid for.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  13. Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 2

    An ISP's stance on net neutrality basically comes down to their view on the market. If I go to an ISP looking for access to the internet and their goal is to provide me the best internet access for my money, then they support net neutrality. Alternatively, if a customer paying you for internet access if viewed as a commodity to sell to large corporations, then net neutrality is a horrible injustice. I do applaud you for openly stating your company's position. No matter how much I hope your position fails, I do appreciate your open admission of it.

    --
    "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
  14. Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl by ls671 · · Score: 2

    Looks like a BS site to me. InfoWorld, and only them, should be charged to deliver content to its customers, just like proposed by Verizon plan, look at the list of trackers and crap trying to load when you read TFA:

    AMP Platform Advertising
    BlueKai Beacons
    ChartBeat Analytics
    Demandbase Beacons
    Disqus Widgets
    DoubleClick Spotlight Beacons
    Dynamic Logic Beacons
    Eloqua Analytics
    Facebook Connect Widgets
    Google +1 Widgets
    Google Analytics Analytics
    Krux Digital Beacons
    LinkedIn Widgets Widgets
    Marchex Beacons
    NetRatings SiteCensus Analytics
    Omniture (Adobe Analytics) Beacons
    Sailthru Horizon Beacons
    ShareThis Widgets

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  15. It already is pay per view by ravenscar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I pay my ISP to view the internet. I give them my money to access exactly the sites they are complaining about. If they did not give me access to those sites I would not pay them. I think most customers feel the same way. Nobody pays $100 a month for broadband access so they can send an occasional email or look at wikipedia once in a while. Verizon should be thanking sites like Netflix for creating the demand that allows to get paid by lots and lots of people like me.

    Of course, if Verizon wants to pay me for adding demand to their system (thus allowing them to charge the content providers) then I suppose I might think differently. They can't collect on both ends of the transaction while adding absolutely no value in the middle. Verizon - when do I get my check for watching Netflix?

  16. Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl by BitZtream · · Score: 2

    I can say with authority that no ISP wants to limit what sites users can visit.

    I've started an ISP, and managed 2 others.

    I can say with authority that they most certainly DO want to limit what sites users can visit, especially when it means them making more money in some other way.

    The shill is you asshole. Bandwidth is ridiculously cheap to everyone EXCEPT end users. Every single instance of an ISP complaining about users that I've ever seen has been crap to avoid paying for more bandwidth because they've so over sold that people are noticing and they aren't coming anywhere near what they claim to offer.

    If I buy 5 mb/s from you, you god damn give me 5mb/s. You don't traffic shape it. You give me my fucking bandwidth because I paid for it. You do not pick what gets 5mb and what doesn't, and that is EXACTLY what Verizon wants to do. They want to charge me for my pipe to the Internet, and then charge everyone on the Internet AGAIN to put the data on my which you sold me as access to the Internet.

    Its called double dipping, and you can take your opinion and shove it up your greedy ass. I buy 5mb, you can limit my total bandwidth to 5mb, full stop. You have no other right to manage my connection. You have no right to even look at my packets for any purpose other than getting them to their destination. Keep your greedy fucking paws off my payload.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  17. Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl by chromaexcursion · · Score: 2

    As someone who has worked in the industry.
    You know not of which you speak.
    Netflix has been paying for content delivery, directly or indirectly for years.

    I agree the ploy is stupid. Another small bomb in a much larger battle.

    Comments have mentioned ala carte. Ever wonder why that died an ignominious death?

    As for the author of the title of this bit, of course he hates the rules. but that's not what the title article is about.

  18. This is what it will look like.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Pretty much sums it up: http://i.imgur.com/5RrWm.png

  19. This will accelerate the adoption of Google Fiber by asm2750 · · Score: 2

    If Verizon decides they want to put a limit on how much can be used on their pipes then let them. It's only a matter of time before Google Fiber sets up shop in Verizon's backyard and eats their lunch.

  20. Re:Web sites? by gl4ss · · Score: 2

    the customers pay for that infrastructure... and the reason they pay is the sites they visit.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  21. Kill the corporations or be slaves. by runeghost · · Score: 2

    There ought to be other choices, but it's becoming that the only choices the corporations will allow are their complete mastery over the human race, or their destruction.

  22. confusion of ideas that could provoke such a q by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No. They're trying to charge content producers for using their network and end up with control over access, which will let them choke off that control, bundle the web, and charge on both sides of the equation - for the ability to push content, and for the ability to pull content.

    The web currently doesn't allow a monopoly on content and on bandwidth, it's completely open, it's not a fucking bundle, and I can't rightly understand the confusion of ideas which could lead you to ask this question. You pay for access to the network, not for any specific bundles of information, how is that anything like cable, and how the hell do you think this has anything to do with offering the web a la carte.

    Providers like Verizon should remain a dumb pipe, no matter how much they try to control the network. If they want control, it's certainly not so that they can offer you the web 'a la carte', it's so that they can impose control.