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.'"

34 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.

  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 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.

    2. 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!
    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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.

    7. 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.
       

    8. 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.'"
    9. 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.

    10. 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!
    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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!
    14. 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. 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.

  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 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.
  11. 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?

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

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

  13. 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.