Verizon Sells Off Wireline Operations, Blames Net Neutrality Plans

F(ck them. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 13:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's just an excuse.

Re: F(ck them. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 13:41 · Score: 0

This. Trying to freak people out. Lulz
Re: F(ck them. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 13:46 · Score: 0

I second your proposal and also feel the need to ask... What the hell is with that 3 inch add for crappy phone apps?
Re:F(ck them. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 14:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

convenient one at that.. considering the deal was likely in the works long before there was even a hint of the threat of internet regulation.
the real reason: verizon has huge debt and just committed to spending bazillions more on new wireless spectrum and they need some way to pay down some of that new debt.
Re:F(ck them. by bleh-of-the-huns · 2015-02-06 15:55 · Score: 5, Informative

Verizon has been trying to shed their wireline service for years. They have done a few here and there, using Reverse Morris Trust (basically a way to fuck the company buying VZ's assets, and the constituents... Frontiernet has screwed up everything they have touched)
The timing just coincides with the FCC ruling, and a great opportunity for VZ to talk out of it's collective ass

--
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
Re:F(ck them. by phantomfive · 2015-02-06 16:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Indeed, the fact that someone bought it implies that someone thinks they can run the system profitably.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:F(ck them. by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-02-06 18:20 · Score: 1

They are telling you "we are a greedy corporation, and we don't see any profit in this".
What exactly do you think that is an "excuse" for? Are you alleging that they really could make a profit but they are refusing to do so because they are evil? Or what?
Re:F(ck them. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 18:56 · Score: 0

Why can't they have legal monopolies and abuse their position to compete with Netflix via throttling and charge $100 for a 2 Meg pipe and still be a broadband provider which means no taxes.
www.mixpremiumpass4u.blogspot.com
Re:F(ck them. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 19:31 · Score: 0

Exactly... Cry me a river....
Re:F(ck them. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 19:33 · Score: 0

Yep. This is pure greed, wanting to do away with open and unlimited internet so that they can focus on charging people exorbitant prices for wireless.
Re:F(ck them. by TechyImmigrant · 2015-02-06 20:19 · Score: 1

Where I am in Oregon, they sold the Fios business to Frontier years ago, long before net neutrality was mentioned. This is not a new thing.
I don't have a problem with Frontier internet. The Verizon Fios customers should consider themselves lucky that Verizon is dropping them and passing them on to Frontier.

--
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Re:F(ck them. by Sri+Ramkrishna · 2015-02-06 20:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

Frontier is awesome! They are the only company I know that lowered my monthly rate and up'd my speed. Unheard of.
Re:F(ck them. by TechyImmigrant · 2015-02-06 20:31 · Score: 1

They don't mess with Netflix either.

--
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Re:F(ck them. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 00:03 · Score: 0

Absolutely correct. They have been ditching these lines in the Midwest for years. Again Verizon shows why they are the most corrupt collection con artists in corporate America. If I had to choose between Verizon and nothing, I'd pick nothing.
Re:F(ck them. by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-02-07 01:01 · Score: 1

"We make truckloads more money screwing our wireless customers" is the actual reason.
Sorry, I keep forgetting that so many people are economically impaired so I put things sloppily. "We don't see any profit in this" is indeed sloppy shorthand for "we make less money doing this than doing something else".
So, you're right, that is the actual reason. That is always the actual reason when companies or investors get out of a market in response to regulation or taxes. It's what's supposed to happen, and there is nothing you can do about it because you can't force people to invest in something.
Re:F(ck them. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 03:33 · Score: 0

The only thing worse than having Verizon as a provider is to be saddled with them as a support customer. They SUCK.
Re:F(ck them. by rwa2 · 2015-02-07 03:39 · Score: 1

Yep, I moved from Verizon FIOS in the Washington DC area to Frontier FIOS in Redmond.
With Verizon I had to pay extra for the Business FIOS service so they would unblock server ports like HTTP/SMTP. Ostensibly it was worthwhile since I also got better customer service that didn't sound like they were going to step on a puppy if I didn't follow their script. The service would also go down 5 minutes into any power outage, even though my ONT and other equipment had plenty of battery power in reserve.
With Frontier FIOS here on the Left Coast, I got all of that at the residential service tier (except the backup power issue, haven't had any problem with that even after wind storms knocked out power to the neighborhood a few times.) "Oh, we don't do that" the guy said when I was telling him why I was interested in Business FIOS.
To be fair, there are some downsides.... They still use the troublesome Actiontec router that Verizon had. But I'm too cheap to replace it. Also once or twice in the past 3 years the service just dies and then they restore it after a 10-20 minute phone call where they're like, "oh, yeah... we know what that was, here we twiddled the thing, try again"
Re: F(ck them. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 03:49 · Score: 0

Exactly. Corporations lie about everything, including the fact that they are allegedly over regulated. Lots of people buy that because:
a) The media in the US is a heavily controlled pro-corporate propaganda machine.
b) PEOPLE are over regulated so it's easy to buy that non people are too, especially when their PR people and CEOs whine about it so much.
Lucky for me though. I live in Florida and less Verizon is a good thing.
Re:F(ck them. by ranton · 2015-02-07 04:54 · Score: 1

Indeed, the fact that someone bought it implies that someone thinks they can run the system profitably.
The worry is that regulation will cause less investment, not no investment. There will always be someone trying to make a buck, but in the case of wired communication we probably want as many companies as possible investing in our infrastructure.
I'm not making an assertion that net nuetrality may or may not hurt investment, I am only claiming that the fact a company was willing to buy the lines from Verizon is not a good indicator that the sale was a good investment for either side. For instance, there were still people buying Lehman Brothers stock for $10/share right before they declared bankruptcy. That was clearly not a good investment.

--
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Re:F(ck them. by Nkwe · 2015-02-07 05:02 · Score: 1

Also a Frontier customer in Oregon (as a result of the sale from Verizon). I have had no issues with service since the sale. I have both the FIOS and hard wire line service and they both work great.
Re:F(ck them. by ranton · 2015-02-07 05:02 · Score: 1

Verizon has been trying to shed their wireline service for years. [...] The timing just coincides with the FCC ruling, and a great opportunity for VZ to talk out of it's collective ass
How does them wanting to shed wireline services for years contradict their assertion that net neutrality laws had an impact on their decision? Net neutrality has been discussed by regulators for at least five years. The earliest ruling I could find was the FCC Open Internet Order 2010, signed into law in December 2010. I'm not sure how long before that these issues have been discussed by regulators, but I assumed it was for many years before 2010.
Even if net neutrality only became an issue recently, it could still impact a sale that was in the works for a decade or more. It would just impact the price. If they have been selling off wireline services for years, but only recently decided to sell lines in California, Florida and Texas, it must be because something tipped them over the edge recently. Otherwise they would have already sold these lines years ago.
I am not claiming Verizon isn't taking advantage of the situation to slam net neutrality laws, but you also cannot claim they are with any certainty without a lot more information than is publicly available now.

--
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Re:F(ck them. by ranton · 2015-02-07 05:08 · Score: 1

considering the deal was likely in the works long before there was even a hint of the threat of internet regulation.
There has been the threat of internet regulation since at least the FCC Open Internet Order 2010 which was signed into law in December 2010.
There has been the hint of regulation since at least 2005, when the FCC released a poilicy statement establishing four principles of the open internet.

--
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Re:F(ck them. by jmac_the_man · 2015-02-07 06:24 · Score: 1

The earliest ruling I could find was the FCC Open Internet Order 2010, signed into law in December 2010.
The Open Internet Order was not signed into law. The FCC, which is part of the executive branch, created it. Laws, by definition, must come from the legislative branch (the House and the Senate.) Part of the reason that it was struck down is because the courts found that the FCC stepped outside the boundaries of what Congress told the FCC it was allowed to do. It's important to remember that the FCC has a fairly narrow mandate (that the legislative branch is allowed to modify) when Congress tries to reign the FCC in from cronyist, political decisions like the Title II vote that they intend on taking in March in lieu of true net neutrality rules.
Re:F(ck them. by TechyImmigrant · 2015-02-07 06:52 · Score: 1

>They still use the troublesome Actiontec router that Verizon had
You don't have to use that. The bleed through problem with the Actiontec is that it is the reason they're dragging their feet on IPv6. The Actiontec router doesn't do it.

--
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Re: F(ck them. by ravenshrike · 2015-02-07 08:13 · Score: 1

Given that the FCC has been dicking around in this area for years which the summary conveniently ignores, almost certainly longer than the deal in question has been in the works, what exactly makes you think they're lying? Also, given that there is not a single entity within the US government that knows just how many laws are currently in force, let alone all of the regulations that stem from those laws, in what universe is the state of things not 'over regulated'?
Re:F(ck them. by ranton · 2015-02-07 11:40 · Score: 1

While I admit I used wrong terminology when I called it a law, the FCC order still shows that the danger of regulation has been around for a long time. Later I found that the FCC first released a policy statement in 2005 stating its guidelines for an open internet. So the fact I used the word law incorrectly does not diminish the fact that companies have been worrying about net neutrality (or the lack thereof) for a long time.

--
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Re:F(ck them. by jmac_the_man · 2015-02-07 12:19 · Score: 1

I know. Your point about companies worrying about Net Neutrality rules since 2005 is valid.
However, it's also important that people understand that the FCC isn't allowed to write laws. They have a very narrow mandate, and they're trying to overstep it.
Re: F(ck them. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-08 09:25 · Score: 0

Not much of an excuse, but the ONT backup only covers phone service, not internet. So no surprise you lost service.
Re: F(ck them. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-08 21:56 · Score: 0

I agree. If you read the article, they are really getting rid of *some* of those wireline services in areas where there is not as much growth. Furthermore, they were in deep debt due to the vodaphone buyout and this gives them some much-needed cash. They are keeping the wireline services in the north-east because the growth rate is much higher.
This tells me that the sale has nothing to do with net neutrality. It has to do with good business. If this was a net neutrality issue, they would be selling ALL of their wireline services.
Bottom line is, they are going to lobby for anything that makes them more money which they say creates jobs but really just lines the pockets of the companies upper eschelon. It's the same trickle-down economics that is proven doesn't work.
In today's world, for better or worse, the internet has become an essential tool for communication. Just like telephone and television services, it's become a utility and it needs to be regulated as such. While net neutrality might threaten job growth "at Verizon" in the short term, the amount of business oppirtunities created by equal access I'm sure will more then make up for it.

So, pass the buck to government ... by UnknownSoldier · 2015-02-06 13:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

... for your fuckups and lack of revenues?

Gee, here's an idea .. about you stop with the crappy customer service .. so you know, you actually can *acquire* customers for the long term.

Re:So, pass the buck to government ... by UnknownSoldier · 2015-02-06 13:45 · Score: 1

Holy crap, there are a LOT of complaints about Verizon ...
Re: So, pass the buck to government ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 15:04 · Score: 0

yo mama is a two dollar ho.
Re:So, pass the buck to government ... by mikeiver1 · 2015-02-06 15:24 · Score: 1

'This uncertainty is not good for investment, and it's not good for jobs here in America.' Really now? How is this not good for American jobs? These assholes can't outsource the infrastructure. They can't outsource the plant, the fibre, the maintenance workers and installers... I fail to see how this is really bad for the consumer at all. Here is the fact. In wireless they are able to sell you small chunks of data at criminally marked up rates where as in wire line and fibre they generally are not able to limit you thanks to the FCC rules and laws. As long as they are basically unregulated in the wireless arena they will stay there and fight to keep it that way. Another thing to keep in mind is that they are going to start to feel the push at their sphincters more and more from Google in major metro markets as they roll fibre. Fact is having 1Gb symmetrical is not really of much use to you or me 99.9999% of the time, it is really just a marketing gimmick. Companies like Google can push into markets like this since they can simply run their lines after buying off the relevant parties in the area of interest. No so with wireless as there is no bandwidth to be bought since only a few of the major wireless companies have all of it bought and payed for. Essentially these are government sanctioned and supported monopolies, just the same as cities with only one broad band provider. This is Verizon management admitting that they can't buy their way out of this and so they are cutting and running. Simply put, a new more forward looking and creative management group will be able to make a go of it. If they invest in the last mile and compete with or better the cable companies in the area at the game they will be very profitable
Re:So, pass the buck to government ... by bigfinger76 · 2015-02-06 15:53 · Score: 5, Informative

By "Obama Phone" I assume you mean the Lifeline Assistance program, which was put in place long before Obama took office. In fact, it was instituted under none other than Ronald Reagan.

I have an uncle like you., and it's depressing.
Re:So, pass the buck to government ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 16:29 · Score: 0

'This uncertainty is not good for investment, and it's not good for jobs here in America.' Really now? How is this not good for American jobs?

Net Neutrality has been talked about since 2003. Momentum has been building since then to have the government step in and regulate the internet.
Would you risk your capital in an area that seems threatened by increasing government control and regulation?
Lightspeed was terribly careless when it came to dealing with regulation. They completely misread the sentiment of regulators and lost a huge amount of capital --- and a lot of potential jobs were lost, too.
Re:So, pass the buck to government ... by andydread · 2015-02-06 17:24 · Score: 2

All the taxes placed on a land line to pay for Obama Phone and E911
You sir are as complete brainwashed moron. - smh. The so called "Obama phone" is a program started by reagan
Re: So, pass the buck to government ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 17:52 · Score: 0

Yo momma left you in a trashcan. The dump didn't want you either.
Re:So, pass the buck to government ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 18:30 · Score: 0

Verizon customer service is awful. It's so awful, I wouldn't (and don't) use them after a horrible experience with them... ...and I work at Verizon. (Posting Anonymously, because of the above)
Re:So, pass the buck to government ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 19:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

Do you think the government regulate underwear manufacturers? Serious question. I ask to highlight that unlike telecom, underwear manufacturing is not a natural monopoly. Anyone can enter. Anyone can sell any colour and style of underwear. Over any sales channel. Red Jockey briefs don't get a 'fast-lane' to the consumer and blue trunks the slow lane. If a department store puts 'special arrangements' for red briefs, the demand blue trunks is met by another sales channel - another department store, or mail order catalog, or a specialist tailor in Phuket who stiches and ships bespoke blue trunks - the best in the world.
The government is regulating a bunch of utilities - large telecoms and ISPs - that are defacto monopolies. (Broadband Internet is a defacto monopoly for a host of reasons - right-of-way agreements, wireless spectrum ownership, trenching costs, agreements with municipalities).
The government is regulating because these utilities plan to do away with business practices (peering, traffic neutrality) that were widely accepted and taken for granted when their respective monopolies were awarded.
This change of behavior is for a variety of reasons - none of which are concerned with improving productivity, and increasing employment. In fact, one specific reason is favored treatment of its own third-party products (e.g. entertainment networks the utilities own, or partner with). That particular reason is plain 'third line forcing' monopolistic behavior.
Frankly, to expect any other behavior by government would be irresponsible. Like any corporation, a government is responsible for the interests of its real shareholders - the citizens. Each citizen of age gets 1 share and 1 vote. Every now and then, the board gets too close to a few suppliers. The shareholders then cause a spill. (If they are wise).
Verizon is selling? Good. The ones buying think they can do a better job with wireline. The only jobs lost will be poorly paid network traffic cops Verizon planned to employ to skim profits. If you were hoping to be one of those, my sympathies. But be robust and move on.
Re:So, pass the buck to government ... by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2015-02-07 03:49 · Score: 2

The government is regulating because these utilities plan to do away with business practices (peering, traffic neutrality) that were widely accepted and taken for granted when their respective monopolies were awarded.
Let's hear that again, I think some folks might have missed it.

The government is regulating because these utilities plan to do away with business practices (peering, traffic neutrality) that were widely accepted and taken for granted when their respective monopolies were awarded.
If you still didn't quite get that, allow me to translate: These monopolies intend to re-architect the Internet to suit their profit model, and to prevent others from getting started the way that they did.
Give this AC a cigar. And some upmods.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:So, pass the buck to government ... by TimSSG · 2015-02-07 05:58 · Score: 1

By "Obama Phone" I assume you mean the Lifeline Assistance program, which was put in place long before Obama took office. In fact, it was instituted under none other than Ronald Reagan. I have an uncle like you., and it's depressing.
Most likely you are wrong; most common meaning of "Obama Phone" is the free cell phone program. Which was started under G.W. Bush. Tim S.
Re:So, pass the buck to government ... by jmac_the_man · 2015-02-07 06:38 · Score: 2

The so-called Obamaphone program started under George W. Bush, although it was modeled on the Lifeline Assistance program which began during the Reagan era.
The program is run by cell phone companies, who get a subsidy from the Federal government for each subsidized subscriber. The name Obamaphone originated with the companies. Some of them decided to call their version of the program "Obamaphone" to imply that their service (and not their competitors') were endorsed by President Obama, who is very popular in the demographic that they are advertising to.
For President Obama, this has the added benefit of implying that if a Republican gets elected, "Obamaphone" goes away. The Republicans would almost definitely not end the free cell phone program. However, they should put a stop to the companies CALLING it "Obamaphone." The government (and its private sector allies) should not be allowed to brand public assistance benefits as a gift from a particular politician or a particular party.
Re:So, pass the buck to government ... by bigfinger76 · 2015-02-07 06:53 · Score: 1

Which was an expansion of LA. The pedantry...
Re:So, pass the buck to government ... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2015-02-07 08:27 · Score: 1

Lightspeed was terribly careless when it came to dealing with regulation
Yeah, they should have hired at least one attorney or at least one engineer who could tell the MBAs, "No, we can't use internationally-allocated satellite-to-ground spectrum for terrestrial communications."
But it's a lot easier to blame the big bad gubbermint.
Re:So, pass the buck to government ... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2015-02-07 14:13 · Score: 1

(Right rant, wrong target -- I was thinking of LightSquared.)
Re:So, pass the buck to government ... by Jason+Levine · 2015-02-07 14:42 · Score: 2

The government is regulating because these utilities plan to do away with business practices (peering, traffic neutrality) that were widely accepted and taken for granted when their respective monopolies were awarded.
If you still didn't quite get that, allow me to translate: These monopolies intend to re-architect the Internet to suit their profit model, and to prevent others from getting started the way that they did.
There's also the other wrinkle to this whole discussion: Verizon brought this upon themselves. The FCC enacted some weak network neutrality rules that almost all of the ISPs liked. It would have essentially let the ISPs do whatever they wanted. Only Verizon didn't like having any rules at all so they sued. They were successful in getting the rules knocked down, but at the expense of the courts telling the FCC they would have to declare that ISPs fall under Title II. So the FCC did this. Verizon got greedy and it came back to bite them in the rear.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:So, pass the buck to government ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 16:37 · Score: 0

The name Obamaphone originated with the companies.
[citation needed]
Re:So, pass the buck to government ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-09 06:23 · Score: 0

The name Obamaphone originated with the companies. Some of them decided to call their version of the program "Obamaphone" to imply that their service (and not their competitors') were endorsed by President Obama, who is very popular in the demographic that they are advertising to.
You're talking about obamaphone.net. Which first appeared in 2009, but it was just a parked page. It didn't get the content you describe until Nov 2013. So it was at least four years after the term was coined that the company started using it. You can check archive.org yourself if you don't believe me.

AT&T isn't far behind by nehumanuscrede · 2015-02-06 13:40 · Score: 1

The test run was the former SNET region. ( Last year )

Trust me when I say other regions are soon to follow. Especially in the regions where they have not ( and have no desire to ) deploy their U-Verse systems.

Re:AT&T isn't far behind by unrtst · 2015-02-06 15:20 · Score: 1

The test run was the former SNET region. ( Last year )
If this all means that the new ma bells will be selling off all their landline stuff, I'm all for it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
All the systems have re-united under either AT&T or Verizon. There is a spattering of smaller LEC's, but those two hold the vast majority of system. Why did we break up Bell before? Why in the world did they (regulators) allow these to coalesce?
Re:AT&T isn't far behind by wiredlogic · 2015-02-06 19:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

The problem is that they're selling off to bottom feeders like Frontier who will do nothing to improve the copper infrastructure which could still be useful if it were tidied up to achieve VDSL2 speeds.

--
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Re:AT&T isn't far behind by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 01:47 · Score: 0

That's no different than Verizon's attitude towards copper. In too many cases, Verizon actually ripped out the copper when they started deploying FIOS.
Re:AT&T isn't far behind by jamesborr · 2015-02-07 03:50 · Score: 1

Could not agree more re: Frontier. They buy an asset at whatever state it is in, and they milk it for all it's worth -- that is their business model after all. If they bought Fios -- good for their Fios customers, they get to keep fiber type speeds. If they bought a 50+ year old copper infrastructure -- then great, those customers get to keep 1-2 Mbit/sec DSL -- I guess good for them too. Frontier does not invest in new/cutting edge technologies as that is not their core competency. Last year I reevaluated my internet options (i.e. Frontier and Time Warner). For a business type line (i.e. no TOS restrictions, /29 of public addresses, etc.) which was going to be $100+ with either company, Time Warner could give me 10 up/50 down, Frontier in 2014 could offer me 1 down, maybe 2 if I got lucky, and up, well forget about it -- which is the same performance they were offering over a decade ago when I last had them...

It's so not fair by Billly+Gates · 2015-02-06 13:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why can't they have legal monopolies and abuse their position to compete with Netflix via throttling and charge $100 for a 2 Meg pipe and still be a broadband provider which means no taxes. Wahaha EVIL socialist bastards.

--
http://saveie6.com/

Re:It's so not fair by Solandri · 2015-02-06 17:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Wahaha EVIL socialist bastards.
I'm not sure why people keep trying to cast these stories as a failure of market capitalism, and socialism to the rescue. The cable and telecom industries in the U.S. are a classic example of a failure of government regulation. The monopolies exist because they were granted by the local governments, which prohibit competition. And many of the problems we see like net non-neutrality would in fact be solved by allowing market competition. If Comcast had had competition and they deliberately degraded Netflix service, they would've bled customers once word got around that Netflix sucked on Comcast but worked great with competing ISPs.

"Socialist" Europe has actually gotten this one right. For the most part they're not trying to control their ISPs with heavy-handed regulations. They're regulating it just enough to maximize competition. i.e. Their ISP is closer to a free market than in the U.S.
Re:It's so not fair by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 18:07 · Score: 0, Informative

The monopolies exist because they were granted by the local governments, which prohibit competition
1992 Cable Act forbids local governments issuing exclusive franchises.
The monopolies exist because Google is the only company that isn't a telecom and is interested in spending a hundred million dollars per city to fiber it up, and they only have so many hundred million dollars to spend.
Re:It's so not fair by Fire_Wraith · 2015-02-06 18:39 · Score: 3, Informative

It's because most people today tend to grossly misunderstand what socialism is, and what "market capitalism" is.

An actual "Socialist" would want to do something like nationalize all the major telecom companies.

Market Capitalism, on the other hand, relies on the Government acting as arbiter and enforcer of basic rules of fair competition, because that is a core requirement. When Adam Smith was alive, Socialism hadn't even been thought up yet. Instead, you had the government (generally run by a Monarch/Nobility) granting exclusive privileges or outright monopolies to certain individuals or corporations, like giving the East India Company a monopoly on the import of tea.

Sound familiar?

This is what we're having the argument over, here - whether or not the government will act to encourage competition and curb monopoly abuses, or whether it will let the status quo of monopolistic preferences and abuse continue. Nobody's even remotely talking about nationalization.
Re:It's so not fair by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 00:36 · Score: 0

'Why is it that RWNs like yourself will NEVER see a problem without ascribing it to government, NEVER the actual market failing itself?
Internet access is a natural monopoly, best you'd get is one per cable into the house, so phone and tv making two options.
Re:It's so not fair by Billly+Gates · 2015-02-07 05:02 · Score: 1

My point was to draw satire of those brainwashed by lobbyists and those who listen to people like Rush Limbaugh.
Since the poor evil government decided on this it is therefore socialism and an attack on freedom!
It is not logical or thought. Just government = bad. Do nothing = good. Socialism = government so therefore bad.
Which is why Republicans want a hearing to censure Obama for undo influence on creating Title II and doing this job as the president. It was him implementing evil communism according the Verizon, Comcast, and others and an ignorant base who believe whatever they say.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re: It's so not fair by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 05:15 · Score: 0

Check that 'theory' with the states. They primarily offer exclusivity to telcos. Verizon in Texas is a prime example!
Re:It's so not fair by jmac_the_man · 2015-02-07 06:42 · Score: 1

This is what we're having the argument over, here - whether or not the government will act to encourage competition and curb monopoly abuses, or whether it will let the status quo of monopolistic preferences and abuse continue.
No, the question here is whether we will let the status quo of government granted monopoly abuse continue, or whether we should move to a new model with MORE government granted monopoly abuse.
Nobody is talking about legitimately deregulating telecommunication franchising at the municipal level. That would result in less monopolization, but God forbid we put that on the table.
Re:It's so not fair by jmac_the_man · 2015-02-07 06:48 · Score: 1

Republicans want a hearing to censure Obama for undo [sic] influence on creating Title II and doing this job as the president.
The FCC is supposed to be an independent executive branch agency. In theory, it doesn't exist to do the President's bidding. (When a Republican is in office, the press calls this an indicator of "The Imperial Presidency.") But when an "independent agency" comes up with rules that the President asks for in the press that help his cronies, the other party will raise this concern. This happens all the time.
Re:It's so not fair by Billly+Gates · 2015-02-07 09:14 · Score: 1

Republicans want a hearing to censure Obama for undo [sic] influence on creating Title II and doing this job as the president.
The FCC is supposed to be an independent executive branch agency. In theory, it doesn't exist to do the President's bidding. (When a Republican is in office, the press calls this an indicator of "The Imperial Presidency.") But when an "independent agency" comes up with rules that the President asks for in the press that help his cronies, the other party will raise this concern. This happens all the time.
Is not the president the chief executive of the executive branch of government? In essence he reports to Obama

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:It's so not fair by jmac_the_man · 2015-02-07 12:16 · Score: 1

No, the President is not the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch. He's the Chief Executive of the country, and he's the head of the Executive Branch, but he's not the chief executive of the executive branch. In the same sense, he's not the Commander in Chief of everyone, he's only the Commander in Chief of the military.
This may look like a distinction without a difference. But it really isn't. Executive Branch employees are supposed to act in the best interest of the people of the United States, not necessarily the President. The Pendleton Act, the Hatch Act, and their successors, codify the relationship between individual executive branch employees (the Civil Service) and the President's political operation.
For example, if the President determined that it would help his reelection campaign if the IRS demanded exacting paperwork from his political opponents, the head of the IRS is supposed to say no. (Nixon's IRS chief turned down an order to audit Nixon's opponents.)
President Obama only wants Title II because it will reduce costs for people who gave a lot of money to his campaign and increase costs for people who didn't. It might be in the best interests of President Obama, but it's not in the best interests of anyone else. The FCC chief is supposed to turn him down.

Translation... by thesupraman · 2015-02-06 13:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

Our huge profit margins are not maximized under the current plans, and it means we cannot use our government enforced cartels to force other companies to pay us again for services the end users are already paying for.

Therefore we will 'protest' by selling off an area of the business we have been planning to sell of for normal commercial reasons for quite some time, but using our highly paid group of lobbyists and spin doctors, we will make you think this is bad for you, and therefore change the playing field to make us even more profitable, at your expense.

The sad thing is some people will actually fall for this rubbish.

And the sadder thing is it wont matter if you dont fall for it, because 'campaign contributions' mean they get whatever laws they desire anyway, given enough time and no one peaking behind the curtain.

Welcome to the new world.

Re:Translation... by TubeSteak · 2015-02-06 14:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

Therefore we will 'protest' by selling off an area of the business we have been planning to sell of for normal commercial reasons for quite some time, but using our highly paid group of lobbyists and spin doctors,

Lobbyists and spin doctors?
Any media who reports "Verizon blames net neutrality" is basically falling down on the job.
Journalists and editors are supposed to have some minimal obligation towards reporting the truth.

âoeWashington should be very thoughtful how they go forward here,â [Verizon Chairman and CEO Lowell McAdam] said. âoeThis uncertainty is not good for investment, and itâ(TM)s not good for jobs here in America.â
The sale of the wireline operations has been in the works for several years, Verizon executives said.
Those should not be paragraphs 5 and 6.
Heck, "in the works for several years," should have been the headline.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Translation... by Chewbacon · 2015-02-06 14:13 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, you're right. People don't know what the hell this means. My local news tried to sum it up: net neutrality means your ISO can choose which web pages load quickly and which load slowly. Fail. Some people, myself included, attempted to correct them and educate readers in the comments. However, people quickly adopted a bipartisan, anti-regulation, or general anti-government mentality regarding the issue.
Want to kill net neutrality? Put it in the hands of the people.

--
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Re:Translation... by sumdumass · 2015-02-06 14:56 · Score: 1

It kind of sucks reaching at Rush Limbaugh, but he has declared there is no journalism in the media any more. It is all media narrative reports from media narrative reporters.
Interesting thought though. Even if people do not like the source.
Re:Translation... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 15:50 · Score: 0

That's just rush using deflection... i.e. pay no attention to my barrage of lies, everybody lies
The sad thing is when the bean counters see that there is profit to be made and follow rush's 'success'
Re:Translation... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 17:16 · Score: 0

Agreed. I'd rather be without internet entirely forever than to let my providers start picking and choosing what is best for me, or extorting money for their own services which just so happens to have bits that don't get in those pesky accidents on the way to your house. In short what is beginning to occur now is little different than having the maffia hit people up for protection money. Worse, by dynamically replacing content and adds they could shape much of what people see. It is not a stretch to imagine some shady deals effectively changing the outcome of an election.
It is wrong for North Korea. It is wrong for China, and it is wrong for the United States of America. Sure it wouldn't directly be the government shaping our internet experience. It would just be the corporations who write the laws our leaders sign into law. Nothing could possibly go wrong there..
Re:Translation... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 17:28 · Score: 0

Please call campaign contribution as "Distributed corruption" where every customer pays first to Verizon and then they give what is collected from customers to the politicians. In otherr countries it is "source corruption" in that the cusomer directly pays to officals who then pay to the politicians. Demon Cracy is working well.
Re:Translation... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 01:21 · Score: 1

Journalists and editors are supposed to have some minimal obligation towards reporting the truth.
And what of their corporate overlords?

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.
Florida Second District Court of Appeals agreed with FOX:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/07/31/364678/-Fox-News-wins-in-court
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre
Re:Translation... by Waffle+Iron · 2015-02-07 03:32 · Score: 1

It kind of sucks reaching at Rush Limbaugh, but he has declared there is no journalism in the media any more. It is all media narrative reports from media narrative reporters.
Well, he would know, since he pretty much invented replacing journalism with BS.
Re:Translation... by jmac_the_man · 2015-02-07 06:55 · Score: 1

Ironically, you're at best repeating a lie.
Akre wanted to run a story solely based on the claims of anti-Monsanto activists. The Fox affiliate she worked for refused to run the story without her attempting to interview someone from Monsanto. She refused, on the theory that Monsanto would just lie to her. After a few rounds of this, the affiliate fired her for insubordination (that is, refusing to interview someone from Monsanto.)
Akre and her anti-Fox allies have been pretending for a decade that since Akre knows that Monsanto would have just lied to Akre, forcing Akre to include a quote from Monsanto is tantamount to Fox News fighting for the first amendment protecting them lying on the air.

Uncertainty by goodmanj · 2015-02-06 13:45 · Score: 1

Ever notice how "uncertainty" has come to mean "something we don't want to happen"? Not just net neutrality, it's everywhere. It's like, everything we support will last forever, everything we oppose is uncertain because someday we'll manage rid of it.

Re:Uncertainty by rtb61 · 2015-02-06 14:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

Talk of uncertainty is simply PR=B$ to hold up the sales price. They are simply selling the copper network which they have degraded to crap with poor maintenance, other bits are tacked on in order to protect that price. Incumbents all over the world are looking to dump their degraded copper networks with only idiots looking to buy or scams like in Australia where Toxic Tony and crew who strangled the national NBN project to death are going to dump billions of dollars of taxpayer money straight into the pockets of two corporations and their investors by buying a degraded copper network.
Here's betting exactly what the incumbents will do once they dump the copper, install a new fibre to the premise network and burn the suckers who bought the copper with gold. I wonder how many countries governments will be corrupts enough to buy into the same deal being done in Australia.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:Uncertainty by swb · 2015-02-06 14:13 · Score: 1

Why should they expect certainty? Certainties in economics don't exist except when you're a monopolist getting rents.
Re:Uncertainty by Dragonslicer · 2015-02-06 14:54 · Score: 1

Why should they expect certainty? Certainties in economics don't exist except when you're a monopolist getting rents.
I can't tell whether or not you intentionally answered your own question.

translation: by nimbius · 2015-02-06 13:47 · Score: 1

if you thought the 100k IBM layed off was impressive, just watch how we, a company too big to fail, shit all over the peasantry if you dont get back to kissing our ass.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.

" and it's not good for jobs here in America.'" by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 13:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

Funny... Verizon outsourcing jobs is good for america but this isn't?

"This was all in an effort to cut costs and make larger profits. And profits they’ve made. During the same period of laying off thousands of workers, Verizon made more than $19.7 billion in profits and received a $758 billion federal tax refund."

http://www.goodjobsnow.org/201...

Re:" and it's not good for jobs here in America.'" by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 19:27 · Score: 0

$758 Billion?? Are you sure? Other sources have it as a more plausible $758 Million.
http://otherwords.org/verizon_shortchanges_facts/
This is Slashdot, we shouldn't be letting mistakes of 3 orders of magnitude slide, even when it's about a company we don't like.
Re:" and it's not good for jobs here in America.'" by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 03:10 · Score: 0

Read the link. it is an error in the actual article i copied... Clearly it should have been 758 Million.
Regardless, they had a very healty profit, still got a tax refund and shed jobs.

Just a chance to threaten america by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 13:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

Verizon sucks up tax breaks and rebates for building out fios and then tosses it usually to frontier that just barely maintains it. This is how they operate, they hardly ever keep landlines once they are done building in the area and frontier never adds to the network. It is a scam they have ran since they started installing fios as keeping and running the actual network is a not as profitable.

Re:Just a chance to threaten america by wiredlogic · 2015-02-06 19:32 · Score: 1

Don't have mods but parent needs to be +5. FIOS was all an elaborate scam to steal from the taxpayer.

--
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.

Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 13:53 · Score: 0

You can pump a LOT more data thru a wire/fibre than wireless.

I they can't do the last mile, lets cover cites with FREE wifi mesh networks on light/utility poles.

And not let *%^(*^(&*^ companies make money on the deal.

Re:Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 15:47 · Score: 0

... lets cover cites with FREE wifi mesh networks on light/utility poles.
Have you identified workers who will install and maintain these "free" networks in exchange for nothing (like wages and benefits)? Have you identified the customer service reps who will work in exchange for nothing. Have you identified the companies that will donate all the required hardware? Have you identified the companies that will donate the trucks (and maintenance) and tools for installation and maintenance? Have you identified the oil company that will donate gas/diesel for the trucks required for maintenance? Have you identified the private utility that will donate the power for the network? Have you identified land owners who will donate and maintain necessary office/warehouse space?
Or, did you mean that you wanted me to pay for it so you can use it without paying for it?
Very little in life is free and I don't think this is an exception.

Verizon... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 13:53 · Score: 0

STFU!!!!

Nonsense by sonicmerlin · 2015-02-06 13:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is actually quite silly. Plans to sell 11 figures worth of business assets ($10,000,000,000) don't happen overnight. This has obviously been years in the making.

Re:Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 14:38 · Score: 0

exactly.
The CEO apparently wants to run VzW again.
This CEO has been dismantling 30 years worth of progress. Instead of expanding offerings he has over and over sold things off. He has basically thrown the baby out with the bathwater. They have a product people ASK to have and are willing to basically throw money at them to have. They continue to gouge their customers on wireless thinking people will forever want 200+ dollar phone bills It has been clear for many years this CEO is not about innovation (other than new billing options). But making sure status quo is kept. They have basically ripped off no less than 4 different states and the federal gov in funds for service that was never rendered (finishing the FiOS setup). He has taken on nearly 140 billion in debt. With very few ways to pay it off other than to consume all the possible profit and assets.
Re:Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 19:10 · Score: 0

The only thing silly is your assuming that once a sale is planned, it must be executed.
Had the winds shifted in their favor, they could have, and probably would have, called off the sale. Instead, the market is turning against them and they decide to complete the sale. That is a direct result of the legislative and economic environment.
This so-called push for "Net Neutrality" is simply Obamacare for the internet. Obama is like,the anti-King Midas. Everything he touches turns to shit.

Re:Verizon Sells Off Wireline Operations by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 13:57 · Score: 0

Your spam smells like curry.

Yep... by davesque · 2015-02-06 14:00 · Score: 1

what's bad for their bottom line is bad for America.

And, for those of you who like government... by BobandMax · 2015-02-06 14:02 · Score: 0

Who was it that created the environment allowing these monopolies market strangleholds? Government, at all levels, federal, state and local. Particularly guilty are the small-minded scum inhabiting most city governments. They abused their positions by selling sweetheart monopolies to [fill in blank], ostensibly for municipal revenue, but really to buy votes and influence. I am definitely not saying that Verizon, or any other company, has clean hands. But there is lots of blame to go around. A would also not bet on "Net Neutrality" being the path to a utopian broadband future.

--

"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
-- Pablo Picasso

Re:And, for those of you who like government... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 14:15 · Score: 1

You think the massive infrastructure investment needed would have happened without government?
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by BobandMax · 2015-02-06 15:21 · Score: 1

Ot course, they wanted to make money. I'm not the only one who know this.
http://www.wired.com/2013/07/w...

--

"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
-- Pablo Picasso
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by circletimessquare · 2015-02-06 15:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

it's called a natural monopoly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
zero government regulation doesn't mean magic free market fairy makes everything fair. it means you still have a monopoly, because the barrier to entry is too high: no one has billions to invest in building more conduits. or they have the money, but it's not worth the risk to them to invest billions and they don't make enough back after years, the network effect works against them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
google can compete, sure. so just wait for them to show up in your city in 40-50 years
meanwhile, you're still shafted in the ass with zero recourse whatsoever
government is not the problem
in fact, the ONLY solution you have to natural monopolies is government, via regulations
the problem we have in the usa is legalized corruption
corporations, by buying your congresscritters by funding their elections, and promising revolving door regulators a cushy job, *corrupt* your government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
there are other countries, canada, the nordics, where corruption is greatly reduced (it will always exist, the point is to minimize it). these countries do not have the same problems we have (see also: healthcare as another example of where the usa is corrupted and we are financially shafted with low quality, and our social and economic peers don't have the same level of problem)
if you were an intelligent person, you would be arguing for laws against corruption in your government. you would be asking them to heavily regulate natural monopolies, especially in regards to profit taking. please note heavy regulation does not mean *corrupt* regulations, which of course have to be reversed
but if you are a propagandized moron, you ask for a weakened government, which works for the plutocrats, because now there is no regulatory capture they have to engage in or corruption they have to fund. that makes them happy, and you get shafted even more in broadband (and healthcare)

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-02-06 18:31 · Score: 1

but if you are a propagandized moron, you ask for a weakened government, which works for the plutocrats, because now there is no regulatory capture they have to engage in or corruption they have to fund
You do realize that "regulatory capture" refers to the capture of regulations? I.e., the fact that when you pass regulations, they get captured by special interests?

if you were an intelligent person, you would be arguing for laws against corruption in your government
Actually, you just sound like an NSDAP supporter from the 1930's. I don't think they were particularly intelligent.
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by BobandMax · 2015-02-06 18:39 · Score: 1

Straw man bullshit, Junior. Nobody said there should be no regulation. But, what many municipalities have done is grant monopolies to companies with the expected result that service is poor, prices are high and there is no alternative. Where there are multiple broadband vendors, service is better, prices are lower and consumers have choices. It is not rocket science, except to you.

Here
Here
and Here

--

"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
-- Pablo Picasso
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by circletimessquare · 2015-02-06 18:50 · Score: 2

the idea is to pass laws against corrupt regulation
if you get rid of regulation, you still have the monopolies. except without regulations, now they screw you without even having to pretend to be following fake rules they paid for
the idea that less regulations is somehow better is fucking stupid
the idea that regulations are automatically corrupt is spineless cynicism
there are plenty of countries with effective regulations. they get those with strong rules against corruption
meanwhile, the usa has legalized corruption. buying congresscritters by funding their elections. owning regulators by giving them cushy jobs after government work. both should be illegal
but instead of a large grassroots movement against corruption, we have hordes of low iq propagandized douchebags against government
government is not wonderful. government does plenty of things wrong. but it's just that, on the issue of natural monopolies, government regulation is the only fucking solution, the least worst option
we have so many spineless, stupid people in the usa who think regulations are the problem and thereby support a horrible status quo with their ignorant, cynical inaction
*corrupt* regulations are the problem, not regulation, on the topic (only the topic, before i get accused of loving government which i don't) of natural monopolies
i'm not asking anyone to trust government
i'm asking people to see, on the *specific* topic of natural monopolies, the real culprit is plutocrats, not government, via corruption
fight corruption, not government
without government they will still screw you, but more happily, because now they don't even have to waste money on corruption. without government, the problems of natural monopolies don't just disappear in magic free market fairy farts. there are no free market solutions to natural monopolies. only (noncorrupt) government regulatory solutions

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by circletimessquare · 2015-02-06 19:10 · Score: 1

there's no strawman, there's simply a solid economic concept you fail to understand in the formation of your opinion: the natural monopoly. in fact this concept is pretty much fundamental to the problem here. if you call a fundamental concept on the topic a "strawman," you can't be considered a serious person on this topic, your opinion is an uneducated one
what does that mean to you, the concept of a natural monopoly. is it a joke? is it made up? does it only exist because of government? is government a more important factor?
the basics for you:
to compete in ANY market, you need to make an initial investment. you understand that, right?
ok, now going further: in some markets: hospitals, power plants, networks, etc., the initial investment before you ever begin receiving a return on your investment is so huge, that no one makes the investment after the first initial hospital/ power plant/ network/ etc.
this isn't nail salons or coffee shops we are talking about. to compete, you can't build one wire, or one pipe. you need to build thousands, millions, to even BEGIN to be considered a valid alternative. and then what? what if you get no customers because the other guy undercuts his prices so you can never see a return and then you go bankrupt? that happens to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
how do you fight predatory pricing? drum roll please... government. regulations
there is no such thing as a free and fair market in the entire world and all of history that did not exist without regulation (FAIR regulation, not corrupt regulation, which is a problem... so fight the corruption, not the regulation... right?) in fact, if you want competition in broadband, you have the government own and maintain the pipes, and then various companies LEASE bandwidth and offer services. that's real competition in broadband. only possible with government ownership/ heavy regulation of broadband (please note: i do not love government, government does plenty wrong. it's just that, on the specific concept of natural monopolies, uncorrupt regulation is the least worst option)
do you understand the concept of the natural monopoly now? if so, then good for you, and understand your current opinion needs revision
once you consider the actual economic facts on a topic, THEN form an opinion. an educated, valid opinion
government is not the problem
the simple facts of the economic fundamentals are: the natural monopoly
educate yourself

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 20:43 · Score: 0

Something went very wrong with your typing. A complete disregard for how the rest of us learned how to read. You seem to know the shift key since you egregiously used the parenthesis. And I see a smattering of periods. It's not difficult to type in English. Your prose is thoughtful, but your message comes across as well as someone who typed it in all caps. Sorry.
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by circletimessquare · 2015-02-06 21:14 · Score: 1

not a problem
feel free to never read or comment on a post of mine ever again

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 01:30 · Score: 0

Please feel free to stop posting your drivel. No one, except a couple fuckwits that mod you up, gives a rat's ass what the fuck you think.
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-02-07 01:39 · Score: 1

the real culprit is plutocrats, not government, via corruption
For a plutocrat like Musk to advertise a Tesla to you isn't illegal, wrong, or harmful. What's wrong and harmful is if you make the choice to buy it even if you can't afford it.
For companies to go to regulators to say "we can do wonders for society and the public if you grant us a monopoly/subsidize us/protect us from competition/fix our prices" isn't illegal, wrong, or harmful. What's wrong and harmful is if government actually grants complies. The responsibility is with government, not with the people doing the asking.

the idea is to pass laws against corrupt regulation
Corrupt regulation is created by two groups of people: the executive branch and the legislative branch. Those are the same people responsible for passing laws against corrupt regulation.
Why do you believe that the people responsible for creating corrupt regulations in the first place would pass laws restricting their own ability to create corrupt regulation? How is that supposed to work?
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by serviscope_minor · 2015-02-07 02:43 · Score: 1

And, for those of you who like government...
Oh I do because my government seems to ensure we have a sane telecoms industry and they've clamped down on things like fleecing customers for chargers and ripping us off for roaming calls. Go EU!
A would also not bet on "Net Neutrality" being the path to a utopian broadband future.
It's necessary but not sufficient.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by bigdavex · 2015-02-07 03:24 · Score: 1

How do you explain why the service providers insisted on government granting them artificial monopolies enforced by law if the barrier to entry would naturally create a monopoly for the first mover?

--
-Dave
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 04:08 · Score: 0

I'm afraid suppressing opposition to your fascist views will take a little more effort on your part than mere prissiness over having your bad spelling pointed out to you.
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2015-02-07 04:17 · Score: 1

"Punch me in the face so I can call you a bully, dammit!"

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 05:11 · Score: 0

I've got one that can see!
Look, you're a comer, right? Just don't worry about it!
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 06:52 · Score: 0

oh god try showing your audience some respect and learn basic writing
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by jmac_the_man · 2015-02-07 07:05 · Score: 1

if you were an intelligent person, you would be arguing for laws against corruption in your government.
I DO want laws against corruption in government. Specifically, the kinds of laws I favor are the kinds of laws that tie the government's hands, so that they aren't WORTH bribing. If you look at fields where the government does NOT grant monopolies to incumbent providers, you will see that there's a variety of service options. Nobody ever complained that there aren't enough options for grocery stores. The reason that customer service in Internet Service Providers is terrible is that every municipality gives an exclusive franchise to a single provider per service type (i.e. one cable provider, one fiber optic provider, etc.), so that there's no competition. They grant the exclusive franchise in exchange for "concessions," which are basically bribes. If municipal GOVERNMENTS were banned from this practice, the ISPs wouldn't bother with bribing them.
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by jmac_the_man · 2015-02-07 07:11 · Score: 1

please note: i do not love government, government does plenty wrong. it's just that, on the specific concept of natural monopolies, uncorrupt regulation is the least worst option
We don't HAVE uncorrupt regulation. We HAVE corrupt monopolies issued by corrupt municipal governments. Preventing this (by banning exclusive franchises) would be a step toward de-corrupting the regulation, but you oppose this and I don't understand why.
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by circletimessquare · 2015-02-07 10:21 · Score: 1

do you know what fascism means?

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by circletimessquare · 2015-02-07 10:22 · Score: 1

No one, except a couple fuckwits that mod you up, gives a rat's ass what the fuck you think.
oh, ok
so somebody does?

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by circletimessquare · 2015-02-07 10:25 · Score: 1

1. corrupt regulation: monopolies
2. no regulation: monopolies
3. fair regulation: broken monopolies
you think if you weaken government/ regulations, monopolies disappear like a fart in the wind?
explain how that happens

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by circletimessquare · 2015-02-07 10:34 · Score: 1

What's wrong and harmful is if you make the choice to buy it even if you can't afford it.
so your solution is people just should not get broadband and not use the internet?

The responsibility is with government, not with the people doing the asking.
you can buy regulators with revolving doors and with congressional election campaigns. in fact, they do. then those government figureheads are in effect owned by the corporation on that vested interest. this is not a mistake, and not a choice. it is called corruption. which is the actual fucking problem here. the entity doing the corrupting of your government... you see them as innocent?

Why do you believe that the people responsible for creating corrupt regulations in the first place would pass laws restricting their own ability to create corrupt regulation? How is that supposed to work?
by passing laws saying you can't get election funds from corporations?
like many countries do? and those other countries do not have high price/ low quality broadband problems
amazing huh?
the usa functions under a system of legalized corruption. are you not aware of this simple problem for some reason?

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by circletimessquare · 2015-02-07 10:41 · Score: 1

to prevent the government from doing the right thing and handling the fiber themselves
ideally the government would own the fiber, maintain it, and lease it to various companies for various services
that's actual capitalism and competition on a fair footing
what we have is a rent seeking parasite charging all of us for what our taxes already built
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by circletimessquare · 2015-02-07 10:51 · Score: 1

you don't have to read my comments
in fact, why don't you go and make sure never to read a comment of mine ever again

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by circletimessquare · 2015-02-07 11:00 · Score: 1

If municipal GOVERNMENTS were banned from this practice, the ISPs wouldn't bother with bribing them.
yes but they'd still be monopolies, the natural monopoly/ network effect would still exist and no competitors would come. or they'd come, and since you have no regulations, the competitor would get destroyed, with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
oh sure, you get a lower rate for awhile, then competition is destroyed and it's back to being the slowly boiled frog
what is the only solution to monopolistic dirty tricks like predatory pricing that prevents competition? government regulation is
the real purpose of these corrupt regulations is to prevent government itself from running the fiber
ironic, since the ISPs got their money to build the fiber from the government!
or, maddeningly, got money on the promise to build the fiber they never did
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
this is the problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
this is the solution:
http://www.chanute.org/index.a...

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by jmac_the_man · 2015-02-07 12:00 · Score: 1

What are you talking about? I'm not arguing for no regulation. I'm just arguing that the ills that Title II purports to solve are all a result of government granting this monopoly. Removing this monopoly, while leaving other regulations in place, would ACTUALLY solve the problem that Title II is supposed to solve, but won't.
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by jmac_the_man · 2015-02-07 12:05 · Score: 1

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I want fair regulation, because that will prevent monopolies.
The problem, which to you is as inscrutable a problem as proper use of the shift key, is that the status quo is corrupt regulation and monopolies. Title II regulations won't prevent monopolies but there are better (fairer/less corrupt) regulations that we could enact in place of the current regulations that would result in less corruption and monopolies.
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 12:41 · Score: 0

These are not "natural monopolies", they are granted by municipalities seeking revenue. Completely unnatural monopoly results. WTF is natural about cities making sleazy sweetheart deals with some provider and excluding all others? What a fucking moron. You have the illusion that you are educated when the reality is that you are ignorant of the real world and how it functions. This is not a 200 level economics course, asshole. These are real people getting screwed by government enforced monopolies, which is no better than getting screwed by avaricious corporations. Either way, it's still a screwing. We need a fundamental restructuring of the way competition is managed (yes, managed) in local markets to ensure both competition and reasonable vendor performance levels.
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by circletimessquare · 2015-02-07 14:24 · Score: 1

so there are countries in the world that have outlawed the kind of corruption that is rampant in the usa
but the usa is not able to do that?

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by circletimessquare · 2015-02-07 14:26 · Score: 1

I'm just arguing that the ills that Title II purports to solve are all a result of government granting this monopoly.
you do understand this concept right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by jmac_the_man · 2015-02-07 15:25 · Score: 1

Internet service is NOT something that lends itself to natural monopolies. There are certain areas of the country where there is a cable internet provider and a fiber optic internet provider, and they compete with each other. (This is in addition to any DSL options that may be in place.)
The reason there aren't more companies trying to service these customers is because municipal franchise agreements prevent more than one provider of internet service, per media. Regulating franchise agreements more strictly (i.e. preventing municipal governments from granting artificial monopolies) would allow multiple groups to enter the market.
Title II regulation won't fix this corruption. Stricter regulation of municipal franchise agreements will. But you're against that regulation. What are you, some kind of libertarian?
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by jmac_the_man · 2015-02-07 15:26 · Score: 1

Are there countries that have multiple, non-government run internet service in the same area? Please, educate me.
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by circletimessquare · 2015-02-07 15:39 · Score: 1

why are you changing the subject? do you not understand my point, or you do understand it and you are not being honest and conceding the point?

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by circletimessquare · 2015-02-07 15:40 · Score: 1

Internet service is NOT something that lends itself to natural monopolies.
i stopped reading there. willful ignorance

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by jmac_the_man · 2015-02-07 16:28 · Score: 1

You said:

so there are countries in the world that have outlawed the kind of corruption that is rampant in the usa
And then I asked for an example.
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by circletimessquare · 2015-02-07 17:26 · Score: 1

start here:
http://www.transparency.org/co...
now click on canada or norway for comparison
the united states has a poor corruption ranking compared to other countries without rent seeking parasites like broadband providers in the usa that are able to buy off legislators, unfortunately. you seem to dislike that status quo. good!

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by jmac_the_man · 2015-02-08 03:03 · Score: 1

OK, two problems.
One, "Transparency International" looks to blame all corruption on business. They exist to say corporations are bad. They're a terrible source. (Note: I got this from looking at how they quantified their numbers. I clicked the little blue question marks next to the "statistics." They're not very subtle.)
Like you, they have blinders on. The worse corruption is corruption in government. If we were to pass a law banning municipal GOVERNMENTS from granting exclusive telecommunications franchises, we'd see more competition and less corruption.
Two, you gave the examples of Canada and Norway. Canada has the same kind of internet regime that exists in the USA. Canadian Municipalities give exclusive rights to one provider to wire their town for broadband, just like here. On this specific topic, there is no difference between the US and Canada in terms of corruption. If Canada were to pass the regulation I'm advocating, THEY'd be less corrupt.
I also can't find reliable information on Norway other than they don't have a single nationalized provider and that they have a mandatory black list of "hate sites." (One of the concerns that the Open Internet Order and Title II raise is the possibility of the government banning sites run by their political opponents under the guise that they are "hate sites.") Can you tell me anything about how internet access in Norway works?
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by circletimessquare · 2015-02-08 04:16 · Score: 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
this concept exists simply due to barriers to entry. you need to understand it. it doesn't seem like you do. you want to blame government in a desperate convoluted fantasy. the only one with blinders is you
if the government destroyed business, if the government embraced business, if the government was corrupt, if the government regulated fairly... none of it fucking matters
because this economic concept of the natural monopoly still stands and defines this topic
do you understand that? it doesn't seem like you do
educate yourself on a basic economic concept. then develop opinion. currently your opinion is based on an uneducated premise that government drives this problem. the problem is not government. all government bullshit on this topic is secondary nonsense that does not drive this problem. please understand the concept of the natural monopoly. if you avoid that concept, you do not understand economics

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by jmac_the_man · 2015-02-08 07:11 · Score: 1

You're arguing in circles here. Internet access does NOT lend itself to natural monopolies.
I used to live in an area in Northern NJ that was wired for cable in the 1970s. By the late 1990s, the cable company in the area was offering broadband cable internet. Starting in the mid 2000s, Verizon wired up the area A SECOND TIME with fiber optic internet access, and the two companies have been competing for customers in the area ever since.
It costs more to run fiber optic cabling than coaxial cabling, but Verizon still thought it was worth it to wire the area WHICH ALREADY HAD BROADBAND up so that there would be A SECOND BROADBAND OPTION and potential profit for them. The barrier to entry was sufficiently small that Verizon entered an existing market as an overlapping ISP. Without exclusive franchising, a second cable company could have made even more potential profit than Verizon because it would be cheaper for them to rewire the neighborhood. (Or today, without exclusive franchising, a second Fiber Optic provider could enter the market and make a little profit for themselves.)
The networking gear (carrier grade routers and whatnot) are the no matter what connection media you're using, so overlapping ISPs, who would need to buy their own sets of networking gear, would be buying the same equipment. More demand for the product unlocks economy of scale, which would drive the price of the networking gear (part of the barrier to entry) down.
A lower barrier to entry means that overlapping ISPs make sense in more markets. They'll then need networking gear, and at this point we're in vicious cycle territory.
What we as customers need is more ISP options. Title II will make the situation worse, and the status quo will make it the same. A smart regulation would ban exclusive municipal franchise agreements, but you oppose that regulation. I ask again, why are you against regulations? Are you a libertarian?
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by circletimessquare · 2015-02-08 07:16 · Score: 1

Internet access does NOT lend itself to natural monopolies.
i stopped reading there. you're a moron. like talking to an antivaxxer. you can't be taken seriously in life if you want to deny basic fucking facts about a topic

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by NostalgiaForInfinity · 2015-02-08 19:32 · Score: 1

by passing laws saying you can't get election funds from corporations? like many countries do? and those other countries do not have high price/ low quality broadband problems amazing huh?
I happen to have grown up in one of those countries. You are utterly ignorant about what's going on in those countries.

the usa functions under a system of legalized corruption. are you not aware of this simple problem for some reason?
I am quite aware of it. The technical term is "rent seeking". It is far worse in Europe, and ignorant people like you are the primary cause of it.
Re:And, for those of you who like government... by jmac_the_man · 2015-02-09 06:08 · Score: 1

I don't understand what you think you gain by lying in such an obvious fashion. Internet access is NOT monopolized everywhere in the United States. This is trivially demonstrated. Learn to use the goddamn shift key, and go troll someone else.

In other news.... by BenJeremy · 2015-02-06 14:03 · Score: 1

The pick play near the end of the Super Bowl caused some guy to die.

Deals like this don't happen overnight, they can't even get an agreement done within several months.

Re:In other news.... by ClickOnThis · 2015-02-06 14:32 · Score: 1

The pick play near the end of the Super Bowl caused some guy to die.
No, TFA you linked to says it didn't cause him to die. In fact, he didn't even watch the game. The family blamed the Seahawks in his obit as a joke.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Re:In other news.... by Tablizer · 2015-02-06 14:35 · Score: 1

Statistically, it was a decent call. Lynch is not that great near the line.One could also argue it was clever psychology by sending a message to Pats that the next play may also be difficult to anticipate, keeping them over-hedging. Bleep can happen on any play.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:In other news.... by BenJeremy · 2015-02-06 15:15 · Score: 1

That was the point.
Re:In other news.... by ClickOnThis · 2015-02-06 17:45 · Score: 1

I suspected it might be, but I didn't see the sacrcasm tag.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Re:In other news.... by jmac_the_man · 2015-02-07 07:16 · Score: 1

Lynch is not that great near the line.
That can partially be explained by the fact that the Seahawks run out of bunch formations (3 WRs on the same side of the field) more often than most teams in goal to go situations. The better formation to use there is a heavy set. (Tackles reporting eligible, essentially)
It's first down. You have a time out and you have the best RB in the league. You need to move the ball twelve inches. You have to trust your players in that instance.
Re:In other news.... by Tablizer · 2015-02-09 13:56 · Score: 1

Are you suggesting they change their habitual techniques in the super-bowl? I'm sure there is a reason they selected the seasonal pattern they did. Sure, it has down-sides, and this particular game probably exposed them. But football is a game of probability.
And they had 3 tries. Mixing it up so 1 out of 3 are non-Lynch plays makes sense to keep Pats guessing.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:In other news.... by jmac_the_man · 2015-02-10 00:33 · Score: 1

Yes, I recommend teams run plays that go counter to their tendencies in situations that keep the opponents guessing.
The Pats DB who caught the game-deciding INT was signed off the street in November. He didn't realize he could have just knelt in the end zone and saved the Pats from almost giving the ball up via a safety. But, because Seattle's tendencies are so obvious, he sniffed out the "rub*" play and pointed it out to his teammate, who then pressed the WR so the WR was out of position and the DB got the pick instead.
Also the Seahawks had four tries. (First and goal at the one, down four points IN THE SUPER BOWL is the very definition of four down territory.) A pass to the OUTSIDE might have caught the Pats (and was in fact what Carroll expected when he told Bevell to call a pass) but that would have been a lower risk play because it would have been incredibly hard to intercept in bounds. But a pass over the middle out of a bunch formation is asking to get picked off.
*The "Rub Play," by definition, is illegal under the same rule against offensive holding. However, offensive and defensive contact is allowed within five yards of the LOS. Since they were within five yards, the contact wasn't illegal and thus, it wasn't a rub. The Pats are dirty cheaters, but this play is not an example of them cheating.

Good for the "Public" ... by Frosty+Piss · 2015-02-06 14:07 · Score: 3, Funny

Verizon Communications will sell its local wireline operations in California, Florida and Texas for $10.5 billion, citing uncertainty around federal Internet regulation as one reason for the move

Fine, if Verizon has a problem with Net Nutrality, perhaps they should not be in the Internet business anyway.

I think their best be is to go the HP route and switch to ink-jet printer ink.

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.

Been there, done that by stevel · 2015-02-06 14:16 · Score: 5, Informative

This is not new for Verizon at all - they have been shedding their landline and FiOS business for years. Back in 2007 they abandoned Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, selling off the business to FairPoint Communications, a tiny North Carolina company that struggled for years to overcome billing system issues. FairPoint announced then that they would not be expanding the fiber Internet service (FiOS TV never got started here) and the service has been static since then. (On the positive side, my bill hasn't increased since 2007!)

Even in Massachusetts, where Verizon still operates FiOS TV, they announced a couple of years back that they would not expand service to more areas. This tripe about Net Neutrality is just a convenient smokescreen for what they've been planning all along.

Re:Been there, done that by Moridineas · 2015-02-06 14:40 · Score: 2

Ironically, Verizon sold off their North Carolina services to a Connecticut based company (Frontier).
Re:Been there, done that by Dragonslicer · 2015-02-06 14:58 · Score: 1

This is not new for Verizon at all - they have been shedding their landline and FiOS business for years. Back in 2007 they abandoned Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, selling off the business to FairPoint Communications, a tiny North Carolina company that struggled for years to overcome billing system issues.
For people that think that no provider could be worse than Verizon, take a look at customers' opinions of FairPoint.
Re:Been there, done that by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 15:08 · Score: 0

Crap, I'm moving to Hudson, NH and my two wired choices are FairPoint or Comcast. Should I really choose Comcast over FairPoint (I only care about Internet, not phone or TV)? FairPoint doesn't have any prices listed anywhere on their website. I really hate businesses like that.
Re:Been there, done that by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 18:32 · Score: 0

How dare they refuse spending money on an unprofitable business! Those evil bastards!
Re:Been there, done that by wytcld · 2015-02-07 05:36 · Score: 1

Verizon sold their New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine landlines to FairPoint in a way that had huge tax advantages for Verizon. FairPoint took on so much debt that it went into bankruptcy within a year, as Verizon and FairPoint knew was likely. It's come out of that, but there's currently a strike against it going on several months now which it has been refusing to even negotiate on, preferring to bring in scabs from outside the region. The cause of the strike is that FairPoint wants to lower wages and drastically cut benefits. The union has said it will accept some cuts, but no so much. FairPoint was severly short staffed and months behind in basic line maintenance even before the strike.
There was nothing said about net neutrality when Verizon set up this scam.

--
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton

cry babies by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 14:26 · Score: 0

showing their true colors.

Uncertainty is great for jobs, actually by Tablizer · 2015-02-06 14:29 · Score: 1

..."make it blue, no, make it green, no, make it plaid on Tuesdays and polka-dot on Thursdays..."

Good for jobs, just not good for efficiency.

--
Table-ized A.I.

Please sell of RI next by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 14:39 · Score: 0

So that I can get decent broadband. Verizon has done nothing here, I want real DSL.

To ensure consistent customer experience by penguinoid · 2015-02-06 14:41 · Score: 5, Funny

Our customers expect to get screwed over, and this legislation would put a stop to that for wired service. To ensure consistent customer experience, we must unceremoniously dump our wireline customers.

--
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways

Re:To ensure consistent customer experience by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 18:45 · Score: 0

Corporations... better than government at everything. Unless you have to follow rules. Then not.

Good! The Big Telcos Should Break Up by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 14:47 · Score: 0

I'd prefer to completely separate FiOS from Verizon Wireless. The fact that they halted fiber rollouts to protect their wireless profits is a bad omen.

Maybe dedicated landline companies will concentrate on laying fiber.

Not surprising by tsnow · 2015-02-06 14:50 · Score: 1

None of the large telcos want to do copper line POTS anymore. It doesn't generate enough revenue, no one seems to actually use it, and the cost for upkeep and maintenance can be prohibitive. I doubt subsidies for maintaining the copper plant infrastructure will be around for much longer, to be honest. This is just Verizon fleeing a ship that has already sunk, and been under water for some time. The only thing that old copper plant is really good for anymore is rural telecom and rural DSL services-- which don't even qualify as "broadband" anymore according to the new FCC guidelines.

Re:Not surprising by BradMajors · 2015-02-06 15:03 · Score: 1

None of the large telcos want to do copper line POTS anymore.
AT&T's newest Uverse runs on these "copper lines".
Re: Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 15:13 · Score: 0

U-Verse does in fact traverse the copper plant, but only in cherry picked neighborhoods where they know they can sell it.
As stated above, AT&T already dumped their wireline services up in an area of the NE as a trial run. They have been planning on dumping the copper plant for years because fewer and fewer utilize it and the cost to maintain it is quite high.
They won't dump the areas where they have U-Verse active, but everywhere else is likely going to be sold off in the not too distant future.
Re:Not surprising by Virtucon · 2015-02-06 15:14 · Score: 1

RTFA, it's also FIOS they're getting out of non wireless infrastructure in those states.

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Re:Not surprising by thule · 2015-02-06 15:48 · Score: 1

Only the copper lines that go to the punchdown block down the street. They sever the connection going all the way back to the CO.

What a load of bull.... by QuietLagoon · 2015-02-06 14:52 · Score: 5, Informative

Verizon tries to blame Frontier sell-off on net neutrality has another take on this topic.

As we've noted, Verizon's been looking to offload its fixed-line assets for years, since the company clearly finds wireless service (and caps and overages) a far-more profitable venture. As such they've spent the last few years actually raising rates and neglecting unwanted customers in the hopes they'll leave to wireless, or leave to companies like Comcast (where they'll then be pitched...you guessed it...Verizon Wireless services as part of a co-marketing arrangement). After massive sales to Frontier and Fairpoint in years past, Verizon this week convinced Frontier to buy all of the company's DSL and FiOS customers in Florida, Texas and California. Amusingly (or not), Verizon is trying to spin the latest deal to pretend they were forced down this path because of net neutrality: ...

Verizon on Net Neutrality by mckellar75238 · 2015-02-06 15:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

'Washington should be very thoughtful how they go forward here,' he said. 'This uncertainty is not good for investment, and it's not good for jobs here in America.'" It's SO nice to realize that they have their customers' best interests in mind...

I know, I know -- they have to make a profit. But it would be nice if someone would realize that net neutrality is about fairness to the consumer, not about maximizing corporate profits.

Re:Verizon on Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 02:52 · Score: 0

The FCC appears to be thoughtful in this.
They are getting broad authority, but claim to be only using it a bit.
Hopefully the threat of further regulation will bring the US ISP market to a more balanced state.
That is, where it would be if there was a thriving, competitive ISP market.
The VZ announcement seems a fig leaf.
The FCC announced this applies to wired and wireless.
VZ is selling off wired and doubling down on wireless.
This should be FCC announcement neutral.
Apparently, selling wired is for reasons VZ would rather draw attention away from.
Re:Verizon on Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 04:44 · Score: 0

You appear to be the victim of some verbal sleight of hand here. Net neutrality is only incidentally about fairness to the consumer, (or not). Especially fairness as in beer, not speech. In fact is is more related to freedom of the press, and association, in a common carrier context. Which, of course is a total contradiction from the outset. I'm sympathetic, but you're trying to have your cake and eat it too, I'm afraid. Title II is a necessary evil some would say, but all too likely to be just plain evil. Beyond Orwellian censorship, surveillance, montoring and control. You will have nothing to say unless you are an incumbent or bought-in player or producer. And nothing to hear but the overwhelming variety of choices "provided". You'll get to hear "Rage" as long as Geffen, or maybe Disney, or even the CIA produces it. Irony that the big sycophants for NN are so anti-MPAA, anti-RIAA, anti-SOPA, and anti-DMCA. Why can't they see that it's all one grand scheme?
Do you really think that *consumers* will get to sit on an FCC commission? I'm sorry, but "fairness to the consumer" is, again, only incidentally related to "Net Neutrality", if at all, if not completely antagonistic.
Speaking of ironies, It is one of the grandest of the modern age that what we know, and some would now say knew, as the free and open Internet, resulted strictly from contractual, private agreements between carriers, ISP's, content providers, advertisers, with some government grants and contracts interspersed. Or not. The Internet is going to hell without extending Title II to cover it, but that will only hasten its demise as a useful or safe tool for anyone but the overarching Machine of State, always at war with Central Asia, and so forth. Not without elaborate precautions and devices which themselves can draw unwanted attention. (Google'd "anonymous p2p" and visited a few torrent sites the other day and up pops a Comcast interstitial wanting me to take a survey. What about? I dunno, took a pass. But, coincidence? *shrug* You're guess is as good as mine. Fuck if I care, but the possibility is there.)
Ultimately, Title II is one of the factors that caused the problem here. It will not fix it.

Actually this is good and bad by Virtucon · 2015-02-06 15:13 · Score: 2

First the Good, Yeah I won't have to deal with their fucked up customer service anymore. Here that Verizon? You suck donkey balls!
The baby bells became too big and with too much consolidation. If they want to take their ball and go home crying fine. Maybe I can now buy my set top boxes because your network is built out now and being sold. I'm tired of paying fucking fees just because "you're building your network out" It's been over 5 years now, let me buy the box or get Tivo without it costing me an arm and a leg.

The Bad, I don't know who this other company is or how it treats its customers but I'll find out. I also can assume that they'll jack up the rates to pay the $10 Billion it'll cost them to buy this infrastructure from VZ. If they don't work out I can always go to TW/Comcast...Oh shit I'm screwed.

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"

Re:Actually this is good and bad by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 18:43 · Score: 0

My parents live in one of the areas that Verizon already sold to Frontier (in a part of Illinois that was served by GTE rather than AT&T/Bell back in the old days). Their internet service got a little slower, but otherwise it seems like it's mostly been business as usual. Based on what it sounds like Verizon has been doing to customers in other areas, that's probably the best they could hope for.
Re:Actually this is good and bad by wiredlogic · 2015-02-06 19:36 · Score: 1

Not to worry. Frontier looks up to Comcast as a guiding light. You'll feel right at home.

--
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.

Stock price manipulation scheme by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 15:18 · Score: 0

Because pissing away half of the proceeds of the sale on a stock buyback scheme is a long term revenue generating investment.

Use FairPoint, avoid Comcast by Okian+Warrior · 2015-02-06 15:30 · Score: 2

Crap, I'm moving to Hudson, NH and my two wired choices are FairPoint or Comcast. Should I really choose Comcast over FairPoint (I only care about Internet, not phone or TV)? FairPoint doesn't have any prices listed anywhere on their website. I really hate businesses like that.

No. Go with Fairpoint and avoid Comcast.

I live in NH (about 3 towns over from Hudson) and have used both. While Fairpoint is annoying, it's manageable and they don't fuck up too badly or very often. If you can manage your own computer configuration you can generally keep them at a distance and just reboot your modem once or twice a week.

Comcast is completely and totally interested in what you do, how you do it, and whether it violates their TOS. They will silently do lots of shit to prevent you from doing things, at random intervals. Also, Comcast oversells their bandwidth on what is effectively a shared line, so you won't ever get those "blazingly fast" XFinity speeds they advertize.

Comcast is "not a lot of benefit" for "whole lot of hassle".

Go with FairPoint.

Re:Use FairPoint, avoid Comcast by stevel · 2015-02-07 08:08 · Score: 1

I agree 100% with Okian Warrior here - I'd do without rather than buy service from Comcast. I have the FairPoint fiber service that used to be FiOS and it works well, but if it's not already run on your street you'll never get it. For TV go satellite - I use DirecTV.
One, hopefully temporary, hitch is that Fairpoint workers have been on strike for several weeks, slowing down installs and repairs.
Really, FairPoint nowadays isn't a bad company to do business with. They're focused on staying in business and aren't interested in meddling with your Internet content.

FTFY Verizon by Cantankerous+Cur · 2015-02-06 15:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

'This uncertainty is not good for investment, and it's not good for jobs here in America.'

'Overpriced unreliable internet is not good for investment, and it's not good for jobs here in America'

Re:FTFY Verizon by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 04:31 · Score: 0

Uncertainty is far less bad than the current total lack of competition. The US is average at best, when compared to the entire world.

Sell why they can by TomGreenhaw · 2015-02-06 16:09 · Score: 1

10.5 Billion is a lot of money.

Maybe they suspect that Google and Space-X will launch new satellite technology that will make these wired lines obsolete.

--
Greed is the root of all evil.

If you want certainity by PineHall · 2015-02-06 16:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

The FCC is trying to create an environment of certain well defined rules, but you, Verizon, keeps taking them to court. If you want certainity in federal regulation, stop suing the FCC.

"Our business plan involved being dicks" by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 16:32 · Score: 1

"If the law says we can't be dicks, then we'll sell the business off."

Benjamin by spongman · 2015-02-06 16:57 · Score: 1

internet freedom + Job security => ObFranklin

Where are their customer service people? by theshowmecanuck · 2015-02-06 17:02 · Score: 1

The service is bad because most of their IT support is offshored. So much for saving American jobs.

--
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.

Spending My Karma: Fuck You Verizon by BrendaEM · 2015-02-06 17:16 · Score: 2

What's the matter? Can't extort? Aw, poor thing.
Please leave Verizon, tomorrow.

--
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM

Google by PRMan · 2015-02-06 17:42 · Score: 1

Google should just buy Frontier and get access to all that fiber. Change out the hardware on the ends and they have instant Google Fiber.

--
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...

Re:Google by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 18:02 · Score: 0

You don't want them either, you idiot... then you have the choice of the piece-of-shit cable company that alters DNS responses, intercepts error pages, and tracks what you do, where you go, and what you watch (made possible by digitally encrypting even basic cable, requiring their set top boxes, cable cards, or recorders).. or an advertising company/data miner only getting into the market to track what you do, where you go, and what you watch (and oh, yea, they have their own tracking DNS servers and error pages too)
Both will screw over customers for a buck. Do not kid yourself, Google is no friend here.
Re:Google by Cantankerous+Cur · 2015-02-06 18:33 · Score: 1

You mean everything the 'evil' companies already do but don't give us decent speeds, try to cap our bandwidth, and charge us too much for the hassle?
Shut up AC and dammit Google, take my money!

So what? by Junior+J.+Junior+III · 2015-02-06 17:57 · Score: 1

This will result in increased competition. What's the downside exactly?

--
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!

Re:So what? by Opportunist · 2015-02-06 22:25 · Score: 1

Umm... probably his bonus won't pay for another sports car?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Maybe rural LTE is cheaper than DSL? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 18:58 · Score: 0

Verizon has spun off rural copper line markets before. California and Texas have lots of rural residents. Also, look at Verizon's LTE map. I bet that LTE is cheaper than DSL, below a certain population density. I am curious as to what the population density is. That does not take into account a properly designed LTE pricing plan.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2015-02-06 19:30 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

How much does it cost to operate a DSL line? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 19:31 · Score: 0

This spinning off seems counter to the arguments that telecom is consolidating, to the raise prices, and profit handsomely. Verizon could easily take out low interest loans, to finance more construction, if it was profitable enough. Maybe DSL lines in America cost more to operate than everyone thinks they do. Maybe Netflix, and Youtube bandwidth costs a lot of money.

Re:How much does it cost to operate a DSL line? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 02:15 · Score: 0

They dont need low interest loads to finance more construction... They already got FREE money from the govt for that.
Its not our fault they spent it all on golden parachutes.
Its too bad theres no way to prosecute corps for this kind of fraud.

Hey Verizon: Don't let the door smack you in the by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 19:34 · Score: 0

Hey Verizon: Don't let the door smack you in the butt on the way out! Good Luck in your future endeavors! Thanks for all your input. Remember to clean out your desk and put the contents in the banker box. Security will ensure that company property doesn't accidentally go out the door with you. They will help you pack. Better yet, they will help you see your way to the exit door (even help you through it), and we will mail your personal belongings to your last mailing address. I'm absolutely certain market forces will step up and replace Veriwhozitz with a company that respects customer wishes, offers better prices, and isn't as dickish to federal regulators. In short, a company that has a better customer focus and hasn't sworn complete fealty to shareholder dividends and nothing else. We will enjoy watching Google or someone else snap up the wireline business. Lenovo enjoyed snapping up IBM's PC business, then later their Supercomputer business. Hitachi loved snapping up IBM's disk drive business. Hitachi is doing very well. Lenovo is doing very well. IBM employees that have years of experience are finding new opportunities, just like Verizon employees. Once again Verizon, don't let the door smack you in the butt on the way out.

He's right by Opportunist · 2015-02-06 22:24 · Score: 1

That uncertainty is crippling. Finally enshrine Net Neutrality in laws and be done with it!

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:He's right by Ol+Olsoc · 2015-02-07 03:06 · Score: 1

That uncertainty is crippling. Finally enshrine Net Neutrality in laws and be done with it!
Then perhaps they should stop spending all the money fighting against it. Pretty difficult to complain about the uncertainty when they are a leading cause of it.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.

Wires are still the way to go by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-06 23:48 · Score: 0

There is a lot more bandwidth in a wire than there is in radio, which is very limited.

what really happened by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 01:06 · Score: 0

Verizon was trying to unload thus business for a long time. The buyer may have been willing to bid more but used this to lower the price. Verizon is angry because they got screwed and are crying foul. Buyer laughing because they got great assets cheaper. Investment still going to happen, and likely even more investment, because the buyer is less leveraged than he would have otherwise been.

Well.... bye by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 01:07 · Score: 0

-picture of smirking cowboy-

dont let the door hit you on the way out.

Lesson by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 02:29 · Score: 0

Companies exist to make profits. If they don't think they can make a profit, they quit what they're doing. Little shits around here act pretty much like the FCC and automatically assume that the capital and expertise to build a network just comes from nowhere. Shouldn't be too surprising to anyone that the FCC's parent company is hopelessly in debt.

The reason for this is that by kilodelta · 2015-02-07 02:39 · Score: 1

Verizon raped it's customer base pretty badly on the wireline side. And I do mean raped. You see back when they were all Ma Bell and a regulated monopoly partof the revenue had to be put back into upgrading OSP. Except once the regulatory clamps were released - they stopped doing that. In fact that is common among telecom, electric and natural gas providers who got deregulated too.

Public utilities should NEVER be unregulated.

Huh? by Ol+Olsoc · 2015-02-07 03:04 · Score: 1

Wirelines? Internet neutrality?

So Verizon is selling off it's wirelines because of the 5 people who still use dialup?

Aside from the obvious lie about why they are trying to get rid of something they've been wanting to get rid of for a long time, they really throw in a clinker....

The "Job creator" angle. Never worked, never will. It's like having three dogs, and you give one a dog treat. You think he's going to share any of it with the other two?

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.

Pre-Allocated Blame by NickFortune · 2015-02-07 03:18 · Score: 1

They don't want Net Neutrality, so anything and everything bad that happens is going to be down to Net Neutrality.

Trouble in the Ukraine escalates into WW3? Net Neutrality would be to blame. A dinosaur killer asteroid on collision course with Earth? All cause by market instabilities due to Net Neutrality. Osama Bin Laden returns from the dead and starts making more Dr Evil broadcasts? Net Neutrality. That's what you get..

In fact, if the Large Haddock Collider was to collide too many Haddocks at once and cause a singularity that went on to devour the planet, it's a fair bet that the last man alive would be a Verizon marketroid who would survive just long enough to launch a deep space probe that broadcast "it's all the fault of Net Neutrality"

--
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!

Remarkable Comment by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 03:34 · Score: 0

McAdam's comment is remarkably similar to the infamous line from another CEO a Charles Wilson, the head of General Motors in the 50's. Wilson's line was "What
s good for GM is good for the country" (not a literal quote but the gist of his comments). Both men identified the success of their own companies with the success of the country (not to mention their own individual wealth). This is simply corporate ego-mania.
In a similar vein, media companies often claim that the internet will destroy the recording and movie industries. Tell that to Beyonce or Tom Cruise.

Balderdash by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 03:58 · Score: 0

Verizon and the other big boys, including Comcast, have things covered whichever way "net neutrality" goes. I can see how Verizon would want to maintain a gratuitous negotiating position here, but the sale was planned already.

All of you who are falling for the commissoner's pandering about "net neutrality", btw, be very, very careful what you wish for. Looks like a huge Trojan horse to me.

We failed by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 04:29 · Score: 0

Now lets blame something we don't like.

No sympathy for Verizon by ScrewMaster · 2015-02-07 04:40 · Score: 1

'Washington should be very thoughtful how they go forward here,' he said. 'This uncertainty is not good for investment, and it's not good for jobs here in America.'"

Why not? Uncertainty drives change, and uncertainty at this point was created _by Verizon._ Granted, something had to change, because what the big ISPs have been doing is abusive at best.

Besides, it was Verizon that started this mess by trying to change the rules for its own benefit. Complaining now is just sour grapes. Enjoy your new Title II status.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

Not so fast on Lenovo. by sethstorm · 2015-02-07 07:06 · Score: 1

Lenovo is doing very well. IBM employees that have years of experience are finding new opportunities

Where both employees and customers are second-class citizens if in the US.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.

Shareholders? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 07:36 · Score: 0

How can the shareholders possibly be happy with this guy talking trash about the asset they are trying to sell?

Best argument by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 10:21 · Score: 0

The fact that Net Neutrality could drive Verizon out of any business is the best argument I've ever heard for Net Neutrality.

Just like a 4 year old... by AlCapwn · 2015-02-07 13:29 · Score: 1

Title II? More like "entitled to".

Can You Hear Me Now? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 15:04 · Score: 0

All Verizon is telling me is that there should be no distinction made between delivery methods in regulating Internet access as a utility. Internet service is Internet service regardless of how you choose to deliver it to your customers.

Re:Danger of regulation oooooooooh! by __aanbvm4272 · 2015-02-07 18:21 · Score: 1

" the danger of regulation has been around for a long time" Since when? Give me regulation on everything. Loss of jobs is a load and you know it. Municipalities will build networks and there lies the jobs you say will 'disappear'. And Verizon knows that too. Deregulation? Look what it did to the electricity traders (Enron) 2003? Price went up 300% and they were caught holding of production until the price spiked every morning. Oh the poor things they lost their jobs right? Then those same exact 'traders' went over to JP Morgan and ran the price of petroleum from $40 to $140 in LESS THAN 1 YEAR! All the while people saying "what can we do?" Their answer was "buy oil" The assholes. Watch Frontline on you tube about energy traders you will be reminded. Now we been drained for over a decade and they are starting the cycle all over again. The 1% can eat it raw... Do you know how much of a drain it was on the lower 99% of us? My driving habits changed, I walk more and want that lifestyle now. I say regulate the bastards if that's what it takes and it will because greed knows no bounds. Just watch the rise of big oil prices happen again and get PISSED and vote FOR regulation. And be NOT afraid citizen.

'That's a real pretty Internet you got there... by sydbarrett74 · 2015-02-08 06:57 · Score: 1

Shame if something should happen to it...'

--
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman

In Other News by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-13 13:57 · Score: 0

The Federal Communications Commission's upcoming net neutrality proposal announced a huge win for consumers!

Monopoly provider and frequent target of customer complaints, Verizon has exited the landline ISP business. The FCC is grateful to have contributed in any way, no matter how small, to this outcome.

In other positive news, racist owners of NFL teams exit the NFL. Domestic hospitals announce that "we've got our mojo working and don't fear Ebola any more". Finally, 600 internet scam artists from Nigeria and pretending to be a Prince/Judge/High Official have been arrested. Their e-mail addresses have been published and the world is invited to tell them exactly what we think of them!

Slashdot Mirror

Verizon Sells Off Wireline Operations, Blames Net Neutrality Plans

214 comments