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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 · 2015-02-07 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...

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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 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

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.

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

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 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.

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 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.

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

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'

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 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.

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

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

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Title II? More like "entitled to".

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: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.

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

'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

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.

Slashdot Mirror

Verizon Sells Off Wireline Operations, Blames Net Neutrality Plans

145 of 214 comments (clear)