Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Posts Message In Morse Code To Mock FCC's Net Neutrality Ruling
HughPickens.com writes: Chris Matyszczyk reports at Cnet that Verizon has posted a message to the FCC titled: FCC's 'Throwback Thursday' Move Imposes 1930s Rules on the Internet" written in Morse code. The first line of the release dated February 26, 1934 in old typewriter font (PDF) reads: "Today (Feb.26) the Federal Communications Commission approved an order urged by President Obama that imposes rules on broadband Internet services that were written in the era of the steam locomotive and the telegraph." The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 along party lines in favor of new Internet service rules that prohibit blocking, slowing or prioritizing traffic. The rules, which have not yet been released, are opposed by cable and telephone companies that fear it will curb Internet growth and stifle payback on network investment. "It isn't a surprise that Verizon is a touch against Thursday's order. In 2012, it insisted that the very idea of Net neutrality squished its First and Fifth Amendment right," writes Matyszczyk. "I wonder, though, who will be attracted by this open mockery. Might this be a sign that Verizon doesn't think the fight is over at all?"
...imposes 2000s (1990s?) Internet access speed!
first complaint ive seen. they want to leave the average user with turtle slow speeds while charging out the ass for people and companies who can afford it. companies have gone from being reasonable 150yrs ago to outright blatant greed, and youre ridiculed if you speak out against it. fuck capitalism.
Old rules just suck. I mean, stuff like "Thou shall not kill"? How are we supposed to deal with terrorists with silly old rules like that?
The very fact that Verizon views themselves as having first and fifth amendment rights shows the ludicrous precedents Citizens United sets.
Makes me wish I could leave Verizon. But the only other player in town is comcast, and like fuck I'm signing up with them again.
When the fact are not on your side, use ridicule.
More people have read that press release than have read the full text of the bill. Feel free to link to the entire bill if you think I'm wrong.
... rules imposed by robber barons
rules that prohibit blocking, slowing or prioritizing traffic
Transporters do not open the package. They get paid to transport.
If they want to prioritize, they opened the package. They are not a bystander, they are active participants in black markets, kiddie porn, extorsion, etc.
So they don't want to be under Title 2 since it was written in 1934, but instead wanted to be under Title 1 which was also written in 1934.
Makes sense. /sarc
...imposes 2000s (1990s?) Internet access speed!
More like they don't expect to win a real argument that the FCC's proposals are in any way bad, so they are trying to win by mocking the FCC.
It's a schoolyard bully's trick.
With how much the carriers charge per kilobyte for text messages, you'd think they had to convert them to Morse code and back again!
Immature little shits who want it all and give nothing back.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Google has to get special permission to come into a community and put down lines. Just the community. Comcast, AT&T, etc can't say squat about it.
Now, with these new rules, these jokers actually has a mechanism to inhibit Google through the FCC. the FCC will be able to 3place conditions on Google too.
Nice.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Verizon's arguments about controlling content are absolute red herrings. A content creator like a newspaper gets to determine the content and articles they publish or promote. The manufacturer of the paper it's printed on has no say.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
No, wait, they have a cheap stunt.
Does anyone like their phone company?
Hardly. The only thing they fear is that they're going to lose their very lucrative revenue streams since they can't overcharge for prioritizing traffic any more.
As long as the companies do not get what they want, they will try again and again. And why wouldn't they? They have nothing to loose.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Pick one (and only one) option.
Is there actually anyone out there that takes up the stance in the morse code, or is it just Verizon?
Seems like an entirely knee jerk reaction
Yeah, the right to say "Pay-up, or else"!
Gurgle is good. Proof: 2 o's.
If it was written in 1934 then odds are Verizon didn't write it, good enough for me ;p
1930s business practices require 1930s regulations.
Without ISPs actually having a government enforced reliability like telephone networks, it is unable to grow in meaningful ways. Their argument is simply due to their incompetence and the desire to keep costs low with minimal effort. It is sad that American companies have deteriorated along with their infrastructure, in a failed effort to compete globally. Add mobile reliability to the problem and whether it is dependable for 911/emergency service and it should be clear that the quality of technology has declined.
Fuck Verizon and all their ilk.
The are incorporated meaning made corporeal as an act of state, they have no more inherent right to petition government than a my shoe. The share holders, employees, executives, and customers can petition on their behalf.
You know what's older than the telegraph?
The Constitution.
Just because a rule of law is old doesn't make it irrelevant.
Some posters seem to think that there should be no objection to this action by the FCC, because the regulations they propose seem reasonable. My question is, what will happen when the FCC imposes a regulation that is not reasonable? What happens if the FCC is captured by a particular political group, like the FEC, the IRS or the NLRB? These 3-2 party-line votes have been SOP at the NLRB for decades, and the public interest is not even on the agenda.
The last time I checked, 1934 was the era of the diesel electric and the telex, not the "steam engine and the telegraph". But, distortions of reality are verizon's specialty.
get out of the ISP business. The internet hates you anyways.
Easy the us constitution forbids states interfering with interstate commerce. Therefore the FCC has the right
http://saveie6.com/
... rules on broadband Internet services that were written in the era of the steam locomotive and the telegraph.
Yeah, and rules against wanton killing were written in ancient times. Maybe we should rid ourselves of such laws when telecom execs are the victims.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
Yep.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
I don't mind throttling at all, in fact, I use it myself.
Anything going outside my network to an ad server is throttled to morse code speeds.
and I even throttle my payments. I pay my internet bill in 0.01 increments. True, they did complain, but when I explained that thorttling is a win-win situation, they got on board happilly.
I "sell" a non-throttled plan to ISPs. For a 1% discount, I pay in 0.02 increments, for a 5% discount, in 0.05 increments, and so on, up to and including the full ammount of the bill!
Thorttling is a win-win situation.
Then Verizons idea of free speech is censorship, throttling, and restricting other's speech.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
Maybe Verizon should do their homework. It would seem that the Telecommunication Act of 1996 would be the one they should be complaining about, not the one from 1934, which it replaced. Then again, why would Verizon want to confuse their emotional argument by presenting facts?
You have the problem wrong, you're putting the cart before the horse.
It's not the FCC, FEC, IRS, or NLRB that is subject to partisan capture. It's the whole damn Federal Representation across the board.
Solution? Start with the only side we can address, the legislature. Force them into the needed reforms, implement the Wyoming Rule, implement Proportional Representation for Citizens, and go!
...and Verizon chose to be salty.
Rob
Its almost clever, a good gimmic, something unique to catch attention and get talked about. Just one tiny problem.
Everybody with enough technical savvy to be amused by a morse code message also knows how badly ISP's have been screwing us. They are trying to appeal to the population group that hates them most, it was a good try too, just doomed to fail. They've got a pretty good PR department, too bad the have so little to work with.
Just tell them that you don't want to be with a company that feels like it needs to use morse code.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
The irony here is that Verizon makes full use of it's Title II status in other areas (wired telephony and mobile voice), and has used Title II benefits to build its FiOS network. The same Title II status it is now protesting against.
To add more fuel to the irony fire, the FCC would not have had to vote on net neutrality at all if Verizon hadn't sued them in 2012 claiming violation of its First and Fifth Amendment rights.
So, Verizon forced the FCC to make a change, is now complaining that the the FCC has made that change, but behind the scenes has been profiting all along in other areas where that change is in place. Sorry, Verizon, no sympathy for you.
They are the best. Old laws were written way before all of the 'politics' which happens today. New laws are complex, and complexity is fraud. Some old laws are wrong, and have been thrown out, but if the longer the law has survived the better it is.
... opposed by cable and telephone companies that fear it will curb Internet growth and stifle payback on network investment.
Snooping for ad revenues and obscene profit margins
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
sweet! does this mean they're going to upgrade my internet connection to morse code soon?
can't wait.
cause this isn't over yet...
Where did the U.N. meme come from? Citizens United is more of a threat than the U.N. Did oyu copy and paste this drivel from ALEC?
Verizon mocks thousands of licensed ham radio operations who, for no special reason, just happen to enjoy participating in their hobby via CW (morse code).
dot dot dot dash dot dot dash dot dot dot dash dash dot dot dash dash dash dash dot / dash dash dot dash dash dash / dot dot dash dot dot dot dash dash dot dash dot dash dot dash / dash dot dash dash dash dash dash dot dot dash dot dash dot dot dot dot dot dot dash dot dot dot dot dash dot
Verizon go fuck yourself
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
This "company" acts like a giant angry child.
At some point the united states is responsible for the idea and creation of the corporation. It would be nice to see that they can also impose a 'death penalty' on these immortal creations when they turn into giant sour monopolistic monstrosities.
I've no idea why Verizon exists. It's not healthy for the people, or the nation, as such given it's size and impact the only reasonable thing to do would be to protect the public by shutting them down and scattering their assets. Third parties could move in and take advantage of a nice new open market space somewhere that actually has people and this would lead to entirely new entities rising.
Where I live, I have so many ISP's I cannot even throw a rock without hitting one, 77 of them at last count in my city alone. The death of Verizon would bring this to you. Kill them now!
Sounds like you need to chow down on some that "brain fodder" my friend.
The code used in Verizon's "Throwback Thursday" release is what is called International Morse Code, invented in Germany, not American Morse code, invented by Morse himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
Filter error: Please use fewer 'junk' characters. Is what /. is giving to my morse code reply. Too bad. It would have said:
Hey Verizon! Fuck you! The internet went with "Net Neutrality" just like the phone system and other utilities. Its too important to let 'free marketeers' monopolize, skew, shake down and otherwise ruin it for all but the very rich. You can yelp about 1930's if you want too, but you aren't yet paying business taxes at 28%, the very rich aren't yet paying personal taxes at rates north of 85%, there are no 35% tax rates on capital gains (yet), and we haven't started killing the loopholes that let very rich companies export profits to jurisdictions with lower tax rates (yet). These days are coming.
Oh, and your mother wears army boots!
The Wyoming rule sounds attractive by the modern GOP would never let California have another 13 additional seats. However, given the nature of Wyoming, why not go all the way and require that all congressional districts be simply "at-large". This would eliminate all the gerrymandering as well. If congressional candidates can campaign state wide in Alaska, there is no reason all the rest couldn't do it as well.
Ya know?
If Verizon doesn't want to be a common carrier, I saw we let them reclassify themselves. They can be an information service. They can lose Common Carrier status. What they seem to forget is that there are two parts to being a Common Carrier. They're not held liable for what's ON their pipes, as long as they don't TOUCH what's on their pipes.
Let them lose Common Carrier, and then let's all sue them into the !@#$ing ground for all the emotionally crippling Internet sent over their pipes. Oh? What's that? Suddenly they want to be common carriers again?
Fuck you Verizon, and fuck your petty little tirades. This is why I use T-Mobile. No contracts, decent prices, and their CEO loves Net Neutrality. Oh, and GSM service so I can take my phone overseas and have it work.
Verizon has no 1st or 5th amendment rights. I have them. You have them. Verizon is not a person. They can go fuck themselves.
n/t
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
The thing I like about the new FCC rules is that if the ISP's want to give preferential high speeds to some of its customers to distinguish themselves from their competitors, they will have to do it for all of their customers. This will foster competition among ISP's to finally provide faster speeds, rather than simply pocketing all the excess fees given to promote connectivity, but little used for that purpose.
I can't wait for the first ISP to claim they are the fastest. This is the quickest way toward observing the Red Queen Hypothesis in action.
...sometimes insane people.
Isn't that what all the anti-NN peoples said? And here we have Verizoff actually innovating for a change!
I don't support the corps in this matter at all but I don't support or trust the government either. The Internet doesn't need 300 pages of FCC regulations slapped onto it even if they're meant to "protect" the consumer. There must be a happy medium. The EFF is wary as well. They put it quite bluntly: "The FCC's role must be firmly bounded." https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
Since that "payback" is going to be forced out of our collective pockets, I for one welcome our new Neutrality overlords!
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
Best part of the FCC rules I like is how you spout them yet no one outside the FCC has been allowed to read them yet, not even Congress.
Brought to you by the "We have to pass the bill to see whats in it" administration.
Sorry but the parent post is not insightful, if anything it's OT because it's not even talking about net neutrality.
Here's a simple explanation from a qualified comedian.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The FCC has been shut down by the courts twice already over this kind bureaucratic overreach. Doesn't matter whether or not net neutrality is a good idea - the bureaucracy was never given the authority to impose it by Congress. This will never survive the court challenge.
You can just decline to do business with "robber barons".
Unless a service provided only by said "robber barons" is required to get and keep a source of income to keep a roof over your head.
I will pay my verizon bill in the 1930's equivalent. That should come out to be about $.08.
"Today (Feb.26) the Federal Communications Commission approved an order urged by President Obama that imposes rules on broadband Internet services that were written in the era of the steam locomotive and the telegraph."
I wonder if they realize that the entire government springs from a Constitution written in 1787.
The cable and telephone companies don't actually fear that the net neutrality rules will curb the growth of the internet. That complaint doesn't even make sense. What they fear is that the net neutrality rules will stop THEM from curbing the growth of the parts of the internet they don't like.
If the recent FCC ruling is indeed about Net Neutrality then why is it more than 300 pages and secret? How can posters here know what the "rules" are if they aren't published or finalized?
The ignorance of what it takes to run a large network is bad enough, but folks should probably wait until the rules are PUBLISHED before assuming they know what they will be. Just saying, it's not like there is not history of the US Federal government promising one thing while delivering quite another.
Why? Because they can get through when you can't. I'm going to have to drop them a note
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The Magna Carta was written 800 years ago but the novel principles behind it are still worthwhile. And the fact that the PSTN in the USA has been either competitive with or leading the world for nearly a century under the law that they mock offers decades of rebuttal.
I shall have to use telegraph code. The symbols I shall utilize are dots and pipes. Ready? Here we go: ..|..
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
.._. .._ _._. _._ _.__ ___ .._
Have to put in something.
Hey slashdot learn the difference between Morse and ascii art!
OH! So you're a customer too, huh!
The "47%" are mostly people who are retired or people who have either the exact amount or a larger amount than they owe in income taxes already with-held from their income so they "pay no taxes." And then a smaller number of people who are so poor there is no meaningful way to expect or extract taxes from them.
Keep lying though like that scum Romney, it just turns more and more people onto your hateful anti-human agenda.
That is one possible manifestation of proportional representation, but I would not do it with the current FPTP system. My district is bad enough as it is, across the state it would be utter nonsense.
Then again, there are people who think the current states are nonsense so there you go.
As for California, they have nonpartisan districts and jungle primaries. Quite interesting.
It's all fine for them to be a humble "common carrier" when this gets them subsidies: https://www.techdirt.com/artic... but it's oh so scandalous when it doesn't pay.
This is all I have to say to Verizone:
dot dot dash
dot dot dot dash
dash dot dash dot
dash dot dash
/
dash dot dash dash
dash dash dash
dot dot dash
And while we're at it fuck Slashdot for filtering morse code.
it insisted that the very idea of Net neutrality squished its First and Fifth Amendment right
There's your problem right there. Once we grow three brain cells and understand that corporations are not people, and while they deserve rights, they don't deserve the same rights. I'm not even saying higher or lower, just saying there's a fucking difference, acknowledge it!
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
It's 8 pages and 292 pages of voter comment and response.
Look, I KNOW that it's government regulation, and worse it's government regulation by a DEMOCRAT, and worse still, A BLACK MAN!!!! *BUT* there's no need to pretend you have a "rational" reason for your hate of this. Just be honest. It WILL help you.
of the hackney coach drivers who insist that they should have the monopoly and their business must not be impeded by a change in technology.
Dear Verizon board: Fuck you and fuck your firstborns.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"Old" doesn't mean "antiquated".
The fact that the FCC's move provoked this reaction from Verizon shows that the FCC did something right.
The old testament god was made as a conquest god. Our ancestor did not have as much knowledge as us , but they were not irrational. They made with what they had. So give them credit where credit is due : it would have made no sense to write myth about a god killing and ordering killing people right and left, including babies, and then pronounce "you shall not kill". No. The commandement is "you shalt not murder" thus preserving the artistic logic and integrity of the old testament, those were not murder, they were kills (the line is very thin and very blurry between both from this side of the moral evolution we underwent, but it is a huge difference for a desert iron age tribe). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Verizon, please explain how not being able to extort money from everyone and provide inferior service is "stifling innovation".
Oh to be a "corporate person" - oh to only pay taxes on "profit" (a number we will invent for our own convenience). For that I could give up the vote.
Neither body to incarcerate nor soul to damn. These are not persons, corporations have NO RIGHTS.
Until we put that back in perspective, we are screwed.
Respect the commons.
Is that why the US is already dead last when it comes to bandwidth and download speeds?
/. Dissent will not be tolerated. Think like us or perish.
So, Verizon posted " 'Throwback Thursday' Move Imposes 1930s Rules on the Internet" and yet on In 2012, it insisted that the very idea of Net neutrality squished its First and Fifth Amendment right,".
Sorry Verizon, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot use the argument that a law enacted in an age of Steam and Telegraph ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... ) is bad while maintaining protection under another law enacted in an age of Sail and buggy whips ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... ).
Unless that is you wish to say that the Communications act of 1934 is unconstitutional, and I think you have had enough time in the last 81 years to challenge that.
You can argue un-applicability, or anything you like but in truth you and your ken have brought this on yourselves with your penny pinching profiteering at the state's and citizens expense. If you had invested appropriately in new technology,taken a modest amount of profit and served your customers as if you were a utility then there would have been no need to reign you in and enforce utility rules upon you.
Does the ruling mean that broadband service providers are not able to block ingress/egress of traffic to servers hosted on the consumers network?
Where the fuck is the news post ABOUT the ruling itself?
http://slashdot.org/tag/netneut
Agenda much, slashdot?
"...In 2012, it insisted that the very idea of Net neutrality squished its First and Fifth Amendment right..."
As a foreigner I'm probably completely wrong. But isn't the Constitution getting to look very much like a Bill of Rights for immense corporations to enrich themselves by any means they choose? Just asking.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
ffs Slashdot. F gobal internet backbone transit. please get rid of flashing ads. Time to rid myself of them is guess. DIY. sorry I won't be seeing any ads now.
http://www.multichannel.com/blog/mcn-guest-blog/fccs-legal-gymnastics/388213/
It's absurd for everyone to have parallel high-speed links into their homes to enable competition, just as it would be absurd to have multiple parallel sewage or electrical networks. Instead there should be a single last-mile network that is heavily regulated (including net neutrality) and then let the companies compete on everything else
From my point of view, it's not about freedom of their (Verizon's) speech, or about this being a good way to improve innovation and such. it's about what they advertized my service to be when I signed up, and as I pay for it. If I signed up for a 25Mbit/50Mbit plan, and you have plenty of capacity, then what right do you have to intentionally slow me down below that agreed upon and paid for speed? If you don't have the capacity to reliably provide the advertized, agreed and paid for speed, then why are you offering it? If you are taking on too many customers to continue to provide the advertized/agreed/paid for speed, then please stop taking more on until you are capable of reliably honoring your side of all agreements.
If you want to give us less than what you advertize, then stop advertizing higher speeds, and only advertize and sell what you are capable of.
I'm really getting tired of your Half-Fast B.S. arguments in favor of your bait-and-switch false-advertizing.
What makes you think otherwise? If the network is effectively a monopoly then the government has every right to regulate it.
Problem solved.
just like we don't have multiple parallel sewage systems or electrical power distribution networks. There are multiple different restaurants--see the difference?
When you have 20 to 40 percent profit margins, and your institutional investors call the shots, Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc. have to respond to these investors. If not, presidents, VPs and directors lose their heads.
Net Neutrality is fair. Absolutely fair. Netflix pays for the pipe it has, and the volume of transfered gigs. There is profit in that. And at the receiving end, that end-user pays for his connection and the bytes he accepts to receive. The first can't work without the second.
Why should there be differences where for the same pipe that was purchased, it now deserves a premium. And that reflects in the price the consumer has to pay.
Time to allow free commerce in the fibre world. Let local businesses, groups, municipalities, state organizations or federal organizations open to compete. The city electric companies have the distribution network as well. Let them compete.
In Europe, speed is around 10x faster, and at a much much lower cost than what an American pays for USA service.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
If we get him to say his name backwards, will he go away?
I currently get ~60 Mb up/down for $45/mo with my WISP.
How long can you keep a 60 Mbps without running into your monthly cap? The wireless Internet service providers I've looked at will cut you off after 10 GB in a month unless you insert coin to continue.
http://morsecode.scphillips.com/translator.html