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?"

Comments

fees

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:fees

[Jane Q. Public]

fuck capitalism.

It has nothing to do with capitalism. It has everything to do with unregulated corporate greed. They are NOT the same things. The same kind of greed was seen very prominently in countries that called themselves Socialist and even Communist. So don't blame "capitalism" for it. It's cronyism, plain and simple.

And this is almost laughably wrong:

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.

I call BS. They don't "fear" it will do anything of the kind. What they fear is that it will put a stop to their monopolistic control, and monopolistic prices, and end their ability to pocket tax money given them for infrastructure.

I mean this literally: you can hardly believe a word they say anymore.

Re:fees

[CrimsonAvenger]

I want Gigabit symmetrical with 1 TB of transfer for $50/mo.. This is absolutely 100% possible with current technology.

Then why don't you start a company that offers that service?

If you can do it profitably, you'll have investors falling all over themselves to give you money, since pretty much everyone will want your service....

Re:fees

[Defenestrar]

Wow - a limited monopoly for a service necessary for modern life like telephone, power, water, and sewer? Sounds like a public utility to me.

Re:fees

[sabri]

Verizon is the only option in my town.

This is the real problem.

So-called "Net Neutrality" is a nothing but a bandage on a bullet wound, for two main reasons.

First of all, most internet users in the US of A have little choice between carriers. It's either cable, dsl or satellite. The cable market will be given to company A, and if lucky, company B for dsl. It is virtually impossible to start a new ISP under current regulations. This means that there is little to no incentive for incumbent operators to upgrade their networks.

In an ideal world, networks and subscriber access have sufficient bandwidth to accommodate all users. Yes, consumer cable/DSL will be oversubscribed a bit, but that will leave plenty of bandwidth for regular services, assuming a decent operator network. This is the real problem of the U.S. internet access market.

The second reason why I'm strongly against these regulations is that the government should keep its busy nose out of private companies' networks. If build a network, it is up to me to operate it the way I want to. If a subscriber does not like the way I operate my network, they are (should be) free to go elsewhere. Which is the part that is broken in the U.S.

So, what the FCC should really focus on is not so much the whining of Netflix regarding available ports on public peering exchanges, but to open up the broadband market to more competition. Works in Europe, works in Asia, works in Canada. Does not work in Mother Russia, for obvious reasons (in Russia, KGB^H^H^H internet connects to you).

In short, because the FCC is so defunct that they're unable to regulate a healthy competitive market, they force their big fat butt on the seat of the CEOs of current companies and tell them how to operate their networks.

Re:fees

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Sure, I'd agree IF the telco's hadn't taken BILLIONS of tax-payer money to do "upgrades". Instead they took that money and gave it to their lobbyists to fight against having to use that money for that. If they didn't want the FCC in their business, they shouldn't have accepted taxpayer money and then commit fraud with it.

Re:fees

[nehumanuscrede]

" If build a network, it is up to me to operate it the way I want to "

If you built a network using your own finances, then I say absolutely.

OTOH, if you take government subsidies ( The Universal Service Fund I think ) to help you build your network / infrastructure out with the conditions / goals of the USF, then you don't get to operate it completely by your own rules.

Eg:

Promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable and affordable rates for all consumers
Increase nationwide access to advanced telecommunications services
Advance the availability of such services to all consumers, including those in low income, rural, insular, and high cost areas, at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas
Increase access to telecommunications and advanced services in schools, libraries and rural health care facilities
Provide equitable and non-discriminatory contributions from all providers of telecommunications services to the fund supporting universal service programs

Pay close attention to number three above. THIS scares the shit out of the big players who are in the broadband game. Currently they cherry pick where they build out their networks based on projected profit returns. They classify under Title II, they may lose that privilege.

That terrifies them as it eats deep into their already absurd profits.

Re:fees

[melchoir55]

I want Gigabit symmetrical with 1 TB of transfer for $50/mo.. This is absolutely 100% possible with current technology.

Then why don't you start a company that offers that service?

If you can do it profitably, you'll have investors falling all over themselves to give you money, since pretty much everyone will want your service....

I would love to start an ISP. I have the resources to lay fiber through certain municipal areas that aren't well covered. It would take 10 years to start seeing profit, but after that, its almost 100% profit. I would do it in a heartbeat if I could.

But guess what? In our great "free" market that the telcos are trying to protect, I can't. You see, the telecos have convinced (see: bribed) many municipalities into signing deals which prevent any competitor from moving in. Google is attempting to deploy fiber nationwide, but they are forced to first spend insane amounts of money in lobbying themselves in order to be able to do it (they are forced to do other things as well, but this is a big problem). There are big truckloads of money that would dump into infrastructure in a heartbeat. The problem is that no one legally can because of how totally f-ed up the market has become with lobby $$$.

It isn't about money.
The market isn't free. It is a duopoly, and it is corrupt.

Re:fees

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with the original poster and I know exactly what capitalism is. The idea that capitalism can exist in a vacuum of rules will give you something close to HK style capitalism which in the end is counter productive because it makes the opportunity costs too high for the small players

That's pretty much it.

Capitalism is unrestricted private enterprise, like seen during the Gilded Age of Rockefeller and Carnegie, where there are no rules. The moment you start regulating, limiting, or restricting financiers and industrialists, you are engaging in socialism.

WTF? I'm not sure where you got your views on socialism in an economic context but they aren't from texts on economics. Capitalism only means that trade and industry is privately owned and operated in a for profit way. Nowhere in the model or theory of capitalism is it stated that said trade and industry would be unregulated, and nowhere does it say that if it is regulated that it becomes socialism.

Gilded Age? Gilded for whom? The men you refer to were Robber Barons and not men to be looked up to. They polluted our lands and waters, worked men, women and children to death (literally) and fueled what would become the Great Depression with their boom and bust economic cycles that they controlled and were some of the only ones to profit from.

You seem to have bought way too much propaganda and ignored the lessons of history. It's ignorant, self-centered people like you that are the root cause of the economic and social woes the rest of us have to deal with on a daily basis.

Re:fees

[robbyb20]

Wait, you had to get the government to help you? And you're complaining that the government is trying to help you again? Jesus Christ.

Re:fees

[Pfhorrest]

It is a big fucking deal because there are long running threads of economic thought which oppose capitalism yet support free markets, and to conflate the two (and equivalently to conflate socialism with a command economy) creates a false dichotomy between capitalist free markets and statist socialism, ignoring and erasing the possibilities of non-capitalist free markets and non-statist socialism.

Old rules

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Corporation != People

[Anonymous Coward]

The very fact that Verizon views themselves as having first and fifth amendment rights shows the ludicrous precedents Citizens United sets.

Verizon is just following Alinsky

[dbc]

When the fact are not on your side, use ridicule.

Stomp Feet

[Etherwalk]

...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.

Re:Stomp Feet

[Defenestrar]

And it's the idiot bully's trick at that; the clever ones don't provoke the playground monitors.

And now, I would like to sincerely and heartily thank Verizon for the initial lawsuit provoking the playground monitor that made net neutrality a reality. I strongly encourage additional attention and noise to the issue for full on public utility regulation. Here's to moving the US into a First World nation with First World utilities like power, water, and real broadband - wired and wireless.

Re:Stomp Feet

[duckintheface]

" imposes rules on broadband Internet services that were written in the era of the steam locomotive and the telegraph."

Oh, you mean back in the days when giant corporations used their monopoly status to squeeze huge amounts of money out of their customers in the absence of competiton? Those days?

Re:Stomp Feet

[Anonymous Coward]

Their mocking just proves the FCC did the right thing.

Perhaps a little history is in order

[Jahoda]

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.

I love old laws

[jader3rd]

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.