Verizon Appeals Net Neutrality Rules, Let the Legal Wrangling Begin

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
It’s starting to look like there is a line forming to the right of concerned business interests looking to challenge the FCC and their announced Net Neutrality rules due to go into effect on November 20th. The latest litigant is Verizon to file an appeal to challenge the FCC’s authority to regulate the Internet.

"Verizon is fully committed to an open Internet. We are deeply concerned by the FCC's assertion of broad authority to impose potentially sweeping and unneeded regulations on broadband networks and services and on the Internet itself.
Click to expand...
 
I'm unclear.

Who's the good guy, who's the bad guy, and what do we really want?
 
fattypants said:
FCC works in the interests of the general public.

Verizon works in the interests of Verizon.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

Yea but I thought some of the Net Neutrality rules were actually going ot be harmful or am I think of one of the internet laws that has been trying to get past.
 
fattypants said:
FCC works in the interests of the general public.

Verizon works in the interests of Verizon.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

And what amazes me is how Verizon is always the one who's steadfast in denying requests (at least in public) for IP addresses when some jackwagons want to file John Doe P2P suits.

And they seem to be the only big ISP that keeps pushing that there won't be any usage caps.

I'm so lost as to where this NetNuetering stuff is any more it's ridiculous.
 
fattypants said:
FCC works in the interests of the general public.

Verizon works in the interests of Verizon.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

What fantasy world do you live in?

FCC works in the best interest of itself ... expanding its own power and role in the government and bound by no one, it seems, as they have defied both congress and the federal courts in trying to regulate the internet.

Verizon works in the best interest of itself as a private business that is bound by the market.
 
Taldren said:
What fantasy world do you live in?

FCC works in the best interest of itself ... expanding its own power and role in the government and bound by no one, it seems, as they have defied both congress and the federal courts in trying to regulate the internet.

Verizon works in the best interest of itself as a private business that is bound by the market.
Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly. Hell, wasn't it just a few months ago we were reading about FCC members going to work at Comcast and the such. I'm hopeful that there will be positives.. but long term what I see is.. business using government to force us to be fucked.
 
Taldren said:
What fantasy world do you live in?

FCC works in the best interest of itself ... expanding its own power and role in the government and bound by no one, it seems, as they have defied both congress and the federal courts in trying to regulate the internet.

Verizon works in the best interest of itself as a private business that is bound by the market.
Click to expand...

Then vote for people who support a more open FCC.

You can't vote for new heads of Verizon.
 
Burning_Monk said:
Then vote for people who support a more open FCC.

You can't vote for new heads of Verizon.
Click to expand...

Your right, the people that actually have an invested interest in the company get to vote on the heads of Verizon ... not every Tom, Dick, and Harry. Sounds like a much better voting block.
 
I would rather Verizon and all those other companies challenging the FCC to win.

In my opinion we do not want the current rules they just set forth. We want a "real" net neutrality internet. What the rules the FCC just set allows isp's to throttle anyone for no reason. They just can't restrict us from going to a said site, just slow us down.

The isp's want to have the ability to do what they want with the connections, like that "theopeninter" link suggests. They don't have that yet but if you like to download stuff and play games or anything else on the net you best as hell don't want the FCC setting the rules they just did either.
 
Well if Verizon and the other companies win they'll be charging you more money on top of there normal fees. Fuck them.
 
Bash the FCC all you want, they are making CableCARD finally happen for real. Without FCC intervention TiVo would have died, and still might due to the cable companies illegal practices (forced cable box rental)
 
Taldren said:
Your right, the people that actually have an invested interest in the company get to vote on the heads of Verizon ... not every Tom, Dick, and Harry. Sounds like a much better voting block.
Click to expand...

Until you realize the "invested interests" means nickle-and-diming you for everything they can, while squashing any dissent and competition. Ya that sounds like a great deal.... for them.
 
fattypants said:
FCC works in the interests of the general public.

Verizon works in the interests of Verizon.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
should read

fattypants said:
FCC is supposed to work in the interests of the general public but is largely run by different lobbying groups pulling different directions tempered by public opinion.

Verizon works in the interests of Verizon. There goal is to make as much money as possible at the expense of their customers. This includes funding lobbyist.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
 
Burning_Monk said:
Until you realize the "invested interests" means nickle-and-diming you for everything they can, while squashing any dissent and competition. Ya that sounds like a great deal.... for them.
Click to expand...

Just like every business in the world ... small, medium, and large. Then again, just because they want to doesn't mean they do as they answer to the market. My god, you people make it sound like capitalism hasn't been the best best means to expand liberty and prosperity in human history. This is how capitalism works ... what you have to guard against isn't companies, but corporatism (aka economic fascism) when government agencies (cough cough FCC) start regulating the competition out of the market. If some start-up wants to just sell unlimited YouTube and Facebook access for 2 a month then they should be allowed to do that. Hell, that probably be a popular product.
 
Taldren said:
Just like every business in the world ... small, medium, and large. Then again, just because they want to doesn't mean they do as they answer to the market. My god, you people make it sound like capitalism hasn't been the best best means to expand liberty and prosperity in human history. This is how capitalism works ... what you have to guard against isn't companies, but corporatism (aka economic fascism) when government agencies (cough cough FCC) start regulating the competition out of the market. If some start-up wants to just sell unlimited YouTube and Facebook access for 2 a month then they should be allowed to do that. Hell, that probably be a popular product.
Click to expand...

[To view this response please sign up with Verizon™ Unlimited* Forum Gold Package™ for only $19.99/mo** or get this exciting new feature for a limited time at only $119.99/yr***]
 
Burning_Monk said:
[To view this response please sign up with Verizon™ Unlimited* Forum Gold Package™ for only $19.99/mo** or get this exciting new feature for a limited time at only $119.99/yr***]
Click to expand...

Something that has never happened. Net neutrality is nothing more than a solution looking for a problem so that a government agency can be more powerful and get bigger bribes and better ass kissing.
 
seems like all the arguments against net neutrality actually have nothing to do with net neutrality, just the fcc in general.

cant net neutrality just be a law without specifying who has the right to enforce the law?

is anyone here against the principal of net neutrality?
is anyone here against making net neutrality a law?
 
Ocean said:
cant net neutrality just be a law without specifying who has the right to enforce the law?
Click to expand...
There is no law unless there's someone to enforce it, and if you don't designate an enforcer, then they'll fight over who has to pick up the responsibility.
 
Ocean said:
seems like all the arguments against net neutrality actually have nothing to do with net neutrality, just the fcc in general.

cant net neutrality just be a law without specifying who has the right to enforce the law?

is anyone here against the principal of net neutrality?
is anyone here against making net neutrality a law?
Click to expand...

The government shouldn't regulate the internet in any manner. Once you give them an in its over ... look what they have done with the Commerce Clause, FFS ... WAY over the line of what the founders had intended. From telling farmers they can't grow a portion of their crops for their own consumption to trying to force every American to buy a product from a private company.

The only things the government should do is:
1) Make sure that no fraud is committed.
2) Make sure that no company is roadblocking competition from entering the market.

What it shouldn't be doing:
1) Roadblocking competition from the market.
2) Allowing no-bid contracts
3) Allow kickbacks to any member of the government in anyway.

Personally, I think they should pass a law that says that should a company accept public funding for any reason that they can't donate to any government agency, personnel, or campaign for at least a year after receiving all the funds.

Corporatism is what is evil, not corporations.
 
Taldren said:
Something that has never happened. Net neutrality is nothing more than a solution looking for a problem so that a government agency can be more powerful and get bigger bribes and better ass kissing.
Click to expand...

And what happens when they do implement it (and you better believe they will given the opportunity)? "Use another ISP"? Many, MANY people don't have a choice over what ISP they get to use. Most people only have 2 to choose from, or 3 if you live in a really good area. And given how much ISPs openly conspire with each other, if one ISP decides to implement the kind of content micromanagement that everyone is terrified of, you better believe the others will follow in lockstep. Just look at the bandwidth caps that every major ISP announced and implemented within months of each other.

Even if you have more than 3, many smaller ISPs just lease lines from the bigger ones, so its the same as not having a choice. If a town tries to get around that by setting up their own internet provider service--oops, sorry, the ISPs already paid off the government to make that illegal.

Giving the FTC the ability to govern the internet is not a good solution, certainly. But what's even WORSE is just assuming that the ISPs will remain moral. You yourself said in a previous post that all corporations exist to make money. If 'making money' means taking your ability to access message boards and putting a toll booth in front of it, so be it. ISPs can do this and, right now, they'll be precious little most people can do to stop or get around it.
 
King of Heroes said:
And what happens when they do implement it (and you better believe they will given the opportunity)? "Use another ISP"? Many, MANY people don't have a choice over what ISP they get to use. Most people only have 2 to choose from, or 3 if you live in a really good area. And given how much ISPs openly conspire with each other, if one ISP decides to implement the kind of content micromanagement that everyone is terrified of, you better believe the others will follow in lockstep. Just look at the bandwidth caps that every major ISP announced and implemented within months of each other.
Click to expand...

You know there are already laws on the books that don't allow companies to "conspire" with each other ... which completely solves your issue before it starts. You already admitted there are other options ... so either it will die by competition or all companies "conspiring" with price fixing will be sued by government. After what happened with the Tabacco companies, I really doubt they want to go that route.
It's funny that you mentioned bandwidth caps ... because I just saw a commercial on TV of a company touting that they don't have bandwidth caps in comparison to certain other companies. Looks like the market works.

King of Heroes said:
Giving the FTC the ability to govern the internet is not a good solution, certainly. But what's even WORSE is just assuming that the ISPs will remain moral. You yourself said in a previous post that all corporations exist to make money. If 'making money' means taking your ability to access message boards and putting a toll booth in front of it, so be it. ISPs can do this and, right now, they'll be precious little most people can do to stop or get around it.
Click to expand...

ISP have had this ability for a long time now and still it has not happened ... because they aren't that stupid. That is how they got so big in the first place. If they do something stupid, however, they better not get bailed out by the government. There are smaller companies just waiting for a chance that will love to buy up a bankrupts companies assets.
 
Taldren said:
What fantasy world do you live in?

FCC works in the best interest of itself ... expanding its own power and role in the government and bound by no one, it seems, as they have defied both congress and the federal courts in trying to regulate the internet.

Verizon works in the best interest of itself as a private business that is bound by the market.
Click to expand...

Yes we know your tinfoil stance about the big bad government.

Bottom line: Comcast and other internet giants wants to control user experiences - too much bandwidth? Throttle them or cut them off. Even though you paid for the bandwidth. Even though they're sitting on a huge profit and not upgrading infrastructure. Even though they're a monopoly or duopoly.

FCC's rule will forbid internet providers from restricting internet access or making them restrictive in any way. You paid for it, you should get the service.

Unfortunately this new FCC rule omits wireless internet because they feel it's not strong enough to be open yet - and it's true, especially in large cities.
 
I just want open, unrestricted internet. I want the service I pay for without being filtered, throttled, cut-off ect. As of right now I don't see either side, FCC or ISP, fighting for this.

So, do I want net neutrality? Yes. I do want what the FCC or ISP's are currently offering in regards to that? No. I won't mind the FCC making regulations around it, but they have to be regulations that benefit the consumer. The ISP gets paid either way.
 
Azhar said:
Yes we know your tinfoil stance about the big bad government.

Bottom line: Comcast and other internet giants wants to control user experiences - too much bandwidth? Throttle them or cut them off. Even though you paid for the bandwidth. Even though they're sitting on a huge profit and not upgrading infrastructure. Even though they're a monopoly or duopoly.

FCC's rule will forbid internet providers from restricting internet access or making them restrictive in any way. You paid for it, you should get the service.

Unfortunately this new FCC rule omits wireless internet because they feel it's not strong enough to be open yet - and it's true, especially in large cities.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am aware of your ignorant big government stance ... but I don't see how being correct about the FCC not having the authority to do this makes me "crazy" as you are alluding to with your "tinfoil hat" statement. Especially when it is you that is expecting a different result from every other thing the government has tried to regulate in the modern age.

Plus you are so very wrong about sitting on profits and not upgrading their infrastructure ... how are you going to argue a case when you are ignorant of the facts? In our area they just build a half of a trillion dollar building, employed 1000s of people, upgraded their network to allow for bidirectional cablecards, and have are in the testing of both symmetrical 100 Mbps and 1 Gbps connections.
 
Taldren said:
Yes, I am aware of your ignorant big government stance ... but I don't see how being correct about the FCC not having the authority to do this makes me "crazy" as you are alluding to with your "tinfoil hat" statement. Especially when it is you that is expecting a different result from every other thing the government has tried to regulate in the modern age.

Plus you are so very wrong about sitting on profits and not upgrading their infrastructure ... how are you going to argue a case when you are ignorant of the facts? In our area they just build a half of a trillion dollar building, employed 1000s of people, upgraded their network to allow for bidirectional cablecards, and have are in the testing of both symmetrical 100 Mbps and 1 Gbps connections.
Click to expand...

Enjoy your new infrastructure while it still works. They build it and then let it crumble while charging you for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top