Verizon Is Mad That Its Huge Net Neutrality Gamble Backfired

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The funny thing about all this is that Verizon has no one to blame but itself.

Verizon sued to block the FCC's 2010 net neutrality order, leading to a court ruling that threw out rules against blocking and discrimination. The court said the FCC erred by imposing per se common carrier rules—the kind of rules applied to the old telephone network—onto broadband without first classifying broadband providers as common carriers. Now, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is proposing to reclassify broadband as a common carriage service, an even worse outcome for Verizon and fellow ISPs.
 
I remember thus... man, I didn't realize it's been that long.
 
You know how I know what the FCC is doing is right? Because "big ISP" is mad.

This whole "market uncertainty" bullshit is laughable. If there are billions to be made anywhere on earth people will make it, regulation or not. You know what made the market uncertain? Not knowing what the playing field will look like and what your competitors pre-existing monopolistic advantage can do to crush you. Now that we're establishing the rules to the game everyone can play.
 
I hope that one day Wheeler is deserving of a public apology. He talks the talk, if he walks the walk I'll acknowledge his efforts.
 
I hope that one day Wheeler is deserving of a public apology. He talks the talk, if he walks the walk I'll acknowledge his efforts.

Well here's what it looks like according to this article:
http://arstechnica.com/business/201...les-the-fccs-net-neutrality-regime-explained/

The ban on blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization is the biggest takeaway. “Broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices… may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices... [and] may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration—in other words, no ‘fast lanes.’

Good news.

This was already what the FCC wanted to do before Verizon made the court tell the FCC they need to reclassify to title2 before they can do it, well now they can enforce it again. Oops Verizon?

There’s no ban on data caps, but the proposal would let the FCC intervene when caps are used to harm consumers or competitors.
...
FCC officials on the call with reporters seemed less concerned about data exemptions that occur without payment than those that require payment, but did not commit to banning any particular type of practice.

Shame.

Looks like they wont put some free-market promoting guidelines on this issue, so I guess Netflix can, for example, eat up Quota while VerizonFlix wont. As long as Verizon doesn't ask for payment they can promote their anti-competitive interests as they please.

Netflix and some other companies have complained about the prices ISPs charge for direct network connections. These connections ensure a smooth path into the network but don’t provide any priority thereafter. The net neutrality proposal doesn’t ban these agreements, but gives the FCC “authority to hear complaints and take appropriate enforcement action if necessary...

Better than nothing.

FCC said. “The Order will not impose, suggest or authorize any new taxes or fees,” the commission said. The moratorium on Internet taxation will continue, as required by Congress. Today’s order does not require broadband providers to contribute to the Universal Service Fund (USF), which subsidizes telecommunications projects in underserved areas.

A telco boogieman not showing up.

Google asked the FCC to enforce Title II rules guaranteeing access to poles, rights-of-way, and other infrastructure controlled by utilities, making it easier for Google Fiber to enter new markets. The FCC said it would enforce the part of Title II that “ensures fair access to poles and conduits” to help new broadband providers.

Small gain here.

...the commission simply won’t apply things like rate regulation, unbundling, or new taxes and fees. There will also be “no burdensome administrative filing requirements or accounting standards,”

Another telco boogieman debunked.

Though I'm bummed they didn't go with unbundling to bring the benefits of the free market into the picture like many parts of Europe did to great success.

---

Summary:
In short, small improvements after big talk, but better than status quo so far so that's something to be optimistic about. Didn't see mention of municipal broadband support in there, but I guess that's outside the scope of this regulation I suppose.
 
So personally...

Not convinced by Wheeler's actions yet, but at least he didn't screw it up even more than when he did when he first started. Jeez a whole year of intense public pressure so he can squeeze out this golden colored egg out of his behind. Seriously?

But better than nothing, the no fast lanes thing is nice, but it just feels like we're one step forward to where we were a few years ago imho, not sure if it means more than that yet really, but something is better than nothing.
 
Everyone acts like this is the end of the matter. Verizon has a lot of money to spend on lobbying and lawyers to make sure that even if this does go ahead it wont be for years. Also, they could just do what they did before Netflix started paying them and let the tubes get to 100% utilization.
 
Verizon's CEO is a whiny little bitch.

There.

:)
 
Now we see all the big com shills in congress jumping in with "Do you know how much this is going to raise taxes!!!!!"
 
Still waiting for a cogent explanation as to how net neutrality will affect backbone level QoS. I'm pretty sure those VoIP 911 calls need a higher priority than your Netflix stream.
 
Still waiting for a cogent explanation as to how net neutrality will affect backbone level QoS. I'm pretty sure those VoIP 911 calls need a higher priority than your Netflix stream.

Very most likely they will still be allowed (perhaps even required) to prioritize stuff like that that actually needs prioritization.
 
How much do you want to bet that after NN is passed it gets tied up in years of repeals and modifications?
 
Doesn't sound like any of this addresses ISP franchising agreements, which are the biggest bane on competitiveness out there currently. How is it that nobody seems to recognize this?
 
How much do you want to bet that after NN is passed it gets tied up in years of repeals and modifications?

We're fortunate in that it's not Congress behind it, or you'd definitely be right.

Though Congress is going to try to fuck it up, but fortunately their attempts to do so should get delayed for years.
 
I can not stand Verizon but unfortunately I am stuck until other providers step up their coverage here. Hopefully, sooner than later.

Eat a dick Verizon! Make that a whole bag of them!
 
As usual, ARS Technica leaves out the most pertinent info, and that is that most of what the people pushing for Title II wanted has been *stripped* out of Title II--that's right, the "Title II" the FCC is regulating is not the "Title II" that the pro-Title II people wanted. It's a "solution" that only a government appointee could love...;)

It does not, for instance, mandate unbundling of the last mile; it does not regulate *any* Internet pricing; and it does not impose tariffs.

http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler:

To preserve incentives for broadband operators to invest in their networks, my proposal will modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century, in order to provide returns necessary to construct competitive networks. For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling.

What's clear is that this "Title II" is not the Title II that Title II proponents wanted to see...;) Obviously, there is a lot more in there that will please the ISPs. It'll be interesting to read the actual rules themselves...so far it seems reasonable as it thankfully won't be something from the 1930's...
 
As usual, ARS Technica leaves out the most pertinent info, and that is that most of what the people pushing for Title II wanted has been *stripped* out of Title II--that's right, the "Title II" the FCC is regulating is not the "Title II" that the pro-Title II people wanted. It's a "solution" that only a government appointee could love...;)

It does not, for instance, mandate unbundling of the last mile; it does not regulate *any* Internet pricing; and it does not impose tariffs.
.

The only people that want those things are complete idiots, which you appear to be. Net Neutrality was NEVER about controlling prices or any of those other idiotic ideas.
 
The only people that want those things are complete idiots, which you appear to be. Net Neutrality was NEVER about controlling prices or any of those other idiotic ideas.

Says you...;) You see, NN has a thousand different definitions, according to who you ask. Hint: that's why the FCC Chairman mentioned these things (so he's an idiot, too?)...because that's what some people wanted. There is more to come, too, I'm sure...like people who think that NN rules mean that their connection to site servers will always give them the maximum connection speed they pay for in their ISP plan...Lol...;) I almost feel sorry for them in a way, though, because they've been fed so much crap about about "throttling" that they think connecting to servers with download caps that they don't know about is "being throttled"...Lots of those folks, and man are they going to be disappointed...;) (Talking about "stupid"--how about the people who actually believe that the government paid ISPs ~$3500 *a head* to do last mile improvements to US homes...that were never done. I read that somewhere just yesterday!) Man, there have a been *a million* definitions of NN that have been circulated--and about as many falsehoods and misrepresentations.

Anyway, I'm happy that they've tried to come up with something that will accomplish their goals without being so objectionable that it will all be beaten back in court. That's something, I suppose.
 
For everything that exists, there are "some people" who think the government should control it. Just because "some people" want something doesn't mean those people aren't flipping morons.
 
As usual, ARS Technica leaves out the most pertinent info, and that is that most of what the people pushing for Title II wanted has been *stripped* out of Title II--that's right, the "Title II" the FCC is regulating is not the "Title II" that the pro-Title II people wanted. It's a "solution" that only a government appointee could love...;)

It does not, for instance, mandate unbundling of the last mile; it does not regulate *any* Internet pricing; and it does not impose tariffs.

http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler:



What's clear is that this "Title II" is not the Title II that Title II proponents wanted to see...;) Obviously, there is a lot more in there that will please the ISPs. It'll be interesting to read the actual rules themselves...so far it seems reasonable as it thankfully won't be something from the 1930's...

Who cares about the tariffs part, that can be sorted out by itself if we have a free market. The sad part is they didn't do last mile unbundling, so we're still stuck with one crummy provider in most places.

What a shame, but better than nothing I guess, at least the shill went back on his colossal fast lanes blunder.
 
And honestly, that was what the immediate reaction to Verizon "winning" the case back then; they pushed the FCC into a corner and they went full regulation...Verizon you never go full regulation.
 
Still waiting for a cogent explanation as to how net neutrality will affect backbone level QoS. I'm pretty sure those VoIP 911 calls need a higher priority than your Netflix stream.

According to the ars article linked above:

"Some data services that don’t go over the public Internet will be largely exempt from Title II oversight. VoIP phone service offered by a cable provider is one example; another is a heart-monitoring service that doesn’t use the public Internet."
 
And honestly, that was what the immediate reaction to Verizon "winning" the case back then; they pushed the FCC into a corner and they went full regulation...Verizon you never go full regulation.

No, it's not "full regulation" - that would be what WaltC wants, controlling prices and other garbage. Let me explain it this way. You know how Ted Cruz made an idiotic statement that net neutrality is "Obamacare for the internet"? We all dismissed that because it isn't. However, if it were "full regulation" like Walt wants, Ted would actually be correct, and full regulation would be worse than the current situation of almost no regulation whatsoever.
 
According to the ars article linked above:

"Some data services that don’t go over the public Internet will be largely exempt from Title II oversight. VoIP phone service offered by a cable provider is one example; another is a heart-monitoring service that doesn’t use the public Internet."

This is unclear because VoIP is not offered only by companies like Verizon and Comcast but also others that use your actual internet connection like Vonage, MagicJack, Future-Nine (which I used to use) and more.
 
No, it's not "full regulation" - that would be what WaltC wants, controlling prices and other garbage. Let me explain it this way. You know how Ted Cruz made an idiotic statement that net neutrality is "Obamacare for the internet"? We all dismissed that because it isn't. However, if it were "full regulation" like Walt wants, Ted would actually be correct, and full regulation would be worse than the current situation of almost no regulation whatsoever.

Sorry, I get it, trying to make a bad joke about going full retard. :p At the end of the day, it was a Pyrrhic victory for Verizon.
 
Verizon said:
regulation of the Internet will create uncertainty and chill investment among the many players

"We won't be able to extort money out of our victims!"
 
No, it's not "full regulation" - that would be what WaltC wants, controlling prices and other garbage. Let me explain it this way. You know how Ted Cruz made an idiotic statement that net neutrality is "Obamacare for the internet"? We all dismissed that because it isn't. However, if it were "full regulation" like Walt wants, Ted would actually be correct, and full regulation would be worse than the current situation of almost no regulation whatsoever.

Huh?...;) I was pointing out what many proponents of NN wanted--not what *I* want...;) Where did you get that? If you actually read the post you'll see that I quoted the FCC chairman about all that stuff you somehow think I want...My comments were only that the people who *thought* they'd be getting some kind of draconian regulation with "Title II" aren't going to get it--which I think is a very good thing...!
 
"We won't be able to extort money out of our victims!"

Haha. Fuck Verizon, I fund it hysterical that their plan backfired so badly.

I hope Lowell McAdam chokes on one of those cups of beluga caviar.
 
Back
Top