Verizon, The Unintended Catalyst Of Strong Net Neutrality Laws (Op Ed)

[Guest]

Verizon, one of the biggest rivals of net neutrality rules, is actually the one that made strong net neutrality rules happen.

Verizon, The Unintended Catalyst Of Strong Net Neutrality Laws (Op Ed) : Read more

 

[yoji]

I don't understand.. Verizon don't have a leg to stand on?
If (for example) they sell 50Mbps to their customers.. how can they complain if their customers want to use services that use all of that? What they seem to be doing.. is selling it at 50Mbps and then complaining that they need throttle.. as they can only cope with 30Mbps? So they oversold? how is that our problem?
So with net neutrality.. they cant throttle and so they cant oversell.. and so people can really see who can deliver on the services they sell an hold providers to account accordingly.
Or have I misunderstood?
Cheers

 

[Craig Herberg]

It seems carriers want to charge twice for the same bandwidth: Once for your 50Mbs service plan, and again when you actually use it -- for example when you stream Netflix content. Of course, they only want to throttle -- or charge extra for using -- competing services. Craig Herberg

 

[sykozis]

Verizon sells 50Mbps service. You can use that full 50Mbps service. They just want complete control over what you can use that 50Mbps service for. They also want the ability to charge content providers (such as Netflix) for your ability to access their content.

 

[skit75]

They also would like to continue to snoop on the bandwidth packets you are using to see if they offer a similar service/app and then funnel their advertising at you while throttling the competitor.

 

[alextheblue]

They also want the ability to charge content providers (such as Netflix) for your ability to access their content.

It seems carriers want to charge twice for the same bandwidth

No. They only charge Netflix to host Netflix on Verizon's network. That's what the agreements were really all about. Netflix was having problems with Cogent and they either chose to ignore this fact and blame ISPs, or they were too stupid to realize that Cogent was actually throttling them during peak hours.

Verizon and Comcast were blamed, when the fault really lay with Netflix and Cogent.

What's really hilarious about this? If net neutrality passes the ISPs lose control over their own networks. When they become flooded by ever-increasing HD video streaming, it means they can't throttle Netflix et al and so other higher-priority traffic suffers. Real-time gaming packets? Oh treat them the same as email or Netflix packets. Yet many ignorant Americans think Net Neutrality is some kind wonderful panacea to a problem that never really existed in the first place!

 

[alextheblue]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2014/11/25/how-netflix-poisoned-the-net-neutrality-debate/

 

[computertech82]

Sad there are brain deads against net neutraility. Like it's ok for internet providers to overcharge or even BLOCK you from websites!!!!!!!!

 

[Brandon Burkett]

@Alextheblue
I'm guessing your either an ISP Shill or just flat out ignorant. Packet Shaping is NOT equal to Packet Blocking or Packet Discrimination. Real time, in-order packet delivery, QOS or time sensitive packet prioritization is not what Net Neutrality is, troll. ISP's must treat each packet equal, with no preference to their own service and allow any packet in or out as required by law. Net Neutrality prevents ISP's from screwing you over and leads to a full open internet.

At no time has this ever been about anything less. Your VOIP calls will still be fine, your gaming packets will be fine, and your Netflix will be fine, troll, all at the same time. Nice try, though.

 

[JD88]

Saying companies like Verizon should be able to throttle some data in favor of "high priority" data when the network becomes overloaded is nonsense. If the network is saturated, they need to stop advertising for new customers or (gasp!) actually spend some of that fat profit on infrastructure.

 

[yoji]

They also want the ability to charge content providers (such as Netflix) for your ability to access their content.

It seems carriers want to charge twice for the same bandwidth

No. They only charge Netflix to host Netflix on Verizon's network. That's what the agreements were really all about. Netflix was having problems with Cogent and they either chose to ignore this fact and blame ISPs, or they were too stupid to realize that Cogent was actually throttling them during peak hours.

Verizon and Comcast were blamed, when the fault really lay with Netflix and Cogent.

What's really hilarious about this? If net neutrality passes the ISPs lose control over their own networks. When they become flooded by ever-increasing HD video streaming, it means they can't throttle Netflix et al and so other higher-priority traffic suffers. Real-time gaming packets? Oh treat them the same as email or Netflix packets. Yet many ignorant Americans think Net Neutrality is some kind wonderful panacea to a problem that never really existed in the first place!

Seriously? How is that debate? It sound simple to me .... customer complains = "sorry, you paying for a 10Mbps service and you trying use Netflix at same time as you trying to use FPS shooters.. you don't have bandwidth.. would you like to upgrade?"
May be at that point you begin to see differentiation in service.. Verizin gives customer ability to prioritize service X over Y.. that's a positive customer option and wins them brownie points and customers
THEM choosing how YOUR bandwidth is prioritised is a complete non starter,
Just MHO.
Cheers

 

[Guest]

Forbes is the only source that seems against this. Another article of them had this gem: "If an ISP blocks Netflix because of the bandwidth it requires, consumers who want Netflix will take their business elsewhere."

I get the "Free market", but this is an oligopoly. What if you don't have another ISP where you live?

We can't have roads that have different speeds according to which car manufacturer you came from. You buy a 10 Mbps connection, all your data arrives at that speed if it can enter the network at that speed. No data discrimination.

 

[chesteracorgi]

Having the FCC regulate the internet is inviting the camel into the tent. You will end up with a load of camel s**t for your internet. The reason the internet has grown is that you can pay for service, and the providers can compete for your service. Under the command of Uncle Sugar we would have all had dial up modems at 56KBps speed.

I wants my freestuff, like my Obamaphone, my welfare check and Community College. Free internet too so I can get my welfare check online, and register for Obamacare. Don't give the bill to me cuz Obama sez its free.

 

[sykozis]

The problem is, providers are no longer competing in most cases. In most cases, you have 1-2 ISP's that have pricing and expansion agreements in place to prevent competition. There is no innovation, because there's no requirement to compete.

As for "Obamaphone"....it doesn't exist and never did exist. The program that provides "free" cell phones is the SafeLink program, which started in 2008, prior to Obama being elected President.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

 

[jeremy2020]

Who's competing for my service? I only have one option for bandwidth over 5MBPS at the moment (until Google installs Google Fiber in Austin) .

 

[ShutyerLips]

@chesteracorgi- Nope, try again. It was the ISP's that botched the whole thing in the first place. The ISP's were given tax payer subsidies to develop internet infrastructure and keep the US competitive (45Mbps). The ISP's took the money and used old copper phone lines, which had been created through subsidies originally, and scaled back the 45Mbps goal to...200kbps (remember that? It's cause it was back in 1995). And then kept the money. How much money? Waaaaaaaaaay too much money. Read all about it in today's edition of "you were wrong"!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5839394.html

 

[hammerstrike]

If you think the FCC is such a great manager of telecom innovation take a look at the last industry to get classified as title 2, local phone sevice. That created the Ma Bell regional providers which became synonymous with poor service, slow to non-existent innovation and federally granted monopoly control of their customers bases which legally killed all competition and saddled customer with decades of high priced services.

I agree, we need more competition in the ISP space, but title 2 classification of ISP's is completely counter-productive to that goal. By layering on onerous regulations we are going to scare away new players from entering the market and discourage existing players from Capex improvements to their existing infrastructure. well end up with slower innovation and less options, just like we did with the Ma Bells.

We need a federal policy that encourages new participants in so all markets have real, competetive choices in broadband providers, not regulations that significantly discourage that.

If the fed government really wanted to make a difference we could stop using RF spectrum to broadcast HDTV OTA(which only a few percent of the country even uses) and sell off that spectrum for use in wireless broadband, which the vast majority of thd country uses. With the proceeds from the spectrum sell the Gov't could contract with Dish/DirecTV/whomever to provide basic local programming to the Grandma's/Grandpa's/Low Income folks whom would be impacted and still want local stations.

 

[jmonaco5]

The "spectrum" is limitless so all this molarky about selling sections off is smoke and mirrors. Just as there are infinite numbers between 1 and 10. We are the most advanced society in the world, but because of these companies in control, we are in last place for internet speed while we pay the highest prices for access. That's the bottom line...

 

[knowom]

"If the fed government really wanted to make a difference we could stop using RF spectrum to broadcast HDTV OTA(which only a few percent of the country even uses) and sell off that spectrum for use in wireless broadband." The people that use it are the ones that need it the most you forget and it's also vital in the case of emergencies to have the free flow of news information to know and understand what is going on. Their poor so they don't deserve to be warned of natural disasters in their area to prepare in advance for them? Please GTFO

 

[skit75]

The "spectrum" is limitless so all this molarky about selling sections off is smoke and mirrors. Just as there are infinite numbers between 1 and 10. We are the most advanced society in the world, but because of these companies in control, we are in last place for internet speed while we pay the highest prices for access. That's the bottom line...

You are not wrong but it is not as simple as you make it out to be either. The revolution you speak of requires all new hardware on the transmission and receiver side and perhaps a better way to deliver those expanded frequencies. The theory sounds feasible. The successful practice of the theory is a ways off, still.

 

[skit75]

"If the fed government really wanted to make a difference we could stop using RF spectrum to broadcast HDTV OTA(which only a few percent of the country even uses) and sell off that spectrum for use in wireless broadband." The people that use it are the ones that need it the most you forget and it's also vital in the case of emergencies to have the free flow of news information to know and understand what is going on. Their poor so they don't deserve to be warned of natural disasters in their area to prepare in advance for them? Please GTFO

he is not talking about their frequencies disappearing, more like the existing frequencies being expanded out infinitely, I believe.

Example: if you are watching channel 7 OTA(~175.25MHz) that receivers and transmitters would be able to use frequencies further out past the decimal like 175.25XXXXXX------> and lock onto those expanded frequency decimal places without bleeding into the current 175.25MHz signal.

 

[jmonaco5]

The "spectrum" is limitless so all this molarky about selling sections off is smoke and mirrors. Just as there are infinite numbers between 1 and 10. We are the most advanced society in the world, but because of these companies in control, we are in last place for internet speed while we pay the highest prices for access. That's the bottom line...

You are not wrong but it is not as simple as you make it out to be either. The revolution you speak of requires all new hardware on the transmission and receiver side and perhaps a better way to deliver those expanded frequencies. The theory sounds feasible. The successful practice of the theory is a ways off, still.

That is the inevitable means to an end and least expensive to maintain, albeit in a few years as you stated. My point is the last half of the equation, where we are being molested by the carriers and the fact we are behind other countries in terms of service. Some, like Korea or Taiwan have people living in tin huts that have better access than we do!

 

[chesteracorgi]

The problem is, providers are no longer competing in most cases. In most cases, you have 1-2 ISP's that have pricing and expansion agreements in place to prevent competition. There is no innovation, because there's no requirement to compete.

As for "Obamaphone"....it doesn't exist and never did exist. The program that provides "free" cell phones is the SafeLink program, which started in 2008, prior to Obama being elected President.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

Haven't you seen the youtube film of the woman from Cleveland wanting her Obamaphone? Or do you ever come out of your mother's basement?

And pleeeeeze, tell me that you have signed up for Obamacare.

 

[chesteracorgi]

Who's competing for my service? I only have one option for bandwidth over 5MBPS at the moment (until Google installs Google Fiber in Austin) .

You can thank the government for all the competition. Localities regulate who can come in and lay down lines. So thank the local poobahs in Austin for your speedy internet.

 

[chesteracorgi]

@chesteracorgi- Nope, try again. It was the ISP's that botched the whole thing in the first place. The ISP's were given tax payer subsidies to develop internet infrastructure and keep the US competitive (45Mbps). The ISP's took the money and used old copper phone lines, which had been created through subsidies originally, and scaled back the 45Mbps goal to...200kbps (remember that? It's cause it was back in 1995). And then kept the money. How much money? Waaaaaaaaaay too much money. Read all about it in today's edition of "you were wrong"!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5839394.html

Nice try, but you FAIL. It is the local governments who regulate who can come in and lay cable, be it copper, fiber or whatnot. And what ISPs were given gubment subsidies? What? No answer? As I said, you want camel s**t for an internet if you want our lords and masters in DC controlling it.