Verizon Can't Even Stand Net Neutrality Lite

Who saw this coming? Verizon has taken umbrage with certain aspects of Net Neutrality, and has taken the in other words predictable tract of challenging the FCC's authority in order to get out of complying with the rules. It's nothing more than a simple case of if you can't win an argument based spontaneously merit attack the credibility of your adversary. Verizon isn't too keen on the provision that would force it to treat all data on its network evenly, so it's going to court to make sure it doesn't have to.

Verizon, during claiming to be "committed to preserving an open Internet", says that it's "deeply concerned by the FCC’s assertion of broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself." Note the presence of the word "sweeping," which is designed to make it seem like the sky is falling. Sweeping new regulations? What kind of evil agenda is at work here?

This stuff should probably be done by the individual States not the federal government for land based communication. However, seeing as how distinguishing between wired and wireless communication are growing closer at the same time for simplicity’s sake it’d be nice if the Federal government settled this issue at once.

That being said, communications, much like airspace, is the undisputed domain of the federal government. This isn’t an ideological issue, it’s just how the constitution and the supreme court decisions defining the power of the executive to regulate have said things should be done.

States are neither competent enough, no do they have even the authority, to regulate communication…just like airspace…or drugs and food…or a bunch of other important things that are the sole domain of federal regulation as charged by congress.

The fact is that this isn’t merely a debate of ideology subject to the same bs rhetoric spotted on tv. We shouldn’t dismantle a system that keeps people from getting screwed on broadband for some abstract notion of deregulation that hasn’t existed since the late 1800′s.

Treat all data evenly? At the time apparently Nicholas you are unfamiliar with packet-shaping… Many large businesses, organizations and yes ISPs know the importance of NOT treating all data evenly.

raffic shaping is bad. the only positive benefit i have seen of packet shaping is on someone’s own network. like when the 12 year old little nerd logs into his own router and gives his laptop priority for gaming or netflix or something.

So yes, some kinds of traffic need priority for the network to work properly, nevertheless no, we don’t want them to cap netflix unless someone ponies up an extra charge.

The municipal level thoroughly destroyed

That we see those monopolies given at the municipal level thoroughly destroyed. Why no one investigates all of the carriers and ISPs for blatant price collusion is beyond me. Let’s get some real competition at the ISP and mobile carrier level. Let each carrier do what they like with their networks. And let consumers vote with their wallets— that’s the way it should work.

I agree in principle that Net Neutrality must exist. But, I do not believe it to be the Government’s job to enact such “legislation”. Let the Consumers have a say. If we don’t like the idea of a company throttling our connections at the time we all take our business elsewhere. Vote with your pocketbook, don’t let the Gov’t do it for you! We should not let the Gov’t take the place of the Consumer.

The surface

Your suggestion sounds good on the surface. However what if the corporations go the route of OPEC or the airline industry where they decide, at the same time, what to charge, what to allow, or what to block? We Americans think we have it good, yet honestly dont know how we compare to other countries who have net neuteratiy and blazing speeds. FIOS? Ovrer in some of the other countries, we’re all in all buggy and horse compared to what they ride on the information highway. The FCC should regulate this for the whole country and not let local politics affect the rest of the country. The FCC in assigned to regulate broadcasting; they should regulate thhe Internet because it is a broadcast medium…any broadcaster knows this as fact. It is the layperson, who looks at all things from the political sight that often seems removed from reality. If we aren’t a federal country, we allow foreign interests to divied and conquer. Te strength of America is the “United States” part. The FCC should not cower because parties have changed.

Internet providers need the ability to discriminate between different types of data simply because if your email arrives 7 seconds afterwards you hit send, it’s no big deal, however if the then and there segment of your Netflix streaming video arrives 7 seconds late, that would be a problem.

Providers should as well be able to charge more for people who want more data. That’s just economics. Here’s a quote on that given at a 2008 conference by the late Alfred Kahn, an economist best known for deregulating the airline industry now also quite involved in telecommunications:

"The pressures for so-called network neutrality are in large measure romantic. They spring from the notion that the internet should be like a commons, in which all ideas can reach everybody, which was an attractive notion, however it becomes intensely regulatory when you begin to say you're going to prohibit discrimination. For openers, the main instances of so-called discrimination are not discriminatory at all! They are simply attempts by the providers to charge users for the use that they make and the bandwidth that they use. It's not discriminatory to charge more for people who use more bandwidth, just like the post office charges more for overnight delivery."

The government needs to stay out for until further notice another decade during technology and markets evolve. Because once regulation enters, markets and networks will be fixed in the course of time regardless of technological innovations.

What is the justification for claiming Verizon should not be able to do whatever it wants with its own network? I don’t understand this.

Agreed, let Verizon do what they want with their network and continue its neandering policies and together the Cable Companies can do the in contrast and continue to swallow Verizons clients.

– I’m not fine with having internet providers decide for me a) what content I can or can’t have access to on the open internet, and/or b) determining which providers of content get speed priority over other content.

The recent net neutrality policy

– each FCC commissioner disagreed with large chunks of the recent net neutrality policy. Having read each of their individual responses to the however approved net neutrality rules they usually are, in point of fact, ‘thinking and feeling’ with the public’s interest in mind. For all that, they are powerless to enforce their ‘opinions’. We shouldn’t be paying the commissioners salaries for simply having and stating an opinion. There is no incentive for them to become enforcers. Or even raise there voice in real protest. Michael J. Copps is the smartest one of the bunch and knows what is at stake for the american people. The other commissioners aren’t people I would hire for any tech job in silicon valley or the industry in general. They would be best at being, say, teachers or principals of public elementary schools. That’s not a knock on them nevertheless just a fact. Their skill-set just isn’t a good fit for the job. Protecting our access to information is too important. They seem like nice enough people. Yet we need to score them on what they as a matter of fact get done – not what they say and how they say it. I’m less protected nevertheless and the access providers are safer from gov’t influence on their business practices.

– Verizon is just playing a game of puppets with the public, shareholders and lobbyists. I’m sure they are quite happy with the latest net neutrality rules and had a big hand at co-writing them. They are attempting to ensure that there are hearts-and-minds against any gov’t oversight on internet access guidelines in the short-term. Their goal is to keep the FCC powerless and to ensure a steady stream of funds to washington for their assistance. That, and shouting words like ’4G, LTE (Long Term Evolution, latest standard in the mobile network technology), HSPA, then and there generation, better, faster, stronger’, etc. etc. all the during.

Who knows…like as not T-mobile is selling off a portion of their cell towers this year in order to pay down debt and get ready for a sale. Google is laying fiber around the planet, sells open devices that include SIP/VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) protocols, porting cell phones numbers to Google Voice in preparation of a T-Mobile purchase. I dunno, who knows… They would sell phones at-cost and disrupt the current subsidy-model and the need for long-term contracts. Perhaps Moto sold off their mobile device division in preparation for this coming change to the overall model. Whatever happens, a company or group of companies disrupting the carrier ecosystem is the best shot at real change. It is sad that we don’t have a system in place that can protect us from unlawful restriction to information.