Verizon's Plan To Turn the Web Into Pay-Per-View 332
snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Bill Snyder writes of Verizon's diabolical plan to to charge websites for carrying their packets — a strategy that, if it wins out, will be the end of the Internet as we know it. 'Think of all the things that tick you off about cable TV. Along with brainless programming and crummy customer service, the very worst aspect of it is forced bundling. ... Now, imagine that the Internet worked that way. You'd hate it, of course. But that's the direction that Verizon, with the support of many wired and wireless carriers, would like to push the Web. That's not hypothetical. The country's No. 1 carrier is fighting in court to end the Federal Communications Commission's policy of Net neutrality, a move that would open the gates to a whole new — and wholly bad — economic model on the Web.'"
Same old song and dance (Score:5, Insightful)
They're a carrier. To expect Verizon or AT&T etc to behave like a wonderful, equitable business partner is to expect the earth to move from orbit on the propulsion of sparrow flatulence.
Charging for stuff is what they do, and they will relentlessly continue to try. And each time, like every other time, we'll crush them.
Do your part: tell those crazy telecom guys: monopolies were granted, not earned. We'll take away your easements, your rights of way, your utility company plates, and your seat at the table-- again. Your bribes to Congress and the legislature, and your armies of highly paid lawyers will lose once more, but you big bad boys-- you'll go back to your shareholders and exclaim one more time: we tried!!
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Same old song and dance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Simple solution (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Simple solution (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/05/community-fiber/ [wired.com]
Understand your State, your local laws and then read up about what other people did in choice limited regions.
Charge back? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't fathom what you mean by content providers wasting bandwidth.
I pay for a pipe, I expect to be able to send and receive packets to whomever I want. It's up to me as the user to decide if I'm wasting bandwidth. If I don't want to pay as much and save money then I should consider how to use less bandwidth.
The problem is that ISPs have been getting away with overprovisioning, underdelivering on bandwidth promises and pocketing the massive profits. If you can't make money with people using the bandwidth you sold them then perhaps you should price your product accordingly. If you're selling burst speeds and not explaining to customers your limits then it's your own fault.
Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl (Score:5, Insightful)
If you run an ISP and still don't understand that you're not the interesting part of the internet, then you have never understood your place on the 'net. ISPs exist for one reason, and one reason only: to allow people to access content. Period. The "Economic Balance" isn't "tipping towards content companies"...the content companies *are* *the* *things* *your* *customers* *want*. The only thing they want from you is to get to those companies (or each other). You are a conduit, a tube, even. Nothing more.
If your users want the traffic, then the content providers aren't "wasting" it...your customers (who are already paying you for those bits, I should point out) are using what they've paid for. Saying that content providers are wasting bandwidth is basically complaining that your users are actually *using* what you sold them...which is really not a winning argument.
Re:Aren't they just... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I pay for a class of service (5Mbit down, 640Kbit up.) Deliver that level of service. Period.
As long as I'm happy with the responsiveness of my system with that level of service, it's none of your god damned business what applications or websites I'm using or visiting to chew up what I've paid for.
Your "throttling" attempts and "bandwidth caps" are nothing more than trying to steal back what I've already paid for.
Re:Same old song and dance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Same old song and dance (Score:5, Insightful)
As a carrier they have a financial duty to not piss off their share holders
FTFY
and contribute to the collapse of western economic systems which in turn will destroy all their assets and their property.
Unless we somehow end up in the dark ages, why would they care. Hell, some kind of dystopian Mad Max world would be great for them. That way they can just go out an burn down your house if you go over your bandwidth cap too many times. Now they have to issue warnings and pay lawyers and worry about those pesky laws and such.
As a monopoly they have a right to run their business how we tell them to and make a small profit. Should be run as an NPO with extreme oversight (albiet you will never have an NPO that size without a little corruption). I.e. monopolies can't be for profit ever. But its no better then socialism.
I'm a fairly big believer in capitalism, to a point. But some things just need to be socialized. We currently have a hybrid system, and the sooner we embrace that the better. Social Security is socialized. If congress wouldn't have raided the trust fund so often over the years, it'd have been in a lot better shape for longer than it was(but that's a different discussion). Healthcare should be socialized too. If people would get over this myth that the US is a strictly capitalist society, then we wouldn't have the abortion that is the affordable care act. If we're lucky, it will be bad enough that the country will figure out that socialism isn't always a bad thing and we can move on to something better. It's painfully obvious that what we have in the telecommunications industry is heading towards a train wreck. Maybe we can also stop privatizing profits and socializing losses while were at it too.
I think I hear the ghost of a junior senator knocking on my door.
Re:Simple solution (Score:2, Insightful)
Your logic is ridiculous. The part where you claim it's not a sacrifice just because we used to not have it.
We lived without toothbrushes once. We lived without cars once. We lived without deodorant once. We lived without houses once. When nobody had those things it wasn't a sacrifice. When you live in a world that expects you to have those things, it is.
Now, one could argue that it's a *worthy* sacrifice, but that's a completely different concept.
Re:Same old song and dance (Score:5, Insightful)
You think for one minute that Verizon and Comcast want a "free market"?
Is it a free market when there are only a very few players? Are you old enough to remember when there were hundreds of ISPs in every city? When there was actual competition?
The problem is, we're not really Verizon or Comcast's customers. None of us choose them because we like those companies or the services they offer. We choose them because there are no other choices. So now Verizon pays $130billion (with a "B") for Vodaphone, and the only reason they do is because interest rates are near zero (look at the bond prices, not the prime rate). Forget for a moment that if we actually had any enforcement of the law, that merger would get laughed out of court. For that to be worthwhile, interest rates would have to stay near zero for 20 years. But Verizon sees the writing on the wall. They figure they can take out another competitor and then just soak the people who pay them for service (not customers mind. the customers are their "strategic partners", production divisions, advertisers, and the people who they sell your information to).
You're not a consumer, you're the commodity. You're what they selling. You're trapped. Go ahead, move to Comcast and Comcast can say, Go ahead, move to Verizon. They don't give a fuck because they're gonna get paid either way. 'Cause where you gonna go?
Welcome to Corporatism 2013: End-stage Capitalism.
It already is pay per view (Score:5, Insightful)
I pay my ISP to view the internet. I give them my money to access exactly the sites they are complaining about. If they did not give me access to those sites I would not pay them. I think most customers feel the same way. Nobody pays $100 a month for broadband access so they can send an occasional email or look at wikipedia once in a while. Verizon should be thanking sites like Netflix for creating the demand that allows to get paid by lots and lots of people like me.
Of course, if Verizon wants to pay me for adding demand to their system (thus allowing them to charge the content providers) then I suppose I might think differently. They can't collect on both ends of the transaction while adding absolutely no value in the middle. Verizon - when do I get my check for watching Netflix?
Re:Same old song and dance (Score:4, Insightful)
Or have the government provide the infrastructure, and let other companies offer you the internet access over it on an equitable basis...
Re:Same old song and dance (Score:5, Insightful)
Cause where you gonna go?
I'll go off the Internet, that's where. If they manage to price it out of the reach of most people, the Internet will die. Cheer up though, we lived fine without it before, we'll live fine without it again -- if necessary. Here's the thing though: The Internet is not just a bunch of wires strung up between the West Coast and the East Coast of the United States, it's a world-wide network of connectivity providers. The entire planet is using it now; millions of businesses and billions of people in every country. Do you really think that the rest of the world is going to put up with one or two U.S.-based companies fucking with the Internet on this level? I think not. There are other backbone providers than Comcast and Verizon, and the reality is that there is only the most tenuous of agreements between all of them to make the Internet, as a whole, work as a global network. In the same way that the Internet can reroute itself around damage, it can be rerouted around Verizon and Comcast, leaving them in walled gardens of their own design if that's what they want.
Re:Aren't they just... (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems more like a store trying to charge Pepsi or Coca Cola to sell their products.
Or it seems like we'll only be able to see the information from the people who can afford to pay for us to see it.
Re:Same old song and dance (Score:4, Insightful)
Joe Dumbass buys Verizon Internet Access for $49.95/mo plus fees*. *2.18 Federal taxes, $7.32 Additional Fees, $3.07 Internet Fees, $11.23 Technology Obsolescence Fees.
BrickPackets Inc. purchases an OC-192 pipe from Level 3 Communications for $75,000/year plus $145,000 one time fee to run the lines (nice discount).
Joe Dumbass has purchased the service of having access to the Internet, to be able to address and communicate with other things that have access to the Internet.
BrickPackets Inc. has purchased the service of having access to the Internet, to be able to address and communicate with other things that have access to the Internet. BrickPackets Inc. has a much bigger pipe, and their TOS doesn't restrict their usage patterns with caps or usage guidelines (i.e. they're allowed to host network services like Web sites or streaming video servers).
It's completely fair that Joe Dumbass isn't allowed to host Web servers or streaming media or whatever. It is, however, a fact that Joe Dumbass has a connection to THE INTERNET, and BrickPackets Inc. has a connection to THE INTERNET, and Joe Dumbass is going to use his connection to watch live news streaming from BrickPackets Inc.'s servers. Verizon's service contract to Joe Dumbass says that he will have access to THE INTERNET, and thus blocking BrickPackets Inc. streaming media content from Joe Dumbass is infringing on their service contract with Joe Dumbass. If they do so, they can't bill themselves as providing "Internet Access" anymore.