Fairpoint Pledges To Violate Net Neutrality

wytcld writes "Fairpoint Communications, which has taken over Verizon's landline business in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, has announced that on February 6, 'AOL, Yahoo! and MSN subscribers will continue to have access to content but will no longer be able to access their e-mail through the third-party Web site. Instead, Yahoo! and other third-party e-mail will be accessed directly at the MyFairPoint.net portal.' Since Verizon spun off its lines to Fairpoint in a maneuver that got debt off of Verizon's balance sheets by saddling Fairpoint with it, there was concern by the public service boards of the three states about how Fairpoint would deal with that debt. Fairpoint's profit plan: force all Webmail users through Fairpoint's portal, by blocking all direct access to Webmail portals other than its own. Will Fairpoint's own search engine portal be next? What can stop them?"

what can stop them

watching their customers dropping like flies...

Re:what can stop them

How many of their customers are in areas with only one non dialup provider?

I doubt this will last though, Fairpoint isn't big enough to stand up against MSFT's legal department, and the Tier 1 contract probably requires them to be a neutral provider.

This wont effect me at all.

Which is why I'm not looking for a new provider right now.

if it did, I'd be looking up new plans in my area. Thats just rediculous. They are altering and restricting service, with no added benefits anywhere?

The competitors should be advertising that they arent fairpoint as their best marketing campaign ever.

Re:This wont effect me at all.

"[...]but cellphonscht kshcht bzsakt shchtkischt rural kschischt bzczoscht, and[...]"

WTF!?

Why would you use a comma before the word 'and'?

Good thing

I think that ultimately this is good for the case for Net Neutrality. It is a blatant move that blocks access rather than slowing it which will provoke an outcry even from the computer illiterate. This gives a real world example of what can happen without Net Neutrality to hit back against tiered internet supporters who claim that there will be no real downsides if we allow companies to boost their bottom lines at the expense of consumers.

Re:Good thing

I wouldn't even call it net neutrality, it makes it an internet issue while this is just plain old common carrier (this was a previous article recently somewhere). I, as a telephone customer, call whoever I want. AT&T can't stop a call and say "Sorry, that's not a customer of ours or an approved partner, sorry. Call someone else."

It is not the googles and amazons of the world "calling" various internet surfers and demanding attention. It's the internet surfers who go out and "call"/retrieve the web pages they want. As soon as an ISP blocks that, they are not providing the internet they promised and lose common carrier status and the legal benefits it occurs by staying neutral and not checking what web pages are retrieved.

I hope Fairpoint goes through with this and gets their ass handed to them.

Re:Good thing

"As soon as an ISP blocks that, they are not providing the internet they promised and lose common carrier status and the legal benefits it occurs by staying neutral and not checking what web pages are retrieved.'

Can't lose what they never had. ISPs don't have, and aren't required to have, common carrier status; the idea was floated, but they shot it down because, frankly, it would cost an awful lot of money and create criminal penalties for failing to meet service guidelines. They DO get some protections from the DMCA safe harbor provisions which are similar to those given to common carriers, but they are slightly different and DO NOT require ISPs to retain any sort of common carrier status.

Basically, common carrier is achieved by guaranteeing that transmissions will be delivered to the intended recipient without any sort of interference or monitoring on the part of the carrier, as well as meeting certain requirements for uptime and maintenance, and the free provision of service for the purpose of emergency communications (ie. 911 calls), and the protection given is that common carriers cannot be prosecuted for any crimes which are committed with the use of their services no matter how heinous or large in scale. The safe harbor provisions are achieved simply by connecting users to the internet, and only grant protection from civil suits regarding copyright infringement by users on their large and potentially semi-monitored (there are rules regarding monitoring, but they do not forbid all monitoring of traffic, merely on taking action with regards to certain aspects of it) network.

Re:Good thing

When I worked ISP tech support, I used to get calls from customers asking me to give them their passwords. After several minutes of confusion, I would discover the customer meant his Yahoo! (or Hotmail, or whatever) password. I would explain that we do not have that information as he is using a third-party system. To which the reply would come, "well, you're my Internet provider, aren't you?"

FairPoint... all I can say is you better have plenty of aspirin and therapy coverage for your employees.

No it doesn't.

Did anyone read the article???

Verizon provided a service to IT'S customers where they can read webmail of another provider on their web page. Fairpoint is saying that after x date that if you still want that kind of service you have to go through THEIR web page. You can still go to Yahoo, Gmail, AOL, and Hotmail, and read your mail from those pages directly.

This is NOT a net neutrality issue. It is an added feature provided by the provider.

I for instance have NEVER used any of my ISP features, as I have separate email provider. Nothing Changes.

Shenanigans!
Happy New Year

Re:No it doesn't.

allyourbasebelongtous.MyFairPoint.net

I'm pretty sure that would give you a 404. The correct url is
allyourbaseAREbelongtous.MyFairPoint.net

Re:No it doesn't.

Yes, I did RTFA, but unlike you, I did so with an open mind. Before the part you quote, it says, " Web-based e-mail users can continue to access their e-mail at the Verizon Web site until Feb. 6." In that context, it looks to me as though the Verizon webmail page is the "third party Web site" referred to. I'll grant that it's not written as clearly as it should be, but it does make more sense than the interpretation in the summary. Cutting off access to other provider's webmail site while allowing unhindered access to all of their other content just doesn't make sense. Telling new customers that if they want their third-party email on their homepage they need to use yours instead of their other providers does. My guess is that when the dust clears this will turn out to be Yet Another Slashdot Tempest In A Teapot.

Re:No it doesn't.

Read the paragraph before it. The "third party Web site" is referring to the Verizon web site, not Yahoo, MSN, etc. This is a non-story.

I doubt it

I'll reserve my judgment until I see this reported in a better source. This article is written so poorly I suspect the author has no idea what his misstatement implies. If FairPoint is planning to block major webmail sites, the Rutland Herald missed out on a huge story. They seem to be the only news source with this information.

Look at what other sites [boston.com] are reporting about this deal. "In Maine, regulators have alerted FairPoint that it will be scrutinized more closely than probably any other utility in the state's history." If true, the details will come to light quickly as this hits the major news outlets.

I live in Vermont and have Fairpoint

I got their mailer and here what it says :

Yahoo!, AOL and MSN or Other Third-Party Portal Users

On Jan 31, 2009, you'll still have access to Yahoo!, AOL, and MSN content, but you'll no longer be able to access your email directly through the third-party portal. Instead, you'll now have access to the new MyFairPoint.net portal.

Beginning January 1, 2009, we'll start the migration of all Verizon-Yahoo! emails and settings to your new FairPoint WebMail account. You'll be able to access your FairPoint WebMail on this date, but your Verizon-Yahoo! messages may not be transferred until later in the month. Please check your new inbox periodically to find out when your messages are moved. The migration is expected to be complete by January 31, 2009.

Re:(un)Fairpoint's Profit Plan

No, no, there is no secret sauce; let me have a crack at it for you:
1) Irritate your customers by reducing their connectivity
2) get into greater debt
3) ask for Govt. bailout package
4) profit
5) get bought by competition to salvage the broken pieces
6) more profit

Re:(un)Fairpoint's Profit Plan

Well, the "Fair" in Fairpoint's name is a bit like the "Honest" in Honest John's Used Cars.

Re:Well, as they say...

Sure, just have the government hand me a monopoly and free lines and I'll get started!

Re:So who sues them first?

Maybe they don't acknowledge beta products.

Re:Not gonna happen

And as someone currently in NH who lived in VT for most of his life, I'll point out that, by and large, the only people who actually believe in those mottos are growing-pot-on-the-porch hippie types that nobody takes seriously, and suffice to say aren't exactly internet-savvy.

FWIW, I did see a bumper sticker on a Verizon service van saying something to the general effect of "Fairpoint is the only company worse than we are!" and had to agree. Even still, you're lucky to have one option for a broadband provider in many parts of VT and NH, let alone two. I can't speak for Maine but assume it's about the same.

HOWEVER, after looking at TFA (ignore sig, please), it looks like a quote has been pulled wildly out of context:

Starting Jan. 31, users of e-mail software applications like Microsoft Outlook can begin adjusting their e-mail settings. The process can be automated by visiting www.activate.MyFairPoint.net/emailupdate and following the instructions. Users can also update their settings manually.

Web-based e-mail users can continue to access their e-mail at the Verizon Web site until Feb. 6. After that date, Fastiggi said users will need to log on to www.MyFairPoint.net. Customers then click on Web mail and type in their existing user [e-mail] and existing password.

AOL, Yahoo! and MSN subscribers will continue to have access to content but will no longer be able to access their e-mail through the third party Web site. Instead, Yahoo! and other third party e-mail will be accessed directly at the MyFairPoint.net portal.

Fastiggi said e-mail will automatically be forwarded from a customer's Verizon e-mail address to myfairpoint.net for three months, until April 30.

Sounds like all that's going to happen is Verizon will be killing off their portal which was previously doing some level of integration w/ AOL, Y!, and MSN, and those who have been bought out by Fairpoint will no longer be able to use it. Which makes sense, as they're no longer Verizon customers.

Re:I present

I see this as an experimental issue from them, and that means that if they don't have an outrage from their users then it's OK to not have a net neutrality and that we soon will see others following them.

Personally I think that they are shooting themselves in the foot just to later discover that they have burnt all their bridges.

So in order to complain about this I think that anybody disagreeing should send an email to their contact email address: [e-mail] [mailto].

Re:I present

I don't see the problem with what Fairpoint is doing. They have every right to filter all communications through their portal if they so wish. I think Fairpoint's upstream providers should do the same so that we'll see this soon:

A spokesperson from Level 3 Communications had the following to say, "We wholeheartedly endorse Fairpoint's limitations they are imposing on their Internet users by requiring them to access common webmail sites through the MyFairPoint.net portal." The spokesperson continued, "Following their example, we are pleased to announce that access to the MyFairPoint.net portal will only be allowed through the MyLevel3.net portal and are working with Fairpoint's other upstream providers to implement similar restrictions."

Re:I present

If you read far enough down in the replies, you'll find out that the entire Slashdot story is completely bogus. They're shutting down access to Verizon's web portal. Users will get their ISP email from a different site. Users of MSN, Yahoo, etc. will no longer be able to use those services' IMAP support to get their email from Verizon because the company is no longer part of Verizon. Therefore, if they are using a third-party site to access their Verizon email, they will now have to use the Fairpoint webmail interface for their webmail.

This, of course, raises questions about why they can't just use IMAP from the Fairpoint servers, which probably implies that the new Fairpoint service doesn't provide IMAP from outside the network, but while that would suck, it's hardly on the same scale as blocking web portals to dozens of web-based email services, some of which cannot realistically be re-served using a Fairpoint web front end because they don't provide IMAP..... The "violate net neutrality" interpretation of the article makes absolutely zero sense....

Re:Send luncheon meat to these addresses

Also, with such tactics, doesn't an ISP lose "common carrier" status

I can't recall how many times I have posted that ISP's don't have common carrier status. They don't need common carrier status for protection under the DMCA.

Whoever modded up the parent: YOU FAIL!

Re:ISPs don't have common carrier status??

From http://www.cybertelecom.org/ip/dmca.htm [cybertelecom.org]:

Common carrier law establishes, among other things, that the carrier is not liable for the contents of the goods carried. Common carriers have historically come in many flavors: roadhouses (hotels), trucks, trains, telegraph networks, postal services, and telephone networks.

In recent history, common carrier law has had a focus on communications networks. Communications common carriers (aka telephone networks or historically Ma Bell) are regulated under the Communications Act of 1934. [Title 47 United States Code] In the communications context, Internet networks are not common carriers and are therefore not regulate by the FCC. This created a tension. Internet networks looked, tasted, and smelled like classic common carriers, transporting goods without ownership of or responsibility for the goods transported. But Internet networks did not wish to be considered common carriers in the communications context. This has led to a schizophrenic legal approach that has addressed the liability of networks on a case by case basis, avoiding any classification of common carriage. Congress has consistently concluded that Internet networks should not be liable for the third party content that they carry. The Communications Decency Act created a defense to liability for third party content in the context of liable and defamation. Legislative proposals with regard to Internet gambling generally provide a defense to prosecution for networks that merely provide access to content including Internet gambling without being responsible for that content. And the Digital Millennium Copyright Act created defenses to liability for third party content where ISPs comply with certain provisions of the DMCA.

This has created an interesting dichotomy where, with regard to the content transmitted, ISPs are essentially common carriers; with regard to the communications networks underneath the Internet ISPs are not common carriers.

Re:I don't think so, Tim.

I was hit by the irony of the company name. Anyway, if I understand this correctly, this is a win-win situation for Verizon.

FairPoint forces all web mail systems to funnel through its own portal, thus generating ad-generated and direct-marketing revenue streams. With this they can quickly eliminate any remaining debt. (And, of course, there are surely technological means around this -- tunneling, and so forth.)

Or they piss off customers and those who can switch to another provider, will. The company becomes insolvent or sells to someone else.

Either way, the debt is already the problem of someone other than Verizon.

Although, I think the bigger question is what happens to, and who safeguards, all of the data and personal information which will easily be harvested using a web mail proxy-portal?