Didn't.... Take long for this to happen. We all seen this before and I've been saying it all along.
It may just be me, but... Net neutrality seems like the wrong argument to have. I think the right approach is to not allow vertical integration. That is, a company that provides voice, data, or TV service needs to be treated as a common carrier. They must provide the 'dumb pipe' and let others provide the service over that pipe. This will spawn innovation and deliver on the communications promise. As it is, each vendor is spending scarce resources on not being a 'dumb pipe'.
I do not see how Net Neutrality can deliver this. Vertically integrated companies (say Comcast/NBC) can be forced to treat all sources equally. But, they have no incentive to innovate. Just look at the STBs that TV providers produce compared to any other consumer electronic device.
HarddriveProud American and Infidel since 1968.Premium
this is funny. they help the FCC write the laws then sue them over it. is this whole charade ever going to stop? nope.
welcome to the United States of Corporate America.
"Oh no. This is Earth, isn't it." - Thor
reply to OwlSaver
Re: It may just be me, but... exactly. they should either maintain and improve infrastructure or provide the information that is going across it. Not both.
·Embarq Now Centu..
More corporate doublespeak! More corporate doublespeak. All that Verizon wants to do is to carry those services that are profitable to them. Their attitude is that others can F.O. Open means closed and any service that might force them to upgrade their network or competes with services that they offer obviously interferes with their business plans. The Government needs to enact a law similar to the Communications Act of 1934 forcing a truly open internet. It will suck when it turns out that one must subscribe to more than one broadband connection in order to gain access to all desired websites.
Challenging FCC authority more than rules themselves Looks like Verizon is more concerned about what the FCC may do in the future based on the FCC claims of regulatory authority than they are about the new rules just promulgated. This is a preemptive strike against the FCC by challenging their rights under the law to do anything regarding the Internet.
The ISPs have been successful in the past in court challenging specific rulings. But this time they are asking the court to strike down a regulatory agency's right to even issue rules. It will be much harder to get a court to issue such a ruling. But it will have the effect of putting the FCC on the defensive for the next year or 2 and may prevent them from issuing more rules in the meantime. That then gives the ISPs time to lobby Congress to limit FCC power over the internet.
Saint Louis, MO
Why rock the boat? With the rules being so incredibly lax, I am wondering why they are rocking the boat. If it does get struck down then congress will have to act. While congress is paid well enough they may (if a big stink gets raised, think TW cap/overage thing a couple of years ago) actually do something meaningful. I am surprised that they are taking the risk.
To ensure the FCC can't move the line or toughen the rules in the future.
Verizon does not like the network neutrality rules it wrote Sometimes disaster is the best way to bring about change. Forget network neutrality. Let the cable companies, mobile telecoms, and others build the walled gardens and tiered services. Let them discriminate. Just remember to lock up a nice archival paper book with details on what the internet was like before you let them be free. In the year 2031 we can open up the book and do a comparison between 2011 and 2031. If we do not like what we see, we can change it. I doubt we will like it. But maybe if the corporate supporters in all political parties have members who end up being managed and walled too much, maybe we will then be able to get real open internet neutrality.
reply to OwlSaver
Re: It may just be me, but... Well, actual competition would go further than rules made by for-hire regulatory agencies...but with said regulatory agencies being for hire, they're not going to go out of their way to implement policy that results in actual competition.
Saint Louis, MO
reply to Karl Bode
Re: Why rock the boat? Yeah, but they could make the same challenge then (after they actually made them do something) as they are making now. Right now they are not being made to do anything, but if they fight this some regulations MIGHT be put in place that does actually make them do something. Risk/reward thing. Occasionally congress will actually do something if a big enough stink is raised. Net neutrality has been in front of people long enough now that people(regular people not just us) are starting to ask why no one has dealt with it.
Venue shopping - SOP The advocacy groups are feigning outrage that Verizon has decided to file their claims in a court that is presumed friendly to their cause of action. But that is highly hypocritical as these same groups(in fact all groups) venue shop as well to try and find a court that leans in favor of their cause.
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
Mount Airy, MD
Yay! Go Verizon go! I am so glad my subscriber fees are going towards this fight!
What about blocking DNS addresses? Discovered this morning with my new Verizon DSL line, all the non-Verizon DNS addresses won't work.
Calling the kettle mauve, huh?
reply to OwlSaver
Re: It may just be me, but... I guess I view this a little bit differently. First of all without being able to overcharge customers and show a significant profit stream where will we see innovation in the actual pipes? Why will a company roll out new fiber or upgrade existing networks if they don't think they can make tremendous profits off them. Its the huge cost barriers for entry that prevents real competition.
Think of any of the turn of the century robber barons and how their massive initial investments built the systems that were eventually broken up(steal, railroads, ect.) The real question I have is are we ready for the breakup yet? I don't think so.
reply to Linklist
Re: Challenging FCC authority more than rules themselves The Courts have already told the FCC they have no power to control the Internet. the problem is the FCC does NOT listen. Congress needs to slap the FCC and tell them they need to start doing what they were created for to regulate the public airwaves for public radio. NOT the Internet.
reply to hottboiinnc
Re: Didn't.... This story is good reading for those who've been mercilessly criticizing the FCC for the weak Net Neutrality rules. You have to remember they only have a knife to bring to the gunfight. They only have as much authority as Congress has given to them in the Communications Act. It's not unlimited. They've already had previous attempts against Comcast struck down by the courts. And the current Congress certainly ain't gonna give them more regulatory authority.
reply to hottboiinnc
Re: Challenging FCC authority more than rules themselves
said by hottboiinnc:I guess you haven't read what Congress wrote in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and before that in the 1934 Communications Act that created the FCC. They gave the FCC far more authority than just over the public airwaves. It pretty much covers the whole sphere of communications. They just happen to have limited authority over "information services" like ISP's.
Congress needs to slap the FCC and tell them they need to start doing what they were created for to regulate the public airwaves for public radio. NOT the Internet.
r81984Fair and BalancedPremiumReviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
Michael E. Glover is an idiot and anti-internet. Who would want it publicly known to say stupid things like this?
said by Glover :The FCC rules are not strict as we customers require to protect us from these monopolies, but damn net neutrality laws takes a lot of uncertainty out of the equation for businesses.
We are deeply concerned by the FCC's assertion of broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself. We believe this assertion of authority goes well beyond any authority provided by Congress, and creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers.
If you have proper net neturality then they all have to offer the same thing "open/non discriminatory internet access".
Customers then know what they are getting (regardless of the false advertising) and businesses know that one day, if there is competition, the competition can't offer crippled internet with long term contracts and false advertising to steal away their customers.
Your behavior is inconsistent with your desire to be treated like everyone else.
Actually a good thing I actually see this as a good thing in that perhaps it will force the FCC's hand at having broadband re-classified.