dslreports logo
 story category
Verizon's Bizarre New Network Neutrality PR Offensive
For the first time in a while, Verizon seems legitimately afraid...

With a new President who's unequivocally stated he's in favor of network neutrality, Verizon's top lobbying and policy guru Tom Tauke has been putting forth a kinder, gentler face this week in the hopes of keeping new consumer protection guidelines at bay. While the rhetoric is softer, Verizon's logic-distortion field remains as potent as ever. Tauke, talking to Politico, takes a moment out of his day to falsely suggest that network neutrality protections would prevent them from offering things like parental controls:

quote:
Demand is growing for other options that would allow consumers to block data — including parents who want to control what pops up on home computers and people worried about identity theft, he added. . ."Our view is, in the future, consumers ought to have the ability to choose between the wild, wild West of the Internet or to choose a different experience," Tauke said. “All of that potentially would be viewed as discrimination if we’re offering different kinds of services. We think it’s part of consumer choice."
Tauke's dizzying logic, which Politico doesn't seem particularly interested in challenging, is that network neutrality protections would somehow block user access to security software or parental controls -- which makes little to no sense. Tauke even goes so far as to suggest to Politico that consumer protections aimed at network openness would somehow block access to "special services to the disabled and to victims of domestic violence."

Click for full size
Politico concludes Verizon has decided to "trash the Republican-friendly talking points about allowing the free market to determine the evolution of the Internet, and start talking about consumer choice." Again, that makes no sense and distorts the issue entirely; but that's Tauke's job, and he's damn good at it.

Tauke continued his strange network neutrality PR tour '09 today, telling specifically invited reporters that he wasn't entirely opposed to a fifth FCC principle on broadband network nondiscrimination:

quote:
(Tauke) recognizes the political reality that there was an election and there appears to be some momentum for movement on the nondiscrimination front in the administration, in Congress, and at the FCC. "I'm not saying I am inviting a fifth principle," Verizon Executive VP Tom Tauke told reporters Thursday at a press briefing, "but I wouldn't want to say that we couldn't find a way to live with a fifth principle."
That wouuld actually mean something if the FCC's four other network neutrality principles were actually worth anything. As it stands, the principle policy statement (pdf) Tauke refers to isn't law and may not even be enforceable in court -- something Comcast's currently trying to prove. Advocating for a fifth meaningless and unenforceable principle may not mean all that much. It certainly wouldn't stop Verizon from say -- eventually imposing unreasonable metered billing on customers in order to protect FiOSTV revenues from Internet video.

Verizon -- for the first time in a while -- seems legitimately afraid of new consumer protections being passed in DC covering not only network neutrality -- but metered billing. But while some rhetoric has changed, Verizon's underlying beliefs haven't. In recent comments to the Washington Post, CEO Ivan Seidenberg re-iterated the bizarre telco logic that began the network neutrality debate back in 2005 -- namely that content companies should subsidize phone company network builds -- and that nobody gets to ride on Ma Bell's pipes for free.

While talk is nice, Verizon might be better served with action if they really want to prevent network neutrality principles from being codified into law. A good place to start is Verizon's 2007 promise of a truly open wireless network. While the tech press applauded the announcement like lobotomized pharmaceutical test monkeys several years ago, the initiative, with a few minor exceptions, has been little more than empty public relations fluff.
view:
topics flat nest 

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

What a crock!

Think of the children and the disabled! They will be doomed. Enough already....

nixie21
Premium Member
join:2004-08-19
Harrington Park, NJ

nixie21

Premium Member

Re: What a crock!

I needed a good laugh!!!

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY

2 edits

Transmaster

Member

Re: What a crock!

Hmm... let's see what kind of bull shit can I feed this stupid reporter so I, and Verison of course, can look like it is only thinking of our consumers and not the big pay off if I can get if pull this con-job off.

DaveDude
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey

DaveDude

Member

Re: What a crock!

That picture just cracks me up. We should have a caption contest.

POB
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium Member
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA

POB

Premium Member

Re: What a crock!

said by DaveDude:

That picture just cracks me up. We should have a caption contest.
The only other pus that I have seen that is as pathetic and dopey as Tauke's is this one. Reminds me of Jabba the Hut, but I think the Exxon CEO may have a couple hundred more pounds on Jabba.

Jim Kirk
Premium Member
join:2005-12-09
49985

Jim Kirk

Premium Member

Re: What a crock!

said by POB:

said by DaveDude:

That picture just cracks me up. We should have a caption contest.
The only other pus that I have seen that is as pathetic and dopey as Tauke's is this one. Reminds me of Jabba the Hut, but I think the Exxon CEO may have a couple hundred more pounds on Jabba.
I want to slap that guy just to watch his waddle waggle.

Radio Active
My pappy's a pistol
Premium Member
join:2003-01-31
Fullerton, CA

1 edit

Radio Active to DaveDude

Premium Member

to DaveDude
said by DaveDude:

That picture just cracks me up. We should have a caption contest.
"They'll love me with my thoughtful pose. Would it work if I picked my nose?"

My entry...

kdwycha
join:2003-01-30
Ruskin, FL

kdwycha

Member

heh...what a numpty...

http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1436140~137e0c3c4f7038539ccb531fde569656/Tauke.jpg/thumb200.jpg


......shall I have the lobster or the steak for lunch in the executive cafe?

Radio Active
My pappy's a pistol
Premium Member
join:2003-01-31
Fullerton, CA

1 edit

Radio Active

Premium Member

Re: heh...what a numpty...

said by kdwycha:

http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1436140~137e0c3c4f7038539ccb531fde569656/Tauke.jpg/thumb200.jpg


......shall I have the lobster or the steak for lunch in the executive cafe?
Why not have both? I've earned it, haven't I?

Surf and Turf for the win(ers)!!!

Lark3po
Premium Member
join:2003-08-05
Madison, AL

Lark3po

Premium Member

Re: heh...what a numpty...

said by Radio Active:

said by kdwycha:

http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1436140~137e0c3c4f7038539ccb531fde569656/Tauke.jpg/thumb200.jpg


......shall I have the lobster or the steak for lunch in the executive cafe?
Why not have both? I've earned it, haven't I?

Surf and Turf for the win(ers)!!!
I wonder what Fernando (the pool boy) is doing later???
vinnie97
Premium Member
join:2003-12-05
US

vinnie97

Premium Member

heh

Not even FIOS can spare you from being the BBR whipping boy with asinine statements like this, Whorizon.

At the present time, I'd still gladly take them over TWC OR AT&T.

PapaMidnight
join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD

PapaMidnight

Member

When all else fails...

When all else fails, "WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!" never does...
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

1 recommendation

patcat88

Member

Re: When all else fails...

rdmiller
join:2005-09-23
Richmond, VA

rdmiller

Member

Community pool?

I am thinking of building a backyard pool. But I am worried that some day my community association might decide that my senior citizen neighbors, who don't have a pool of their own, could use my pool on really hot days. Should I build the pool?
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Lees Summit, MO

me1212

Member

Re: Community pool?

Charge a fee to use it, a metered pool if you will $1 for 10min. If TW can do it y not you?

PapaMidnight
join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD

PapaMidnight

Member

Re: Community pool?

I believe we refer to that as LAX.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

1 recommendation

patcat88 to rdmiller

Member

to rdmiller
said by rdmiller:

I am thinking of building a backyard pool. But I am worried that some day my community association might decide that my senior citizen neighbors, who don't have a pool of their own, could use my pool on really hot days. Should I build the pool?
Its not a backyard pool your building. You want to get a permit to build the pool with your own $ in a public park that is exclusive to you.

Radio Active
My pappy's a pistol
Premium Member
join:2003-01-31
Fullerton, CA

Radio Active to rdmiller

Premium Member

to rdmiller
said by rdmiller:

I am thinking of building a backyard pool. But I am worried that some day my community association might decide that my senior citizen neighbors, who don't have a pool of their own, could use my pool on really hot days. Should I build the pool?
Sure. Build the pool, and turn the heater up to 11. I hear that boiled old people are tender and tasty. Just be sure that you get the evil HOA to sign papers attesting to the fact that it's your pool and you own anything that gets boiled in it...

Just trying to help.

Mike Wolf
join:2009-05-24
Tuckerton, NJ

Mike Wolf

Member

:o

This guy is what nightmares are made of. He is the creature that goes "bump" in the night. He is so full of BS that his picture should be in the dictionary under its definition. I mean seriously, does he honestly think that this stuff is going to fly with the American public? I say we pull a 2009 version of the Boston tea party for any ISP that is agaisnt net neutrality.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Re: :o

Stop. Hammer time.

Mike Wolf
join:2009-05-24
Tuckerton, NJ

Mike Wolf

Member

wow I really went on a rant sorry.

sivran
Vive Vivaldi
Premium Member
join:2003-09-15
Irving, TX

1 recommendation

sivran

Premium Member

Logic-distortion field indeed

Parental controls, even at the ISP level, would be unaffected by the presence or absence of neutrality. Parental controls are discriminatory, yes -- but they are discriminatory at the user's discretion. There's a big difference between an ISP saying "No porn!" and a parent (or any user, really) saying the same thing. The tools used to enforce the policy are irrelevant, it's who's making the policy that matters.

Its a Secret
Please speak into the microphone
Premium Member
join:2008-02-23
Da wet coast

Its a Secret

Premium Member

WTF?

This guy is either a techno idiot, or... ok, he's a techno idiot and a spewer of spin. He should really talk to his IT dept more often.
Bob61571
join:2008-08-08
Washington, IL

Bob61571

Member

What is ...?

1) What exactly is the "Fifth Principle"?

2)Doesn't this phrase "Fifth Principle" sound like some philosophical/religious weird thing?

Its a Secret
Please speak into the microphone
Premium Member
join:2008-02-23
Da wet coast

Its a Secret

Premium Member

Re: What is ...?

The FCC's Net Neutrality Principles:

»hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_ ··· 35A1.pdf

cpsycho
join:2008-06-03
Treadeu Land

cpsycho

Member

Hmmmm


»/r0/do ··· b200.jpg

Du da du da du da, do da da da da da du da CHEESE!

xNPC
As Usual, Have Nice Day
Premium Member
join:2000-11-08
Errington, BC

xNPC

Premium Member

apologies to steve martin, but

i wonder what time he's scheduled to get his glasses removed from his chin?

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

3 edits

1 recommendation

funchords

MVM

Go Ahead, Verizon, Make My Day (seriously)

"Our view is, in the future, consumers ought to have the ability to choose between the wild, wild West of the Internet or to choose a different experience," Tauke said. “All of that potentially would be viewed as discrimination if we’re offering different kinds of services. We think it’s part of consumer choice."
Then do it!

There is no harm to the neutral nature of the network if Verizon offers a true consumer choice between the "wild, wild West of the Internet" or a "different experience." By true choice, I mean that the consumer is not prevented from nor charged more by choosing the neutral Internet.

It's today's Internet that is such demand, not any "different experience" brought about by giving preference to one service over another. I also remind you and everyone else that Verizon has prospered by offering access to the Internet at a premium market price. Make no mistake -- people want the Internet, THIS Internet, at the faster speeds and more capable capacities that Verizon provides. That's why VZ can charge more, and delivering fast Internet is why VZ is one of the most successful companies on the planet.

As long as the Internet unadulterated is the default, then I don't care whether Verizon offers parental control, web or VOIP acceleration, or any other kind of DPI goodness as a value-added or free modification. This keeps the end users in control, where the IETF has repeatedly indicated control should be. In fact, there probably are net benefits to Verizon in offering such options as power users, by and large, and network admins would likely choose the same types of services to accelerate or put in the background. In other words, provide the capability, encourage interested users to use it, and get out of the way.

VZ would, however, have to organize this in such a way that users who use standard "best-effort" aren't unduly harmed by users who are prioritizing very large transfers -- this common issue is easily handled by putting a low quota on very high-priority traffic and if the quota is exceeded, handling it as normal best-effort traffic. These quotas help promote the idea that freight should flow but shouldn't take up all lanes of traffic.

Your own statement recognizes that it's a false choice to preference someone's content or a particular service over another without an option out. Welcome to the Net Neutrality team. Can I point you to the right people to add Verizon to the list of supporters?

Robb Topolski
(views are my own)

Link Hoewing
@verizon.com

Link Hoewing

Anon

Re: Go Ahead, Verizon, Make My Day (seriously)

Rob, we have had this view for some time. I don't know if you saw the presentations from Dick Lynch, our CTO, at Silicon Flatirons earlier this year but he laid out much the same vision. Cheers.

luster
join:2009-03-28
Salisbury, MD

luster

Member

Re: Go Ahead, Verizon, Make My Day (seriously)

I don't believe you or Lynch, pal. Not for the briefest of moments!

For, if Verizon or any of the other carriers, who virtually removed an entire protocol from their networks, now claim they have such a view, it's no more then a bald face lie. No one rips an entire segment of the "wild, wild" internet out of their network then turns around says something stupid, like you just did. Who in the world do you think you're talking to?
Cheers back at ya.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords

MVM

Re: Go Ahead, Verizon, Make My Day (seriously)

What protocol or incident are you talking about, luster See Profile?

Thanks

••••
funchords

funchords to Link Hoewing

MVM

to Link Hoewing
Verizon's Tauke is painting the fearsome picture that Net Neutrality means that such preference services cannot be offered as an option.

That's just not true.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

2 edits

SuperWISP

Member

Verizon is being pragmatic.

Verizon is taking a “soft” position on onerous regulation of the Internet (which goes under the misleading name “network neutrality”) because it realizes that any regulation will hurt its competitors more than it hurts Verizon. Verizon has buildings full of lawyers whose full time job is to deal with red tape and regulation. But small and competitive broadband providers, particularly in rural areas where service is sorely needed, have no such resources and will be driven out of business by such regulations. What’s more, these regulations will hit cable TV providers harder than they will the telcos, because not one cable TV provider owns a “tier 1” Internet backbone. This means that the cable providers actually PAY for their bandwidth, and much of this money actually flows to the telcos. So, while the telcos don’t like the idea of Internet regulation, they also recognize that it will tilt the playing field in their favor and hobble or eliminate competition. None of which is good for consumers or for broadband deployment. But it’s good for Verizon. You will note that the other ILECs are taking similar stances.

By the way, you will note that the article above is not labeled as "op-ed" -- an opinion piece -- but rather as news, even though it is long on speculation and short on facts and contains many disparaging remarks. This is a sad example of the sort of biased reporting that seems to be the norm on this site.