![[Coi] Mr.CLuBBeR](./core/images/default/default_avatar_medium.png "[Coi] Mr.CLuBBeR"){kind=avatar}
Tweet
Verizon plays you for a fool; hopes you won't dig too deep.
Today was arguably a landmark event for the FCC and net neutrality. The FCC successfully passed a vote that classifies Internet service as a public utility under Title II regulations, which makes ISPs become what's otherwise known as a "common carrier." If you want to read the actual rules from the FCC, check this out.
For the better part of the last decade, net neutrality has been an increasingly hot topic, which exploded into the limelight after Netflix and other service providers started revealing network benchmarks that claimed large Internet service providers throttled network speeds for some and not for others, mainly, not for those who were willing to pay higher prices.
While this sounds just fine, it is not. On the customer side, yes, absolutely charge me more if I want a faster Internet connection. However:
Let's say I am paying $50/month for a 100Mbps connection. I then decide, I want a 200Mbps connection from my provider, and pay $100/month. I expect, under ideal circumstances to get double the bandwidth. But then, my carrier is secretly slowing down traffic from content providers and then going out to solicit extra money from specific content providers to "ensure" good bandwidth. This is called double-dipping. A webpage from a popular online website gets delivered to me at full speeds, while the video from a popular streaming website gets throttled. This is the issue at hand with net neutrality, where neutral states that all content is the same, regardless of what it is -- since it's all 1s and 0s.
Imagine if I was a delivery courier for packages. I charged you $10 to deliver 2-day, and then went to the company you ordered your goods from and asked them for more money or else I'll priorities another vendor first.
As you may have heard, most if not all of the Internet service providers are up in arms about the FCC's ruling. It throws a wrench in their attempts to curb the user experience that's already been paid for, in a back-handed attempt to get more money. Much has already been documented about these shady maneuvers.
So, let's get back to the issue at hand.
The carriers, like Comcast, TWC, Verizon, etc., are all claiming that the new FCC net neutrality rules based on Title II Regulations, will "hurt" and "stifle" Internet innovation for future generations. In fact, Verizon went as far as releasing a press release in Morse code to mock how the FCC is using a dated rule from the 1930's to regulate modern technology.
Clicking on the "translated statement here" leads to a readable version, except it's written in old, unclear, type-writer font, to continue mocking the FCC on using a Title II Regulations.
This is amusing because Verizon previously forced its hand through the FCC by saying it is a common carrier under Title II Regulations. In fact, it's not recent at all. According to a extremely detailed PULP report on Verizon, the carrier has been using Title II Regulations on and off, depending on its business needs. Verizon flip-flops between saying that it's a heavily regulated network or a deregulated service provider. In a report by The Verge, Verizon's own documents say:
"As noted, Verizon NJ has been upgrading substantial portions of its telecommunications network with FTTP technology as a common carrier pursuant to Title II of the Communications Act of 1934..."
Straight from the horse's mouth. Talk about hypocrisy.
Verizon uses Title II to gain common carrier benefits, such as regulated lower prices, for when it wants to push out infrastructure and dip its hands into tax dollars for the build-outs, but shams Title II for when it wants to throttle broadband speeds so that it can siphon money from content providers--all after the Verizon customer has already paid for the access.
How exactly can Verizon claim Title II? Easy: Verizon also has a landline telephone business. Telephone carrier are classified and regulated under Title II of the communications Act. This regulation controls costs, and allows telephone carriers to use backbones of other utilities, to ease the build-out of networks by piggybacking on existing infrastructure. Since land-line businesses are dying, Verizon and others keep this part of its business around as a very powerful tool.
So, Verizon jumps back and forth on Title II classification, depending on whether or not it perceives an advantage, and even outright classifies itself under Title II. Yet today it is publicly trashing Title II as an old regulation from the 1930's.
The fact that Verizon is releasing this kind of PR stunt designed to tell you, the public, that the FCC is using an outdated regulation not suitable for the modern technology era, is complete horse shit. The PR machine at Verizon is essentially spitting in your face thinking you won't even notice because it knows the majority of the public is too ignorant of what actually goes on behind the scenes and that most people don't really have the time to dig through reports and papers.
Up until today, Verizon was freely using Title II on and off wherever it felt it could cut costs and fund infrastructure using public funds. It's now only making a play that the FCC's rules are unfit for modern society because the new rules will hurt its revenue stream from content providers.
It still remains to be seen what will happen in the coming months and years. Carriers will no doubt take the FCC's ruling to court and attempt to have it modified or thrown out. And for critics that are claiming that the FCC's new net neutrality regulation is a play by the government disguised to fool the average citizen? Verizon's dealt that card already.
More...
Today was arguably a landmark event for the FCC and net neutrality. The FCC successfully passed a vote that classifies Internet service as a public utility under Title II regulations, which makes ISPs become what's otherwise known as a "common carrier." If you want to read the actual rules from the FCC, check this out.
For the better part of the last decade, net neutrality has been an increasingly hot topic, which exploded into the limelight after Netflix and other service providers started revealing network benchmarks that claimed large Internet service providers throttled network speeds for some and not for others, mainly, not for those who were willing to pay higher prices.
While this sounds just fine, it is not. On the customer side, yes, absolutely charge me more if I want a faster Internet connection. However:
Let's say I am paying $50/month for a 100Mbps connection. I then decide, I want a 200Mbps connection from my provider, and pay $100/month. I expect, under ideal circumstances to get double the bandwidth. But then, my carrier is secretly slowing down traffic from content providers and then going out to solicit extra money from specific content providers to "ensure" good bandwidth. This is called double-dipping. A webpage from a popular online website gets delivered to me at full speeds, while the video from a popular streaming website gets throttled. This is the issue at hand with net neutrality, where neutral states that all content is the same, regardless of what it is -- since it's all 1s and 0s.
Imagine if I was a delivery courier for packages. I charged you $10 to deliver 2-day, and then went to the company you ordered your goods from and asked them for more money or else I'll priorities another vendor first.
As you may have heard, most if not all of the Internet service providers are up in arms about the FCC's ruling. It throws a wrench in their attempts to curb the user experience that's already been paid for, in a back-handed attempt to get more money. Much has already been documented about these shady maneuvers.
So, let's get back to the issue at hand.
The carriers, like Comcast, TWC, Verizon, etc., are all claiming that the new FCC net neutrality rules based on Title II Regulations, will "hurt" and "stifle" Internet innovation for future generations. In fact, Verizon went as far as releasing a press release in Morse code to mock how the FCC is using a dated rule from the 1930's to regulate modern technology.
Clicking on the "translated statement here" leads to a readable version, except it's written in old, unclear, type-writer font, to continue mocking the FCC on using a Title II Regulations.
This is amusing because Verizon previously forced its hand through the FCC by saying it is a common carrier under Title II Regulations. In fact, it's not recent at all. According to a extremely detailed PULP report on Verizon, the carrier has been using Title II Regulations on and off, depending on its business needs. Verizon flip-flops between saying that it's a heavily regulated network or a deregulated service provider. In a report by The Verge, Verizon's own documents say:
"As noted, Verizon NJ has been upgrading substantial portions of its telecommunications network with FTTP technology as a common carrier pursuant to Title II of the Communications Act of 1934..."
Straight from the horse's mouth. Talk about hypocrisy.
Verizon uses Title II to gain common carrier benefits, such as regulated lower prices, for when it wants to push out infrastructure and dip its hands into tax dollars for the build-outs, but shams Title II for when it wants to throttle broadband speeds so that it can siphon money from content providers--all after the Verizon customer has already paid for the access.
How exactly can Verizon claim Title II? Easy: Verizon also has a landline telephone business. Telephone carrier are classified and regulated under Title II of the communications Act. This regulation controls costs, and allows telephone carriers to use backbones of other utilities, to ease the build-out of networks by piggybacking on existing infrastructure. Since land-line businesses are dying, Verizon and others keep this part of its business around as a very powerful tool.
So, Verizon jumps back and forth on Title II classification, depending on whether or not it perceives an advantage, and even outright classifies itself under Title II. Yet today it is publicly trashing Title II as an old regulation from the 1930's.
The fact that Verizon is releasing this kind of PR stunt designed to tell you, the public, that the FCC is using an outdated regulation not suitable for the modern technology era, is complete horse shit. The PR machine at Verizon is essentially spitting in your face thinking you won't even notice because it knows the majority of the public is too ignorant of what actually goes on behind the scenes and that most people don't really have the time to dig through reports and papers.
Up until today, Verizon was freely using Title II on and off wherever it felt it could cut costs and fund infrastructure using public funds. It's now only making a play that the FCC's rules are unfit for modern society because the new rules will hurt its revenue stream from content providers.
It still remains to be seen what will happen in the coming months and years. Carriers will no doubt take the FCC's ruling to court and attempt to have it modified or thrown out. And for critics that are claiming that the FCC's new net neutrality regulation is a play by the government disguised to fool the average citizen? Verizon's dealt that card already.
More...