Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Verizon's Plan To Turn the Web Into Pay-Per-View

samzenpus posted 1 year,6 days | from the making-it-worse dept.

The Internet 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.'"

cancel ×

332 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Aren't they just... (5, Interesting)

Derec01 (1668942) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836061)

...trying to offer us the web a la carte, like we wanted for cable? The whole web is one big bundle! There's tons of crap I don't want to pay for! :)

Re:Aren't they just... (1, Offtopic)

rmdingler (1955220) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836099)

Uh-huh. And chances are, the NSA has your best interests at heart when they read your e-mail.

Re:Aren't they just... (1)

slick7 (1703596) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836179)

Uh-huh. And chances are, the NSA has your best interests at heart when they read your e-mail.

Or this post.

Re:Aren't they just... (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836535)

what are you trying to say?

Re:Aren't they just... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836185)

If not for NSA, I would feel weird talking to my self. Now I don't feel so alone anymore. :(

Re:Aren't they just... (5, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836575)

This would be funny if weren't so likely to be taken seriously by the regulatory agencies which SHOULD currently be waterboarding Verizon's CEO for even suggesting this. With boiling hot oil.

Re:Aren't they just... (4, Funny)

paiute (550198) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836593)

...trying to offer us the web a la carte, like we wanted for cable? The whole web is one big bundle! There's tons of crap I don't want to pay for! :)

That's right! I will get a huge discount in my Comcast bill when I give them the short list of domains I am interested in!

Re:Aren't they just... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836923)

It's ok, capitalism will work here. Customers wont be happy with their service and just go to a competitor. Good thing there are competitors!

Same old song and dance (5, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836135)

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:Same old song and dance (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836243)

I vote slow and painful torture. Death is too easy a penalty. I am not in favor of capitol punishment. Maybe re-education for the new socialist utopia. (Star Trek Penal Colony with brainwashing programs gone wrong). Much better compromise on society IMO.

Fuck monopolies.

Re:Same old song and dance (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836259)

how, exactly?

Re:Same old song and dance (2)

flayzernax (1060680) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836281)

As a carrier they have a financial duty to not piss off their end users and contribute to the collapse of western economic systems which in turn will destroy all their assets and their property.

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.

Re:Same old song and dance (4, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836485)

I believe, when used with verizon in context, the correct term is "Fadouchiary Duty."

I could be wrong though.

Re:Same old song and dance (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836517)

hehehe

Re:Same old song and dance (1)

MightyYar (622222) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836579)

If you give them a motive to keep costs down by capping their rate increases, you get something a little bit better than a government monopoly... but not a whole lot better. The crazy thing is that Verizon and Comcast compete in my area for both phone and television, and yet the world has not ground to a halt and the skies are not cluttered with wires. I think perhaps we can rethink our ideas of where monopolies should exist.

Re:Same old song and dance (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836631)

As far as I can understand this statement. Yeah I'de be all for letting them do whatever they want on their own networks. But right now their too interconnected and there are too many people without choice to let them have at it. We would need to deregulate the industry. Which will not happen ever. Once a market is no longer free, unfreeing it is super hard IMO.

Re:Same old song and dance (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836849)

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.

Re:Same old song and dance (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836883)

Yeah we had a great little dialup service here. And many options in nearbye cities that all worked over our pots.

You make a great point.

Re:Same old song and dance (5, Insightful)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836725)

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:Same old song and dance (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836909)

Trust me, mad max makes fewer rich people and a lot more tribal/oppressed people. it would not be in their intrest.

The internet is the one of the few very important things pinning our economy toghether. Tons of people subsist off of ad revenue for preformance work or hosting popular sites. Many people would be out of work.

Things would be a lot worse if we let them have control over the wires we've all used to elevate ourselves to have this debate over the web. Likely your opinion would not be heard. Nor mine. Trust me an ignorant public wouldn't even be debating legislation like this, it would have been done 10 years ago.

Our decline is gradual and these big companies are partly responsible for ensuring the Nation remains strong. Because they wield enough power, more then you or I to make sweeping changes like this to the landscape of our infrastructures and lives.

Re:Same old song and dance (5, Insightful)

MatthiasF (1853064) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836309)

We should stop beating around the bush and just label them common carriers. That is what they are; apply all common carrier laws to them and stop all this nonsense.

Re:Same old song and dance (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836673)

We should stop beating around the bush and just label them common carriers. That is what they are; apply all common carrier laws to them and stop all this nonsense.

I think Verizon has it backwards, if I run a very popular website then THEY should be paying ME for the privilege of carrying my packets!

Re:Same old song and dance (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836607)

One wonders how they can get away, in any forum, by claiming "We invested in this, we need to make a profit" without literally being punched in the face.

... There's probably a reason I don't work in government.

Re:Same old song and dance (1)

postbigbang (761081) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836623)

This is a monopolistic corporation.

You expect conscience, and when you don't get one, you're amazed.

They get away with what they can get away with. This isn't about morality or customers, this is about revenue and Wall Street. Make no mistake. Punching them in the face is useless, corporations only feel pain when they lose revenue or stock value. Otherwise: no pain.

That's why they do this over and over, like zombies.

Re:Same old song and dance (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836937)

One wonders how they can get away, in any forum, by claiming "We invested in this, we need to make a profit" without literally being punched in the face.

Just who's gonna punch them in the face? The politicians that are taking payoffs in backroom deals with carrier lobbyists? Or the customers who have no other choices because Verizon is a monopoly in their area? Or the web site creators who have no say whatsoever?

Re:Same old song and dance (5, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836715)

How are they supposed to charge the website when they don't know who I'm communicating with? Just another reason to use HTTPS for everything, or even use a VPN in conjunction with HTTPS.

Re:Same old song and dance (1)

BitZtream (692029) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836737)

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.

Technically, if done properly, you can change the orbit of the planet with a sparrow's flatulence. Of course, you can't do it from within the atmosphere, and I'm not sure you would get a detectable before Sol consumes the planet, but it is technically possible, if impractical. /pedanticasshole

Life will find a way (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836143)

So...it'll suck for a little while.
And then we'll just end up rebuilding the internet via wireless nodes or something similar. They screw with this, we'll move on to something else, just like... Cable.

Simple solution (3, Interesting)

breser (16790) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836149)

Seems like there's a simple solution. Verizon's only choice is to try and degrade service for sites that don't pay. If all sites refuse to pay then customers will complain about the degraded service and possibly choose other ISPs. Customers that want to prevent this sort of behavior can simply refuse to visit or given business to sites that do work these sorts of deals. Thus discouraging both sides from doing this. Vote with your wallets people.

Re:Simple solution (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836219)

If Verizon is the only carrier with reliable data coverage in one's area, how can one vote with his wallet?

Re:Simple solution (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836253)

Simple. Be willing to sacrifice your connection. We lived before the Internet existed, we can live without it now.

Re:Simple solution (1)

breser (16790) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836347)

There's two basic responses to this.

1) If there are competitors but their service isn't as good by switching you're helping put more resources in the hands of those competitors. Yes you might have to make some compromises in the short term but if enough other people do the same the competitor will be able to spend the money to provide the same service that Verizon is.

2) You may be able to gain herd immunity. Other areas do have competition. The areas with viable competition typically have it because they are very profitable. If people leave a carrier in areas where they are very profitable but the people without alternatives stay it hurts their profit margins. The misbehaving carrier is left with low profit of possibly even customers they lose money serving.

Re:Simple solution (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836357)

You know what else we used to live without? Refrigeration and indoor plumbing. Neither one of which helps keep me employed.

Re:Simple solution (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836833)

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:Simple solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836293)

By kicking inviting others to break the regional monopoly. It may be too late in most places now but future contracts should include minimum QoS standards, not as absolute number of say 20Mbps but as some relative & dynamic measure that 3rd party can review periodically.

Re:Simple solution (5, Insightful)

Ichijo (607641) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836351)

You can create an ISP cooperative [slashdot.org] and bring fiber to your neighborhood.

Re:Simple solution (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836387)

Dude, the "big boys" will sue you for doing that even when they don't want to lay the fiber themselves [slashdot.org] . How do you think they will react when you start doing it in territory where they already have fiber laid?

Re:Simple solution (1)

Ichijo (607641) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836501)

First, the example you provide isn't a co-op laying fiber, it's a city doing it. And second, the end result was the telco rolling out fiber of their own, which is just what the citizens wanted in the first place.

Re:Simple solution (1)

bmo (77928) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836589)

>First, the example you provide isn't a co-op laying fiber, it's a city doing it.

As if that's going to make any difference.

--
BMO

Re:Simple solution (1)

c0lo (1497653) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836855)

>First, the example you provide isn't a co-op laying fiber, it's a city doing it.

As if that's going to make any difference.

-- BMO

It might. IANAL, but in my mind, a coop will be a commercial entity (even if/when not-for-profit); trying to sue should be viewed as anti-competitive practices.

Re:Simple solution (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836917)

You can create an ISP cooperative and bring fiber to your neighborhood.

I tried that. I didn't get more than 10 feet out of my driveway and the fiber broke.

It's HARD to distribute wireless internet over a fiber optic cable.

Re:Simple solution (3, Insightful)

AHuxley (892839) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836395)

As people have noted, educate your community about other internet options.
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.

Re:Simple solution (1)

msobkow (48369) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836427)

There are always satellite links. They're expensive and they're no good for gaming, but they are an option.

Re:Simple solution (2)

alostpacket (1972110) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836463)

This is Verizon Telecom (eg FiOS) not Verizon Wireless. (Though they will soon be one in the same). The FCC only regulated wireline ISPs in it's Open Internet Rules. Thus Verizon Wireless can play all the games they want and sell their paying customers to content providers at will.

However, the case that went to federal court this week was brought by Verizon Telecom so that they could charge Netflix, YouTube, et al.. And they don't even need to degrade service, they just need to drag their feet on peering agreements. [arstechnica.com]

What they are doing is purely evil. It's hostile to their own customers and they are already causing these problems. Now they are suing to be allowed to make it worse.

Another good read:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/fccs-wishy-washy-rulemaking-might-doom-net-neutrality-in-court/ [arstechnica.com]

Re:Simple solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836679)

One and the same, perhaps? [wiktionary.org]

Re:Simple solution (2)

alostpacket (1972110) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836831)

Depends on how intensive your purposes are. :)

Re:Simple solution (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836645)

If Verizon allows this to happen, people might actually start voting on it. Like, for REALS voting. They'll avoid that possibility at all costs. Even dictators do need to make their citizens like them somewhat: if enough people dislike you, they'll make other options happen, no matter what.

Re:Simple solution (1)

TheSeatOfMyPants (2645007) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836809)

Double-check with some extensive web searches, DSLReports, and so forth. A lot of small ISPs still exist, but because they don't advertise on TV or huge billboards, the vast majority of people in the area (including geeks) are only aware of the big-name ISPs in their area and maybe one or two smaller ones at best.

Might be ok (3, Funny)

djupedal (584558) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836163)

Because by the time this happens, I'll be on a beach in Panama, with no electricity, no internet and no need for either. Just me, a case of rum, a nice cool breeze and the sound of waves gently lapping at my feet. Verizon & FB can suck it.

Re:Might be ok (2)

torkus (1133985) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836325)

...and two weeks later when the rum runs out you won't be able to conveniently order another case on your phone without leaving the hammock. Unless you're not an alcoholic like me and it last long enough to set up your own still I suppose.

Seriously though, the vast majority of the 1st world (and a good # of the 3rd) depend on communication being readily available. While I know these companies are looking for new, creative ways to scratch out a few more % profit they're going about it backwards. Don't try to take away, corrupt, slow, or interfere with what we already have now. Embrace and expand. Offer something original or unique. Grow and diversify your business.

Oh...you wanted to be a one trick pony with guaranteed profits and no competition? Boo hoo.

This won't fly. It can't. It would basically destroy the underpinning of of the communication age if it stuck.

Sadly I can almost forsee this going the way of electrical power at the dawn of the nuclear age. 'Power too cheap to meter' ... yet out electricity costs MORE.

Are they responsible for the content, then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836173)

...
"Broadband providers possess 'editorial discretion.' Just as a newspaper is entitled to decide which content to publish and where, broadband providers may feature some content over others," Verizon's lawyers argue ...

Does this mean that RIAA, MPAA and all the other AAs can sue the carrier for transmitting copyrighted data?

Re:Are they responsible for the content, then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836331)

"Broadband providers possess 'editorial discretion.' Just as a newspaper is entitled to decide which content to publish and where, broadband providers may feature some content over others," Verizon's lawyers argue ...

Does this mean that RIAA, MPAA and all the other AAs can sue the carrier for transmitting copyrighted data?

That is the first thought that went through my mind reading the article. That I'd bet they had not thought through the unintended consequences of this statement.

The answer is, yes, most likely, RIAA/MAPP/etc. would be able to sue, because by having 'editorial discretion' they should have prevented the infringement.

Of course, sadly, their corporate shill lawyers will likely not realize their mistake until after they are found guilty of contributory copyright infringement.

Re:Are they responsible for the content, then? (1)

PPH (736903) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836531)

Verizon possesses editorial discretion only over the content it creates. Not over the communications I engage in over its network with a third party. Eavesdrop on that communications and Verizon will find itself in criminal violation of federal wiretapping law.

I dont have a problem with this (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836183)

as long as I get to charge Verizon a fee for stringing their lines across my driveway and radiating their wireless signals over my entire property.

I'll be cheap, $0.01 per square foot of my land they operate on or over, which at 1 acre that's $435.60 per month. I'll be waiting by the mailbox.

Spectrum is leased (1)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836231)

You already do. It's part of the spectrum rent that ultimately goes into the government's general fund, theoretically toward easing your tax burden by a few pennies.

Re:Spectrum is leased (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836381)

But by that logic Verizon is way over bounds in attempting to pay-per-view the internet as Verizon also has its tax burden eased by that same government.

However since they seem to want paid on top of the tax subsidies they get, then so do I.

For the Disney generation, Verizon wanted to be the genie with unlimited cosmic power to command, it just so happens being shackled to the whims of whoever happens to be holding the lamp comes with it.

AOL Called... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836195)

They'd like their business model back - oh wait it failed......

Take what you can... (5, Funny)

slick7 (1703596) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836213)

Monopolizing greed only benefits the greedy. I see this as the writing on the wall, goodbye Verizon, the consumer has spoke. I sought a different carrier after dismal service from Verizon. If this is the future of phone service, then I'll go back to a land line with a rotary dial. Since few people will understand my last statement, it will be the most secure system ever.

Fail (1)

mmarcottulio (2426600) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836235)

That's just NOT how the Internet works.

The author is either a shill or a pawn of Google (-1, Troll)

Brett Glass (98525) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836291)

Total BS. As the operator of an ISP (and a former columnist for InfoWorld who was dismissed because I didn't go along with Microsoft's monopoly propaganda... not much different from monopolist Google's fearmongering above), I can say with authority that no ISP wants to limit what sites users can visit. That's the scare tactics that the lobbyists are using to push so-called "network neutrality" regulations, which are not neutral at all; they're designed to tip the economic balance away from ISPs and toward content companies such as Google. The regulations prohibit ISPs from charging more when content providers waste bandwidth or attempt to demand priority delivery of their content -- in short, when they ask for something for nothing. They also prevent ISPs from blocking software that exploits the ISP's network for the benefit of a content provider. In short, they're all about regulating the Internet in ways that benefit powerful corporations. Worse still, they let the camel's nose into the tent. If the FCC can regulate the Net to advantage Google, it can also regulate it in other harmful ways. Want to see censorship? Government blocking of sites? Even more intense spying on your Internet activities? If these regulations are not overturned, the precedent will open the door to all of those things.

Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl (4, Insightful)

breser (16790) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836473)

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 (0)

Brett Glass (98525) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836491)

You, the user -- especially if you are a typical, naive user -- have no idea how much bandwidth you are using. Nor do you know whether the app you downloaded just to "access" a service actually turns your computer into a server, which the content provider hopes will be hosted on the ISP's network for free. ISPs are not making massive profits -- in part due to shenanigans such as these. But Google has multiple monopolies and is making billions.

Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl (1)

RobbieCrash (834439) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836527)

8/10 would almost respond seriously again.

Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl (3)

breser (16790) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836559)

Hosted for free? No. Your user is paying you for the transit in both directions.

If your users aren't aware of how much bandwidth they are using perhaps you as an ISP should so something to educate them.

Quite frankly, if ISPs want to limit bandwidth usage then they should be required to show the bandwidth usage that has been used and should be required to provide exact limits as to what customers are provided. This shouldn't be any different than how cell phone companies have to show minutes used.

Instead they've been getting away with marketing burst speeds and creating the appearance of unlimited bandwidth usage (when in reality most of the big ones will start threatening to turn you off if you're using too much).

You keep brining up Google. What service does Google have that turns a users system into a server in order to access the service?

In my particular case I know exactly how much bandwidth I'm using. I actually have Cacti graphs. The only major thing that I can think of that I use that turns my system into a server without being obvious is the downloader for some game updates that uses bittorrent. As an ISP I'd think you'd be thrilled because these clients typically prefer to talk to IPs that are in the same blocks and often save a lot of transit across your peers.

Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl (2)

NouberNou (1105915) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836583)

Were you also fired for being insane?

Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836597)

You, the user -- especially if you are a typical, naive user -- have no idea how much bandwidth you are using.

I know how much bandwidth I'm paying for.

If an ISP cannot supply the bandwidth it has promised, if it has oversubscribed, than it should be prosecuted for the fraud it has committed.

Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836663)

Then it sounds like the ISPs have a problem with their business model. Since Verizon, etc. are trying to fix it primarily through lobbying/legislation, it's kind of hard to feel sorry for them.

Shrug.

Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl (4, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836709)

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:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836777)

Nonsense. The user, naive or not, paid for the service you offered them. If you can't deliver the service perhaps you shouldn't offer it?

Brett Glass is either a shill or a pawn of Verizon (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836797)

Seeing as you "run an ISP", I assume you actually understand how TCP/IP works. Actually reading your posts again I can see that might not be true. Here's a summary of how this "internet" thing works:

You see, I pay you ("the ISP") to carry my ("the customer") data to others ("your or some other ISP's customer"), and sometimes those sites send data back. When I pay you ("the ISP"), I pay a specific amount over a specific period of time for a specific amount of bandwidth and so does the site I am talking to.

Given those facts, by what fucking right do YOU think you get a say in what I can and cannot put in those packets of data that I paid you to carry for me? In addition, by what fucking right do YOU feel you can double dip by charging the people I communicate with more on top of the fees they already paid you for your bandwidth?

Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl (5, Insightful)

gclef (96311) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836561)

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.

The regulations prohibit ISPs from charging more when content providers waste bandwidth

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:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836577)

Decided to break out the troll account Brett? Hey look you haven posted in 2 years and half of your posts are anti-net neutrality and anti-Google. You might want to retire the uid at this point because it's pretty clear you're either a shill or a raving lunatic who is slightly retarded.

Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836717)

> The regulations prohibit ISPs from charging more when content providers waste bandwidth or attempt to demand priority delivery of their content -- in short, when they ask for something for nothing.

Care to cite some *SPECIFIC* examples of Google asking for "something for nothing"? Please don't hesitate to get technical, we can handle it.

Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836751)

You say these are scare tactics to push regulation one direction, but I think this is at worst scare tactics to prevent it being pushed in the OPPOSITE direction. It seems to me that we're at a happy balance between ISPs and google, in other words, regulations seem good balancing us between one group of greedy corporations and another group of greedy corporations. I see your point that some net neutrality proposals could push it toward google, but the current court case appears to still be pushing it off balance, just in the other direction.

If you're a decent ISP operator, good for you, but you're not MY ISP provider, and you're not my mobile provider. You're arguing on the side of AT&T and Verizon, whom I have constant problems with. You're arguing specifically against google. From my perspective, they give me free e-mail that works better than anything else, a free search engine that works better than anything else, and a free mobile phone operating system that works better than anything else. YOUR SIDE has done nothing but take my money and give me nothing. Google's side has done nothing but give me stuff for free (aside from my privacy, which the NSA stole anyway.)

Worse still, they let the camel's nose into the tent. Want to see censorship? Government blocking of sites? Even more intense spying on your Internet activities? If these regulations are not overturned, the precedent will open the door to all of those things.

You mentioned fearmongering? And the government is already doing both of those things a lot already.

Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl (2)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836779)

An ISP's stance on net neutrality basically comes down to their view on the market. If I go to an ISP looking for access to the internet and their goal is to provide me the best internet access for my money, then they support net neutrality. Alternatively, if a customer paying you for internet access if viewed as a commodity to sell to large corporations, then net neutrality is a horrible injustice. I do applaud you for openly stating your company's position. No matter how much I hope your position fails, I do appreciate your open admission of it.

Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl (2)

ls671 (1122017) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836789)

Looks like a BS site to me. InfoWorld, and only them, should be charged to deliver content to its customers, just like proposed by Verizon plan, look at the list of trackers and crap trying to load when you read TFA:

AMP Platform Advertising
BlueKai Beacons
ChartBeat Analytics
Demandbase Beacons
Disqus Widgets
DoubleClick Spotlight Beacons
Dynamic Logic Beacons
Eloqua Analytics
Facebook Connect Widgets
Google +1 Widgets
Google Analytics Analytics
Krux Digital Beacons
LinkedIn Widgets Widgets
Marchex Beacons
NetRatings SiteCensus Analytics
Omniture (Adobe Analytics) Beacons
Sailthru Horizon Beacons
ShareThis Widgets

Exactly the opposite (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836311)

Opportunities and incentives are inconceivably enormous. A whole new type of smuggler will arise. It's great. Bring it on!

This is a stupid summary (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836343)

The FCC shouldn't be the regulator here. The FTC should because this is anti-competitive.

For whatever government regulators are worth.

In the end... (1)

flyneye (84093) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836385)

When it comes down to it Verizon can shit in one hand and charge in the other and in the end they will have a hand full of shit and no customers.
Historically , there have been loads of schemes since the inception of the internet to charge extra, they are all as successful as flapping your arms really hard to fly.
Usually this is the seismic activity that occurs just before a company hires a fleet of "consultants" to streamline....
Sh'long Verizon, we hardly cared for ye.

Re:In the end... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836457)

Yeah except this time their meddling in our regulatory laws to do it, which go way beyond constitutional and civil bounds and step into NSA and counterfeiting of currency territory in regards to penalties. I.e. the gate keepers want bigger, stronger gates. They've always been there. But while youtube has been annexed. They want to ensure no other tubes show up.

Re:In the end... (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836469)

And google would be glad to pay the "fee" to keep everyone else out. Verizon is a front for other media companies, so was/is TimeWarner and Comcast (all the same).

As long as that fee remains stupidly high, only the Murdochs will have control over content on the internet.

That is the END GAME.

Wouldn't this be a great time... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836399)

...to switch to a different ISP?

Can you hear me NOW?

No problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836459)

Just simply de-peer them.

Name: removed from DNS
IP Address: re-sold

Charge back? (5, Insightful)

retech (1228598) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836465)

Can website owners charge Verizon for coming to the site? It'd be fun to see how they handle a bill for usage. Oh, and add in admin fees, billing fee, premium use fee, primetime use fee, off peak use fee, per byte use fee, admin fee for counting byte usage, server usage charges, server maintenance charges, gov't tax fee, cross border off-set fee, environmental off-set fees, off/on season fees, grounds fees, snack fees, and general labor fees.

Re:Charge back? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836627)

Wish I had mod points

They need to pick their targets better. (1)

dlingman (1757250) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836489)

The websites aren't forcing their packets through Verizon's networks. Verizon's customers are requesting them. Wouldn't it make more sense, to say, charge the customers (that they already have contracts with) every month for a certain amount of usage, then charge more if they exceed that?

Oh wait...

And so the next step ... (1)

ubrgeek (679399) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836529)

is the company you work for, in a similar manner as health insurance, offers "unlimited Internet access" as one of the perks of working there. They'll cover the cost of your being able to surf however much and wherever you'd like (within the guidelines of the EULA that you sign when you start work there) . Of course, it'll only happen via their proxy servers and thus with ads they can target based on your surfing habits (letting them present ads for their subsidiaries' products). Demographics of your habits will also be sold to whichever ad firm is the highest bidder.

Don't worry, your employer will more than make their money back. In fact, they'll make so much they'll be able to launch their own entertainment networks, offering internally developed shows to their employees and licensing the popular ones to other companies, months after their own employees get "exclusive access" to the shows when they come out.

But at least you won't have to deal with Verizon, right?

You, you're okay. This one: real fuckin' ugly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836543)

Bearded Man: They are dismantling the sleeping middle class. More and more people are becoming poor. We are their cattle. We are being bred for slavery.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096256/ [imdb.com]

Re:You, you're okay. This one: real fuckin' ugly. (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836669)

Heheheh, the middle class only existed because we were a frontier. Now that all the assets are owned and government is big. We are seeing the effect. It was never intended to be a country of free men working for all they desired and excessing their dreams. It was slavery from the start. And theirs simply too many slaves now. Basically absolute lies and delusions. I think the founders of this country new for certain what the end result would be. And they just wanted their lifetimes + a few generations to be free. They knew the landscape would change, technology would develop, even the art of warfare would be totally different. The truly smart and lucky few (even some smart people are unlucky in this day and age) made their empires and dynasties.

Were just the chaff of human evolution. And we are quite fucked. Unless we figure out a way to work towards freeing ourselves communally. Because there are too many of us to have an FFA every man for himself go at it.

Re:You, you're okay. This one: real fuckin' ugly. (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836691)

Wow pardon the really bad grammar, misspellings, wrong words used, I'm going to log off now... But I hope the jist gets through. If you want to win at this game we need to organize and form leadership, and create our own new system with the delusion that it will last a few hundred years more. 2 million bikers in DC are being suppressed right now. There is no public outcry. Artificially inflated economies and food markets totally out of control because people at the top are basically pulling strings at a whim.

End goal is to make us fall into complete Anarchy without another declaration of independence. And even worse bill of rights.

The web as we know it (0)

gmuslera (3436) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836611)

... has been destroyed by the NSA already, just that most didn't fully realized it yet. They can charge all they want, as internet will end being outside US borders anyway.

Time to reboot the Internet (2)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836683)

Back to the days when it was just dumb pipes.

I wonder if it would be possible to build our own truly decentralized "swarm-net" using a mesh of devices that talk directly to each other. Because it's looking more and more like we need something exacly like that.

I'm envisioning some sort of wireless uplink bridging device with a zero-configuration discovery protocol that seeks out and automatically connects nearby sibling devices. It would need to a wireless protocol with better range than 802.11, have distributed DNS and be IPv6-only between nodes. Such a device could be connected to a router's WAN port to serve as the single uplink or to a LAN port and serve as a bridging device to connect to Internet and "swarm-net" sites. We could keep on using all of the great Internet technologies and protocols. Everything would be encrypted. E-VREY-THING.

Obviously, adoption would be the biggest hurdle. But, yeah, we need something like that.

Re:Time to reboot the Internet (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836771)

Freenet (like, I am not a big fan of freenet, and its not good enough for me encryption wise) plus sufficiently powerful swarm of 802.11n/b/g with large ranges, some pringles cans on poles ( they do it in afghanistan on a much larger scale) for interconnects. TBH it doesn't even need encryption, just enough distributed networking like freenet has caching, so that you can cover encryption yourself.

The speed wouldn't be great. We'd wouldn't have netflix on it. But you could definitely use it to organize politically =) And distribute news outside of Fox/Cnn/MSN

But it could be done. And it would be one nightmarish hodgepodge which your traffic could get lost in if someone was doing shady shit or being a derp on their node. But large enough network would allow protocols to route around that kind of node.

Re:Time to reboot the Internet (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836787)

And fat chance of gaming on it. Would work fine, but be very high latency. Like up to hours/days. Most traffic doesn't even need encryption yet. I.e. "Hey mom I love you" type communications, or "Today, CEO XYZ said...")

Infact if you build in some solid anonymity into it, free speech would be very well protected without any bulky and vulnerable encryption means. Given enough participation to make it hold complete sway over legislative opinion. (90%)

Too much brainwashing for a system like that at the moment. We are seeing the dawn of a new "whitchhunting" era.

What about content from other countries? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836689)

Will Verizone charge them as well?

The void between Liberals and Conservatives (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 days | (#44836727)

Verizon is playing in the region many other big interests have played in before: the chasm between the left and the right in Washington. As long as the left and right will not agree on a position they'd both gain from, there is a void through which they can drive and where courts and lawyers will make the decisions instead of the people; it's a terribly un-democratic outcome driven by the intersection of rotten politics and over-reaching courts.

On the far left, there is support for "net neutrality" driven by the usual left-wing economic arguments of "sharing" and "fairness" and fear that left-wing speech could get censored. On the far right, there is support for "net neutrality" driven by suspicion of abuse by big government-corporate partnerships and fear that right-wing speech could get censored. These two groups could come together in agreement with a healthy compromise on this issue, but companies like Verizon are counting on them to be so split on other issues that they will not work together on this one where their interests firmly align. These groups are the only ones who could really drive a good resolution.

The mushy-middle of the political spectrum in Washington is perfectly happy to do nothing. The center-right loves all things associated with big business (they'd embrace the kiddie porn industry if it was big enough and had a corporate logo and lots of campaign cash) and they gravitate to the Verizon argument that Verizon should be able to use its infrastructure as it sees fit; they'd happily let service providers do ANYTHING to the general public... resulting in a hyper-capable internet that is too expensive and exclusive for most people. The center-left loves all things associated with big government (they'd embrace the kiddie porn industry if it was a government agency with unionized employees) and they gravitate to the FCC argument in favor of any and all regulation... resulting in an internet insufficiently capitalized and maintained because nobody could make more than a government capped profit from it. Unlike the more-extreme left and right, however, the center-left and center-right in Washington are not particularly concerned with issues like this and therefore are not likely to get involved; they have bigger fish to fry.

If the Left and Right could get together they could drive legislation the middle would go-along with that would say to Verizon "if you get to treat internet traffic as yours and throttle/differential-price every packet then you must accept legal responsibility for every packet, including criminal charges if the packet contents are illegal and civil charges if the contents are actionable (libel, slander, copyright violations, etc).... but if you want to claim you have no control of the contents and are not liable and are entitled to all the legal protections you currently get (because you transport all packets equally), then you may not differentiate between packets when it suits you." In other words: a law could be crafted to allow a company to choose which model to use (take full control of all packets and assume responsibility, OR have no control of the packets and get a legal shield), and the free market would prevail (and "net neutrality" would be the position every provider would end-up choosing because it's the one that would be safer)

Web sites? (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836743)

I don't think PPV for web sites makes much sense.

BUT I can see Verizon chomping at the bit regarding video streaming. It competes against their cable offering and their own PPV, and uses their infrastructure in an expensive way, for free. QoS for the web and QoS for Netflix streaming are two completely different ballgames.

Verizon just spent $130B to buy remainder (1)

JoeyRox (2711699) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836755)

They're paying $130 Billion to buy the remaining 45 percent of Verizon Wireless they don't already own. They obviously have some more "diabolical" plans to maximize their investment on infrastructure, be it wired or wireless.

sick (1)

no-body (127863) | 1 year,6 days | (#44836801)

and money-greedy people those jerks!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>