Verizon Doesn't Like The Idea Of Open Internet” – Appeals FCC Net Neutrality Decision

[Malvado]

​

Verizon doesn’t like the idea of “open internet.” At least not the idea of it potentially cutting into their profits. Today, Verizon filed an appeal in federal court claiming the rules of “Net Neutrality” are unnecessary and will create confusion for investors. Verizon released this statement on their website:

Verizon is fully committed to an open Internet. We are deeply concerned by the FCC’s assertion of broad authority to impose potentially sweeping and unneeded regulations on broadband networks and services and on the Internet itself. We believe this assertion of authority is inconsistent with the statute and will create uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers.

​

The Net Neutrality ruling just became official last week and if you haven’t been keeping up to date with your tech news, says that carriers can’t block legit law-abiding sites (or apps) that directly compete with their service. For instance, it would be like AT&T blocking you from visiting competing carrier Sprint’s website. Not cool, right? Here’s what the FCC had to say about the new Net Neutrality regulation that goes into effect November 20th.

First, transparency: fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and commercial terms of their broadband services. Second, no blocking: fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services. Third, no unreasonable discrimination: fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.

​

The internet should be free and open (we like that word around here). Anyone that disagrees well, probably has the title of CEO somewhere in their name.

SOURCE: Verizon to FCC: Net Neutrality Rules 'Unneeded Regulation' (Phone Scoop)

 

[smokiedabong]

Can't believe somebody actually likes this post .

 

[Malvado]

Verizon is just mad because they will have to allow tethering apps in the market lol

Sent from my Droid 3 directly to YOU!

 

[funwheeldrive]

Did you see who it was? Not very surprising imo.

 

[czerdrill]

Verizon is just mad because they will have to allow tethering apps in the market lol

Sent from my Droid 3 directly to YOU!

Since tethering apps don't "directly compete" with them, I'm pretty sure they will continue blocking them with no issue

 

[kodiak799]

Since tethering apps don't "directly compete" with them, I'm pretty sure they will continue blocking them with no issue

Probably a gray area. Although I'd agree that's their motivation, along with the coming future of VoLTE - eventually all voice will be over data, I think, at least for mobile.

In some ways, it's a gray area for consumer benefit, too. They pay a lot of money for spectrum and the infrastructure. If people start "gaming" the system with tethering apps and things like GV or GTalk, then VZW has no choice but to raise the price for ALL customers. I don't need or want to use my mobile data as a home ISP, so it's good that VZW charges them rather than raising the price $5 for everyone.

Cafe-style pricing is nothing new nor unique to mobile voice/data. It's an important aspect of people paying for what they use.

 

[czerdrill]

Probably a gray area. Although I'd agree that's their motivation, along with the coming future of VoLTE - eventually all voice will be over data, I think, at least for mobile.

In some ways, it's a gray area for consumer benefit, too. They pay a lot of money for spectrum and the infrastructure. If people start "gaming" the system with tethering apps and things like GV or GTalk, then VZW has no choice but to raise the price for ALL customers. I don't need or want to use my mobile data as a home ISP, so it's good that VZW charges them rather than raising the price $5 for everyone.

Cafe-style pricing is nothing new nor unique to mobile voice/data. It's an important aspect of people paying for what they use.

No you're right I just meant as far as how it is now and the phrase "direct competition". The way the tethering apps work is "piggybacking" off what's already there. They're not offering an alternate paid service that could exist without VZW. So there's no direct competition with Verizon, because if Verizon were to go bankrupt and disappear off the face of the earth, so would all the tethering apps that people use on Verizon. That's why I don't see how there can be an issue if Verizon blocks such apps. The apps depend on VZW in order to work, and won't work (as they are now) without VZW. I don't think there's any gray area in terms of "direct competition" but obviously I'm not the one making that decision.

They might provide some "indirect competition" as far as Verizon's ISP services, but again it's more of a "stealing service" issue then a "direct competition" issue.

 

[Hugh Jass]

kim_jong_il likes this.

lmao.

 

[TyrantII]

No you're right I just meant as far as how it is now and the phrase "direct competition". The way the tethering apps work is "piggybacking" off what's already there. They're not offering an alternate paid service that could exist without VZW. So there's no direct competition with Verizon, because if Verizon were to go bankrupt and disappear off the face of the earth, so would all the tethering apps that people use on Verizon. That's why I don't see how there can be an issue if Verizon blocks such apps. The apps depend on VZW in order to work, and won't work (as they are now) without VZW. I don't think there's any gray area in terms of "direct competition" but obviously I'm not the one making that decision.

They might provide some "indirect competition" as far as Verizon's ISP services, but again it's more of a "stealing service" issue then a "direct competition" issue.

Except the tethering App would work just fine if the Android system it's on is connected to the internet, through wired or wireless service.

While it make little sense, there's nothing making it use exclusive to VZW. Your logic there is flawed. You could very easily make such an app a mobile Wireless network repeater to extend service.

 

[BayouFlyFisher]

Wouldn't they be concerned about the "Voice Over Internet" calling services. Go to Skype on your data plan and make all the calls you want to make without using a single calling minute. For those on unlimited data plans that could be significant. It could also be the end of unlimited data plans (yes I am starting to see everything as a threat to unlimited data).

 

[FcoT]

Propaganda

Please please, do not do the Federal agencies fighting! There is a lot more to this "open internet" bill than its devious name. This is a HUGE power grab! Think about it, can the internet actually be free under the regulation of the government? NO! Do not fall for the traps to convince you that this bill is good, they put in a few babies so when Verizon disagrees, you and the government will run propaganda on on thrash. We will be all losers under this bill. In its essence, this bill will give power to the FCC to regulate it, this power it never had, sure they promise openness, but guess what is next after that. Please read the damn bill before voting on it!

 

[czerdrill]

Except the tethering App would work just fine if the Android system it's on is connected to the internet, through wired or wireless service.

While it make little sense, there's nothing making it use exclusive to VZW. Your logic there is flawed. You could very easily make such an app a mobile Wireless network repeater to extend service.

Not sure I understand. If the android system is connected through a wireless service, which I take to mean some kind of mobile broadband service, then the Apps use is exclusive to that service. If your talking about wifi, not sure what the point of the app is...

The Apps require a preexisting connection... They don't provide their own connection, they don't act as an isp, or a mobile carrier.

There is no direct competition between a tethering app and a carrier.

 

[Snow02]

Wouldn't they be concerned about the "Voice Over Internet" calling services. Go to Skype on your data plan and make all the calls you want to make without using a single calling minute. For those on unlimited data plans that could be significant. It could also be the end of unlimited data plans (yes I am starting to see everything as a threat to unlimited data).

This is exactly the kind of thing they're worried about long term. But that's only a small item on a long list of potential - read: potential - issues with allowing carriers to implement unregulated blocks and "quality of service optimizations". The current paradigm is data access as a "dumb pipe" - unfettered access to any service or content on the net. This is very pro-consumer, and the way we're accustomed to accessing the internet. The ISPs would like to be able to change this.

There's plenty of articles written on the topic, so I won't rehash them here.

 

[TyrantII]

Wouldn't they be concerned about the "Voice Over Internet" calling services. Go to Skype on your data plan and make all the calls you want to make without using a single calling minute. For those on unlimited data plans that could be significant. It could also be the end of unlimited data plans (yes I am starting to see everything as a threat to unlimited data).

Same reasons the telecoms made sure to kill Google's purchase of airwaves a few years back. OTA Broadband is the harbinger of death of both the telecoms and the cell providers. VOIP, G video talk, and finally bringing data rate costs down to their actual prices would kill both's business model.

They will fight tooth and nail against something that valuable as a public good, and kill it any chance they get. If they don't, their model is kaput.

 

[kodiak799]

No you're right I just meant as far as how it is now and the phrase "direct competition". The way the tethering apps work is "piggybacking" off what's already there. They're not offering an alternate paid service that could exist without VZW. So there's no direct competition with Verizon

You're right in relying on VZW data service, but the argument that would be made is the user is forced to use VZW's tethering app. In that sense it's anti-competition to block the app.

It's possible the DOJ would say VZW either has to handle this through fees or some other service tech, rather than deny users access to the apps. Not sure how they accomplish that with rooted users flashing roms. Although VZW may be justified in simply not allowing the app to install on its handsets in the market - it is neither blocking the app from a search nor the user from getting the app elsewhere. Not sure which direction the DOJ would go with that, but I hoipe they side with VZW because I don't want to have to subsidize people abusing it for a home ISP, especially since with LTE they can get that service for $30 a month (which is extremely competitive with broadband providers).