doctorow at September 26th, 2013 16:35 — #1
imb at September 26th, 2013 16:38 — #2
I wonder how much of this will also be influenced by the government, whose pocket Verizon is already in and vice versa.
steampunkbanana at September 26th, 2013 16:41 — #3
I really wish I was still a Verizon customer right now so I could call them up and tell them they were losing a customer over this stupid, stupid idea.
technogeekagain at September 26th, 2013 16:46 — #4
I'd be willing to consider letting them start charging by kind of traffic when they start charging text messages by their actual traffic load -- ie, some invisibly small fraction of a cent per SMS packet.
lostboy at September 26th, 2013 16:50 — #5
Is it really that much different from taxing heavy trucks for using public roads? The current pricing model for internet access is outdated. We now have huge companies pumping large amounts of data through ISP's to end customers and making a lot of money. Verizon is right to target sites like YouTube and NetFlix. Calling is a 'bribe' is fucking ridiculous!
hughstimson at September 26th, 2013 16:50 — #6
If Verizon is doing this but the other big ISP's aren't they risk a reputation of being the internet provider that provides less of the internet.
I assume they assume that if they can overturn the net neutrality rules the other ISPs will quickly jump into throttling practices as well.
This does not bode well.
hughstimson at September 26th, 2013 16:56 — #7
I'm guessing you're going to get lots of good answers to your question, but here's just a few points that come immediately to mind:
Data passing through a cable doesn't damage the cable like a truck does a road.
There's no evidence of a lack of network capacity, even with YouTube and Netflix. (There might be such a lack, but if there is the ISPs aren't willing to prove it.)
Not withstanding the first two points, Verizon isn't saying they're going to charge high-bandwidth producers, although they might like us to assume that they are. I'm guessing they're planning on charging whomever they think has the cash to pay. If they can throttle throughput, they can just as well increase latency. New York Times loading slow for you? Maybe they forgot to pay their Verizon transport surcharge.
kangorufoo at September 26th, 2013 16:56 — #8
Dump Verizon and find another provider.
xzzy at September 26th, 2013 17:04 — #9
You really think it's only Verizon that is pushing for this?
There isn't a carrier out there (both wireless and terrestrial) that wouldn't jump at the chance to charge the sender to put data through their pipes if they thought they could get away with it. This is the sort of thing that will keep being attempted until it's successful, these greedy assholes see companies making billions off the internet and figure as the owners of the last mile they can put out the squeeze for a bigger cut of the action.
lostboy at September 26th, 2013 17:08 — #10
All very fair points. ISP's do tend push the lack of network capacity excuse with little to no data to back it all up.
steampunkbanana at September 26th, 2013 17:08 — #11
Remember that bit recently about CBS and Time Warner, where they couldn't agree on a price that Time Warner should pay CBS? And there was a blackout for 30 days or so while they worked out details as to how much Time Warner gets from their customers and how much CBS would get from that and how long that deal would last?
And you know how cable companies charge a lot of money every month because they have 300 channels, ten of which most people watch?
That's basically what net neutrality is designed to prevent. That Boing Boing is as accessible in Kansas as it is in Florida. That Boing Boing's data packets are given equal weight as CBS News' data packets no matter who you are or who your ISP is.
If Verizon is allowed to direct you to "better" data then you, the customer, have lost out on your choice. Like Vimeo? Use Vimeo. Like YouTube? Use YouTube. Don't allow your ISP to choose which video hosting service you use just because they made a deal that makes them more money, the better service and less cost isn't going to trickle down to users.
kangorufoo at September 26th, 2013 17:16 — #12
I see your point. But if you get on the phone with Verizon and tell them that you're going to switch the Verizon employee starts to panic. Verizon is a bad ISP. Most ISPs put content caches around the edge of their networks to reduce bandwidth costs. Verizon is in the business of charging for bandwidth so it's not in their interests to be efficient. Other ISPs are in a better position to deliver better service to the user.
Break up Verizon. Competition may help this problem.
lostboy at September 26th, 2013 17:19 — #13
I'm getting on YouTube right now to see if there any videos of people crying over the CBS blackout.
steampunkbanana at September 26th, 2013 17:23 — #14
It would make me sad if there were, but given the outcry over one show or another that everyone kept talking to me about, I'm sure there has to be at least one.
rogerwilco at September 26th, 2013 17:42 — #15
I know a few people who were upset about it, but go ahead and check youtube...unless of course Verizon doesn't want you too because they have some beef with the google.
Do you really want another layer of control over what you do with the internet? To use your analogy, do you think FedEx should be able to pay to monopolize the fast lane on the freeway keeping UPS out and gaining an unfair advantage? Do you see the problem with that sort of arrangement?
cfv at September 26th, 2013 17:46 — #16
It would be nice to see IANA giving them a big cup of STFU at the IP adress registry level.
Something along the lines of, "To be entitled to an IP block of any kind you need to agree to Net Neutrality principles or go die in a fire"
Is that too much wishful thinking?
akp at September 26th, 2013 17:49 — #17
I think one major point you're neglecting is that the customers are paying the ISP (Verizon, in this case) for Internet access. Netflix, YouTube, etc., are all paying their Internet providers for Internet access. Nobody is getting anything for free.
Here's an example to contradict your truck example. You have a private mailbox at a store that doesn't care what package carrier you use. That mailbox costs you a monthly sum to maintain, and in return you get an address, someone to receive your packages, etc.
Now I want to ship a package to you. I choose UPS and pay them to have the package delivered to your mailbox. Once the package reaches the store, the owner of said store decides that, even though you've paid for your mailbox, they're not going to deliver the package to you unless I (the sender) pay them directly. Nevermind that you've already paid for the mailbox, and I've paid for the cost of transporting the package to their door, they feel they deserve additional money from me to give you the package, even though the only reason you have the mailbox in the first place is to receive mail.
That is exactly what Verizon is trying to do.
rogerwilco at September 26th, 2013 17:55 — #18
If I understand their argument correctly it's not that they want addition money from you to deliver the package but from UPS, basically acting as a tollbooth to charge content providers for access to Verizon's audience.
They have already charged you once in the form of a monthly fee but I am sure they will find a way to charge you again, or more most likely in the form of "premium access" just like cable.
akp at September 26th, 2013 17:58 — #19
In my example, UPS would be my (the content provider) ISP. The recipient's ISP would be Mailbox Store, Inc. Mailbox Store, Inc. wants to charge me to send packages to their customers, even though I've already paid my transport service and their customers have already paid them.
hans at September 26th, 2013 18:04 — #20
If Verizon is large enough to demand payments from both users and website owners, it is too large. Time to break up a business which is leveraging its market share for monopolistic purposes.
next page →