Verizon to the world: stop calling us a monopoly!

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/verizon-to-critics-stop-calling-us-a-monopoly/

"Jon Brodkin @ ArsTechnica" wrote:

Verizon today said it is “dispelling the myth” that it is a monopoly, responding to claims from Netflix and others that Verizon and other broadband providers have too much market power in the territories they operate in.

Netflix has argued that it had no choice but to pay Verizon, Comcast, and others for direct access to their networks because these big ISPs rarely compete against each other, giving each one control over large portions of the country. This is especially true in the cable market; Comcast has acknowledged that it’s too expensive to compete against other cable companies, so incumbent providers avoid building in areas where other incumbents already exist.

But Verizon’s FiOS fiber-to-the-home service is competing against cable, and Verizon wants everyone to remember that.

...

Netflix has argued that it should get free access to the ISPs' networks. Title II reclassification wouldn't necessarily restrict how much ISPs can charge Netflix, but if broadband providers were common carriers, Netflix could complain to the FCC if it believed ISPs were charging unreasonable rates.

The FCC is examining Netflix's deals with ISPs, but net neutrality rules may apply only to how ISPs treat Internet traffic after it enters their networks. Netflix's deals with Internet providers ensure smooth entry into their networks, but they don't provide any prioritization thereafter.

White House to Congress: Let the FCC do their job!

"Jon Brodkin @ ArsTechnica" wrote:

The FCC is considering whether to reclassify broadband providers as common carriers to be regulated under Title II of the Communications Act in order to enforce net neutrality rules, but Republicans are proposing their own net neutrality plan with legislation that would also bar the FCC from using Title II. President Obama could veto the bill, and a leak to Reuters suggests that he intends to do exactly that.

"In terms of legislation, we don’t believe it’s necessary given that the FCC has the authorities that it needs under Title II," an unnamed White House official said, according to Reuters. "However, we always remain open to working with anyone who shares the president's goal of fully preserving a free and open Internet now and into the future."

..

The FCC is using authority from that section in a proceeding that could preempt state laws that make it difficult for cities and towns to offer broadband to residents.

The FCC is expected to vote both on Title II and municipal broadband on February 26.

Sprint doesn't have a problem with Title II, if used lightly as the FCC has promised:

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/sprint-goes-off-script-says-title-ii-wont-hurt-wireless-investment/

"Jon Brodkin @ ArsTechnica" wrote:

Sprint is disputing its fellow wireless providers' claims that treating broadband as a common carrier service will harm network investments.
In a letter to the Federal Communications Commission yesterday, Sprint Chief Technology Officer Stephen Bye wrote that "light touch" application of common carrier rules won't change how Sprint invests in its networks.

...

In making his case for Title II, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler argued that the commission can forbear from the statute's onerous provisions while enforcing net neutrality restrictions against blocking, throttling, or prioritizing services in exchange for payment.

Sprint agrees, up to a point. The company wants mobile broadband to be granted "flexibility," but it isn't opposed to the use of Title II. The FCC's earlier net neutrality proposals gave wireless carrier far more leeway than home Internet service providers, and President Obama urged the FCC to "recogniz[e] the special challenges that come with managing wireless networks."

"Regardless of the legal grounds proposed, Sprint has emphasized repeatedly that net neutrality rules must give mobile carriers the flexibility to manage our networks and to differentiate our services in the market," Sprint wrote. "With that said, Sprint does not believe that a light touch application of Title II, including appropriate forbearance, would harm the continued investment in, and deployment of, mobile broadband services."

...

"When first launched, the mobile market was a licensed duopoly," Sprint wrote. "This system was a failure, resulting in slow deployment, high prices and little innovation." Congressional action in 1993 opened the market to new carriers including Sprint, the letter said. "This competition resulted in tremendous investment in the wireless industry, broader deployment, greater innovation, and falling prices. It is absolutely true that this explosion of growth occurred under a light touch regulatory regime. Some net neutrality debaters appear to have forgotten, however, that this light touch regulatory regime emanated from Title II common carriage regulation, including Sections 201, 202, and 208 of the Communications Act."

But Verizon’s FiOS fiber-to-the-home service is competing against cable, and Verizon wants everyone to remember that.

And they want everyone to forget they have completely stopped any future installation of fiber to neighborhoods, because they can't compete.

---

My initial thought would be, talk by actions: get internet service from a smaller company. Make them feel it in the wallet/purse. However, it seems like:

1) This isn't enough.
2) I know of no one in my area that has a different service. So, I have no way of knowing the quality of another service such as Century Link. Indeed, Comcast, Charter, etc. ... have essential monopolies across large swathes of the country.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Stunning Victory Within Reach For Net Neutrality Advocates

---

Stunning Victory Within Reach For Net Neutrality Advocates

Thx for the update Lynn, shared it on fb:)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Also, The Cable Company's are now making 'noise' that if the FCC Proposed Regulations are Passed. Because of more Company's using their Cables, this will result in a "Bottleneck' of Service and Slower Internet.

AND: They will now offer Premium (Higher Rates) Service for Increased Speed.

Putting aside any Ideology: Would this really result in Slower Service?

That's assuming they actually enforce local loop unbundling, which I hope they do because it would provide for more competition in the cable space - assuming the likes of Comcast or Time Warner Cable don't litigate their competition out of existence first.

And there's no way it will result in a bottleneck or slower internet. That's like saying the internet can't handle any more people or devices on it or it will slow to a crawl. Anyone who knows anything about networking and routing knows how much BS a comment like that is. Comcast knows it. Verizon knows it. They're worried that they will lose a new revenue stream in the form of double-dipping by charging both content providers and customers for the same network.

Putting back Ideology: The Big Monopoly Cable Company's may possibly increase their revenues.

This comment is what it is all about. The high-speed internet access business is so fragmented across the US that most people don't have a real choice in services. Big ISPs have remained out of each other's territories so they don't have to compete. Not only have internet speeds in the US languished behind all other countries in terms of $/Mbit, but customer service is at an all time low. Why provide good service if you know your customer has nowhere else to turn to and you're the only game in town?

This is one of those moments in time where an unregulated market has become a problem and free market principles have fallen apart. Competition must be fostered so that there is incentive for these companies to do better in all areas; speed, service, and price.

It is time the cartel(s) are stopped.

Stunning Victory Within Reach For Net Neutrality Advocates

Thx for the update Lynn, shared it on fb:)

Remember the old curse.

'May you get, what you wish for'?

And sometimes that's not a bad thing.

And it looks like the FCC has voted successfully to define broadband as 25Mbit down and 3Mbit up:

"Jon Brodkin @ ArsTechnica" wrote:

The Federal Communications Commission today voted 3-2 along party lines to change the definition of broadband to at least 25Mbps downstream and 3Mbps upstream. The vote was no surprise given Chairman Tom Wheeler’s Democratic majority. But Wheeler put on a show just before the vote by contrasting Internet service providers’ marketing claims with their statements to the government.

...

““In their marketing materials Verizon says, ‘while FiOS provides a lot of speed for bandwidth hungry devices, you’d be surprised how fast it goes. You can think of your household’s Internet connection like a pizza to be shared with your whole family. Some people are hungrier than others and if too many friends show up no one will get enough to be satisfied.’

This is what their website says,” Wheeler continued. “’25/25 is best for one to three devices at the same time, great for surfing, e-mail, online shopping and social networking, streaming two HD videos simultaneously. 50/50 is best for three to five devices at the same time, more speed for families or individuals with multiple Internet devices, stream up to five HD videos simultaneously.’

“Somebody is telling us one thing and telling consumers another."

It’s not just Verizon. “Consider what AT&T told us in this proceeding,” Wheeler said. “Quote: ‘the notice presents no basis for a conclusion at this time that a service less than 10Mbps is no longer advanced.' But what they say to their customers is, ‘with downstream speeds up to 45Mbps, AT&T’s U-verse high-speed Internet lets you enjoy life in the fast lane, download music, movies and more in record time.’”

...

Next up in Wheeler's list was Comcast, which told the commission that a “4Mbps connection has been found to be sufficient to handle streaming HD video,” he said. But the Comcast website tells customers that with 150Mbps, they can “game in real time, and stream HD movies,” Wheeler noted.

Wheeler finished with Time Warner Cable, “who says, ‘between laptop, tablets, and smartphones you’ll need all the bandwidth you can get. 15Mbps works for two adults with two smartphones. 20Mbps: one person with a smartphone, a TV and a video streaming device. 30Mbps: a family, two adults, two kids, two TVs, one tablet, two computers, and one on-demand device.'"

TWC also "provides a convenient link on their website where you enter the characteristics of your household and they tell you the bandwidth you need, which is far more than 4 and far more than 10," Wheeler said.

Next up: the vote for reclassifying broadband under Title II next month.

High-speed internet access business is so fragmented across the US that most people don't have a real choice in services. Big ISPs have remained out of each other's territories so they don't have to compete. Not only have internet speeds in the US languished behind all other countries in terms of $/Mbit, but customer service is at an all time low. Why provide good service if you know your customer has nowhere else to turn to and you're the only game in town?

This is one of those moments in time where an unregulated market has become a problem and free market principles have fallen apart. Competition must be fostered so that there is incentive for these companies to do better in all areas; speed, service, and price.

It is time the cartel(s) are stopped.

Right on.
My father's brother has been in northern VA ... near DC ... since 1982 or so. They are used, or believe they are used to ... in that area ... the best the USA has to offer, it seems. The monopoloy there, IIRC, is Cox. My father moved to the area in 1997, leaving in the last 1.5 years. He told my uncle how awful Cox's quality, service and prices are. Of course, my uncle would not hear of this.

Luckily, by ALREADY paying COMCAST *extra* for "Blast", I can watch this Seth Andrews video. But, now I am paying for ONE item (internet) (apartment complex covers cable TV from the same company) very nearly the same I did to Charter up north for bundling tv, internet and phone in 2007-2009.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

update.

FCC Chief Announces Big Win For Net Neutrality Advocates


WASHINGTON -- Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler revealed a big win for net neutrality advocates on Wednesday, asking for strong authority to enforce open Internet protections.

In a Wired op-ed, Wheeler said he is proposing the FCC use its authority under Title II of the Communications Act to protect consumer broadband Internet. This move will allow the FCC to stop Internet service providers from charging content providers like Netflix more money for reliable Internet access.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/04/fcc-net-neutrality_n_6613494.html

---

Sorry for being a Cynic.

It is not, nor ever will be, the Positive's. It is The Negative's that matters.

Save the Cheering until two, or more, years, of living with this.

May be Good, Bad, or something in between.

Never, I mean, Never! Be Negative, Clyde!

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Sorry for being a Cynic.

It is not, nor ever will be, the Positive's. It is The Negative's that matters.

Save the Cheering until two, or more, years, of living with this.

May be Good, Bad, or something in between.

Never, I mean, Never! Be Negative, Clyde!

Is that a triple negative?

---

Sorry for being a Cynic.

It is not, nor ever will be, the Positive's. It is The Negative's that matters.

Save the Cheering until two, or more, years, of living with this.

May be Good, Bad, or something in between.

Never, I mean, Never! Be Negative, Clyde!

Is that a triple negative?

Triple negative makes negative, it's not a double negative, that would've made it positive:))

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

The Title II Regulation is being proposed, and the FCC wants to make clear that these are not "utility" rules:

"Jon Brodkin @ ArsTechnica" wrote:

But there are enough details in the 4-page summary of FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s proposal released today for us to tell you in general terms what it does and doesn’t do. FCC officials also provided further background in a phone call with reporters today. One thing they were clear on: this isn’t “utility-style regulation,” because there will be no rate regulation, Internet service providers (ISPs) won’t have to file tariffs, and there’s no unbundling requirement that would force ISPs to lease network access to competitors.

But the order does reclassify ISPs as common carriers, regulating them under Title II of the Communications Act, the same statute that governs telephone companies. ISPs will not be allowed to block or throttle Internet content, nor will they be allowed to prioritize content in exchange for payments. The rules will apply to home Internet service such as cable, DSL, and fiber, and to mobile broadband networks generally accessed with smartphones.

Internet providers will be common carriers in their relationships with home Internet and mobile broadband customers; they will also be common carriers in their relationships with companies that deliver content to subscribers over the networks operated by ISPs. That includes online content providers such as Amazon or Netflix.

The rules apply only to retail Internet providers, those that offer consumers the ability to access the Internet. They do not regulate Web applications or other network operators. Content delivery networks like Akamai, which improve performance by optimizing delivery of content across the Internet, would not be affected by the paid prioritization ban.

...

ISPs have argued that Title II will bring certain doom to the broadband industry, but the FCC pointed to past experience to argue that it won’t. Though Title II hasn’t applied to wireless data before, it does apply to wireless voice, and that industry is thriving.

“For 21 years the wireless industry has been governed by Title II-based rules that forbear from traditional phone company regulation,” the FCC said. “The wireless industry has invested over $400 billion under similar rules, proving that modernized Title II regulation can support investment and competition.”

Broadband will actually face fewer Title II provisions than cellular voice. “When Title II was first applied to mobile, voice was the predominant mobile service. During the period between 1993 and 2009, carriers invested heavily, including more than $270 billion in building out their wireless networks, an increase of nearly 2,000 percent,” the FCC said.

So.. no local loop unbundling, but at least paid prioritization is banned, and that's the most important thing to take away from this. Also, I do hope the rhetoric that this is a "power grab" by the gov't, or that this will increase costs for ISPs and startups will finally be laid to rest.

Full article: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/dont-call-them-utility-rules-the-fccs-net-neutrality-regime-explained/

Start reading the Entire Proposal.

Just a Government Takeover, via Regulations.

More Consumer costs. Small Independents out-of-business. Lower Speeds possible. Government Control of Speech, More, and More and More.

Please point to specific statements in the proposal. It really sounds like you've read a GOP pre-interpreted version of the proposal. There's no way lower speeds, higher consumer costs, and small independents are going out of business with this proposal.

Net Neutrality? Another Obama-ism, AKA - A Lying Title. He loves that.

You do realize that Obama has only recently thrown his hat into the debate. He made no statements when the original Net Neutrality rules were put in place then shot down by Verizon via a court challenge. This issue has been going on for a few years, but I do note that anything that Obama tags his name to, his detractors immediately find the worse possible angle behind it then say it is all Obama's fault.

Only hope for Internet Freedom:

Is for Title II regulation?

The Courts, as Twice in the Past, rule against this Political and Ideological Proposal.

Won't happen. This is not an ideological proposal. This was forced because ISPs wanted to find a new revenue stream, so they went after both consumers and content providers. The FCC put forth Net Neutrality rules and were shot down thanks to a legal challenge by Verizon. In the ruling, the judge said the only way the FCC could enforce net neutrality would be through Tittle II.

Now that the FCC is doing the only thing left that it can do for the consumer, there's a huge counter-campaign focused on trying to convince the public that Title II would bring higher costs, lower speeds, less competition - hey, that sounds like everything you're claiming.

Please read The Entire Proposal. Not the Lying Header.

The Devil is in The Details.

And Don Quixote goes after windmills because he believes they are dragons (devils). So again, please point to specific clauses or sections within the proposal so we can all see what has got you so convinced this is a gov't takeover.

Please point to specific statements in the proposal. It really sounds like you've read a GOP pre-interpreted version of the proposal. There's no way lower speeds, higher consumer costs, and small independents are going out of business with this proposal.

GOP??? Silly, Ideological, Rant.

Its no longer ironic that you accuse everyone else of ideology and ideological standpoints while refusing to see your own.

GOP Sucks.

Yet you enjoy drinking their swill. Refill on your stein, sir?

Read The Entire Proposed Regulations.

Not the title.

Again, please point to specific clauses or sections that indicate anything what you've claimed.

Ozz, don't worry about Clyde, he is just practicing to take over for Rusty Lintball.

---

Its no longer ironic that you accuse everyone else of ideology and ideological standpoints while refusing to see your own.

Exactly what is My Ideology.

Your ideology is anti-big government, anti-liberal, anti-democrat. At every chance you speak out against that which you disagree with; that which disagrees with your ideology.

Akin to accusing a Religious Atheist, of have a Religion.

Correct?

Incorrect. You think being an Atheist shields you when you complain about other Atheists. You think being pro-gay marriage shields you from being called a right-winger. You think that somehow you're the person with the middle-view fighting back against the "unthinking" liberal agenda.

I used to think Michele was a feminist until I met some women with real feminist views (if you're reading, thanks for pointing that out Bobby). Identifying one's self as one ideology (e.g. feminism) while arguing against that ideology doesn't make you a middle-of-the-road-er. While you may identify as an Atheist, while bashing other Atheists doesn't make you a middle-of-the-roader.

While you may not identify as a right-winger, your bashing of anything you perceive to be part of the liberal agenda doesn't make you a middle-of-the-road-er.

Yet you enjoy drinking their swill. Refill on your stein, sir?

Against Hitler, doesn't mean Drinking Stalin's...

Correct?

Sure. But being against Hitler and not drinking Stalin's doesn't mean you aren't in favor of some other dangerous cup of tea. In this case, the faux anti-government movement that is making you believe Title II regulation is a gov't grab for power.

Again, please point to specific clauses or sections that indicate anything what you've claimed.

YOU started this Thread, and YOU don't know The Details of The Regulations?

So wait.. you make the claim that you've read the regulations and the devil is in the details, and I ask you to cite what makes you believe this is a gov't grab, and you can't even do that? I think you say it best:

How can anyone promote, from ignorance, Regulations?

Indeed. How can one promote anti-regulations from ignorance? I don't know.

Ozz, don't worry about Clyde, he is just practicing to take over for Rusty Lintball.

Heh. heheh. hehehehe. :-D At least Limbaugh doesn't pretend he's not conservative. Clyde just seems like he's confused about a lot of things, so he just starts tilting at windmills thinking he has a point.