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

[TyrantII]

I love Capitalism, it has made this country great, but there is something about cell phone carriers that rubs me the wrong way. Maybe they are just a little too cut-throat for my tastes, I don't know...

Everyone does. but when you get down to just a few players in each industry, it's not longer "Capitalism".

If it was capitalism, cell providers wouldn't be able to pass on those costs, for fear that gouging their customers of every cent would move them to other carriers. Since they have nowhere to go, all costs that might eat into profit margins are forced onto the customers, rather than the shareholders.

 

[czerdrill]

Ok, let me attempt to clarify what I am saying, because some people are not getting the point here...

Verizon is challenging this ruling that they cannot block apps that compete with their own services. As I see it, they really only have two decent arguments to try to make:

1) "We should be allowed to restrict apps that cause issues with our networks and infrastructure, or that allows people to use excessive bandwidth that can degrade our performance and impact other paying customers."

On that, I would agree with them. Go after the people that are degrading your performance by using too much bandwidth. Throttle them and give them a warning, if they do it again, enroll them in a more expensive tier. Or charge them more. If they continue to abuse it, suspend their service.

Nobody disputes that. I simply dispute them automatically blaming "tethering" itself in a "preserving our network and performance" argument because they have yet to show that a) Tethering causes that, and b) that non-tetherers don't also use excessive badwidth consumption. Many of us tether and end up using LESS than we paid for, so how are we degrading performance? So in this argument, I feel that they are wrong. If performance and service is the argument and issue, then go after the people abusing that and don't automatically assume that anyone tethering is in that top 5%, because at least with us 3G customers, we probably are not. VZW 3G is crazy slow, barely faster than dial-up. Nobody is using dial-up speed as "free ISP". Maybe with LTE, but again, if they are, they will be in that top 5% with a huge bullseye on their backs and easy pickings.

2) "We have a right to protect our other paid services by blocking apps that allow customers to obtain what we offer, but for free."

If they use that argument, the question becomes, what about free IM clients costing them texting plan revenue? Google Voice and other VoIP apps allowing people to have "unlimited calling plans" while only paying for data and the minimum calling plan? What about free music and video streaming thwarting VCast plans?

See, if they win on the tethering issue based on this argument, then they will have a precident to do the same in those other areas if they decide to. That's my problem with it. This argument can EASILY be applied to many other areas if they are successful.

And as for "this is Capitalism"... Capitalism doesn't mean a free for all. It doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with no consequences. A Free market is only as free and unlimited as we allow it to be. If a company is gouging people or nickle and diming them to death, the flip side of Capitalism is that the consumer is the checks and balance, and occasionally the government does have to step in and enforce or allow something.

Auto makers used to be able to void your warranty if you had your car serviced, even an oil change, at a mechanic that was not a factory dealership. That way they could force you to pay more and use the dealership, else they would just void your warranty. But the government stepped in on the side of consumers and passed a law that said that you can buy a car and use a non-dealer mechanic or do the work yourself without automatically voiding your warranty. Now, the flip side is that if the dealer can PROVE that your problem was the RESULT of doing it yourself, or using a non-dealer mechanic or aftermarket part, then they could charge you for the repair. But they had to prove that what you did was what CAUSED it.

So the Capitalist system allowed dealers to screw consumers before the law was passed, but the government did need to play a role and step in and find some middle ground that was fair to the consumer, but didn't screw the dealerships and manufacturers either.

So while I don't like a lot of government intervention, there are times when it sorta has to, because Capitalism is not perfect, and things can go to far when a company gets too big and starts screwing customers and we might not have the power to fight back when there are only 2 or 3 carriers and they all loosely agree to use the same tactics...

So if VZW wins on the "we reserve the right to protect our paid services", my concern is that they could take that same argument and apply it to texts, VoIP, audio and video streaming, etc...

For your point number 1, they're not blaming the ppl who tether. That was invented on forums like these where ppl who do tether are trying to blame vzw rather then admit they're stealing service. This is the fourth time I said this and will probably be the fourth time you ignore it. VZW never blamed the people who tether without a plan as the reason they are throttling. You have failed to show where the did this and still have failed. What you're doing is buying into what ppl on the forums are saying as truth. "My father's brothers mothers cousins uncles former roommate said vzw is going after tetherers"... they never said that though. Everyone who is in the top 5%, tether or not is affected.

For number 2, it's upto the govt to decide but again its not as clear cut as you think. Even if they are forced to unblock tethering apps, they will not be forced to stop offering paid tethering and they will still throttle. And we'll still have whiners... believe me.

And finally capitalism... you said it.. they can do it because ppl pay for it. Unlike what you think, ppl actually do pay for it, they actually do honor their contract and that's why Verizon charges and will continue to charge for it. You seem to think that the fcc will force Verizon to give its users unlimited, unthrottled free tethering if they side against VZW in this ruling. That is absolutely not going to happen, and in the remotest of remote possibilities that it does, our prices will rise. Plain and simple.

 

[ABQNM]

Ok, let me attempt to clarify what I am saying, because some people are not getting the point here...

Verizon is challenging this ruling that they cannot block apps that compete with their own services. As I see it, they really only have two decent arguments to try to make:

1) "We should be allowed to restrict apps that cause issues with our networks and infrastructure, or that allows people to use excessive bandwidth that can degrade our performance and impact other paying customers."

On that, I would agree with them. Go after the people that are degrading your performance by using too much bandwidth. Throttle them and give them a warning, if they do it again, enroll them in a more expensive tier. Or charge them more. If they continue to abuse it, suspend their service.

Nobody disputes that. I simply dispute them automatically blaming "tethering" itself in a "preserving our network and performance" argument because they have yet to show that a) Tethering causes that, and b) that non-tetherers don't also use excessive badwidth consumption. Many of us tether and end up using LESS than we paid for, so how are we degrading performance? So in this argument, I feel that they are wrong. If performance and service is the argument and issue, then go after the people abusing that and don't automatically assume that anyone tethering is in that top 5%, because at least with us 3G customers, we probably are not. VZW 3G is crazy slow, barely faster than dial-up. Nobody is using dial-up speed as "free ISP". Maybe with LTE, but again, if they are, they will be in that top 5% with a huge bullseye on their backs and easy pickings.

2) "We have a right to protect our other paid services by blocking apps that allow customers to obtain what we offer, but for free."

If they use that argument, the question becomes, what about free IM clients costing them texting plan revenue? Google Voice and other VoIP apps allowing people to have "unlimited calling plans" while only paying for data and the minimum calling plan? What about free music and video streaming thwarting VCast plans?

See, if they win on the tethering issue based on this argument, then they will have a precident to do the same in those other areas if they decide to. That's my problem with it. This argument can EASILY be applied to many other areas if they are successful.

And as for "this is Capitalism"... Capitalism doesn't mean a free for all. It doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with no consequences. A Free market is only as free and unlimited as we allow it to be. If a company is gouging people or nickle and diming them to death, the flip side of Capitalism is that the consumer is the checks and balance, and occasionally the government does have to step in and enforce or allow something.

Auto makers used to be able to void your warranty if you had your car serviced, even an oil change, at a mechanic that was not a factory dealership. That way they could force you to pay more and use the dealership, else they would just void your warranty. But the government stepped in on the side of consumers and passed a law that said that you can buy a car and use a non-dealer mechanic or do the work yourself without automatically voiding your warranty. Now, the flip side is that if the dealer can PROVE that your problem was the RESULT of doing it yourself, or using a non-dealer mechanic or aftermarket part, then they could charge you for the repair. But they had to prove that what you did was what CAUSED it.

So the Capitalist system allowed dealers to screw consumers before the law was passed, but the government did need to play a role and step in and find some middle ground that was fair to the consumer, but didn't screw the dealerships and manufacturers either.

So while I don't like a lot of government intervention, there are times when it sorta has to, because Capitalism is not perfect, and things can go to far when a company gets too big and starts screwing customers and we might not have the power to fight back when there are only 2 or 3 carriers and they all loosely agree to use the same tactics...

So if VZW wins on the "we reserve the right to protect our paid services", my concern is that they could take that same argument and apply it to texts, VoIP, audio and video streaming, etc...

While I appreciate you taking the time to explain that in detail, I want to point out the biggest flaw in your post. As I posted in my first post on this topic, this is not Verizon WIRELESS. This is Verizon COMMUNICATIONS - the home phone, TV and internet provider, who is a functionally separate company from Verizon Wireless. The graphic used on the story is misleading and is the same graphic that most of the major news stories posted so it is understandable why it could be confused. This is Verizon Communications trying to prevent the internet from stealing their TV business. They have been opposed to it since the beginning and will keep fighting it.

This goes to show that not having all the facts can be dangerous. Verizon Wireless is getting flamed and torn to pieces over something that they did not even do. That said, I was still participating with regard to the tethering argument which does not belong in the thread, and although it was off-topic, it was being combined into the above.

 

[guidot]

While tethering may not be the specific reason, the article clearly mentions (Verizon's link) Verizon Wireless as part of Verizon Communications.

Sent from my A855, while on the move.

 

[ABQNM]

While tethering may not be the specific reason, the article clearly mentions (Verizon's link) Verizon Wireless as part of Verizon Communications.

Sent from my A855, while on the move.

True, however that same disclaimer is at the end of every one of their press releases and news articles. The beginning of the article expressly states that Verizon Communications is the one that filed the lawsuit. Verizon is only part owner of Verizon Wireless and their management, including executive management, is completely separate, as they are operated as separate companies which do happen to partner together for certain services.

 

[SquireSCA]

Regardless, how do you folks feel if Verizon takes the stance that they should be able to block free tethering apps because they offer it as a paid service, and if they are succesful on that, that they then applied it to any other app that provides something free that Verizon would normally charge you for?

We all seem to agree that Verizon is greedy, and as a corporation they will try to charge for anything that they think they can get away with. So, to that end, if they are taking this stance that using an app that allows free tethering, even an app that Google released as part of the OS itself, is "illegal" by their difinition, what if that mindset filters down to other services?

Texting/IM?

Streaming music?

Streaming video?

VoIP?

Will all the people giving me a hard time over this tethering issue, sing the same tune if Verizon just takes the stance and logic that some of you readily approve of and seem to like, and applied it to other areas? You would be ok with that if you suddenly had to start paying for many of the things you currently enjoy for free, because Verizon blocks them and requires you to pay a subscription for their service?

See, I see it as not only possible, but even somewhat likely at some point unless there was a law or regulation preventing it. I don't see why one app is different than another. If VZW can block one app to try and make you pay them for it, they can and probably will do it with others. Tethering is not special or unique, it is simply the one that they are fixated at this particular moment in time. Once this battle is won, they will look for the next revenue stream and use this one as a precident for it, IMHO.

 

[ABQNM]

Regardless, how do you folks feel if Verizon takes the stance that they should be able to block free tethering apps because they offer it as a paid service, and if they are succesful on that, that they then applied it to any other app that provides something free that Verizon would normally charge you for?

We all seem to agree that Verizon is greedy, and as a corporation they will try to charge for anything that they think they can get away with. So, to that end, if they are taking this stance that using an app that allows free tethering, even an app that Google released as part of the OS itself, is "illegal" by their difinition, what if that mindset filters down to other services?

Texting/IM?

Streaming music?

Streaming video?

VoIP?

Will all the people giving me a hard time over this tethering issue, sing the same tune if Verizon just takes the stance and logic that some of you readily approve of and seem to like, and applied it to other areas? You would be ok with that if you suddenly had to start paying for many of the things you currently enjoy for free, because Verizon blocks them and requires you to pay a subscription for their service?

See, I see it as not only possible, but even somewhat likely at some point unless there was a law or regulation preventing it. I don't see why one app is different than another. If VZW can block one app to try and make you pay them for it, they can and probably will do it with others. Tethering is not special or unique, it is simply the one that they are fixated at this particular moment in time. Once this battle is won, they will look for the next revenue stream and use this one as a precident for it, IMHO.

Tethering does not compete with their voice or video services, so it can be blocked. Tethering puts additional strain on the network and that is why you have to pay more to use it or you have to bypass Verizon's plans. It has been the policy for as long as I can remember, even back to before the Windows Mobile 5 days, that you cannot tether without a tethering plan. Users have been doing it for years, but it only became an issue with the huge growth in smartphones. Illegal tethering would be no different than hacking an IPTV box to function as a cable modem (assuming it could be done). You are modifying a device to obtain another service that is offered at a fee. With TV, you could be arrested on federal charges for doing just that, but with mobile internet, it is just a civil matter.

As to your allegation that using the Google supplied tethering is "illegal," that is completely false. If you use an Android phone that has the tethering included by Android, that will direct you to the tethering signup page if you don't have a plan (as long as the tethering app has not been hacked or replaced by a custom rom dev). It has since it launched. Nowhere did Google ever say that it was free or to bypass carrier tethering plans.

As to your other services you listed, Verizon Wireless is not blocking them. That is what the Net Neutrality law will prevent and how this entire debate got started. Maybe you should go research that before you make claims you cannot substantiate.

So, my words to those arguing about the tethering are that if you don't like their policy on tethering, then you had the option not to sign up with Verizon and you can go to another carrier if this still bothers you. Nothing has changed other than they are actually enforcing policies that have been in place for years and customers have had ample opportunity to make themselves aware of. If you break the agreement you have with Verizon, they have the right to enforce it.

I don't really like these debates because I would much rather this be a friendly place, but if we resort to bashing over false information it makes it tough to ignore and I want anyone who I have addressed to understand that this is in no way personally directed toward anyone, but merely my responses to and clarification of posted statements.

 

[czerdrill]

Tethering does not compete with their voice or video services, so it can be blocked. Tethering puts additional strain on the network and that is why you have to pay more to use it or you have to bypass Verizon's plans. It has been the policy for as long as I can remember, even back to before the Windows Mobile 5 days, that you cannot tether without a tethering plan. Users have been doing it for years, but it only became an issue with the huge growth in smartphones. Illegal tethering would be no different than hacking an IPTV box to function as a cable modem (assuming it could be done). You are modifying a device to obtain another service that is offered at a fee. With TV, you could be arrested on federal charges for doing just that, but with mobile internet, it is just a civil matter.

As to your allegation that using the Google supplied tethering is "illegal," that is completely false. If you use an Android phone that has the tethering included by Android, that will direct you to the tethering signup page if you don't have a plan (as long as the tethering app has not been hacked or replaced by a custom rom dev). It has since it launched. Nowhere did Google ever say that it was free or to bypass carrier tethering plans.

As to your other services you listed, Verizon Wireless is not blocking them. That is what the Net Neutrality law will prevent and how this entire debate got started. Maybe you should go research that before you make claims you cannot substantiate.

So, my words to those arguing about the tethering are that if you don't like their policy on tethering, then you had the option not to sign up with Verizon and you can go to another carrier if this still bothers you. Nothing has changed other than they are actually enforcing policies that have been in place for years and customers have had ample opportunity to make themselves aware of. If you break the agreement you have with Verizon, they have the right to enforce it.

I don't really like these debates because I would much rather this be a friendly place, but if we resort to bashing over false information it makes it tough to ignore and I want anyone who I have addressed to understand that this is in no way personally directed toward anyone, but merely my responses to and clarification of posted statements.

To add to and agree with what you're saying, if Verizon were to do something like charge you using apps that they allow which are not provisioned for in the TOS (like tethering is, and which they would not do), you can opt out without an ETF. If you still stick with Verizon, and agree to abide by the new TOS that would be implemented if that were to happen, you would have no one to blame but yourself if you get charged. Simple as that.

All this of course is moot, because VZW is not going to do this since it is like you said a violation of net neutrality.

 

[SquireSCA]

To add to and agree with what you're saying, if Verizon were to do something like charge you using apps that they allow which are not provisioned for in the TOS (like tethering is, and which they would not do), you can opt out without an ETF. If you still stick with Verizon, and agree to abide by the new TOS that would be implemented if that were to happen, you would have no one to blame but yourself if you get charged. Simple as that.

All this of course is moot, because VZW is not going to do this since it is like you said a violation of net neutrality.

I wonder sometimes... I had read and looked at hundreds of your posts over the past several months, and have yet to see a single post that I can recall, of you being critical of VZW, or Apple for that matter. Every post I have read has been to defend either company from any and all criticisms.

You mentioned before why you feel that some people accuse you of "working for them" or "being a fanboi", but I think the fact that your stance seems to be to protect them from any and all criticism, leads people to think that...

 

[czerdrill]

I wonder sometimes... I had read and looked at hundreds of your posts over the past several months, and have yet to see a single post that I can recall, of you being critical of VZW, or Apple for that matter. Every post I have read has been to defend either company from any and all criticisms.

You mentioned before why you feel that some people accuse you of "working for them" or "being a fanboi", but I think the fact that your stance seems to be to protect them from any and all criticism, leads people to think that...

Ok I'm the CEO of Verizon and I have 75% ownership of Apple haha...how does that make a difference? I'm happy with my service. If that makes you or anyone else label me as a fanboy or an employee of the companies that I support, so be it. To be honest, to me, it seems extremely fanboyish of those people to suggest that the only way you can disagree with something is if you have some kind of stake in the opposing viewpoint. If I'm a fanboy, what exactly does that make you? You're suggesting that I should agree with what your saying, even though what you're saying is wrong, simply because I own an Android phone? I'm not going to sit here and denounce Apple and Verizon just because i'm on an Android site. That's what you're doing.

You're suggesting that I should view Apple as an evil conglomerate simply because they are doing what every other company in the world would do in their situation, just because I have a "Google" phone?

It's not like you're correct. That's where you seem like far more a fanboy then me. You are continuing to say things that are decidedly wrong, present arguments that are patently false and you're still arguing those same points even when others point out to you how wrong you are. My only conclusion at this point is you are Larry Page and Sergey Brin's illegitimate lovechild and Eric Schmidt is your godfather. There is no other likely explanation for your continued support of Google.

Sounds pretty silly, no?

 

[SquireSCA]

Ok I'm the CEO of Verizon and I have 75% ownership of Apple haha...how does that make a difference? I'm happy with my service. If that makes you or anyone else label me as a fanboy or an employee of the companies that I support, so be it. To be honest, to me, it seems extremely fanboyish of those people to suggest that the only way you can disagree with something is if you have some kind of stake in the opposing viewpoint. If I'm a fanboy, what exactly does that make you? You're suggesting that I should agree with what your saying, even though what you're saying is wrong, simply because I own an Android phone? I'm not going to sit here and denounce Apple and Verizon just because i'm on an Android site. That's what you're doing.

You're suggesting that I should view Apple as an evil conglomerate simply because they are doing what every other company in the world would do in their situation, just because I have a "Google" phone?

It's not like you're correct. That's where you seem like far more a fanboy then me. You are continuing to say things that are decidedly wrong, present arguments that are patently false and you're still arguing those same points even when others point out to you how wrong you are. My only conclusion at this point is you are Larry Page and Sergey Brin's illegitimate lovechild and Eric Schmidt is your godfather. There is no other likely explanation for your continued support of Google.

Sounds pretty silly, no?

No, I just mean that I am a fan of many things, but it doesn't cloud my judgement enough that I can never acknowledge when they fall short. Doesn't matter what item we are talking about, some of the things I love the most, I can be honest with myself and admit where they are not perfect or they fall short.

I think that when a person can ONLY see one angle, or ONLY acknowledge what they feel to be positives, and defend to the death anything negative no matter how small, I think that it does lead people to think that the person is a fanboi and that perhaps they are not nearly as objective about things as they would like to believe.

 

[Skrimpy]

I love Capitalism, it has made this country great, but there is something about cell phone carriers that rubs me the wrong way. Maybe they are just a little too cut-throat for my tastes, I don't know...

Its not capitalism when they can lobby to get bills changed in their favor, which I'm surprised they have not done with this one. Its not capitalism when everyone only offers a similar price. Its not capitalism when you have to buy services you don't want because you can get them somewhere else cheaper. That's called, collusion, monopoly, trusts, and cartels. Plain and simple.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using DroidForums

 

[czerdrill]

No, I just mean that I am a fan of many things, but it doesn't cloud my judgement enough that I can never acknowledge when they fall short. Doesn't matter what item we are talking about, some of the things I love the most, I can be honest with myself and admit where they are not perfect or they fall short.

I think that when a person can ONLY see one angle, or ONLY acknowledge what they feel to be positives, and defend to the death anything negative no matter how small, I think that it does lead people to think that the person is a fanboi and that perhaps they are not nearly as objective about things as they would like to believe.

I'm plenty objective. Maybe you've only looked at my posts where I'm not blindly foaming at the mouth and saying "Google! Google!" I use probably every Google product known to man, and I have zero plans on getting an iPhone as my next phone or any phone after that (not to say that I would never get one, but its not in my pipeline right now or in the near future).

I say what I mean based on my own experiences. I don't try to talk for anyone else. simple as that. If that makes you conclude that the only logical (and I use that word lightly) explanation is that I'm a fanboy, or an employee of Apple or Verizon, I really can't say much to change your mind, right? But it works both ways. In this very thread, you were arguing points which were completely wrong and refusing to relent from those arguments even when proven wrong. So again, you must be a fanboy of Android. You must drink the Google Kool-Aid and listen to uncle Eric and do whatever he tells you. I hope you can appreciate how unimaginably foolish that insinuation is. That's exactly what you're saying to me...

 

[SquireSCA]

Its not capitalism when they can lobby to get bills changed in their favor, which I'm surprised they have not done with this one. Its not capitalism when everyone only offers a similar price. Its not capitalism when you have to buy services you don't want because you can get them somewhere else cheaper. That's called, collusion, monopoly, trusts, and cartels. Plain and simple.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using DroidForums

But it's Verizon, so it is ok, or so I have read...

 

[czerdrill]

But it's Verizon, so it is ok, or so I have read...

apparently it is ok, since you're still a verizon customer. You really make no sense complaining about them and continuing to pay them. You're supporting them just as much as I am, the difference is your whining about it, and I'm not.