"fully committed" to an open internet
Which is why they're suing to prevent rules establishing it as such...
Makes perfect sense to me.
Verizon Communications has filed an appeal in a US court to block the Federal Communications Commission's new net neutrality rules. The edict, which dictates how internet service providers can manage their networks, is due to come into force on 20 November, despite much criticism from both neutral net nuts and big business. …
The FCC does have the power to govern the telephone system and dial up internet. Since Verizon is making their telephony services all IP instead of POTS it does not relieve them of the original regulatory burden, in fact it may prove they are trying to skirt the existing laws.
I believe that existing law covering POTS & Dialup Internet requires that Network Backbone Providers (Verizon, AT&T Etc.) allow for unimpeded competition from third party ISP's over the backbone network. That network has been "IP" for about 10 years now.
It is not a stretch to consider "Net Neutrality" regulations cover what is essentially the same ground.
The real question is how much "graft" (Campaign contributions) have Verizon paid so far and to whom!
One might say even say that by shunting their voice transport onto IP, while still making it look like a phone and calling it a phone, they have effective *handed* the FCC authority over their data trafficking and had they wished to leave the FCC out of it, they would have been well-served to leave the services ENTIRELY distinct and separate.
Why not allow the punters to select management options on a month-by-month basis and default to a managed but sensible option such as:
I'd like bt throttled from 6pm to midnight and voice given priority at all times.
I want a free-for-all.
Internet free-for-all and I've paid for a separate pvc for voice.
Just make the rules symmetrical - inbound and outbound are the same.
What we don't want is vendor-specific priorities. I don't want the funding for my internet access to be paid for by MS so that my linux ISO's take forever to download. I don't want my voice traffic to be squeezed because I haven't taken vendor X's voice package.
If you try choking torrent traffic it'll just disappear into a vpn and become unmanageable.
People may not like the idea of peak/off-peak quotas but they are a relatively painless way (for both users and providers) of getting bulk transfers moved away from peak-interactive times.
In fact, I'll bet some some of the download client producers wouldn't mind some isp sponsorship in return for producing auto-offpeak scheduling configurations. How about adding peak/offpeak information into DNS or dhcp?
Verizon is trying to force a "you can only get it at Verizon" with FIOS when it isn't even here.
Maybe there network wouldn't need throttling if they provided the fiber service they talk up so much.
I have seen to many FIOS commercials about how great it is while still not available where I live.
It should be the next thing for the FCC to look into.
I'm not in the middle of nowhere, I live in New Jersey, one of the most populated States in the US.
It's between New York City and Philadelphia, which is between Boston and Washington DC, at one of the most concentrated population points in the US.
If they want my money, give me the infrastructure that they promise, not hold content hostage as an excuse for a slower network.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022