Verizon wants to edit (read censor) the Internet

[Anak]

Court documents filed earlier this month with the United States Court of Appeals provide insights into Verizon’s complaints with the Federal Communications Commission over its Open Internet Order. The carrier sued the FCC earlier this year in an effort to have the order reversed and as Media Matters reports, one of Verizon’s legal arguments is questionable at best.

Source: Verizon net neutrality -- FCC lawsuit: Verizon wants to edit the net

I have Vz FiOS, but for how long if this takes effect....

More: Verizon, an American ISP, wants to censor the Internet | dotTech

 

[Layback Bear]

Verizon reminds me of MSNBC. You will see what we want you to see and hear opinions that we agree with only. If you don't agree we will condemn you to the rest of the world.

 

[Anak]

That could also be said of Fox news.

 

[michaelst]

First... only government is capable of censorship. A private company 'edits' it's content.

And B, if they want to edit what their customers see on the Internet, then their customers will ultimately decide if that's what they want. I say, let em do it. See what happens.

 

[Anak]

But, what is the ulterior motive of trying to fix something that is not broken?

 

[Layback Bear]

Verizon thinks it's broken because we have full access to information of all kinds. They want to choose access to match their beliefs. Like MSNBC or Fox. We have access to both. We get to see both sides and make are choices. This is just a example. Watch and believe what you want, I do.

 

[Anak]

I try not to watch either.

Any, all of the major News? outlets are nothing but pomp, and circumstance, no substance.

I can't even believe PBS, VOA, or BBC anymore, and CSPAN, forget it, it's like watching paint dry.

 

[michaelst]

Personally... I wouldn't believe in anything if it weren't for my lucky astrology mood watch


(snaps to Steve Martin, 1977)

 

[solarmystic]

Verizon? Of all companies?

They used to be great; they were the first ISP to aggressively push FIOS, which is the gold standard of the American Internet (although they did mention they were scaling back recently), and had no usage caps.

Other ISPs like Comcast, and Time Warner Cable were just langushing in their self imposed mediocrity due to being a part of a duopoly or monopoly on the local markets, content to just rely on existing infrastructure and milking thier subscribers dry with ever restrictive usage caps and allowances. They've even lobbied to stop Municipal based fiber optic Internet services offering superior solutions for cheaper to the consumer, fearing market share loss.

I thought Comcast, which was the big bad wolf when it came to usage allocations per customer and their 'helpful' DNS redirections, would be the 1st one to jump on this 'venture'!

I guess I was wrong.

 

[Anak]

There are reports as far back as 2006, also in 2010 that Vz has scaled back their FiOS installations, and I can only imagine that Central PA. where we are, was included into the Megalopolis that encompasses the Boston, MA. to Washington D.C. corridor that allowed our area to be included into the service areas.
There are areas in Northwest PA. that still don't or won't have it mostly because of infrastructure logistics.

My nephew, and DW have Embarq which is a subsidiary of CenturyLink. They can't get Vz because Embarq has a monopoly in Perry County that is just over the mountain from us.

This is a development of local governments from counties on down to municipalities that were allowed to set conditions before cable providers were allowed to enter, and service their jurisdictions.
There are hundreds, maybe thousands of provider fiefdoms in PA.

We have no usage caps, for now, and one service I really wanted to see is called a la' carte programming, it would save almost half of our bill, but I won't be holding my breath.

Of the two ISP's you mention I can only say that Comcast was the "big bad wolf" in our area until they saw that Vz was going to make their push with FiOS, and they have improved their service slowly, but surely. Comcast seems to be letting Vz forge ahead, to watch for, and learn from consumer reaction from Vz mis-steps.
Time Warner Cable is, I believe to the East of us, and I don't hear much about them.

 

[Phone Man]

Verizon's argument is that they are a communication service just like Radio, TV, Cable and Newspapers and should have the same right to control what they present to the customer as these other services do now.

Jim

 

[Anak]

Verizon's argument is that they are a communication service just like Radio, TV, Cable and Newspapers and should have the same right to control what they present to the customer as these other services do now.

Jim

I would have no problem with that as long as Vz limits that control explicitly to content they (Vz) create, and not to what they provide as a facilitator from the Internet or Web, there is a difference.

If a ruling came down that favored Vz I can envision them charging not only for providing access to the Internet, but also to any area of the Internet they (Vz) deem fit just as Radio, TV, Cable, and Newspapers do now on their sites.
You can look, but if you want to see more you have to subscribe.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.
What would your thoughts be if your ISP wanted to not only charge you for access to the Internet, but also charge you for access to SevenForums, your email, your banking, your schooling, and government services?

They make enormous amounts of money on advertising, and now they want to double-dip?

 

[Richardc269]

Verizon's argument is that they are a communication service just like Radio, TV, Cable and Newspapers and should have the same right to control what they present to the customer as these other services do now.

Jim

I would have no problem with that as long as Vz limits that control explicitly to content they (Vz) create, and not to what they provide as a facilitator from the Internet or Web, there is a difference.

If a ruling came down that favored Vz I can envision them charging not only for providing access to the Internet, but also to any area of the Internet they (Vz) deem fit just as Radio, TV, Cable, and Newspapers do now on their sites.
You can look, but if you want to see more you have to subscribe.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.
What would your thoughts be if your ISP wanted to not only charge you for access to the Internet, but also charge you for access to SevenForums, your email, your banking, your schooling, and government services?

They make enormous amounts of money on advertising, and now they want to double-dip?

If they do that, I highly doubt even my dad would stay with this company, and my dad's a cheap-asshat.