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

Verizon doesn’t like the idea of “open internet.” At least not the idea of it potentially cutting into their profits. Today, Verizon filed an appeal in federal court claiming the rules of “Net Neutrality” are unnecessary and will create confusion for investors.  Verizon released this statement on their website:

Verizon is fully committed to an open Internet. We are deeply concerned by the FCC’s assertion of broad authority to impose potentially sweeping and unneeded regulations on broadband networks and services and on the Internet itself. We believe this assertion of authority is inconsistent with the statute and will create uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers.

The Net Neutrality ruling just became official last week and if you haven’t been keeping up to date with your tech news, says that carriers can’t block legit law-abiding sites (or apps) that directly compete with their service. For instance, it would be like AT&T blocking you from visiting competing carrier Sprint’s website. Not cool, right? Here’s what the FCC had to say about the new Net Neutrality regulation that goes into effect November 20th.

First, transparency: fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and commercial terms of their broadband services. Second, no blocking: fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services. Third, no unreasonable discrimination: fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.

The internet should be free and open (we like that word around here). Anyone that disagrees well, probably has the title of CEO somewhere in their name.

[Phonescoop via Gizmodo]

Continue reading:




  • http://twitter.com/SpamStream lolwut

    Of course they do. [iPhone] them.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_F7V6C22THBTBKRFS6G2WKDKTOU eric

      OH COME ON..iphone them?

  • http://www.facebook.com/VampyreBytes Sean Prunka

    I’m not surprised by this…Wish it were otherwise, but honestly, as much as a free and open Internet is a good thing for people.. it really isn’t good for Big Business. (Things that good for one are **VERY** rarely good for the other, sadly enough.)

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_F7V6C22THBTBKRFS6G2WKDKTOU eric

      your free and open internet led to big businesses like google, facebook, cisco, zynga, htc (coming from no where to on top of the smart phone business because of the free and open internet) ….the open internet leads to more competition and innovation..how can u say that it isn’t good for big business

    • dbcad7

      Look at Google TV.. and the network sites that blocked them.. this is what net neutrality is meant to prevent. These same sites were freely available to anybody with a web browser, but because it was going through Google TV they blocked it.. Your content is either for sale, or it’s freely available.. The networks may have not liked it or understood the principle, but Google TV is really nothing more than a souped up browser.. If they don’t want to offer free content, that is their prerogative.. just stop it and then negotiate to supply it.. simple.
      .
      What people really want, is not to be monitored.. there have been recent reports of people receiving emails from ISP’s warning them that someone at their location is downloading copyrighted material.. Whether or not it’s true, it’s like having someone eavesdrop onto your phone conversation. And even if true, who are the ISP’s to enforce copyright laws for some other company ?.. Leave the damn Internet alone.. nobody is stopping anybody from creating an alternate, locked down, pay as you go, content approved, free from pron, kid safe, retinal scan to log in, version of the internet that is like they want it to be.

      • $6143719

        You can Thank Obama for ISP monitoring. They were all against it before Obama stepped in on behalf of Hollywood. It’s actually policy now. Google it.

        http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Comcast-Verizon-throttle-six-strikes-Obama,news-11799.html

        Last paragraph explains it. Plus the ACTA.

        BTW I was gonna buy Google TV until it got blocked so bad it’s useless

        • dbcad7

          Your link is the only one I have found to lump in the Obama administration as responsible for this (not accurate or even needed to make this bad by the way).. It seems more like the MPAA and all the other lawyers got together with the ISP’s lawyers and decided to do this.. not because the gubmnt told em to.. but because they want deals to provide movies and music and such. These people can do what they want outside the law until a law stops them.. So again we come back to net neutrality.. Unless the bits I am sending back and forth are attacking someone, or cause the network harm, it’s nobodies business what those bits are and are not.

          • Steven Skwarkowski

            Not true dbcad7. Although I completely dislike this monitoring I have already been a victim of. You have to understand these similair approaches help authorities catch more illegal activities in the US.

            We may not like the idea, and this approach of punishing the masses to catch the few it pointless it does show who is for and against what in the game today.

            They dont mention it, but Cox Communications is also part of this as we got a warning email (I forgot to turn on peerblock). Yes it was legitimate, but I dont really care.

            Those with a purpose will always get what they want. An individual like myself will always be able to sidestep these pointless policies.

            My biggest problem is: ISPs will monitor and possibly throttle SUSPECTED abusers. This allows ISPs to technically deny you the service you pay for and that legal somehow!

    • JBrowne1012

      Oh yeah its bad as in they can’t screw us unfairly as they have.

    • blaque_prince

      Are you a person or a big business?

      • tn7871

        Ask the Supreme Court. They don’t make a distinction.

  • http://profiles.google.com/daniel142005 Daniel Weisinger

    The only one that I think should be modified is “Third, no unreasonable discrimination: fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.”

    Imo, it should leave the option for prioritizing VOIP traffic since LTE will handle voice over data in the future. VOIP requires a consistent low-latency connection, and other applications could interfere with that.

  • tn7871

    People keep saying how this will hurt business, but that’s not true. The water company doesn’t tell you what you’re allowed to use their water for. The electricity company doesn’t tell you what kind of lamp to buy. Comcast doesn’t tell you what kind of TV to have. Why shouldn’t internet companies be treated like every other utility? The only way this hurts them is that it would stop them from taking away the open internet we already have. I don’t mind having a cap on how much I can use, but I would definitely have a problem if Verizon signed a deal with Hulu to slow down Netflix traffic. And that’s where this is headed if we don’t have a legal framework for open internet. Too bad our government is bought and paid for by big companies with deep pockets.

    • http://profiles.google.com/davidsmoot David Smoot

      You are absolutely correct and that is the exact reason they don’t like it. The carriers don’t want to become commodities like water and power because commoditization brings much lower profit. They will fight commoditization tooth and nail.

      • quintus murray

        in the end they will lose

  • http://profiles.google.com/jeff.texas Jeffrey Boutte

    Yay let’s jump on the class warfare bandwagon. Hate “big business” and “millionaires and billionaires” for keeping us down.

    I’m so sick of this attitude that somehow CEOs are evil people because they are out to make a profit. Drop the Marxist class warfare crap and stick to android news.

    • babadush

      Apparently the term “the bottom line ” is foreign to you

    • ScottColbert

      So much ignorance in such an incoherent rant. Good for you!

    • The_ATL_Guy

      No doubt. Finally a voice of reason.

    • blaque_prince

      I’m so tired of people pulling out this strawman. Nobody said anything about anybody being evil. A business is like a hurricane. It means you no harm but if you’re in its way it can kill you. We can’t stop a hurricane from doing what it does currently but we can try to keep a business from running over you.

      Business care about one thing…profit. Thats what they’re supposed to do. But that doesn’t mean we as individuals should stand there like friggin idiots and let them do whatever they want and disregard our own personal best interests. It could be most profitable for the companies to agree to control the information we receive to keep us from making educated choices. We’d be complete fools to sit there and let them do it. Now watch somebody comes along with some libertarian utopia pipe dream garbage about market forces keeping this from happening while completely ignoring human nature and psychology. Market forces are not the laws of physics. Funny thing is how the corporations want that governing body just as much as the “socialists” do (patents, trademarks, digital rights etc.) but thats ignored.

      • ru0ster

        “Business care about one thing…profit.”

        Forgive the Socratic methodology but, wouldn’t profit require pleasing ones customers?

        The true straw-man argument here is that profit is evil. You are more than capable of defending your own best interest by not purchasing a product or service because, you don’t like their business practices.

        In my humble opinion it is not the role of government to protect us this way and, without changing the argument to ‘What is the role of government’, let me ask you this. Shouldn’t Verizon be free to provide whatever service they feel their customers will buy without government dictating to them?

        • AGx

          Profit does not require pleasing ones customers. Look at the recent trend of unlimited data plan pricing. The large majority of people are not happy with it, we’re just stuck with it.

          • ru0ster

            Could you not switch to Sprint or some local provider with unlimited data? You’re only stuck with it because you chose to be. If you don’t like it don’t buy it. You don’t have to have a smart phone. Unless the alternative is worse in which case, your provider is banking on you still liking them over the competition. So, you still pay. Why do you think you have to pay if you’re not satisfied?

            Netflix has made a lot of customers unhappy with their DVD/Streaming plan. Those customer maybe switching to Amazon or Google movies or some other competitor.

        • MWFish

          In a completely open and free market, this is true. If Comcast starts throttling certain sites, you could theoretically go with… dial-up? The problem we run into with the ISP market is exactly this. There are insurmountable barriers to entry, so someone can’t just open up a competing business and supply what the market wants. In most parts of america, your internet choices usually boil down to one broadband supplier, one crappy satellite or 3g web provider, and a few dial-up options. That prevents the market from correcting, prevents people from being able to serve their own interests by switching providers, and warrants the role of government.

          I for one, think it’s hilarious that Verizon’s own statement basically says “Hey. We love net neutrality. We’re gonna be all neutral all day long, I tell you. So take away these laws that make us do exactly what we’re saying we want to do.”

        • blaque_prince

          I’m glad you identified another strawman by trying to argue on it. No one said anything about profit being evil.

          And profit does not require that you please your customers. It only requires that you make your customers believe that they are being pleased. Its much easier to market crap than it is to make a good product. In fact when you start a company you put your focus in marketing and not the actual product. And thats what all of this is about….protecting the average Joe from deceptive marketing or worse yet completely blocking the marketing of a competitor.

          Personally I don’t care about Verizons freedom because Verizon is not a person contrary to popular belief. I care more about my freedom and your freedom. Verizon can be free to do whatever it wants as long as we as people have our choices protected at all costs.

          And the role of government is whatever we choose to make it since we ARE the government. Its time to stop thinking of government as some headless entity that we don’t control or it will wither and we will be controlled. Its time to stop making excuse after excuse for protecting the rights of inanimate entities at the potential expense of our own rights and freedoms. We do not all have to have our daily bread funneled through major corporations to survive. It is possible for many people to provide services and goods individually for their own benefit.

          We put dogs, cats and corporations before our own welfare in this country and its plain and simply time to stop. Its time we take control.

    • tn7871

      I’m not sure you actually know what Marxism is.. Slightly left of extreme-right-wing has somehow become “communism” to idiot American conservatives.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7O5ABRUQC4XMV4U35MIOT6GMUU Joe

      Are you high? Like, really high?

      How is that the message you got from this? All everyone is saying is “Don’t limit our internet.” I guess wanting a free and open internet means promoting “Marxist class warfare.”

      Looks like someone took an Econ 101 course and wants to show off what he learned. . .

    • http://www.facebook.com/Blestsol Michael Williams

      You slow or something? Or would you rather us be like “Damn the Companies are cracking down on us, Well they gotta make their profit. I understand support them messing with my rights.”?

    • AGx

      The only part of that comment I agree with you on is the “stick to Android news”. This article has NOTHING to do with Android.

      (I know Android devices can use the web but we know thats not the point of this article)

  • $6143719

    Look at how Verizon treats Driod Bionic Chargers – only ones made by Verizon or Moto will work. If they are strict with their chargers imagine if the had REAL control over your data usage.

    btw – losing your original charger in a foreign country and needing a quick charge is a no go to Bionic owners when there is no “official” chargers for sale – is a great example and not just being cheap lol

    • chris125

      That is moto not verizon. Not to mention both moto and verizon said that would be changed in the upcoming update.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2CFOT6DT2IB67AQHRVRGZTHX3U Andrew Gallant

    Like another commenter said, stick to Android news please. There’s no reason for you to inject your politics in the middle of it.

    • moises1204

      well this news is to all users and that is including android user too if din’t know.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2CFOT6DT2IB67AQHRVRGZTHX3U Andrew Gallant

        Re-read the article. There is a clear bias in favor of Net Neutrality legislation.

    • blaque_prince

      If your carrier all of a sudden decided to start blocking the political views you agree with it would be news for you. Oh I know….switch to another carrier. Nothing stops them all from doing it. Ask the banks with their new fees.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2CFOT6DT2IB67AQHRVRGZTHX3U Andrew Gallant

        That problem doesn’t exist and there’s no evidence that it will exist.

        Our choices aren’t “carriers block competing interests” and “government tells carriers what they can and can’t block.”

        • blaque_prince

          This type of thinking saddens me. What evidence do you have that it will never exist? We can already see throttling taking place on certain types of content. You must already pay once for data to come to your phone and then again to move the data from your phone to another device. We already see networks singling out Google by blocking their content from a computing device that connects to a TV while allowing it on just about any laptop that also connects to a TV.

          What gives you the idea that anything outside of the threat of consequences at the hands of the government be it from an investigation or class action suit from the people stops these things from going any further right this instant? If you owned a business would you want your competitors adds displayed in your domain if you could control it? Good business sense would dictate that you not allow this right? So somehow this all changes when its your competitors information coming over your network?

          The problem here is that people don’t think like a business about these things. They just believe everyone will do whats best and it will all work out for everyone.

    • tn7871

      Uh, it’s news about Verizon, a popular Android carrier. If they were to get their way, it would affect all of their customers. How is this not relevant to Android?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2CFOT6DT2IB67AQHRVRGZTHX3U Andrew Gallant

        Re-read the article. There is a clear bias in favor of Net Neutrality legislation.

        • tn7871

          Maybe because “neutral” doesn’t have a left or right stance. The government is for the people, not Verizon. You can’t really argue about that. The only people opposed to net neutrality are very extreme right-wing. Normal people don’t see it as “biased” and they understand the need to have it. P.S. This is a blog. Even if it were biased, it doesn’t really matter. If you want news, then go to a reputable news site or buy a newspaper. Blogs don’t follow the same standards.

  • blaque_prince

    Ya know it cracks me up how people worry about the government…listen to lyrics like “they will not control us” in Uprising and then get mad when corporations are NOT allowed to control us.

  • JMcGee

    The internet should be free and open.

    Free of government interference and open to experimentation and different ideas.

    If Verizon decided to do something which made my internet experience terrible, I could switch carriers. If the government did the same, I’d just be screwed. It’s an easy choice for me. Don’t regulate the internet.

    • Leigh Smith

      Most people are on a 1-2 year contract. If they decided to limit your internet experience then how long before you were only able to view websites and use services that are paying them.

      You enjoy Netflix and Hulu? What if Verizon slowed them to an unusable state unless they pay to increase their speeds on that domain? Now take that and apply it to the big 4 (3). Your cost for those services would either increase significantly or they would not be able to compete.

      Like youtube? How about we start charging you $10/month for that? We don’t support any search sites besides bing and aol in our “basic” internet package. You could use our premium which includes those websites for an additonal $20 a month.

      This would be slow to start while one carrier tests the waters and then they will all jump on the wagon.

    • tn7871

      “If Verizon decided to do something which made my internet experience terrible, I could switch carriers.”

      I’m not sure where you live, but in a lot of places (like in my area – Kansas City) there isn’t a choice. I either have Comcast or AT&T. If they both do the same thing, where is my choice in providers? And it’s not “regulating the internet.” This is the whole point of net neutrality, to keep everything open. If the government were trying to dictate what websites you could go to, that would be regulating the internet. Telling companies to not favor one site over another is hardly a “regulation.”

    • MWFish

      Libertarian ideals work very well in a free market. However, the very nature of broadband internet prevents the ISP market from ever being free. Most of the country is subject to ISP monopolies, and the choice to switch carriers really only applies to the small fraction of people that happen to be lucky enough to live somewhere with a duopoly. The internet is quite simply a utility, like gas and electricity. The fact that we treat it like an open market is the exact reason that America (the original inventors of the internet) has the worst internet in the first world.

  • abqnm

    Did anyone notice that this is misleading with the verizonwireless.com graphic but the statement is from Verizon COMMUNICATIONS, which is completely separate from verizonwireless.com in its operations? This is not verizonwireless.com’ statement. It is Verizon the home phone and internet provider. That said, I still disagree with them.

    • http://profiles.google.com/dossa002 Andrew Dos Santos

      THANK YOU! I was wondering if this even crossed one person’s mind…

    • http://twitter.com/ThePubShow The Pub Show

      Also misleading, the title:
      “Verizon Doesn’t Like The Idea Of “Open Internet””

      Yet, the first item quoted from Verizon in relation to the article:
      “Verizon is fully committed to an open Internet”

      Sounds like they like it to me! I get the implication of them fighting the ruling, but when they outright say they support net neutrality, just not in it’s current form, you can’t just stick words in their mouth.

      A better title might be, “Verizon challenges FCC Ruling on “Open Internet”.”

      • MWFish

        To be fair, it’s kind of hilarious that Verizon’s statement basically boils down to “We love net neutrality. We want to follow it. Just don’t make laws that stop us from doing the opposite of what we just said we want to do.”

  • dan4patriots

    its about time they realise they are nothing but dumb pipes

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7O5ABRUQC4XMV4U35MIOT6GMUU Joe

      Bills > Patriots

      • dan4patriots

        you wish Patriots > Rest of NFL

  • Adam abolian

    I think it is about profits and control. Look at limited data. Soon there could only be sprint left with that, but their network is slow as molasses. These companies know smartphones are a hot item even in a down economy. They are now getting to the point that they can just suck money out of people. Isn’t a coincidence that with the advent of data sipping 4g that data is becoming limited. Now possibly this? People need to stand up to this financial tyranny. And what if they did block particular web sites? On step closer to controlling our minds. Right now the internet is one of the only places for free thought. Take parts of that away and it limits information that is accessible. Corporations will take everything thay can until the people stand up.

    • ru0ster

      Then subscribe to a different provider. You are more then capable.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=202910224 Alex Wynn

        And how would you suggest he subscribes to this other provider when his current one won’t allow him to view their websites, or compare prices, this would be the same as your phone company limiting who you are allowed to make phone calls to.

      • MWFish

        Imagine you’re in my (and most of America’s) shoes. You have one provider that offers you actual usable internet, and then the only other provider in town charges the same price for a 1Mbps connection that is usually very iffy in terms of reliability. Now that provider who actually gives you usable internet decides to block you from netflix, any conservative news sites, and the sales site for the 1Mbps provider. Would it be fair of me to tell you to just “grab a phonebook and call up the unusable, unreliable, barely-faster-than-dial-up provider,” in this situation?

  • Adam abolian

    One other thing, I do not support the average person paying excessive amoumts of money to fat cat ceos for huge profits, that in turn want to limit the internet and control content.

  • Justin King

    The very fact the that FCC makes the distinction between fixed and mobile broadban

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XY5R6PV4BL5R2ZCAP4UC4NQJX4 Daniel

    It’s all over once you let government start regulating the internet. Sure you think they’ll do the right thing and protect you from evil big business. Just like they fixed debit card fees, and now you’ll pay $5 /month for using your debit card. Just like they fixed home ownership by forcing banks to offer loans to unqualified borrowers.

    It’s unconstitutional for the government to regulate the internet.

    And for those that say you’re stuck with something, I’d encourage you to think if you’re really stuck. Do you absolutely have to have a smartphone? Cable TV? The only reason gov’t regulates utilities is because they’re a monopoly. There’s no monopoly in wireless–you have choices, including the choice to NOT buy the service.

  • ru0ster

    I envy you if you can afford a 1Mbps internet connection. Would choosing no internet access be totally unacceptable in your view? I can appreciate your dissatisfaction.

    There is also the corner gas station collusion scenario where they fix the prices higher to mutually profit. That is illegal to my knowledge, as it should be. Gas however, is a commodity and perhaps that is the debate we should have is whether or not internet or communication access is a commodity.

    Do you feel you’re entitled to access electronic data and communications?

    An alternative is to move to some place that has more choice of communication resources. But if you’re like me (and most American’s) that is too expensive. Your situation has no good answer. Do you think net neutrality will give you better service or, like with many regulations unintended consciousnesses.

  • Immolate

    Characterizing net neutrality as “neutral” is like characterizing the fairness doctrine as “fair”. It is a device by which the government will be able to pick winners and losers among internet businesses, as they have with energy production, finance, automobiles and every industry they’ve managed to get their regulatory teeth into. Do you honestly believe they will be less anti-competitive in this case than they’ve been in the others? If so, we can have this conversation again in two years.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_F7V6C22THBTBKRFS6G2WKDKTOU eric

    i know..i saw what u wrote before hand..i just thought the replacement was kinda lamme

  • HalfwayCrook

    In that case, I agree. (with you)

  • Nicksburg

    But if you were to call someone an [iPhone], it seems kind of funny.