Verizon tests the limits of net neutrality rules; FCC thinks about zero-rating

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...ont-count-against-data-caps-but-netflix-will/

I haven't paid close attention to VZW's new "FreeBee Data 360" and "Go90" streaming video services as I don't normally stream video content on my phone or tablet, but it appears that Verizon is likely to collect some decent decent revenue from Netflix, YouTube and other competing streaming services. In December
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/12/comcast-att-and-t-mobile-must-explain-data-cap-exemptions-to-fcc/]the Federal Communications Commission has asked Comcast, AT&T, and T-Mobile USA to answer questions about their implementations of "zero-rating," a practice that exempts certain types of content from customers' data caps[/url]." In my opinion, the net neutrality rules adopted by the FCC have evolved into a Gordian knot of indeterminate size and complexity. I'm no lawyer, but my working career included several years managing the development of new state administrative code with all the attendant attention of the administration, legislature and the "victims" whose way of doing business changed. In retrospect, that seems easy compared to the discombobulated net neutrality business. For now, I'm content to collect the $VZ dividends and let others play Don Quixote tilting at windmills. I wouldn't surprised if the net neutrality rules were revisited if and when the current FCC commissioners change in 2017. Undoubtedly ferocious lobbying will be part of the game.

 

you think net neutrality is a bad idea? i am not sure you understand what it means..

But anyway.. back to the real discussion. The problem with Verizon and what has happened is that congress does not understand the technicalities, and so relies on lobbyists to actually write the laws, and so you end up with ´one liners´ added to big bills that allow these tiny loopholes that are then exploited by the internet providers to skirt net neutrality. The providers will never challenge net neutrality again in a big way because there is too much consumer backlash, instead they will stick to small ´death by a thousand papercuts´ loopholes in laws as they are created.

 

If you believe in free market, why do you think it's a bad thing to allow equal access to all information on the web? Net neutrality has been in place, they just put more regulations on it recently to define ISPs as common carriers. Good and bad, I think we can agree that an ISP slowing down access to competitors is against a free market.

The previous regulation prevented ISPs from block access to sites among other things. So Verizon can't block access to Comcast's website.

Since Verizon controls a huge portion of American's data usage, do you believe it's fair that they can under cut Netflix by charging users unaffordable prices for Netflix, leaving only Verizon's option?

If we start streaming 4K video and onto 8K, the data caps will be hit in days. Netflix could cost $1,000 a month. And since you only have a choice of Verizon and maybe one other company, you don't have a choice. Goodbye Youtube, Vimeo etc.

 

I'm with you on the greater political principal here, but haven't the homosexuals and their lawsuits against innocent cake makers got the courts to recognize that a business does not have the right of free association, and must service anyone who comes to them so long as what they want to purchase is legal and within the remit of the business in question? I don't agree with that, but that seems to be the situation at the moment.

 

Exactly, great understanding of what net-neutrality actually means.

The internet is too important to have limited access to certain areas. The infrastructure to provide internet to rural areas is too expensive to have a real ´open market´.. There just are not enough companies who would be willing to serve rural areas to create real supply and demand and consumer choice for most of the USA. The gov´t has to step in and regulate and prevent providers from exploiting what are essentially monopolies in certain areas.

This is no different than your electric company telling you that you cannot use their electricity on GE products. If there was a free market, yeah, we could tell those providers to take a hike and change companies... but because of the high cost of the infrastructure, in most cases there aren´t other options.

 

I don't think you understand the OP or my post. Netflix won't be charging $1000 for their service, Verizon will charge it to access Netflix. But you can always use Verizon's movie service for free.

For example, a 4K movie is around 9GB of data extremely compressed - probably up to 30GB with good quality. The article points out that Verizon wants to make its mobile service free. Verizon's largest mobile package for a single phone is 10GB a month and then $10/GB after.

Let's not forget that the big telecoms received enormous amounts of tax payer money to provide fast internet through out the US. I think tax payers should should be angry that these companies took their tax money for a competitive advantage and want to create a monopoly on video content.