As FCC vote nears, net neutrality proponents to target Verizon stores

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • who knows Lehi, Ut
    Dec. 9, 2017 9:27 a.m.

    It is amazing how people trust the government more than the free market. They think that the government is benevolent and that companies are evil. Would they rather go to the post office or to a FedEx store? The government is NOT the solution. It almost never is, yet there is a growing number of people who think it solves everything. I see this as ignorance in action: very frightening.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Dec. 7, 2017 1:23 p.m.

    More from Verizon:

    Myth: Internet Service providers don’t want rules that protect customers:

    Fact: We support strong rules to protect consumers and competition. But we believe the Title II rules imposed by the FCC in 2015 didn’t fit, and we support the FCC’s proposal to return to the successful approach originally adopted in the Clinton years. For decades before 2015, the Internet developed in a lightly-regulated environment that addressed any problems that arose but avoided unnecessary regulation. We think that’s still the best way forward.

    Myth: Without regulations, business can do whatever they want.

    Fact: We have publicly committed to our customers that they can use the legal content, applications, and services of their choice, regardless of source, over any of our Internet access services. Under the FCC’s proposed changes, a company that harms competition or consumers can face penalties. If you have a complaint, the Federal Trade Commission will have the authority to take action – just as they do if you have a complaint with another company like Amazon or Google or Netflix.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Dec. 7, 2017 1:22 p.m.

    Info from Verizon. Let's tell the story, but the whole story.

    Myth: Ajit Pai is a former Verizon executive and is too close to the industry:

    Fact: Ajit Pai is the current FCC Chairman. Previously, he served as an FCC Commissioner, appointed by President Obama. He has also worked as a lawyer for the Department of Justice, for members of Congress, and as a partner in a law firm. Many years ago, he was briefly a lawyer in Verizon’s antitrust team. Chairman Pai has not worked for Verizon in nearly fifteen years.

    Myth: Verizon is opposed to net neutrality:

    Fact: Verizon fully supports the open Internet. We believe our customers should be able to use the Internet to access lawful content of their choice when, where, and how they want. We’ve said that for many years and we stand by it regardless of what the FCC does here. The Internet has long been an incredible vehicle for innovation, but the FCC decided in 2015 to change the regulatory environment that made the Internet successful in the first place. We support returning to the regulatory rules that applied to the Internet for two decades until 2015.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 7, 2017 12:43 p.m.

    Usually the least government regulation is the best.

  • Justiciaparatodos Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 7, 2017 9:43 a.m.

    The organizers' website declares: "The new chairman of the FCC, Ajit Pai, is a former top lawyer for Verizon, and the company has been spending millions on lobbying and lawsuits to kill net neutrality so they can gouge us all for more money,"

    Wow, if that is true - we should all be concerned and demand change!

    I know this is off the topic a bit - but there is another elephant in the room that demands the same approach I think; and that is what big Pharmaceutical companies are doing to consumers!

    Big pharmaceutical companies have also been spending millions on lobbying and lawsuits to kill competition (generic drug manufacturers) so they can continue to gouge us for pharmaceutical products. This is especially true for drugs used to treat serious diseases like cancer. Perhaps the most egregious example of the gouging is for drugs used to treat acute symptom diseases like asthma or allergic reactions because they know we can't live without them!

  • afewthoughts utah, UT
    Dec. 7, 2017 9:35 a.m.

    I think it is interesting to ask if we had a problem before 2015 when the FCC enacted net neutrality. No we didn't! The internet on it's own rose to tremendous heights as soon as government stepped out. Government and bureaucracy has one thing in common.... 82% disapproval.

    Do we want MORE power in government or LESS.

    Do we really want the government to have more power? That is the way we developed licensed airwaves and the big 3 television networks. It was the VERY existence of government that restricted new entrants into the market. Instead we had national chains eat up local airwaves and suppressed the "chaos" of a free market. Deep pockets controlled Washington and the news.

    What happens when someone else is in charge? Who checks the powers that be?

    So while I fully support the overt aims of net neutrality. I do NOT support a federal control over one more aspect of our lives. The free market is resourceful and can adapt quicker to the needs of consumers than bureaucrats in Washington.

    What is wrong with allowing each State individually to address these issues if and when they become necessary? Or are states not capable of that? I submit they are!

  • aghast SYRACUSE, UT
    Dec. 7, 2017 9:21 a.m.

    As an older geek I have witnessed the rise of the internet. I actually can still remember not having it and not having cell phones. What did we do? What will we do if we can no longer afford it?

    Affordability of the internet is the real question here. Cell phones are very competitive and have actually become somewhat more affordable. Computers, that we use to access the internet, have become relatively very inexpensive - probably because of rapid innovation and a large openly competitive market. Internet - not so much. If I want the speed to keep 4 adult children and a "tween" that I live with happy, I have one choice and I pay roughly 300% more than I did when I started with them. They are a monopoly, plain and simple and if you give them some more slack, they will strangle me. My solution will be to learn to live without it simply because my paycheck hasn't kept up with the cost increase.

    Being a bureaucrat for more than 30 years, I can say that I am all for government staying out of our lives, but there is a place for government and this might be it. Be careful folks, I don't trust my internet provider any more than I trust the bureaucrats and politicians.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Dec. 7, 2017 9:12 a.m.

    There are a lot of common misconceptions and consumer fears about net neutrality. In short, Verizon supports net neutrality. It opposes Title II. The intention is that broadband should be classified as a lightly regulated "Title I information service." There is a difference. It's ironic that this is really a battle about how to to regulate and how much, from what perspective. Title II designation is regulation in and of itself. And, I know first hand that there are a lot of misperceptions about Pai and his short tenure at Verizon. We see it from the comments here.

  • bjutah American Fork, UT
    Dec. 7, 2017 8:51 a.m.

    Internet users already pay more for receiving a dumbbell versus receiving a letter over the internet. It's called ISP bandwidth tiers: $-low bandwidth, $$-medium bandwidth, $$$-high bandwidth. Additionally, ISPs receive their bandwidth from Internet backbone, providers AT&T, Cogent, CenturyLink, Level 3, Verizon Business, XO, and Zayo. The backbone will also favor those content providers that pay them the most.

    One thing is for sure, when consumers search for and download content, their search results will favor the paying content providers over those who don't pay or pay less. If a consumer watches Netflix movies versus Hulu movies it will depend on who is paying their ISP and ISPs backbone the most as to how well your movie will stream. That cost will be passed on to consumers in higher membership prices. Merchandise sellers will also pay for favorable search results, and guess what, they will pass that cost on to the consumer in higher merchandise prices. Deregulation will be funded by consumers, not the content providers and internet merchants. Who knows, with enough greed, maybe brick and mortar stores will make a comeback.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Dec. 7, 2017 8:34 a.m.

    @cjb
    They can charge heavy users more. That's why Comcast has a cap on your data(1 tb a month) if you exceed that, you have to either get your internet cut off, or pay more money for unlimited. It's the same reason that your cell phone provider can cap your data usage as well. Net Neutrality simply means that Comcast can't cut the speed when you use Netflix and increase the speed when you use their streaming service. Essentially, ISP's have to allow all websites that are legal to be streamed at the same speed. They can't say, well we're liberals, so we are cutting speeds to gun sales website, or Breitbart. Or on the other side a conservative ISP owner can't cut the speed to MSNBC or the Huffington Post. I don't see what's bad about requiring ISP's to allow equal access to all websites.

  • Br. Jones East Coast, MD
    Dec. 7, 2017 6:37 a.m.

    Yes, but it's Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast that are pushing the FCC in this direction. Corporations like Netflix, Etsy, Vimeo, Twitter, Reddit, Amazon, Google, and Facebook all support net neutrality and oppose the FCC's policy change.

  • faazshift Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 7, 2017 5:31 a.m.

    This "heavy-handed regulation" (net neutrality) that ISPs are so against is no more heavy-handed than the first amendment is for free speech. It adds basic protections for the consumers. There's already a history of ISPs interfering with or artificially slowing content delivery. Some ISPs have already made plans public to do so again. Killing net neutrality is shoving consumers and small businesses under the bus. It's only beneficial to ISPs and those with deep pockets.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 7, 2017 4:40 a.m.

    Since when do protesters like this need a logical reason? The internet is costly to build and maintain. Companies need to be able to charge heavy users more.

  • Elsleuith Eagle Mountain, UT
    Dec. 7, 2017 2:23 a.m.

    Why beat up on Verizon?

    Because: Pai was the president of Verizon and now he proposes:

    Under Pai's proposal, internet providers will be re-designated as Title I "information services" companies and fall back under the lighter regulation associated with that classification. Critics of the changes fear proponents, including CenturyLink, Comcast, Verizon and other service providers, could strike pay-to-play deals with deep-pocketed content creators and create preferred service connections with their own content partners.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 7, 2017 1:10 a.m.

    @Esquire
    FCC chair Ajit Pai was previously a Verizon lawyer.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    Dec. 7, 2017 12:13 a.m.

    "Why beat up on Verizon? It's the FCC that is taking the action."

    Because Ajit Pai was a lawyer for Verizon before becoming their lapdog in the FCC, and because Pai spoke at Verizon the same day the announcement was made about repealing Net Neutrality

  • Sirbobg Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 6, 2017 11:12 p.m.

    @Esquire,

    re: "Why beat up on Verizon? It's the FCC that is taking the action."

    Because Verizon, Comcast, and the rest of the squad is investing a huge amount of money and muscle to ensure that they can charge you more for what you already have. This is a serious issue and all of our state representatives have jumped on board and are fine will selling their constituents to the corporations.

    I think this would be a great time for us all to get involved if any of us have been sidelined on previous issues. This matters.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Dec. 6, 2017 8:31 p.m.

    Why beat up on Verizon? It's the FCC that is taking the action.