Surprise, Verizon Just Pooped on Net Neutrality

1 minute read
| News

Verizon. You remember those corporate chuckleheads? They’re the ones who have been lobbying hard to end net neutrality while claiming they’d never actually do anything to violate net neutrality. This, despite having been busted multiple times violating net neutrality when net neutrality was the law of the land. Anyway, guess what? Verizon throttled Netflix traffic, pooping all over net neutrality in the process.

Verizon poops on net neutrality

Yeah, I’m shocked. No, wait. What’s that other thing…not shocked…oh, right: of course Verizon is pooping on net neutrality. They’re a crappy corporation that waffles between seeing customers either a nuisance or an exploitable resource, fought Apple on sideloading apps on our devices for years, sells customers out to the government without due process at its earliest convenience, and is generally the epitome of corporate amorality.

Verizon Throttles Netflix Traffic

The newest kerfuffle is that Verizon was busted throttling Netflix traffic. That is roughly precisely the opposite of net neutrality. Redditors on the Verizon subreddit noticed reduced download speeds on Netflix traffic, and Ars Technica got Big Red to admit it.

Verizon told the publication, “We’ve been doing network testing over the past few days to optimize the performance of video applications on our network. The testing should be completed shortly. The customer video experience was not affected.”

Except that the customer video experience was affected, which was how Verizon was busted. Redditors also found that using a VPN bypassed Verizon’s net neutrality violation.

Preserving Net Neutrality

Which is why net neutrality needs to remain the law of the land. If carriers can violate those principles to increase their profits, they will. Every time. The FCC under Tom Wheeler was right to reclassify carriers as Title II common carriers, and current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is wrong for wanting to undo it.

If Ajit Pai had an ounce of respect for reality and the American people he serves, he’d fine Verizon for this “test.” He doesn’t. He won’t. We lose.

8 Comments Add a comment

  1. geoduck

    Correct. We all, will lose. In a month or two the head of the FCC will announce that “feedback on the New Neutrality question was overwhelmingly in favour of allowing companies to manage bandwidth” or words to that effect, and by Christmas NN will be gone. Want to stream Netflix? Sorry they get modem speeds, but OUR movie service, that costs more, goes full throttle. Want to stream MLB or NFL, sorry, they’re on a service that won’t pay for extra bandwidth. Welcome to 1934 and following sports on radio. Mad? Sorry we know most of you are in areas where you CAN’T change your cable/internet provider. Sure you can change phone carrier, but guess what? They are working under the new rules too so it won’t be any better with them either. And in four, or eight years when the administration changes, calls to restore NN will be ignored. It’s far easier to get rid of something than to set it up.

    And once that’s up what’s next on the chopping block? Privacy and encryption. I’m not hopeful.

  2. jackadoodle

    I want “Mac Observer Neutrality” where commenters get same prominence on site as authors and advertisers. I want to be able to post front page articles just like the staff can. I want to advertise my own things in the sidebar just like paying advertisers.

    That’s how much sense “net neutrality” makes.

    (Note: I do not really want to post things on the front page, etc. I am illustrating that if there were ‘Mac Observer Neutrality’ that is the absurd way the site would have to be run. Makes no sense.)

  3. Lee Dronick

    That’s how much sense “net neutrality” makes.

    If I am paying for internet access then I don’t want speeds to certain servers throttled just because they compete with a service my ISP offers.

  4. geoduck

    jackadoodle
    Absolutely nothing in your analogy has the slightest thing whatsoever to do with Net Neutrality.

  5. jackadoodle

    geoduck – all the articles, messages, and ads on this site should be handled neutrally, right? Like this message of mine. It should be neutrally placed on the front page along with all the ads and articles. Meanwhile, new articles should be posted in the comments section…. because that would be “Mac Observer Content Neutrality.”

    That would be unworkable, and not very intelligent. Yet this is what you and others wish to see with how traffic is handled.

  6. geoduck

    This is called a Strawman Argument. Your assertion is completely fallacious as is your conclusion.

    Net Neutrality means that everyone has equal right to bandwidth. If I want to download or upload I should get the same speed as everyone else. the analogy is a highway. Everyone can drive the same speed. FedEx can’t pay someone for the right for their trucks to go at 100mph so their packages can get their first. Atlanta can’t order that Pepsi trucks can only drive 20 to give an advantage to Coke, the hometown company. Net Neutrality says that a provider is the highway. They neither have the right to throttle nor block data based on content. A deeply intrenched part of Net Neutrality is that without it the carriers can and will look at every packet of data for data mining, political censorship, and other unacceptable behaviour. Privacy is deeply intertwined with Net Neutrality.

    But your Strawman argument that somehow Net Neutrality is the same as requiring a private company to post anything and everything on the front page is ridiculous. The two have nothing to do with each other. The argument is so weak that it could not even be called an analogy. You might as well argue that Net Neutrality will increase marijuana usage. It has about the same to do with that. I’d suggest you take a good course in Rhetoric and Argumentation. You are sorely lacking in skills.

  7. jackadoodle

    geoduck – then why doesn’t MacObserver get equal access to publish their content on MacObserver? Why do staff get pre-eminent access to post on the front page? Advertisers in sidebars. And commenters get put at the end of articles, in a visible, but the LEAST visible place. As a commenter, I would like access to post all my comments on the front page, equal to the staff.

    Aaah, but you don’t support that neutrality of content publishing, right? Because it would be insane. The staff SHOULD be posting to the front page. They should get that pre-eminence. You would never support content publishing neutrality on MacObserver because it would ruin the site.

    So called net neutrality is equally illogical. Bandwidth costs moolah. And just as advertisers and staff get content published at a higher level than commenters, so to should paying bandwidth customers get their stuff prioritized.

Add a Comment

Log in to comment (TMO, Twitter, Facebook) or Register for a TMO Account