Verizon Consumer CEO Says Net Neutrality 'Went Literally Nowhere' (theverge.com)
- Reference: 0177076779
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/04/21/1650237/verizon-consumer-ceo-says-net-neutrality-went-literally-nowhere
- Source link: https://www.theverge.com/decoder-podcast-with-nilay-patel/652470/verizon-consumer-sowmyanarayan-sampath-net-neutrality-5g-china
When pressed about potential anti-competitive behaviors like zero-rating services, Sampath deflected by focusing exclusively on traffic management concerns, arguing that networks require prioritization capabilities during congestion. "For traffic management purposes, we need to have some controls in the network," he stated. The interview comes as Verizon faces a different regulatory challenge from FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, who is holding up Verizon's Frontier acquisition over the company's diversity initiatives.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/decoder-podcast-with-nilay-patel/652470/verizon-consumer-sowmyanarayan-sampath-net-neutrality-5g-china
DEI (Score:2)
What, they are filtering packets based on "race" now?
I wonder what "flag" I should set on my packets to get priority routing... :)
Re: (Score:2)
> What, they are filtering packets based on "race" now?
> I wonder what "flag" I should set on my packets to get priority routing... :)
It's called "traffic shaping" and has to do with bias against the "byte-stuffed challenged".
Re: (Score:2)
Dammit, "Byte-Stuffed Challenge" was going to be the name of OF page! I wonder if "Nerdvana" is taken...
The internet has changed a lot (Score:2)
The increasing availability of fiber to the premises plus most people moving from torrents to one way streams instead have changed the way the internet has been architected. The fact that most people are connecting to the internet via walled garden phones has also de facto regulated traffic as well. The of rolling out CG-NAT instead of ipv6 is something that should be studied, as it regulates IP traffic by controlling IP addresses more tightly.
Re: (Score:3)
well ISP need to be banned from owning streaming services.
Will comcast make caps go lower as cable tv starts it death dive?
Take ESPN out of the base package?
Re: (Score:2)
> Take ESPN out of the base package?
Unfortunately, Disney (usually) requires ESPN to be carried in order to get all their many other channels ... Apparently, ESPN is very profitable.
Stupid simple example (Score:4, Informative)
I have several employees who can't reach the company VPN from home. They have to use their phone as a hot spot, and everything works fine. Local ISP is blocking VPN traffic. Annoying as frick.
Re: (Score:2)
this is quite strange. in the US? what ISP?
I highly doubt this is by design... especially post COVID.
there might be some seeing on their gateway to allow it?
Re: (Score:1)
Spectrum was doing it in some areas during covid briefly. It wasn't a mistake, they sold "Prioritize your VPN traffic for $10/month"
If you did not subscribe they would block the connection.
It didn't last long until they got public grief for it and changed the blocking into just deprioritizing.
Re: (Score:2)
Is your VPN over something that has been deprecated by a bunch of ISPs for security reasons, like PPTP?
Re: (Score:1)
never seen a isp block a vpn unless it was using such a outdated mode they simply quit supporting it.
Re: Stupid simple example (Score:2)
My bet is that their homeâ(TM)s IP Address scheme overlapped that of their business. ISPs donâ(TM)t block it, but your employees routers surely could be a dead end.
Re: (Score:2)
Remote users are on the 172.16.105.0/24 IP Range. Possible. But unlikely.
"Look left; look right; anywhere but your pocket." (Score:4, Insightful)
"I still don't know what problem we are trying to solve with net neutrality."
To adapt an adage about identifying assholes: If you don't see the problem that net neutrality is intended to solve, then you ARE the problem.
Net neutrality is the internet (Score:5, Insightful)
For the most part, it isn't trying to solve a problem. Net neutrality is the default status of the internet.
The laws were introduced to protect that, to prevent corporations chopping up the internet into pieces and charging people through the nose for certain types of traffic.
Re: (Score:1)
yep if you need to slow down people due to congestion then you do it for everyone not just those not paying for the top tear plain.
Dumb Smart People (Score:3)
This smart man shouldn't play dumb, because he clearly doesn't know just how smart us dumb people are. For example, we can tell he's lying. We can also tell he's avoiding the question. AND, we can tell he's a dumb smart person because he doesn't know how smart us dumb people are. The circle of stupidity is complete.
Which Net Neutrality? (Score:3)
Is he referring to the Net Neutrality where consumers get access to the internet without their ISP "shaping" the traffic to benefit their own interests or is it the Net Neutrality where the ISPs protect the consumers from whatever their ISP sees as "bad" for the consumer?
Let me explain (Score:4, Informative)
Net neutrality does some important things. 1.), it protects p2p traffic which isps have a history of discriminating against. 2.) It allows hosting a business off a residential connection and for the case of Verizon ib particular 3.) it prevents mobile isps from discrimnating against laptops (which they currently do to boost contract phone sales).
Net Neutrality 'Went Literally Nowhere' (Score:2)
Because they paid Ajit really well to ensure it.
Why do we forget who created Net Neutrality? (Score:1)
Hold up here. Wasn't it Verizon and Google who wrote the damn stuff in the first place? [1]https://www.scribd.com/documen... [scribd.com] Lets be clear, the only purpose Google had supporting Net Neutrality policy was to stop ISP's from throttling YouTube bandwidth.
[1] https://www.scribd.com/document/35599242/Verizon-Google-Legislative-Framework-Proposal
Re: (Score:2)
Neither of those corporations created net neutrality, whether they supported it for their own benefit or not is completely irrelevant.
If it went nowhere (Score:2)
Then what's the objection? Sounds like they're working as intended, keeping companies in line with its aims rather than being assholes.
Re: (Score:1)
well you can think company's like t-mobile that offers no nonsense plains, forcing the market to drop there nonsense to compete. otherwise we all would still be dealing with data caps. same thing for fiber and starlink forcing cable company to also drop there nonsense to compete because they broke there monopoly.
Fire this clown (Score:2)
You can manage and optimize the traffic on your network without discriminating against the type of traffic. You could also stop wasting your money on retards like Sowmyanarayan Sampath who don't do anything to deserve a 1.5 million salary, let alone several more millions in bonuses, and instead invest that money back into your network so that you don't *have* to manage or optimize it as much. Absolutely no person on the planet does anything worthy of earning 7 figures in a year.
Typical CEO (Score:2)
I.e. a moron and ignorant to boot. Either that or else somebody with is up there with Trump when it comes to lying.
Ho hum (Score:2)
Another CEO being an asshole. Nothing new.
Really, how convincing. (Score:2)
I'm not sure if he's just lying; or if there's some very specific strawman construction of 'net neutrality' that verizon's counsel considers to be the one you are referring to when not understanding it; but it seems pretty hard to believe that someone in telcoms doesn't understand what 'net neutrality' is supposed to be about when, worldwide, 'zero-rating' of various services by telcos in agreements with their providers is not some sort of doomsayer sci-fi prediction. Reliance Jio is probably the single big
Like an umbrella (Score:2)
assuming you don’t need it because you’re dry is a fallacy. Right now it’s been protecting us from the worst impulses of ISPs, if only by existing and keeping the conversation alive.
Sowmyanarayan Sampath is clearly a moron (Score:2)
> Sampath claimed he couldn't identify what problem net neutrality was attempting to solve, despite Verizon's history of aggressive lobbying against such rules
Clearly he's a moron (left and unaware what reason the right hand is doing something).
Re: (Score:2)
>> Sampath claimed he couldn't identify what problem net neutrality was attempting to solve, despite Verizon's history of aggressive lobbying against such rules
> Clearly he's a moron (left and unaware what reason the right hand is doing something).
He obvious knows exactly what he is prevaricating about.
Re: (Score:2)
> He obvious knows exactly what he is prevaricating about.
Then he's "playing dumb"? I know quite a few people around here doing the same...
Re:yes? (Score:5, Insightful)
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" --Upton Sinclair
Re: (Score:2)
snow job by the snowman
Re: (Score:3)
> Then he's "playing dumb"? I know quite a few people around here doing the same...
That's not playing, that's called being a trump syncophant.
Re:Sowmyanarayan Sampath is clearly a moron (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know what problem the lobbying-twisted FCC's rules attempts to solve either. I know what problem net neutrality was supposed to solve.
In short, monolithic providers like Verizon double-bill. They bill you for your packets and then they bill the person you're communicating with for your packets too. It's not like the mail where only one side pays. Both sides have to pay or neither gets served. Naturally, the side who pays more gets to define the nature and shape of the service both side get. As the end-user consumer, that isn't you.
There is an exception: Verizon is part of a cartel of about 20 Internet providers who trade traffic without charging each other. If as a Verizon customer you want to talk to someone buying service from elsewhere in the cartel, Verizon will only charge you. This process is called "peering."
Like the rest of the cartel, Verizon engages in "closed" peering. This means that small businesses and anyone Verizon can bully is excluded and must bend to the double-billing. Here's where net neutrality was supposed to act: by requiring "open" peering where Verizon would trade packets with anyone once *one* of their customers had paid them to do so. No more double-billing.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I think there was another layer to the discussion IIRC - wasn't there also something about how content providers also own the pipes that deliver the content and can shape traffic to suit their content vs. actual needs. In other words the content providers should be kept at arms length or more from the content delivery...
Re: (Score:2)
Moron? Hardly. He just wants to make sure you don't notice what the right hand is doing.