isen.blog

This is a huge step backwards. Verizon is discriminating against POTS calls to an ISP. (In the UK, friends of mine had a successful Campaign for Unmetered Telephony based on the fact that dial-up charges inhibit Internet use. (They succeeded.)) Even if you don't dial up anymore you should be concerned!

The Boston Globe reports:

Dial-up provider loses Net access amid fee dispute
Ruling favoring Verizon may hike price of service

Service to thousands of dial-up Internet users in Massachusetts was disrupted this week after a federal court ruled against a Quincy company in a lawsuit that could have broad impact on the cost of dial-up service.

The US Court of Appeals in Boston ruled April 11 that Verizon Communications Inc. can charge per-minute fees for calls to local numbers that dial-up users need to connect to the Internet -- in much the same way that they charge for long-distance or other calls.

The ruling came after Verizon sued Global NAPs Inc., a Quincy company that supplies local numbers to 28 Internet service providers for use by their dial-up customers.

Verizon claims it is owed more than $65 million by Global NAPs. The court did not rule on damages, but Verizon cut off Global NAPs's access to its network, effectively shutting down Internet service for customers of dial-up providers like MegaNet of Fall River, which had to find another company to supply emergency connections for its approximately 7,500 dial-up subscribers.

This sounds like a direct result of the FCC, by inaction (or forbearance, take your pick) granting Verizon's Petition (.pdf) for Forbearance from Title II and Computer Inquiry Rules. I'm not sure of this, but Title II relates to common carrier rules and CI-2 defines what's a basic service. More info, with pointers to relevant documents, here.

If I'm correct, then Verizon has the right not only to drive broadband ISPs out of business but dial-up ISPs too. Even if I'm not, apparently it does, but on other grounds.

Alex Goldman has a deeper analysis than the rest of the press. He concludes,

If Verizon succeeds in charging GlobalNAPs long distance fees for dialup phone calls, those fees will be paid by the customer. The future of dialup in the United States looks like a choice between the monopoly offering service at a flat rate and the "competition" offering services priced per minute.

I don't understand this well enough yet, so if you know more than I do about this incident or its underpinnings, please comment! Is it an isolated incident? A harbinger? A red herring? Related to the Verizon petition?

Technorati Tags: F2C, FCC, Internet, Verizon