Verizon claims that net neutrality violates their First and Fifth Amendment rights
The reasons for the fight aren’t hard to understand – Verizon wants to be able to prioritize content that it profits from – either their own services or that of its partners (who pay Verizon for the privilege). After all, if Blockbuster streaming video is willing to “partner” with Verizon while Netflix isn’t, Verizon doesn’t want the popularity of those services decided by customers; it wants to make using Blockbuster a much better experience.
Verizon isn’t alone of course – in general all of the major carriers have come out against net neutrality. Net neutrality constantly threatens to turn their networks into lower-margin dumb pipes that compete against each other on pricing, rather than the back-bone of the higher-margin services companies that they are today. Verizon has been the loudest so far, but we suspect that’s because Verizon has been first to roll out a 4G LTE network. Increased internet bandwidth means that external web services are increasingly able to compete with Verizon’s own services; in other words, Verizon is seeing the writing on the wall a bit more clearly than the other networks that are still trying to roll out LTE networks.
So to try and prevent that eventuality, Verizon just filed a brief in its legal challenge to the FCC, stating that while yes, they still believe that Congress hasn’t given the FCC a mandate to regulate wireless carriers, they also believe that such regulation violates Verizon’s First and Fifth Amendment rights, thus Congress can’t pass such a low even if they want to. Verizon argues that broadband network owners should be given editorial discretion about what goes over their networks, analogous to how newspapers owners have discretion over what gets printed in their papers. Detractors would point out that Verizon's network is more like the postal carrier delivering the paper than a news editor. And printing presses and ink don’t actually belong to the U.S. people the way the airwaves do.
Perhaps anticipating such responses, Verizon is also asserting their Fifth Amendment right against the unreasonable seizure of private property without compensation. In this case they claim that any sort of regulation is “an electronic invasion” of their network, akin to the government putting a permanent easement on their private property.
It's not clear if the courts will be sympathetic to either claim - especially on publicly-owned bandwidth. But if Verizon can convince the courts of either of these two arguments, they would be able to fend off any sort of net neutrality oversight, baring a constitutional amendment that either changes the legal status of corporations under the law, or provides explicit permission for the FCC to regulate carrier networks. Verizon winning on these claims could have even wider-ranging impact on the open web, since Verizon’s arguments would apply just as well to land-based broadband suppliers that are currently required to maintain net neutrality. And seeing as how much of the web is hosted on servers located in the U.S., the ripples from such a ruling could eventually spread out to impact nearly everyone who uses the web, whether they own a mobile phone or not.
It's hard to see how such a situation would be good for consumers, but that may not be the driving factor behind the final ruling. Regardless of which side you are on, this is an issue you will probably want to pay attention to, as it has the potential to impact just about everyone.
source: arstechnica via Droid-Life
19. latinfirepr posted on 05 Jul 2012, 17:09 5
What are you talking about? I agree with Verizon... If they don't protect they're infrastructure and Verizon becomes this do whatever the government says and we can use your network how we want... Who do think will pay for it? We will. I don't think any of you guys are seeing the big picture here of what will happen. So you are FOR big Government being able to seizure any of Verizon's private property through they're network infrastructure that they built and we pay for when ever they want? I wonder if all of us are reading the same article above??
22. MartyK posted on 05 Jul 2012, 17:26 10
Huh? it's call public domain, every individual in the USA is subject to this, and since Verizon thinks it's a person ( their claims), they are subject to public domain like everyone else. They are not special.
37. Gawain posted on 05 Jul 2012, 20:42 0
That would apply if every person had invested billions of dollars in the infrastructure in the first place.
29. str8tripin posted on 05 Jul 2012, 18:41 16
Yes but if Verizon is given free reign to control the traffic on their network, you the consumer will only get to utilize that network at it's fullest potential with the apps and content that they deem ok(AKA whatever content is most profitable to Verizon). It will be goodbye small developers and sometimes better products and look forward to more amazing apps like VZ navigator and all the other B$ they preload on your phone for you. Just because there's no money coming in to Verizon for your Netflix that you pay for doesn't mean they should be able to the throttle the speed or worse yet not offer the service to the consumer.
Imagine if they decided they wouldn't support any google services or facebook or youtube content. Yes consumers would get upset but how many would really be upset if some of the smaller apps from XDA and other developer sites were no longer deemed good traffic on the network. Yes some of us, especially people on this site and others like it would be upset... but the vast majority of consumers don't even know about XDA or how to mod their phones or why people even root or jailbreak a device. They just want their phone to work and if they lose some free apps that they didn't even know about they wouldn't even flinch an eye.
Most people wouldn't care, that now companies like blockbuster, netflix, hulu and others would all compete for bandwidth on Verizons network and the company with the deepest pockets will be able to provide the consumer with the best service and all the others would be degraded or just not offered at all.
O and one other thing.... If this becomes ok for cell phone companies why wouldn't it apply to other internet providers and the networks that they maintain as well. All the companies will want their piece of the pie and a big chunk of change in their pocket if they're to provide that 3rd parties content to their customers. All the companies that offer a web based product will pay a surcharge to the network owner... which will up the cost of their product to you, especially if it jumps across several different networks to get to you and quite possibly do away with a lot of the smaller ones out there. It would be great for the coorporations with the networks though and make their pockets quite a bit deeper than they already are and they wouldn't have to worry about improving capacity or increasing speeds anymore because they can just charge more for anything eating up their bandwidth or do away with it or throttle the speeds back if they can't or don't pay anymore.
32. corporateJP posted on 05 Jul 2012, 18:59 4
^ Look! A poster with some intelligence!
36. Zero0 posted on 05 Jul 2012, 20:22 8
Net neutrality is basically designed to prevent monopolies from forming on the Internet.
If Amazon were to pay off all of the ISPs to slow down traffic for other online stores, Amazon would become a monopoly in online shopping, and would have enough market power to increase its prices. That's a dangerous possibility, and exactly the reason for net neutrality.
49. blahb posted on 06 Jul 2012, 08:20 6
You crazy man, "They're Infrastructure" or "their infrastructure" referring to their new LTE network was publicly owned and has since been rented from the public for private use. Had they built this infrastructure from the ground up, aka "their private property", I get it but that is far from the case. They won the auctions knowing the baggage that came along with it. Props to Google for getting the FCC to put those requirements in there from the beginning, just sucks they have since changed their stance. If not we’d all be stuck with VZ Friends, VZTube, VZtwitter, and VZ any other kind of application or service you want to use on the Internet and getting an additional monthly charge for the privilege to use the content VZW deems appropriate for their rented network. Do some reading and educate yourself before you pop off.
2. jmoita2 posted on 05 Jul 2012, 16:10 17
LMAO!!! Oh, that's right, corporations are persons...
Then I say make them eligible for the death penalty too...
31. samwise99 posted on 05 Jul 2012, 18:50 1
Please give the "Corporations aren't people" meme a rest. Individuals have rights to free expression and to be free from unlimited government interference. The reason any organization, be it a for-profit business, a labor union, a private school, or a church, can assert rights against the government is because the government denying the rights of an organization is a denial of rights of the *individual* members of the organization.
Now, with regards to Verizon's arguments, it's a difficult issue. Like the author of the article, I suspect that Verizon will probably lose this case for the same reason broadcast networks had to be subject to all sorts of FCC regulations back in the day. That is, because wireless spectrum is a scarce public resource distributed and regulated by the government, the government has an interest in seeing that it's used for public benefit. Net neutrality rules surely qualify.
The 5th amendment claim seems bogus for the same reason. Verizon claims that net neutrality would be "taking" it's property. But that's assuming that when it leased the spectrum in the first place, it got the right to use the spectrum however the heck it wanted. I really don't think that's the case, and I think Verizon knows it. Even Verizon isn't dumb enough to fail to see FCC net neutrality rules coming down the pike.
39. Droid_X_Doug posted on 05 Jul 2012, 21:53 3
Corporations are people at least as far as freedom of speech. Citizens United decided that and was re-affirmed this term when the Supremes struck down a 90+ year old Montana campaign finance law. The greater problem for Verizon is the fact that they lease the airwaves from the Feds.
This is starting to look like Arizona's immigration enforcement rights fight - you don't mess with something explicitly owned by the Feds. Falcone learned that lesson the hard way. Looks like Verizon is going to repeat the experience.
4. D.Aceveda posted on 05 Jul 2012, 16:11 6
People are Verizon.....how do y'all sleep at night trying to get people to believe this bull?
7. Saamic posted on 05 Jul 2012, 16:19 11
I think Verizon is one of the most coorporate money-based companies out there.... They don't give a s**t about their customers
14. androiddownsouth posted on 05 Jul 2012, 16:53 9
So how do you explain the fact that they put more money and effort into rolling out the largest, most reliable network out there if they don't give a sh*t about customers? I've had ATT, Sprint, and Cellular South(now C Spire), won't have TMO b/c they just don't work around here it seems, and NONE of them come close to the quality of network that Verizon provides.
You get what you pay for ladies and gentlemen. I'd rather pay more for good quality(i.e. use my phone when and where I want to) than pay less for low quality(i.e. slow data and dropped calls/no service).
Your opinion may be that they do not give a sh*t about their customers, but I must say I completely disagree with that.
20. Whateverman posted on 05 Jul 2012, 17:12 10
Take it from an ex-employee, they don't. The network is just a means to an end...a way to get as many customers as possible to sign a contract with VZW instead of the other guys. AT&T, sprint and T-Mobile each has their own method of doing the same thing, VZW just had the better plan to get the most customers.
Now, let's not confuse the people in the call centers and stores with the a$$holes raiding our pockets. The vast majority of reps and agents really do want to provide the best service possible for their customers, but the executives and shareholders are only out for one thing...YOUR MONEY! That's it!
27. androiddownsouth posted on 05 Jul 2012, 18:21 1
The vast majority of companies function as you are describing my friend. Very few can truly be called "customer centric" by the standards you set there. Sad thing is, you are mostly right when you get to the executive and shareholder levels......
46. Whateverman posted on 06 Jul 2012, 01:52 0
Sad, but true! +1
38. CRICKETownz posted on 05 Jul 2012, 21:24 1
if a company strives to keep themselves profitable while yet providing what's regarded as the most reliable services by most critics to their customers...can that really be considered not caring about their customers? its all greed...businesses are just more honest about it than consumers. operating costs are real & they're also expensive, but customers are oblivious to that side of things (that or they could care less about it - which puts them in the same greedy category as they accuse businesses to be in - but you won't get a customer to come to that realization). as an ex-employee of Verizon, what do you suggest their business model be? should they take a page out of the book of Sprint? T-Mobile? two companies on the verge of non-existence that are ironically the two cheapest monthly plans...you do the math. Verizon wants to be around & they want to be profitable. as a business owner (small or corporation) wouldn't you want to be? all the money you pour into your company to receive a return in some way for the services you offer. who goes into business saying today I don't want to be profitable.
43. Whateverman posted on 06 Jul 2012, 00:38 4
I wasnt debating their business plan. My response was to whether VZW cares about it customers or not. And the truth is they don't. Now if you need to believe they do, by all means...keep those blinders on. But their showing you just how much they care about you with the last all the recent changes they've made.
1. No more new every two discounts.
2. New $30 upgrade fee.
3. Changed from 30 day test drive to 14 days.
4. Tried to make us pay $2 fee just to pay our bill.
5. Moving to tiered data plans.
6. Killing off grandfathered unlimited data plans.
7. And now they want to tier our Internet access too?
You have every right to be cool with it, but I'm not. I gotta say WTF? They're basically trying to make us pay for the same service twice. If I'm already paying for access to the Internet, why should I have to pay extra to certain levels of the same Internet I'm already supposed to have access to? And where will this all end?
61. sprockkets posted on 06 Jul 2012, 22:06 1
And it is all apple's fault too, since it began with them and the iphone4
41. slickric620 posted on 05 Jul 2012, 23:59 1
Isn't this common logic and the fundamentals of any company large or small? Companies are there to turn a profit. There isn't a company around that exists that is there to give the customer everything they want for the lowest possible rate while keeping nothing for themselves. People that start companies with that mindset fail. You have to be profit driven. The best way to make the most money... sell the best product... and try to offer the best customer service while doing it.
45. Whateverman posted on 06 Jul 2012, 01:28 4
Since when did business and profit become the new American religion? You guys act as though I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to make a profit. I never said that. You guys are basically saying "Boys will be boys and we just have to accept it"??? No, not me! We all vote with our dollars in one way or another but my dollars will not be paying for restricted Internet if I have anything to say about it. Like a couple guys down below are pointing out, this is OURS!!! VZW is just providing a portal to what already belongs to us!
If your bank told you you could take out up to $500 of your own money for free, and pay $10 per $100 thereafter, would you just except it or would you take your money that allowed you to have full access to all of your money? That's basically what this is, they want to charge you to get more access to what you already own!
57. blahb posted on 06 Jul 2012, 15:59 2
...(i.e. use my phone when and where I want to)...
That's great but VZW is trying to tell you HOW you can use your device. Even if it's the best network I know how my phone works, what I can do with it and I won't stand for a carrier telling me HOW I can use my data.
60. corporateJP posted on 06 Jul 2012, 19:52 0
Man, you are just a monkey in Verizon's tree, aren't you?
9. jsoliz1985 posted on 05 Jul 2012, 16:26 1
If I decide to leave Verizon for "greener pastures" then where would you suggest I go? I'm already used to the speed of LTE and I don't want to go to a slower carrier. T-Mobile interests me but with my double the data plan of 10gb/$50 its hard to make the switch.
24. ghostnexus posted on 05 Jul 2012, 17:34 1
Believe me there is nothing greener than Verizon
62. LostInTheRed posted on 17 Jul 2012, 11:46 0
(I know this is an older post, by what they hay). T-Mobile would be a pretty good choice. 10GB would be $65 for the data, but with that you also get mobile hotspot as well. With unlimited talk and text you're looking at $125/month before taxes. Verizon, even with their new share everything plan, would cost you $140 before taxes.
10. Pippy posted on 05 Jul 2012, 16:27 10
"asserting their Fifth Amendment right against the unreasonable seizure of private property without compensation" - Seriously Verizon?? Your compensated through your subscriber's monthly fees.. What about the rights of your subscribers and their ability to use data they compensated you for as they choose. Freakin' corporate America. Give me your money, but don't expect to get what you paid for.
"Verizon argues that broadband network owners should be given editorial discretion about what goes over their networks, analogous to how newspapers owners have discretion over what gets printed in their papers" people knowingly purchase predetermined content when they buy a paper, magazine, etc, data access is NOT the same. We're paying for access internet service, not YOUR content. Home internet access ins't censored for the same reason, we're paying for access to content of our choosing, not pre-selected content. If you want to decide what goes over your nextwork, then charge .25 / day like a newspaper.
11. jmoita2 posted on 05 Jul 2012, 16:30 8
I find it hard to believe the US Supreme Court actually set the precedent the corporations are people... mind boggling.
52. roscuthiii posted on 06 Jul 2012, 11:32 2
Less boggling when you consider all that lobbyist money that was being thrown around. Nope, nothing quite like legalized bribery.
12. hornetmx posted on 05 Jul 2012, 16:37 5
So far not one of the responses here actually helps the argument. It only leads me to believe none of you have any clue of what this is really about. So you want the government telling you, or a corporation, or whomever what you can and cant do that? As a matter of fact i will not even try. I think most of you can careless and just want to troll away. Id like the FCC to tell verizon it cannot longer offer unlimited data plan because its slowing dow servers and see how many troll would get in here and fire away. Please try...at least try to put 5 seconds into what you are actually posting......
15. jmoita2 posted on 05 Jul 2012, 16:53 6
So using your own words you do agree then that corporations are people, and have civil and human rights???
16. Scott_H posted on 05 Jul 2012, 16:58 9
@hornetmx - everyone thinks the governement should tell people (and corporations) what to do some of the time (e.g. you surely think the government should tell people that they can't commit murder or steal from you) and nobody thinks the government should make all of our decisions for us.
The real issue is that there isn't broad agreement as to how much regulation is good, and even among those who want broad control there isn't agreement about where it should be placed.
This isn't an either-or proposition, and reasonable people can fall on either side of the issue.
18. corporateJP posted on 05 Jul 2012, 17:06 7
So, the government taking the thin air that we call spectrum, leasing it to a corporation, then having the corporation sell it back to the people at quite a large premium is good and fine with you?
Personally, I have no problem with it myself, I'll just let my wallet talk when my contract is up.
But, I refuse to be told when and where I can go with that thin air I'm being sold.
It's borderline censorship, because that's where it's going.
This is essentially the same as one of the carriers saying: "Hey, now you pay $50 a month for 1GB of data on your phone, but guess what? You can only use Blockbuster and Slacker, you won't be allowed on Hulu, Netflix, or Pandora...enjoy!"
I'm against big government and fully support capitalism, but in some cases the government needs to step in and protect the consumer, just like it did in the AT&T-T-Mobile deal.
The only person, by the look of it, that is trolling in this forum is you, good buddy.
30. Slammer posted on 05 Jul 2012, 18:46 5
Actually, you are incorrect.
Verizon is looking to styfle Government intervention at a time when Net Neutrality is k of key interest. Verizon is of private sector that may own their infrastructure, but, the spectrum and internet are publically owned and funded. We as consumers elect our government officials and fund the government through taxes to defend our rights.
Now, avoiding how we may personally feel about government, the point is that Verizon wants to have complete control over what we are to be allowed to access or be denied. They can have complete control over charging us what ever they feel necessary for something we own.
I hope you would revisit your post and think of the huge dividends we would potentially have to pay out to carriers for internet access. Make no mistake my friend, this fight from Verizon would benefit them greatly while we forfeit our ownership of a publically funded electronic library.
13. hornetmx posted on 05 Jul 2012, 16:38 0
My comment was made in regards to #1-7 just to be clear
17. downphoenix posted on 05 Jul 2012, 16:59 5
Verizon doesn't have any 1st or 5th admendment rights. Those only apply to people. Oh wait...
21. DroogV59 posted on 05 Jul 2012, 17:19 8
Let`s not forget that if this trash actually passes muster with the courts, it won`t just allow Verizon to better f*** you, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mo will be getting out the vaseline jar as well. You have been warned.
25. skymitch89 posted on 05 Jul 2012, 17:39 5
If any thing about this goes through, we can start saying goodbye to all our other freedoms. I bet the forefathers of this country are rolling over the with the way that this country is being run.
47. quakan posted on 06 Jul 2012, 02:14 0
The forefathers would be lost right now and wouldn't know how to feel just like many other Americans.
33. Masher posted on 05 Jul 2012, 19:21 2
These guys at Big Red wake up in the morning on a daily basis and ask themselves: "How are we going to **** on our customers today?" The only people that aren't smart enough to buy into it are their field employees or somebody on their payroll. Joe Public is catching on to this little game, and alot faster than they think. "What's next?" is the only real question, and the answer will show once that last straw is tossed on the camel's back by their rediculously dumb CFO and the rest of the overpaid cashmongers in their corporate offices. Somebody should have saw this coming the day the government let them eat up all these smaller carriers like Alltel. It's a shame, it used to be a really good company until they started raping their loyal customers. I myself will be porting out in the next few days, I care less about 4G, as it is way overated and goes down too often, and when it's capped and soon to be exploited to take you where they only want you to go, it will be so much better! To all the naysayers and Verizon employees...have fun taking it in the rear, enjoy your overpriced plans and dumbed-down internet, as you'll be losing more than just me down the road. You're a bunch of elitest pricks and I won't miss you a bit!
51. androiddownsouth posted on 06 Jul 2012, 09:19 0
Not all of us are "elitest pricks" as you say, and to generalize a group of people like that that you don't know is a fundamental problem with so many people these days. Not all people fit so neatly into your little groups. I have many happy customers at my location that enjoy doing business with us because we DO GIVE A SH*T about our customers!
I'm sorry you have had a bad experience with VZW, and if you feel the need to leave, so be it. You have to do what makes you happy and fills your needs. That is your right and I'll defend anyone's right to choose.
But, don't you dare insult and abuse people you don't know, because YOU are NOT everyone. YOU DO NOT speak for everyone.
Now, go enjoy abusing the employees at ATT, T-MO, Sprint, or whatever service you choose, b/c I will bet that you will see similar changes to pricing plans with those carriers within the next year or two as well. Good day sir.
58. corporateJP posted on 06 Jul 2012, 19:46 0
^LOL. You kind of just proved that dude right, dare I say, you "fed the troll".
And, I have to say, that person's mentality may not speak for everyone, but most Verizon customers are starting to feel that way.
34. sprockkets posted on 05 Jul 2012, 19:26 7
You guys suck at this. Read the 284 comments here.
THEY have it right, like this dude:
"This isn't private property sitting around being used for recreation by the Verizon family, it's commercial activity, and inherently inter-state in virtually all cases."
"Contrary to legal precedent, corporations are NOT people. They cannot vote. They cannot be drafted into the military. They have no inherent right to Free Speech. Even with their allowance of speech, Free Speech is not absolute. It is regulated even in countries that cherish Free Speech.
Corporations operate under restrictions to the benefit of society. Free and open internet encourages free speech. Verizon is claiming their free speech is more important than any of their customers. They should be called out on this anti-consumer position."
"This could be an interesting study in the absurdity of granting constitutional protections intended for people to a meta-person, in this case a company.
1) Who is Verizon?
2) How is this regulation stiffling that 'speech'?
3) If this goes through, how much longer before every company has a RIGHT to do whatever it is it does because not letting them do so will violate their 5th Amendment rights?
I like how they're ignoring a massive section of what their network is, and only focusing on one aspect of it in order to get what will ultimately be a phyrric victory if they win, because that argument will then apply to all the networks they interface with, and the property rights of every user of their network which will NOT be able to be controlled with a non-contractual TOS, and will hence open Verizon up to massive litigation if it's upheld.
Someone isn't thinking through the consequences of their rant."
40. JC557 posted on 05 Jul 2012, 23:05 3
After today, Verizon Wireless is full of s**t and I wouldn't trust them on this topic. If they weren't the only ones that can provide good service in the places I go I would've left ages ago.
Unfortunately, the Worry Free Garantee is major BS. Prior to doing the transaction I was told repeatedly that my Unlimited Data would stay in place seeing as how it should be just an exchange. Well the reps at the data center said nope and then me and the customer service rep at the counter were given such a headache and run around when trying to revert my service back to my old phone. It took 2 hours to make things right but the Corporate Center was really trying to force me into the new plan even with my old phone.
It turns out Verizon will give you a lot of bulls**t and wil make an effort in getting you onto their new data plans. Just for that I will start "abusing" my Unlimited Data and download/ stream as much as I can. The bastards that they are....
44. MorePhonesThanNeeded posted on 06 Jul 2012, 00:44 6
Ohh look another individual who thinks that this won't affect them negatively should Verizon win this battle with the FCC.
Think about it slowly, Verizon is trying to tell the FCC that the airwaves that they rented from the Government(which is for the people by the people) that once they rent the airwaves they have the right to do with it as they please. Now the said airwaves are owned forever by the Government because they are for public consumption and use, so corporations like VZW, ATT and TMobile cannot own any of it. The government is run by 3 heads to keep itself in check, none of these companies are tripartite, they are run by money coming in from consumers, they have no loyalty to anything but that cash influx.
In order to maximize cash, this fight should they win will mean that VZW can force you to use whatever features and programming they offer and block anyone else you may want to use. Basically, you would be stuck using Blockbuster crappy service for movies and blocked from connecting to Netflix when you are using VZW data networks. If you want that type of crap then by all means wish them well. I want no part of this, not sure how a corporation became a person when it cannot vote, be drafted or anything that actual person(s) do.
This should be struck down hard by the courts as it is only opening a pandoras box, because if you let VZW do this, then everyone else will come running claiming the same crap and well can you imagine the new revenue stream that cable internet providers can come up with to siphon more money out of you and your family. Carriers are trying to fight the future of being dumb pipes, I think it's better that the become dumb pipes, they take way too much money for meager services don't you think? Check you VZW bill for all the regulatory charges and what not that stuff is almost 33% of your total bill, incredible. No thank you cell providers don't need anymore power than they already have, like the fact that you are forced to have a data plan with a smartphone, what sort of tyrannical nonsense is that? Let me get only phone service I will use WiFi for data when I want to go online.
59. corporateJP posted on 06 Jul 2012, 19:47 0
I'd rather side with the FCC on this one, for a change.
48. becazican posted on 06 Jul 2012, 08:20 1
i think people should do what they did with bank of america, when they tried to screw the american public. QUIT THEM!!!!!. hit them in their pocketbooks and see how fast they fall in line. they will start controling everything, so the public wont decide what service they like best , verizon will tell them. hmmmm open market .sounds more like a communist thought.
50. dcgore posted on 06 Jul 2012, 08:51 1
Verizon obviously wants more and more money, incredible! Once net nutrality goes, VZ can say that sending data to a smartphone is and should be more expensive compared to a home or office; data "should" not be all the same. They charge more based on "peak" hours and whatnot.
Stop being greedy Verizon, clearly you are a corporation, not a two legged individual.
53. roscuthiii posted on 06 Jul 2012, 11:37 2
Anyone familiar with 'Animal Farm'? Reminds me of its. "All animals are created equal. [Some animals are created more equal than others.]"
54. iami67 posted on 06 Jul 2012, 13:10 2
If verizon starts telling customers what sites or apps we can and can not use im sure most of the smart phone users would leave and go else were. I know I would
55. Zero0 posted on 06 Jul 2012, 13:23 1
I am not a lawyer, but here goes:
-The government sometimes uses Eminent Domain to obtain property, then sells the land to companies with the stipulation that the land must remain open for public use. Government has the ability to sell land and control its use afterwards, so it follows that they have the ability to control the use of any type of property that they lease or sell, including spectrum. (Specifically, in the case of LTE, Verizon agreed to the Open Network and Open Device policies. They are under contract. It's going to be really hard to get out of that one.)
-The First Amendment does not protect the right to say/do everything. "Free speech" does not fully exist. There are exceptions. Specifically, if speech creates danger, the speech may be restricted. It can be argued that breaking net neutrality creates a danger of monopolies forming on the Internet.