 CoronaIt's cool, I'm takin it backPremium
join:2000-03-14
Dallas, TX | dangerous precedent This is a dangerous precedent to set. From the blurb, it looks like only users who sign up for these SMS messages would get them. What's the problem Verizon? |
|
|
|
Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH | They'r not getting any kind of kickback. |
|
 NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | reply to Corona
Not only that, if they filter and block content they lose common carrier status and can be held liable for what goes across their network.
Obviously one of the lawyers must not have gotten enough coffee that day. |
|
1 edit | reply to Corona
I agree. I don't give a crap what kind of BS clause Verizon puts in its contracts -- nothing should take precedence over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (the First Amendment in this instance).
EDIT: Looks like this story is now obsolete. Apparently Verizon has already reversed its position. »www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21011328/ |
|
 nklbPremium
join:2000-11-17
Ann Arbor, MI
kudos:2 | said by matrix3D:I agree. I don't give a crap what kind of BS clause Verizon puts in its contracts -- nothing should take precedence over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (the First Amendment in this instance). Verizon is not a government organization and therefore the first amendment is not applicable to them.
--
for all your Linux questions |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1 | reply to Nuts
The hell they're not getting a kickback. It's absolutely insane how much wireless companies charge for text messages. |
|
BarneyBadAssBadasses Fight For FreedomPremium
join:2004-05-07
00001 | reply to Corona
Kripes... why don't they just get out of the business completely?
--
---Barney |
|
| reply to nklb
said by nklb:said by matrix3D:I agree. I don't give a crap what kind of BS clause Verizon puts in its contracts -- nothing should take precedence over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (the First Amendment in this instance). Verizon is not a government organization and therefore the first amendment is not applicable to them. Horseshit! They are a common carrier and content is NONE OF THEIR G-D BUSINESS! |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to djrobx
Its one of the highest profit margin items that a wireless company can provide.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_message_service
quote:
Commercially SMS is a massive industry in 2006 worth over 80 Billion dollars globally.[17] SMS has an average global price of 11 cents and maintains a near 90% profit margin.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
 Doctor OldsI Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.Premium,VIP
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30
kudos:18 | reply to NOCMan
said by NOCMan:Not only that, if they filter and block content they lose common carrier status and can be held liable for what goes across their network. Funny that you mention that.
AT&T doesn't seem concerned......
»AT&T to Target Pirated Content
»AT&T willing to spy for NSA, MPAA, and RIAA
»[Services] AT&T to block pirated content
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time? |
|
Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
| reply to ross
said by ross:said by nklb:said by matrix3D:I agree. I don't give a crap what kind of BS clause Verizon puts in its contracts -- nothing should take precedence over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (the First Amendment in this instance). Verizon is not a government organization and therefore the first amendment is not applicable to them. Horseshit! They are a common carrier and content is NONE OF THEIR G-D BUSINESS! For those who care,
My layman's understanding of 1st Amendment vs. Common Carrier is that they must be different because I've never heard of them being derived from the same thing, but both have similar effects. If my layman's understanding is correct, then stating "nonsense!" to an accusation that 1st amendment has nothing to do with Common Carrier and then equating the two interchangeably in conversation simply shows the stupidity of the person doing it. Most people would realize the *potential* for the two items to be different regardless of whether or not they actually are, and would be cautious enough not to use them as equivilent as well. Mixing those two items up shows some sort of mental incapacity, disease, and/or instability.
It was bloody stupid of VW to deny the "pro-lifers" -- verify side -- oh it was the "pro-choicers" -- hm -- well, I personally have a much darker attitude toward them, but the principles are the same -- it was (not bloody but at least a little bit) stupid of VW to deny the "pro-choicers" their forum if they are behaving properly with respect to everything technical (although not necessarily with respect to prudent procreational activities) since VW likes the protections of being a common carrier. |
|
