stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO
 ·Comcast
| reply to zachary1
Re: controversial or unsavory-- how about LEGAL / NORMAL
To: Zachary1,
Ever the clever one aren't we?
To whom are you referring in your post in reference to "Dr. Laura apologist"? I searched back through the posts and was unable to find any references to Dr. Laura I know I never made mention of her, I do not listen to her nor do I take advice from her. Once again we have an individual who is seemingly unable to debate the issues in an adult manner. I might be on opposite sides of the fence from you on this issue but I have not lowered myself to name calling. If you do not like what I said say so and why in an adult manner. I can only conclude you are a teenager lacking knowledge and an understanding of the issues please try and do some research prior to posting such clever informative and enlightening post. Thank you and have a great day |
|
stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO
·Comcast
| reply to nipseyrussel
To: nipseyrussel
I have refrained from calling people on this forum names, while I might disagree with a particular viewpoint I at no time resorted to name calling such as you have. As adults (I might be making a large leap of fate here) we should be able to debate and discuss the issues without trying to denigrate each other. If you feel that I am posting off topic the simple and expedient thing to do is just move on and skip those posts. Thank you for your cooperation. Oh and if you wish to debate the issues first learn what the issues are, do some research, name calling is the first hint you lack knowledge about the subject matter.
Thank you
|
|
zachary1
you talkin' to me?
join:2004-03-07
right here | reply to stevephl
This douchebag is a Dr. Laura apologist. |
|
xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
 ·AT&T Yahoo
| reply to Placebo
said by Placebo  :Seriously? Are you really feigning outrage here? So what if it's legal. That doesn't mean that everyone feels it's morally acceptable. Are you telling me that Verizon should be forced to give ANY organization access to its network? Absolutely. Should they ban me from calling you if I know you just because I am calling from a t-mobile or us cellular cell phone? a land line? a voip provider?
In either case, for bulk text messaging, rules are already laid out:
Express Prior Authorization
Under the FCC’s rules, commercial e-mail messages may only be sent to your wireless device via the Internet if you have provided your “express prior authorization.” Commercial e-mail senders may request that you provide this authorization orally or in writing (e-mail or letter). They must tell you the name of the entity that will be sending the messages and, if different, the name of the entity advertising products or services. All commercial e-mail messages sent to you after you’ve given your authorization must allow you to revoke your authorization, or “opt out” of receiving future messages. You must be allowed to opt out the same way you “opted in,” including by dialing a short code. Senders have 10 days to honor requests to opt out.
FWIW
»www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/canspam.html |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to P Ness
Ohhhh, snap! |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to Lumberjack
When your business is built on and assets reside on public property (wireline or frequency) then you're subject to the will of the public. For that subjection you get the exclusive right to use the public's asset in a for-profit venture. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
| reply to Placebo
said by Placebo :For NARAL to send the messages, it requires Verizon to provide access to thier network. Maybe Verizon should monitor all phone calls. That way if NARAL calls a volunteer on the phone they could block the call. Is this what you suggest?
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
nipseyrussel
Nipsey Russell, yo
join:2002-02-22
Philadelphia, PA
| reply to stevephl
said by stevephl :Actually while I oppose abortion I do agree that Verizon is probably coming down on the wrong side of this very contentious issue. and, this is what makes you a douchbag: the on-topic reply is that you disagree with what verizon did, instead we got 4 off topic replies about baby killing first
nice |
|
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to Placebo
Yes, common carrier -- I expect them to provide opt-in access to their network, for their customers, for any legal content. |
|
SylphFi
Premium
join:2007-06-07
Moses Lake, WA
 ·Spectrum Communica..
| reply to Lumberjack
quote:
Instead, BUY service from somewhere else and force the market to change.
That would be just fine, if not for the fact that many, more likely most, people have been yoked into a 2-year contract, and would face stiff penalties for switching carriers. Walmart, on the other hand, does not post guards at the door demanding $200 before they will let you leave the store. |
|
PhoenixDown
-- Wants FIOS
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
clubs:  
| reply to Lumberjack
Re: controversial or unsavory-- how about LEGAL / NORMAL
Lumber Jack:
Our country may have been built on Captialism but it was founded on the notion of freedom and liberty for all.
In regards to your example, if I didn't like the censored version sold by Walmart, i could go to a thousand different stores and buy it elsewhere (Target, K-Mart, Sam Goodies, Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Best Buy, buy.com, etc) -- however we have very few telecommunications companies. They wanted to merge and grow in size, then they have to need to be fair and uphold thier end of their agreement to thier customers which is to provide an unfettered service. |
|
Lumberjack
Premium
join:2003-01-18
Newport News, VA
| reply to PhoenixDown
Um, what?
I'm all for our Constitution and agree that our country's population is starting to loose sight of what the country was founded on. One thing people forget and this is probably the worst, as this country was built on Capitalism and the means to gain rewards for hard work and being proud of that. What does this have to do with Verizon filtering service? Well, for starters it's their network, not the peoples network. They paid for it, they built it and they maintain it. So long as they abid by their policy to their customers, they can do whatever they want with their own property whether physical or intellectual as long as it doesn't break any laws.
This is no different than Walmart offering censored only versions of music or choosing not to sell certain types of music.
Please make sure that as a Constitution loving citizen of the US you don't forget that Capitalism drives our country's companies and work ethics. Lets not try to force companies to act like socialist entities of the government because we don't like something. Instead, BUY service from somewhere else and force the market to change.
This is probably not more than a soap box rant but jez, people here so often forget that net neutrality battles will be one with the paying customer's decisions. If at the end of the day you don't like something don't pay for it, suggest an alternative and wait for the company that sees the light to offer the service you want. The worst thing that can happen is any kind of government control, they always fail... the only thing it's been somewhat good at for the last 200 plus years is enforcing our constitutional rights, and I'm ok with that.
--
»www.fairtax.org |
|
eco
Premium
join:2001-11-28
Wilmington, DE
| reply to Placebo
Of course they should. From the New York Times article on the subject:
"Professor Wu pointed to a historical analogy. In the 19th century, he said, Western Union, the telegraph company, engaged in discrimination, based on the political views of people who sought to send telegrams. “One of the eventual reactions was the common carrier rule,†Professor Wu said, which required telegraph and then phone companies to accept communications from all speakers on all topics."
This is the exact same issue, except now the text is on a cell phone screen instead of a piece of paper. |
|
P Ness
You'Ve Forgotten 9-11 Already
Premium
join:2001-08-29
Mineola, NY
clubs:
1 edit | reply to stevephl
said by stevephl :P Ness, Not an opinion but fact. Whatever your own views you cannot refute facts. Murder is murder this has nothing to do with Verizons stance, that is a separate issue. This is also not a religious issue, abortion is akin to me taking one of my kids out back and killing them, same end result don't you agree? Rock N' Roll does not kill people  Thanks and enjoy your day and be thankful your parents are not killers no its your opinion that life starts out in the womb vs actual birth or at a particular month.
"abortion is akin to me taking one of my kids out back and killing them"
depends on the month of development. the first month NO, the last month Yes.
where this line starts or ends is MY OPINION and not fact, show me FACT on when life begins and ends...at this point there is point and counterpoint on dates from conception to popping out of the womb.
P.S. my mother could not be a killer it was illegal back when i was born...but then again if you are big religious nut then you would know that my soul would just either end up in another body or back up in heaven...since it would have been impossible to have sinned inside of the womb...so would it really be that horrible to go to heaven since its so wonderful right????
--
www.stopfcc.com
I do not think the government needs to restrict free speech especially on a device that has an off knob. |
|
CableConvert
Premium
join:2003-12-05
Atlanta, GA
| reply to stevephl
I was certainly pleased to read the responses to this thread and see that it stayed on point...blocking content, not about the issue itself...until stevephl ruined my faith that there could be a discussion of the issue of blocking content w/o the insertion of someones social and political agenda. As one who used to live next door to a womens' clinic that performed abortions...let me tell you something about the whacos that used to hang out there EVERY day. They dressed as the grim reeper, had huge posters of bloody babies that they waved in the face of everyone who had the misfortune of walking by (this was across the street from a museum...so lots of foot traffic. Screamed bible verses at women going there (even if not for abortion but prenatal care...yeah thats right women who wanted to HAVE children). They were the most VILE people I've ever come in contact with in my life. I took much pleasure in taking the water hose to them if they even crept an inch on my property. Is it any wonder that THESE people want to dictate content you see. Be afraid...be very afraid. I am. I have rights to, and I will protect them as well |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to stevephl
said by stevephl :This is murder of a child pure and simple, who will stand up for the rights of the children? We expend more effort to save the whales and Owls then we do to save our own children, no wonder we have so many disturbed kids running amok. There are better ways of accomplishing birth control then killing a child. Stevephl -
Are you willing to work as hard for an "Adopt the fetus in the womb" law as you are to ban Abortion? So long as you classify abortion as Murder (no matter what the woman thinks) but are unwilling to prevent it by assuming Legal Responsibility for the fetus being born by adopting it and paying the woman's medical expenses until then, I think that this is the stance of a hypocrite.
Note: This is not an expression of my views on Abortion but only on the behavior of those who want to ban it (or classify it as murder) but who are unwilling to accept responsibility for the results of their actions/views. |
|
PhoenixDown
-- Wants FIOS
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
clubs:
| reply to stevephl
StevePL -
I'm glad you are taking a proactive stance regarding the proper education of our children but there are still ALOT of people out there who do not feel that way and compromises need to be made by all sides if the issue of abortion is to be satisfactorily addressed.
Getting back to the topic: If customers are opting in to receive text messages, then the actual subject of the message is irrelevant. Abortion (regardless of ones feelings) is LEGAL as defined by the Supreme Court. It is up to the law makers to change that legal standing and not the telecommunications to make the decide on the behalf of any party. |
|
stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO | reply to TheWickerMan
Actually while I oppose abortion I do agree that Verizon is probably coming down on the wrong side of this very contentious issue. |
|
stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO
·Comcast
| reply to ReneM
ReneM,
Please cite the relevant portions of the Constitution that make killing of kids legal? The part about "Life and the pursuit of happiness" part would seem to indicate to me that these children you want to so readily off are being denied their Constitutional rights.
My take the Rove V. Wade debacle will be over turned and abortions once again banned. After all its for the "Children"
So your assertion that this is what separates us from the likes of North Korea, Iran Iraq (Irak?) and so forth is based on our government sanctioning the killing of children? Do I have that right? Hmm isn't that what the regimes of the countries you mention do as a normal part of doing business? Wow maybe we are closer to those countries in terms of our actions and deeds then what we thought, who would have thought?
Thanks for educating me on this very important issue. |
|
