xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
 ·AT&T Yahoo
| reply to Placebo
Re: controversial or unsavory-- how about LEGAL / NORMAL
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 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
·AT&T Southwest
| 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!) |
|
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
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. |
|
matrix3D
join:2006-09-27
Deep River, CT | reply to PhoenixDown
Agreed. I'm amazed at how many people forget that little thing called "the Bill of Rights" and think that their own personal 15th-century opinion is law. |
|
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| reply to Placebo
said by Placebo :F I'd argue that I'm not "clueless". I'd argue that your brain fell out of your right ear. |
|
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| reply to Placebo
said by Placebo :Are you telling me that Verizon should be forced to give ANY organization access to its network? With the customer's permission, of course. That's what you pay them for.
What universe are you from? |
|
Placebo
Premium
join:2005-12-14
Huntley, IL
·Comcast
| reply to ropeguru
For NARAL to send the messages, it requires Verizon to provide access to thier network. Verizon chooses not to provide access. Would you expect Verizon to provide access to ANY organization?
I'd argue that I'm not "clueless". Dish Network offers local HD channels throughout the country--I'm pretty sure they offer over 100 channels throughout the country. I can't get all 100. Is my analogy so off base?
--
Who wants an orange whip? Orange whip? Orange whip? Three orange whips. |
|
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
 ·VOIPo
| reply to Placebo
said by Placebo :I want 200 HD channels from Dish Network. In fact, I'm paying them over $100 per month. Give me what I want!!!! See, doesn't that sound a little ridiculous? It doesn't matter if you are the one "opting in". What matters is the fact that Verizon doesn't want to provide access to their network to NARAL. Dude, you are clueless... You are using an analogy for something that Dish doesn't even offer.
Debating with people like you is useless because you will constantly use information that has no bearing on what is being discussed.
--
FWD#: 223611 |
|
datreic
join:2007-03-03
| reply to Placebo
My issue with this, and thankfully I am no longer a Verizon customer, is not that they are running their business as they see fit (though I disagree with how they are doing it). My problem is that if I was a customer and I didn't agree with these business practices I cannot terminate my contract without penalty AND if enough businesses (at least the major providers, such as Verizon, Sprint, etc) chose to follow this, I would be left with few options.
This is similar to Walmart not selling products (cds/dvds) that they do not find "fitting" of their image. Spend your money somewhere else, if you can. |
|
Placebo
Premium
join:2005-12-14
Huntley, IL
·Comcast
| reply to ropeguru
I want 200 HD channels from Dish Network. In fact, I'm paying them over $100 per month. Give me what I want!!!!
See, doesn't that sound a little ridiculous? It doesn't matter if you are the one "opting in". What matters is the fact that Verizon doesn't want to provide access to their network to NARAL.
--
Who wants an orange whip? Orange whip? Orange whip? Three orange whips. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to tiger72
I agree... I should be able to receive messages from whoever I want (assuming they're not terrorists).
Whether its abortion, p0rn, warez, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, etc.
If VZW or any carrier decides for me that I shouldn't receive a message that I expect to see, then there is an issue.
What happens if I set up my travel plans with American Airlines (worst airlines out there), to SMS me my flight schedule changes, and Verizon decides to block them.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs: | reply to pnh102
So? If you opt-in, then the content is irrelevant to Verizon (or should be) |
|
P Ness
You'Ve Forgotten 9-11 Already
Premium
join:2001-08-29
Mineola, NY
clubs:
| 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? as long as its legal what would be the harm since I am requesting the information, its not spam that was sent.
besides this might not be how the majority of verizon users feel, but the 10 man board of directors, or the 3 man policy board, ect...
i feel the Catholic church is an evil orginization that is corupted to its core, from years of killing, wars and molestation of children. so if i was the one making the decisions on the filtering on verizon then would you then have NO problem with anything from them being filtered, how about i kick them off and not allow ANY call traffic that originates from a church or catholic orginization.
start to see the problem here yet?
--
www.stopfcc.comI do not think the government needs to restrict free speech especially on a device that has an off knob. |
|
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA
| 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? Uhh, yeah. What is the next step, Verizon Wireless won't let you accept calls from an organization it doesn't agree with? No difference between that and an SMS that you sign up for.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to Placebo
said by Placebo :So what if it's legal. That doesn't mean that everyone feels it's morally acceptable. Verizon just wants to avoid a slippery slope here. If they give any political or ideological organization a platform, then they will eventually have to give them all a platform. Today it would be NARAL, tomorrow it might be NAMBLA, the next day it might be the Westboro Baptist Church ...
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
