 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| reply to k1ll3rdr4g0n
Re: And then there were none... said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:From this this ruling, it sends a clear message to ALL ISPs that they can lie to their user base and get away with it. No, they can't.
The FCC is just the wrong government department to be creating/enforcing consumer protection laws. These cases can be handled by states Attorney Generals much more effectively than by the FCC.
It was the State of Florida that got Comcast to disclose their cap and procedure for ejecting "abusive" customers from the network: »Comcast Pays Florida $150K For Misleading Consumers
It was the State of New York that went after Verizon for imposing caps on its "unlimited" mobile data service: »Verizon Busted For 'Unlimited' Marketing
All this ruling does is restrict a certain government organization from overstepping its boundary. |
|
|
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Well said..
.. and it was the State of Minnesota that tackled the Cellular companies and the way they handle ETF fees as well.  |
|
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:From this this ruling, it sends a clear message to ALL ISPs that they can lie to their user base and get away with it. No, they can't. The FCC is just the wrong government department to be creating/enforcing consumer protection laws. These cases can be handled by states Attorney Generals much more effectively than by the FCC. It was the State of Florida that got Comcast to disclose their cap and procedure for ejecting "abusive" customers from the network: » Comcast Pays Florida $150K For Misleading ConsumersIt was the State of New York that went after Verizon for imposing caps on its "unlimited" mobile data service: » Verizon Busted For 'Unlimited' MarketingAll this ruling does is restrict a certain government organization from overstepping its boundary. It shouldn't be the state's that tackle problems like these, it should come from federal dictation. What's to stop Verizon from still doing this selectively in different states? I mean, a few hicups here and there won't be noticed in different states, but if the federal government went after Verizon and they pulled it in ANY state then our government could easily go after them.
It does send a clear message, and since that the FCC can't tackle you, then who does Uncle Sam have that can go after them? If I were an ISP I would know that I can continue to be greedy, just do it in such a way that you can't actually derive a clear pattern. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:It shouldn't be the state's that tackle problems like these, it should come from federal dictation. What's to stop Verizon from still doing this selectively in different states? Every state has an Office of the Attorney General, and legal precedence is already established once one state wins. While precedence doesn't guarantee a victory in every case, it heavily biases the outcome of the trial. Only the State of Florida went after Comcast, and yet they're complying nationwide by rolling out their usage meter and disclosing their cap publicly.
The states can address these issues with the power they already have, and the Attorney General is an elected position which means you can vote someone else in if you feel you aren't being well represented. The FCC is comprised of appointed officials, so if you don't happen to like what policies they come up with -- too bad.
We don't need to give more power to government agencies that can arbitrarily come up with their own regulations without strict oversight and accountability to the public. |
|
