said by firephoto:
Enough with the BS. Verizon specifically crafted deals with the government that excluded their wireless services from any net neutrality provisions to ensure they could limit the amount and type of traffic on their wireless networks. It's actually the same deal Google got because they helped Verizon with it.
Really? Because I am pretty sure Verizon got fined for blocking tethering on their 4G network because of a net neutrality requirement on their 700 mhz spectrum. Even if they did help craft it, it still applies.
If you notice, they are not limiting traffic. They do have caps so that the network doesn't become saturated. Caps that affected relatively few people.
said by firephoto:
Also you can't ignore the national spectrum licenses verizon and att get that are great and fair for large markets and just monopolize other areas where there could be some competitions from small independent carriers that could actually buy licenses for those areas if they weren't tacked onto other expensive by market value areas. The best option they get now is to pay verizon or att to use their network. It's a big stinking government handout to the biggest corporations and it most certainly is special treatment.
Interesting. You know I happen to live in one of those areas that Verizon and At&t "monopolize". And contrary to beliefs, there is quite a bit of spectrum that belongs to small wireless carriers, such as iWireless. You know that they do with that spectrum? Offer a cutting edge GPRS wireless network at literally dial-up speeds! You know what Verizon does with theirs? Offer 3G AND 4G! The belief that small carriers would use this spectrum and offer real "Service" to people is complete crap. I also have US Cellular in this area. What do they do with their spectrum? Offer services at prices equal to that of Verizon, with poorer performance and awful phones.