Verizon and MetroPCS argue that the ruling is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment, claiming that broadband networks are the modern-day microphone by which their owners engage in First Amendment speech. The carriers state that the rules are arbitrary and capricious, and also violate the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Are they possibly using an argument that could backfire? They are trying to say that shareholders first amendment rights are being violated if they cannot control the use of their network. Is this like claiming that free speech is owning a megaphone and deciding who can use it? Are they trying to equate broadband with a radio or television station where the owners dictate the content that airs? In this case, the owners have the right to deny a software program on their network because that software program might "say" something through the "microphone" with which they disagree?
Don't publicly held corporations have to comply with various laws that prohibit discrimination? Does this too violate owners first amendment rights by denying them the ability to "protest" such compliance through their incorporation?
They are apparently trying to say that as the owners of the medium they have the right to say that they don't want certain apps on the medium that they own. Haha.
|reply to rradina |
Apple does this and no one bats an eye.
Mullica Hill, NJ
I think the difference is that Apple owns the store too. Verizon does not own the Google Market/Google Play.
Allowing the carrier to restrict apps would be like Comcast being able to restrict what browser you can use.
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
|reply to 88615298 |
When they rejected Google Voice and more recently the Drop Box app, articles were written. There are even top 10/top 20 lists of apps rejected without any rational reason.
When they rejected Google Voice, there were even journalists claiming Apple was inviting regulation.