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?
Good luck to anyone who waste their money on Boxee TV. I wouldn't trust that company again with my money. I was one of those they fooled into buying a wonderful little Box for $200 and then 3 months later they abandoned the unit as soon as the first signs of trouble popped up.
Now i'm left with Boxee Box which half of the time doesn't run correctly, has a ton of bugs, and no signs of that promised last update for the current users. Don't get me wrong I think its great idea and has a lot of good features but they left all of their loyal users high and dry with no updates for months at a time. Now they want me to buy another product.
As soon as trouble shows up they will leave it behind for another one.