 |
 |
 |  |
 |  |   worldvision Premium join:2006-05-17 Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: The whole things was a mountain out of a mole hill said by Jovi :Do you ever side with the little guy TCH? Ever.....? Almost seems like corporate America is lining your pockets to post on their behalf. Yes, that is the feeling i have gotten long time ago | |
|
 |  ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| said by TK Junk Mail :This was just some issue made up by some groups on a crusade for laws about network neutrality. There was never any danger to the customers. So they change the wording and the advocacy groups lose 1 more battle. Talk about imaginary stories... | |
|
 |  |   pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: The whole things was a mountain out of a mole hill said by ross :Talk about imaginary stories... When did AT&T or Verizon terminate any customers based on the clause in question? -- Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
 |   Nightshade Beware the Blue Rabbit Premium join:2002-05-26 Salem, OR edit: October 11th, @02:47AM
| Who are these groups that you refer to and what does this have to do with network neutrality? | |
|
 |  |   TK Junk Mail Golf season has returned - hurrah Premium join:2002-03-03 Margate City, NJ
·Comcast
| Re: The whole things was a mountain out of a mole hill said by Nightshade :Who are these groups that you refer to and what does this have to do with network neutrality? From the BBR story:
Obviously both telcos have been working overtime to fight network neutrality laws, and aren't eager to give political opponents any ammunition. -- -- Internet News My BLOG My Web Page | |
|
 |  |  |   Nightshade Beware the Blue Rabbit Premium join:2002-05-26 Salem, OR
edit: October 11th, @02:15PM
| Re: The whole things was a mountain out of a mole hill Well I can see where you got the network neutrality thing from but still consider it a stretch. But political opponents are pretty vague as a group.
How I read the clause is pretty vague too. I don't see Verizon or AT&T to go after individual customers because they got bigger fish to fry. But how the clauses were written as is were vague enough for them to do so if they so desired. But the reason why they didn't do it is because the backlash they would get from current customers or ex customers who lost service because they expressed their opinions about the service.
But I am glad Verizon and AT&T are getting rid of the clauses. No harm, no foul. -- True Happiness Must Come From Within | |
|
 SD6
join:2005-03-26
| yea, right... ... (j) to damage the name or reputation of Verizon, its parent, affiliates and subsidiaries, or any third parties
"The intent of this provision which, as I mentioned, has been in our policy for nearly a decade -- has always been to stop anyone who might represent themselves as Verizon in an attempt to do harm. This would include clearly illegal activities such as using our name or trademarks to engage in phishing, identity theft, sale of bogus services and other types of fraud."
Protect against fraud? Yea, right. Some of us can read you know. | |
|
 |
 |   JoeG4
join:2001-12-16 945941 | Re: Very Broad Like 1984, yes, and I'm sure they could start 'donating' to DSLReports while nudging to get said negative reviews erased | |
|
 |  |   dvd536 as Mr. Pink as they come Premium join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ | Re: Very Broad lets take the reports out of dslreports. pretty soon it'll just be another myspace. -- You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
  N O Y B St. John 3.16
join:2005-12-15 Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| Have You Read Acceptable Use Policy Recently? Just read the AUP and it is safe to say each and every one of Verizon Online's customers is in violation and could be subject to immediate termination.
2. Verizon reserves the right to deny Service to you, or immediately to terminate your Service for material breach, if your use of the Service or your use of an alias ... (d) is objectionable for any reason; or (e) in any manner violates the terms of this Acceptable Use Policy.
3. You may NOT use the Service as follows: (g) to post information on newsgroups which is not in the topic area or charter (e.g. off-topic posting). Who among you hasn't done that at least once upon a time.
(n) to generate excessive amounts (as determined by Verizon in its sole discretion) of Internet traffic, ... Your traffic less one bit could be deemed excessive.
| |
|
 |  SD6
join:2005-03-26 | Re: Have You Read Acceptable Use Policy Recently? Heck, they have so many unacceptable uses they ran out of letters. | |
|
  testdave
@shawcable.net
| But think of the children... But the whole reason for the clause that you couldn't badmouth AT&T was to help children. How will AT&T be able to toss people posting child pornography now? Or child predator's from hitting on kids?
Everyone knows that if you're willing to post negative things about your ISP, you're also a pedophile! It's just common sense. | |
|
 |
|
 |