Verizon's Constitutional right to throttle you....

[anon(94115)]

Really? So the founders of this country explicitly stated that your data could and should be throttled.

My bad, sorry Verizon for doubting you.

Full Version:

Verizon: net neutrality violates our free speech rights | Ars Technica

tl;dr version:

Verizon claims the U.S. Constitution gives it the right to lower your data speeds | Technology News Blog - Yahoo! News

 

[MrSmith317]

Read the article...had a decent chuckle. And went back to slamming my forehead on my desk.

"What's more, Verizon likens its role in throttling certain web content to that of a newspaper editor picking what stories to run"

That's why all wireless carriers/ ISP's should be DUMB PIPES or at least recognize that they are

 

[babytazz18]

Read the article...had a decent chuckle. And went back to slamming my forehead on my desk.

"What's more, Verizon likens its role in throttling certain web content to that of a newspaper editor picking what stories to run"

That's why all wireless carriers/ ISP's should be DUMB PIPES or at least recognize that they are

Yes I too could not help but hear the voice of charlie brown's teacher throughout reading the article.

 

[anon(94115)]

I am still trying to absorb all that herpa derp.

Your right, they should stay dumb pipes, but when there is money to be made, nothing is safe

 

[eshropshire]

Read the article...had a decent chuckle. And went back to slamming my forehead on my desk.

"What's more, Verizon likens its role in throttling certain web content to that of a newspaper editor picking what stories to run"

That's why all wireless carriers/ ISP's should be DUMB PIPES or at least recognize that they are

I tend to agree with you, but Verizon's next action will be just to slow down the whole dumb pipe which they can do. They currently do this on 3G for congested towers to users who Verizon deems excessive users. No contract change is needed to throttle individual users. What they can't do (right now at least) is throttle based on content, but they can based on overall usage.

I figure this will have for LTE users in the months after the iPhone 5 is released. By this time next year the bar for throttling will probably be around 4-5 GB a month unless you pay for more data.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Are we in some twisted corporate twilight zone?
The excuses for their bull$#it back then were at least close to sounding logical. It feels like after 2008, they were like screw it, and started blabbering incoherently.
Yeah, Verizon is like a newspaper. It's highlighted when you go to change your plan, it actually says "Newspaper Plan" not "Data Plan."
Oh, you guys wanted access to engadget? Hold up, let me run that by our Editor-In-Chief. The next step is gonna be Verizon putting out a press release saying "U MAD?"

 

[matthew2109]

How does this work if I pay for the Mobile Hotspot? I go through 12-15 GB per month most of it while using the hotspot.

Sent from My ReZound

 

[majorpayne]

Although the outcome can affect the wireless portion you all do know they are speaking (my interpitation) from a Verizon (ISP, DSL/Fiber) stand point not Verizon Wireless...

 

[anon(94115)]

Although the outcome can affect the wireless portion you all do know they are speaking (my interpitation) from a Verizon (ISP, DSL/Fiber) stand point not Verizon Wireless...

That may be true but if net neutrality goes down the drain, how long do you think it would take for it to hit wireless as well? 10 minutes? less?

 

[NoYankees44]

As much as I hate to admit it, their argument on some levels makes sense. I will have to mull it over a while to really see if it is constitutional or not.

The free market mindset, which I almost always believe in, says its perfectly fine. Consumers will go to other places if they don't like it.

However on the other hand it could be argued that it makes it unfair for the smaller sites in the marketplace

Sent from my ADR6425LVW

 

[dmmarck]

On the surface, I think their argument makes sense. If you flip their argument and say that our 1A rights are infringed then you run into issues. I've seen that raised in a few places, but it forgets one of the most important facets of Constitutional rights/law--the actor that "infringes" must be a governmental actor; private actors, within certain limitations, can do whatever they please.

Here, you can argue that because Verizon is using state/government owned infrastructure that they could be perceived as a government actor, and thus could not infringe a consumer's 1A rights. However, as I have no real facts on the matter, it's hard to conclusively say that that line of logic would be successful.

 

[nteeman]

I think their 'newspaper editor' analogy is flawed, it would be more correct if they compared it to a vendor of newspapers, as an internet provider is selling access to the internet. If a vendor of newspapers would sell their papers with content (ads or news) removed or altered that would be comparable to an internet provider slowing down access to non-preferred sites!

 

[skatergirl]

Really? So the founders of this country explicitly stated that your data could and should be throttled.

My bad, sorry Verizon for doubting you.

Full Version:

Verizon: net neutrality violates our free speech rights | Ars Technica

tl;dr version:

Verizon claims the U.S. Constitution gives it the right to lower your data speeds | Technology News Blog - Yahoo! News

Well, the Supreme Court just recently said it was constitutional to tax U.S. citizens for health insurance. We're all in trouble!

 

[Dovahkiin]

Well, the Supreme Court just recently said it was constitutional to tax U.S. citizens for health insurance. We're all in trouble!

I think it was more about the government having the right to impose a penalty if you don't go for the other alternative rather than just straight up tax (like they aren't doing that anyway!)
Now if Verizon brought this issue up all the way to the supreme court, I would lol something fierce, then cry myself to death when I realize the government exists to serve corporate interests and Verizon would win automatically.

 

[NoYankees44]

I think it was more about the government having the right to impose a penalty if you don't go for the other alternative rather than just straight up tax (like they aren't doing that anyway!)
Now if Verizon brought this issue up all the way to the supreme court, I would lol something fierce, then cry myself to death when I realize the government exists to serve corporate interests and Verizon would win automatically.

Off topic: The courts decision was made based on the fact that it was a tax. If it is not a tax then it is not constitutional in their eyes. Also, they said it was unconstitutional in the sense if requiring the purchase of a good or service, but they chose to pass it based on the government's right to tax. If it were a penalty, it would be like making you pay for not buying a car. Sense it is a tax, it is like everyone paying a wheel tax for use of the roads whether they own a car or not. And yes this means the administration fell threw on their promise not to tax the middle class by passing the largest tax on the middle class in history.

On topic: the news stand article is a good analogy except the one could argue that the bender decides the prices and what is on the front shelf as opposed to what is behind the counter.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW

 

[anon(94115)]

Off topic:

Buy health insurance one way or another, no tax...also no lag on hospitals that have to cover the losses of those that do no pay their bills.

Have a small business? You too can get around the tax by just offering health insurance.

All problems solved and guess what? No tax.

You guys really want to see me go off don't ya?

 

[NoYankees44]

Off topic:

Buy health insurance one way or another, no tax...also no lag on hospitals that have to cover the losses of those that do no pay their bills.

Have a small business? You too can get around the tax by just offering health insurance.

All problems solved and guess what? No tax.

You guys really want to see me go off don't ya?

This is going down a bad road...

If people want healthcare, then they work hard to work for businesses that provide it. Requiring it adds to restriction and government control which then inhibits growth and economy.

Also, the penalty for a business not providing healthcare for an employee and forcing them on to the public system is $2000. The general cost to provide private healthcare to an employee is close to $15000. So in a few years not a single business will provide private healthcare but rather pay the cheaper penalty and the government will have a monopoly on the industry and will manage it the same as they do everything else(terribly). This will also lead to the highest tax rates in the known world to pay for it all and thus an economy comparable to a toilet(cough Greece cough)

Need I explain more?

Sent from my ADR6425LVW

 

[318sugarhill]

This is going down a bad road...

If people want healthcare, then they work hard to work for businesses that provide it. Requiring it adds to restriction and government control which then inhibits growth and economy.

Also, the penalty for a business not providing healthcare for an employee and forcing them on to the public system is $2000. The general cost to provide private healthcare to an employee is close to $15000. So in a few years not a single business will provide private healthcare but rather pay the cheaper penalty and the government will have a monopoly on the industry and will manage it the same as they do everything else(terribly). This will also lead to the highest tax rates in the known world to pay for it all and thus an economy comparable to a toilet(cough Greece cough)

Need I explain more?

Sent from my ADR6425LVW

Off topic - Your analogy is flawed and so is everyone else who thinks this "tax" is bankrupting our country. Fact #1, Every other industrialized country offers healthcare "affordably" to it's citizens. Many in the way this health care act does. Individual mandate. ALL of these other countries require the mandate. Costs are controlled, unlike here where hospitals charge 50 times the normal price, trying to cover the uninsured which you and I "hard working" taxpayers cover the rest. You know the BIGGEST reason we are going bankrupt? 40% of the budget is spent on Defense spending. The BIGGEST beaurocratic waste that no one talks about with the misbelief that spending keeps us "safe". China spends 8% of their budget on the military. No one else goes above 5. THAT is bankrupting us. But keep railing against people who do work hard AND still can't afford healthcare the way it is now. I don't see you complaining against the hundreds of billions spent on the f-22 and f-35 that will NEVER see combat. And if they do, they crash and China gets the wreckage. Glad I paid for their military.

On topic - Carriers are stiffling innovation, and over profitting at your expense. Nothing new. Will continue without any regulation, because as we all know, regulations "stiffles" the econonmy.......ahem, the profits of the rich and greedy corporations that continue to overpay Execs, and cut salary and benefits to the "working" employees.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Off-topic: Healthcare spending is 18% of our GDP. I never thought the business plan of human health being "for profit" was a good idea. There's a reason we're falling behind grossly when compared to other 1st world nations. They have the right idea when it comes to healthcare. I'm tired of $70 Advils, you know?

On-topic: Get a load of these Verizon characters, eh? Nuts, the lot of them.

 

[NoYankees44]

Off topic - Your analogy is flawed and so is everyone else who thinks this "tax" is bankrupting our country. Fact #1, Every other industrialized country offers healthcare "affordably" to it's citizens. Many in the way this health care act does. Individual mandate. ALL of these other countries require the mandate. Costs are controlled, unlike here where hospitals charge 50 times the normal price, trying to cover the uninsured which you and I "hard working" taxpayers cover the rest. You know the BIGGEST reason we are going bankrupt? 40% of the budget is spent on Defense spending. The BIGGEST beaurocratic waste that no one talks about with the misbelief that spending keeps us "safe". China spends 8% of their budget on the military. No one else goes above 5. THAT is bankrupting us. But keep railing against people who do work hard AND still can't afford healthcare the way it is now. I don't see you complaining against the hundreds of billions spent on the f-22 and f-35 that will NEVER see combat. And if they do, they crash and China gets the wreckage. Glad I paid for their military.

On topic - Carriers are stiffling innovation, and over profitting at your expense. Nothing new. Will continue without any regulation, because as we all know, regulations "stiffles" the econonmy.......ahem, the profits of the rich and greedy corporations that continue to overpay Execs, and cut salary and benefits to the "working" employees.

3 things:
1. Name ONE country that has health care as good as ours(or even in the same ballpark) with every citizen on it and with the country in good economic standing. And dont say Canada where you have to wait 6 months for basic procedures and they tell you to go get private care if you want to live. Most if not all of the countries you are referring to are going bankrupt from overspending(on things like healthcare) and are now moving back to systems more like ours.

2. Im not going to say the military is not wasteful and should not have costs trimmed(like everything else), but i am also not going to pretend like I believe that the strongest country in the world should not spend accordingly.

3. Your right, big company leadership almost always treats themselves ridiculously, but that is their choice and freedom. Its their money and company. If you think they are not acting accordingly, then don't buy their goods or work for them. Its all you or I can do about it. Telling them what they can and cannot do is like me telling my rich neighbors what they cant by something or they have to buy their children a new car.

What needs to happen is an entire rework of the system and for health insurance to stop covering unnecessary things and only covering what families cannot pay in life or function threatening cases. This way the whole system is cheaper to the consumer. After that, a flat income tax rate needs to be established so the bottom 50% of Americans will start paying taxes like everyone else. Finally, entitlement programs need to be cut to a minimum and a way tiering system needs to be established so people can easily get off of them and back to work so they can do things like buy healthcare without my money paying for it. I wont get into the worthless people of the country that milk off of the system and feel they should be entitled to.