This is just idiotic. Verizion - a communications company in the US - thinks the First Amendment gives them the right to decide what you see on the Internet.
Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13510_3-57...ternet-access/
Is this true, or is it just a rumor?
Who cares what they do?
If they make cash with a change like that then they found a niche of lemmings that don't care about full-access.
If they lose customers then we have a whole lot smarter consumer.
You are probably too young to remember FISHER audio equipment. That proved the consumer wasn't so smart...
Then I hope this news spreads like a virus. Because of this, I hope to see Verizon filing for bankrupty in a few years.Originally Posted by szlamany
So you'd happily see all of the thousands of Verizon employees lose their jobs because you disagree with something their senior management decided on? Is that not a little extreme?
I've been thinking about this just the other day. I'm noticing more and more a lack of granularity of emotions or opinions. It's either I hate this or that. I hope they die from ass cancer and their pets get explosive diarrhea, or, I love this! It's the best thing there ever was. Everyone who doesn't agree is an idiot and I hope they die from ass cancer and so on. There's very little, it's ok, could be better or this isn't very good and I don't like it. I'm not sure what exactly is the cause of this, but I'll blame it on the Internet. It could be the possibility of anonymity or just the possibility that you can give your opinion anywhere. Either in a form of YouTube video rants or by the omnipresent comment section on almost every page of every website. Or both. So people feel that their opinion is needed and because of the volume of such they think they have to make it as strong as possible so it gets noticed. Who knows. But I'd definitely like to discuss this with a psychologist who probably has a deeper insight into the phenomenon.
meh...
My usual boring signature: Nothing
That's the spirit!
Well there is also the issue that "thing A" can be better than "thing B" for "purpose X" and the reverse true for "purpose Y." They might both be just fine for "purpose Z."
A lot of people think too narrowly about the "things" and the "purposes" they're familiar with or immersed in, leading to some of those absolutist opinions.
It probably matters most because there has been so much consolidation in the ISP market that consumers often have little to no choice. Bad or less desireable business practices are much less subject to darnwinian forces of "the market" in the effective absence of a truly free market with non-trivial, non-token competition.
If only I could figure out how to monetize non-trivial, non-token competition...
I would think the trivial or token competition would be the real challenge.
The other just requires that you be a very large company approaching some sizable fraction of Verizon's size and operating in the same territories.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote