It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You got to love the idea of corporate interests claiming to have rights afforded to natural human beings. Let me get this right. In essence Verizon is claiming the right to censor free speech? So in turn they claim the right to to diminish the rights of others? Am I missing something here?SOURCE
“The Open Internet Order says that Verizon, as a provider of broadband Internet, can’t block or slow access to (legal) online content because they disagree with its message or are being paid by an outside party to do so,” Media Matters’s Simon Maloy wrote. “This is essentially how the internet has operated since its inception, and the Open Internet Order is intended to prevent ISPs like Verizon from becoming gatekeepers. Verizon, however, argues that it has the constitutionally protected right to decide which content you, as a Verizon customer, can access.”
After more than a year, the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday finally approved rules regarding net neutrality by a vote of 3-2.
The order provides three high-level rules: transparency; no blocking; and no unreasonable discrimination.
The transparency rule applies to fixed and wireless networks. Providers must disclose their network management practices, network performance, characteristics, and the commercial terms of their broadband services. This will ensure that consumers and innovators have the information they need to understand the capabilities of broadband services, the FCC said.
On the no-blocking part, fixed providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, and non-harmful devices. Fixed providers also cannot charge providers of these services simply for delivering traffic to and from the network. Wireless providers, meanwhile, would be banned from blocking access to lawful Web sites or blocking applications that compete with their own voice or video telephony services. It does not apply to mobile broadband app stores.
I agree with what you are saying, but there is a difference between what we know to be right and what money says is right. That is the reality we live in.Will anything come of this? Probably not, but give corporate interests time and sooner or later they'll get what the want.
Originally posted by XeroOne
There's a huge difference between reality and what Verizon reckons its rights are. Customers can choose a better ISP, or they could simply use one of several ways to get around the Internet filtering.
Originally posted by Zarniwoop
By Verizon's own logic, they should be able to block or otherwise disrupt cell phone calls between me and people they don't particularly care for.
Now I know why my calls keep dropping.
Originally posted by TinkerHaus
Wasn't this all sorted out almost two years ago?
pcworld.com
This time around, Verizon is playing the First Amendment card. The challenge, essentially, is that by limiting Verizon’s ability to choose which content to block or promote, the FCC is infringing on Verizon’s right to free speech.
pcworld.com
"Just as a newspaper is entitled to decide which content to publish and where, broadband providers may feature some content over others," lawyers for the two carriers wrote. "Although broadband providers have generally exercised their discretion to allow all content in an undifferentiated manner, they nonetheless possess discretion that these rules preclude them from exercising."
Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Years ago I read a story about a young girl who figured out what to do with the mountains of used tires.
Originally posted by alfa1
Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Years ago I read a story about a young girl who figured out what to do with the mountains of used tires.
Has all the hallmarks of a fake urban legend.
Rubberized asphalt has been around for decades now, limited in its use only by the laws of physics.
Rubberized asphalt continues to be labeled as experimental and thus funding for its use can be hard to obtain. Other reasons for its less than wide spread use include state preferences for the use of older methods for pavement, 'impostor' projects that don't adhere to standards, thereby resulting in failures, and the Interstate Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), mandate.
ISTEA provides federal funding through the FHWA for transportation projects and was superceded by Tea-21 in May of 1999. The ISTEA mandate holds that funding must be used to research and implement studies on the use of rubberized asphalt.
Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Originally posted by alfa1
Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Years ago I read a story about a young girl who figured out what to do with the mountains of used tires.
Has all the hallmarks of a fake urban legend.
Rubberized asphalt has been around for decades now, limited in its use only by the laws of physics.
Not so much a legend.
Rubberized asphalt continues to be labeled as experimental and thus funding for its use can be hard to obtain. Other reasons for its less than wide spread use include state preferences for the use of older methods for pavement, 'impostor' projects that don't adhere to standards, thereby resulting in failures, and the Interstate Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), mandate.
ISTEA provides federal funding through the FHWA for transportation projects and was superceded by Tea-21 in May of 1999. The ISTEA mandate holds that funding must be used to research and implement studies on the use of rubberized asphalt.
en.wikipedia.org...
I guess in the internet age and with the kids today is that if you dont have a link, it didnt happen.
This text comes from the source I included in the OP.I find the argument laughable at best, They possess "editorial discretion"? Really? There is one teeny tiny problem with this argument. Newspapers actually employ the services of writers, in which they have a right to editorial discretion. People employ the services of broadband providers, not the other way around. I love the play on words. If you're an average idiot you would more than likely find the argument plausible, and somewhat justifiable. I just hope there aren't that many average idiots out there. Ahhh, who am I kidding. There are a bunch of average idiots out there. Sigh.
In performing these functions, broadband providers possess “editorial discretion.” Just as a newspaper is entitled to decide which content to publish and where, broadband providers may feature some content over others. Although broadband providers have generally exercised their discretion to allow all content in an undifferentiated manner, Order ¶ 14 (JA__), they nonetheless possess discretion that these rules preclude them from exercising.
because they disagree with its message or are being paid by an outside party to do so.