Verizon Wants FCC to Ban States From Protecting Your Privacy

M

monkeymagick

[H]News
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
480
From DSL Reports, it seems Verizon is trying to convince the FCC to ban states from enacting laws protecting consumer privacy. This is another effort from Verizon to manipulate customer data as the company has been presumably selling your phone number and location data. The company says allowing states to regulate its own broadband would be "a recipe for disaster" and "impose inconsistent burdens" on service.

"States and localities have given strong indications that they are prepared to take a similar approach to net neutrality laws if they are dissatisfied with the result of the Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding," complains Verizon, again ignoring that its lawsuits are the reason that's happening.
 
i have always said, if its free, you can make money off me and my activity...to a degree. i accept that i am the product.
but if you charge me for a service, then you should not be able to make money off me or my activities. if you do, then i want a salary and benefits.
 
Their network has been crap for... a while now. Dropped calls in Downtown Chicago, low signal and terrible throughput. Not to mention how they hijack Youtube and FORCE everything to go to the lowest (240p) resolution. Last time I jumped it up to 1080 because i needed to see detail, it buffered over and over. I was in the open backyard of a house on the north side of Chicago, not too far from the highway and near many other shops but a residential neighborhood with no service. None, if I went to the front I may get enough to let me know I had a text or a few seconds of data.
 
Uvaman2 said:
Im sure strong State rights conservative Republicans will come out in full force against Verizon. /S
Click to expand...
If someone also believed that we should eliminate the NFA and GCA, and allow states to be the sole regulators of gun laws, as well as eliminate the Department of Education and Department of Agriculture and dismantle the FDA, I will take that person more seriously.

The problem is that too many people on ALL sides of the political spectrum only believe in "States Rights" when it benefits something they are personally for. States Rights for legalization of marijuana, but not for gun laws. States Rights for telecommunications regulations, but not for Net Neutrality.

I, on the other hand, am a Constitutionalist, who believes that the 10th amendment has been sorely ignored to our detriment, but also believes that the Federal government has the authority/responsibility to regulate Interstate commerce. This becomes a tricky, murky area as how you define what is interstate or not commerce is not well defined, especially in our modern era.
 
bigstusexy said:
Their network has been crap for... a while now. Dropped calls in Downtown Chicago, low signal and terrible throughput. Not to mention how they hijack Youtube and FORCE everything to go to the lowest (240p) resolution. Last time I jumped it up to 1080 because i needed to see detail, it buffered over and over. I was in the open backyard of a house on the north side of Chicago, not too far from the highway and near many other shops but a residential neighborhood with no service. None, if I went to the front I may get enough to let me know I had a text or a few seconds of data.
Click to expand...

Same experience ~2 miles from downtown Denver
 
jardows said:
If someone also believed that we should eliminate the NFA and GCA, and allow states to be the sole regulators of gun laws, as well as eliminate the Department of Education and Department of Agriculture and dismantle the FDA, I will take that person more seriously.
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me. But don't forget the USDA, EPA, and all of the 'Czar' positions too.
 
@jardow. While I agree in general, there are overarching limits. Read the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th amendments in particular.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Madoc
like this
travisty said:
Everyone should petition their city governments to invest in publicly owned/operated fiber.
Click to expand...
Agree 1000% with you, but our corrupt politicians dont work with petition, only with bribes, err, political contributions.
 
RealBeast said:
@jardow. While I agree in general, there are overarching limits. Read the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th amendments in particular.
Click to expand...
Agreed. That is why pigeon-holing "States Rights" and pointing out where traditional "states rights" adherents seem to support Federal regulation/restrictions as hypocritical is extremely simplistic. These types of issues are complex, and we should be very cautious before jumping to conclusions based solely on how we feel the outcome to benefit us.

Is this a state issue or a federal issue? Who is responsible for protecting consumer privacy? Is consumer privacy a constitution right, or is it a commerce issue? How I feel about privacy does not determine the legal standing.

grtitan said:
Agree 1000% with you, but our corrupt politicians dont work with petition, only with bribes, err, political contributions.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should file to run for public office, so you can be the non-corrupt politician.
 
grtitan said:
Agree 1000% with you, but our corrupt politicians dont work with petition, only with bribes, err, political contributions.
Click to expand...

That's true but if there are enough regular people saying something the politician's 'political life' and their desire for re-election will take over. Again it's an up-hill battle but one that's worth fighting.
 
The ISP's need to stop this shit, or they need to have all their assets seized and be nationalized.

This shit is totally unacceptable.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
The ISP's need to stop this shit, or they need to have all their assets seized and be nationalized.

This shit is totally unacceptable.
Click to expand...
But corporations are people too! They speak with "donations" and lawsuits!

I maintain, if corporations are people and your multi-million dollar business needs to be bailed out due to mismanagement/risky behaviors, you should be charged with attempted murder.
 
grtitan said:
Right after you do it, my friend.
The more the merrier.
Click to expand...
I am not the one complaining about corrupt politicians. Besides, I will probably be moving to another state next year, so I won't be eligible for the 2018 election cycle.
 
BigJayDogg3 said:
But corporations are people too! They speak with "donations" and lawsuits!

I maintain, if corporations are people and your multi-million dollar business needs to be bailed out due to mismanagement/risky behaviors, you should be charged with attempted murder.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a real problem with considering a corporation a person. It is not possible to jail a corporation; the punishments are literally impossible to match. Along those lines, corporations literally cannot have opinions, feelings, or beliefs; whatever is expressed that way by a corporation is actually determined by its leadership - people. And they already have their votes.
 
jardows said:
I am not the one complaining about corrupt politicians. Besides, I will probably be moving to another state next year, so I won't be eligible for the 2018 election cycle.
Click to expand...
So, should I assume that you are stating that we dont have corrupt politicians?

Or that somehow, you got offended/pissed off/disrespected because I said that our politicians are corrupt?

Because if you really think that we dont have the most corrupt government in the world, I have a nice bridge to sell you.
 
travisty said:
Everyone should petition their city goverments to invest in publically owned/operated fiber. Longmont Co does just that $50/month for 1gig up/down & no cap.
It's an uphill battle for sure but it's well worth it!

https://www.longmontcolorado.gov/de...ngmont-power-communications/broadband-service
Click to expand...

In Colorado, I can see that as a good thing. Screw that in NY though, the rest of the state would be forced to pay for a NYC implementation, just like most everything else.
 
travisty said:
That's true but if there are enough regular people saying something the politician's 'political life' and their desire for re-election will take over. Again it's an up-hill battle but one that's worth fighting.
Click to expand...
Given how bold these politicians are, it seems that they no longer care what we think.

Just look at how many people wrote to them and the FCC about NN and they didn't care one bit.
 
grtitan said:
So, should I assume that you are stating that we dont have corrupt politicians?

Or that somehow, you got offended/pissed off/disrespected because I said that our politicians are corrupt?

Because if you really think that we dont have the most corrupt government in the world, I have a nice bridge to sell you.
Click to expand...
More corrupt than Venezuela? More corrupt than North Korea? More corrupt than China? More corrupt than Mexico? More corrupt than Russia? More corrupt than Zimbabwe? More corrupt than Brazil? I could go on and on. To state that the USA is the most corrupt government in the world shows extreme ignorance.

I just feel people should put their money where their mouth is. If you are complaining about all the corrupt politicians, do something about it. I am not going to whine about "corrupt politicians" (I happen to personally know several elected officials who are anything but corrupt) without taking steps to do something about it. I like to engage in debate and discussion, but I have no delusions that my opinion spouted out on a keyboard on a tech forum is actually going to change the world situation.

If you think the problem is corrupt politicians - go be a non-corrupt politician. It is one of the easiest ways to make a difference. It's not like solving a problem in software code or engineering a fix to a complex circuit board, where you have to have special knowledge and skill. Even if you don't win, often times raising issues as a candidate goes a long way towards effecting change. Heck, in Kansas, even a 16 year old can run for governor!
 
jardows said:
Agreed. That is why pigeon-holing "States Rights" and pointing out where traditional "states rights" adherents seem to support Federal regulation/restrictions as hypocritical is extremely simplistic. These types of issues are complex, and we should be very cautious before jumping to conclusions based solely on how we feel the outcome to benefit us.

Is this a state issue or a federal issue? Who is responsible for protecting consumer privacy? Is consumer privacy a constitution right, or is it a commerce issue? How I feel about privacy does not determine the legal standing.


Perhaps you should file to run for public office, so you can be the non-corrupt politician.
Click to expand...
Well, i get your post, but if a politician is honest about state rights, they would say fuck you Verizon deal with it. All that stuff you mentioned with all its convolution is for the courts to sort out. Verizon is just trying to avoid this, you know ' cause they nice.
 
ManofGod said:
In Colorado, I can see that as a good thing. Screw that in NY though, the rest of the state would be forced to pay for a NYC implementation, just like most everything else.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, Nextlight fiber was fully funded by the city of Longmont.
 
grtitan said:
Given how bold these politicians are, it seems that they no longer care what we think.

Just look at how many people wrote to them and the FCC about NN and they didn't care one bit.
Click to expand...

The FCC is different, we do not directly elect the members of the FCC as they are appointed by the PotUS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission

I will agree the con-artist that's currently in that position doesn't give a damn what anyone else thinks as he just wants to make himself richer.

We're watching the Republican party fissure though due to the supreme arrogance at the top of the party.
 
jardows said:
More corrupt than Venezuela? More corrupt than North Korea? More corrupt than China? More corrupt than Mexico? More corrupt than Russia? More corrupt than Zimbabwe? More corrupt than Brazil?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, yes, given the fact that those places, the politicians still pretend to do not take money, meanwhile, here, bribes, also known as political contribution are legal and posted publicly.

jardows said:
To state that the USA is the most corrupt government in the world shows extreme ignorance.
Click to expand...

The fact that you say that, given how in our face corrupt they are here, does show ignorance created by blindness.

jardows said:
If you are complaining about all the corrupt politicians, do something about it.
Click to expand...

I am, by doing what a so called democracy says we can, protesting, signing petitions, etc. Yet, you decided instead, in going after someone that is complaining about the status quo, instead of just running yourself as a non corrupt politician.

jardows said:
If you think the problem is corrupt politicians - go be a non-corrupt politician.
Click to expand...

I guess that you are really involved in politics, either directly or related to one since the fact I called all politicians corrupt bothers you that much.

travisty said:
The FCC is different, we do not directly elect the members of the FCC as they are appointed by the PotUS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission

I will agree the con-artist that's currently in that position doesn't give a damn what anyone else thinks as he just wants to make himself richer.

We're watching the Republican party fissure though due to the supreme arrogance at the top of the party.
Click to expand...

I know that about the FCC, but they all seems to be acting the same way a fucking Pai. Yeah, thats his official name. :)
 
grtitan said:
In my opinion, yes, given the fact that those places, the politicians still pretend to do not take money, meanwhile, here, bribes, also known as political contribution are legal and posted publicly.



The fact that you say that, given how in our face corrupt they are here, does show ignorance created by blindness.



I am, by doing what a so called democracy says we can, protesting, signing petitions, etc. Yet, you decided instead, in going after someone that is complaining about the status quo, instead of just running yourself as a non corrupt politician.



I guess that you are really involved in politics, either directly or related to one since the fact I called all politicians corrupt bothers you that much.
Click to expand...

I see that this is a very important life impacting issue for you, and we'll just have to disagree about the corruptness of government. I personally like to live in a place where I can get a building permit or drivers license without having to pay a cash "expedited fee" directly to the local official.

My statement about running for office was meant as a bit of light heartedness, but you have taken it to an extreme. To be more serious, complaining on forums, protesting (where's your sign and where are you marching?) and signing petitions (where can I sign?) do nothing to end corruption until people who are not corrupt do run for office.

And yes, I do have good friends who are politicians, and your blanket statement impugns their character. Yes, I will take exception to this. If you do not believe that there is a single politician who strives to do what is right, and all politicians only do the will of the highest bidder, than your unrealistic jadedness causes me to feel sorry for you.
 
*pulls Verizon CEO's pants down in public*

Now you have no privacy.

This is how we feel after what you said.
 
jardows said:
If someone also believed that we should eliminate the NFA and GCA, and allow states to be the sole regulators of gun laws, as well as eliminate the Department of Education and Department of Agriculture and dismantle the FDA, I will take that person more seriously.

The problem is that too many people on ALL sides of the political spectrum only believe in "States Rights" when it benefits something they are personally for. States Rights for legalization of marijuana, but not for gun laws. States Rights for telecommunications regulations, but not for Net Neutrality.

I, on the other hand, am a Constitutionalist, who believes that the 10th amendment has been sorely ignored to our detriment, but also believes that the Federal government has the authority/responsibility to regulate Interstate commerce. This becomes a tricky, murky area as how you define what is interstate or not commerce is not well defined, especially in our modern era.
Click to expand...
If the internet doesn't fall under interstate commerce, then nothing does and if it does fall under interstate commerce, then states have no business regulating it.
 
jpm100 said:
My choices are Verizon or Carrier Pigeon. That's the problem more than anything. Their monopoly gives them the cash from gouging to buy themselves into friendly regulations.
Click to expand...

I feel for you, but it's even worse than that. Since VShit has the largest network, even when you think you have a choice to sign with another carrier, some of your money still goes to VShit.
 
nilepez said:
If the internet doesn't fall under interstate commerce, then nothing does and if it does fall under interstate commerce, then states have no business regulating it.
Click to expand...
Verizon shouldn't have it both ways. If feds make the rules against states then they can also get rid of local monopolies. Level the playing field. All deals with reginal governments rendered void.
 
nilepez said:
If the internet doesn't fall under interstate commerce, then nothing does and if it does fall under interstate commerce, then states have no business regulating it.
Click to expand...
Well, that should be for the courts to decide, not politician-appointed dangerous jokers. However, many regulation can be federal and the state can make their own so long it meets the minimum federal... So i guess privacy vs no privacy would be a challenge to define i guess?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top