Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Businesses Communications Google The Internet News Technology

Verizon Sues FCC over 700MHz Open Access Rules 115

Posted by Zonk from the hit-em-where-it-hurts dept.
Carterfone writes "Verizon is upset at the open access conditions for the 700MHz spectrum auction, and they're going to court to get them overturned. The company has filed a lawsuit in the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, urging the court to overturn the rules. 'In its petition for review, Verizon argues that the FCC exceeded its authority in mandating the two open access conditions, accusing the Commission of being "arbitrary" and "capricious," and saying that the rules are "unsupported by substantial evidence and otherwise contrary to law." Google is critical of Verizon's lawsuit: 'It's regrettable that Verizon has decided to use the court system to try to prevent consumers from having any choice of innovative services. Once again, it is American consumers who lose from these tactics.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Verizon Sues FCC over 700MHz Open Access Rules More

Verizon Sues FCC over 700MHz Open Access Rules

Comments Filter:

  • Verizon. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 13, 2007 @05:18PM (#20595953)
    You mean we don't have to use devices restricted to Verizon's crippleware?

    > Under the FCC's rules, whoever wins the spectrum auction must allow consumers to use any device and any lawful application on their networks.

    No wonder they're pissed.

    Verizon: We never stop working... for ourselves.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by anothy ( 83176 )
      i wish they weren't so schizophrenic. verizon toed the industry line about Wireless Local Number Portability for a long time, too, but were eventually the first major carrier to back off. why? they realized they simply have the best network out there and could compete favorably on that. and, as they expected, it worked out very well for them.

      they really do have the best network. if only they didn't get everything else wrong...
  • If there were any justice at all in the Universe, any statement by Verizon declaring it's support with consumers, or battling for them, would lead to the entire board of directors' heads exploding simultaneously while a hundred rabid ducks danced about singing "I'm Popeye the Sailor Man".

    But there's no justice in the universe. Just judges.

    • If there were any justice at all in the Universe, any statement by Verizon declaring it's support with consumers, or battling for them, would lead to the entire board of directors' heads exploding simultaneously while a hundred rabid ducks danced about singing "I'm Popeye the Sailor Man".

      But there's no justice in the universe. Just judges.
      And lawyers, don't forget the lawyers.
    • But there's no justice in the universe. Just judges.

      That will happen when the corporations have better access to the political system than you do. Shame you can't do anything about it, at least on a practical level.

      • That will happen when the corporations have better access to the political system than you do. Shame you can't do anything about it, at least on a practical level.

        I have to play devil's advocate here...

        1. Are you SURE there's nothing to be done?

        2. Would you please define "practical", as used above?

        3. Are you including illegal methodologies?

        I'm not trying to quibble, but I've rarely found a situation SO dire that NOTHING could be done...

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by mikeydb ( 880405 )
      You've created an image in my mind that just won't go away now. I'm enjoying it.

  • no suprise (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @05:20PM (#20595991) Homepage
    Verizon has always been about lock in and keeping away choice. That is why they never wanted to go with a sim card based cellphone system. it eliminates your ability to buy a unlocked phone and activating it without them getting their "fees" in their sideways.

    Verizon wants you to do it their way, and really wants to force it upon you. when they bought GTE they tried to treat landline customers the way they treated cellular customers, they got nailed hard in court over that one.

    • when they bought GTE they tried to treat landline customers the way they treated cellular customers, they got nailed hard in court over that one.

      Details please. I love a good smackdown!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Myopic ( 18616 )
      In their sideways? What's a sideways? How many sideways does Verizon have? How do the fees go into their sideways? Is a sideway like a bag or a satchel, or more like a pocket? or is it more like a bank account?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by anothy ( 83176 )

      Verizon has always been about lock in and keeping away choice.

      not always. for a long time, they repeated what every other operator in the country said about Wireless Local Number Portability: bad for the industry, unfair, will ruin everything, we'll all go out of business, and that won't help anyone. then one day they realized "hey, we've got the best network in the country. i bet people want to use verizon!" and they decided to support WLNP. first major operator in the country to do so. and they were right

  • Surprise! (Score:5, Funny)

    by fishthegeek ( 943099 ) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @05:22PM (#20596015) Journal
    Can you hear me now? No? Good.
    Can you hear me now? No? Good.

  • "for the consumer!" (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @05:24PM (#20596033)

    'It's regrettable that Verizon has decided to use the court system to try to prevent consumers from having any choice of innovative services. Once again, it is American consumers who lose from these tactics.'"

    That's pretty funny, coming from a company which prohibited its Adword customers from discussing anything about the Adwords program with others.

    Google late paying you one month? Don't post anything about it on your website, or boom, you weren't a customer anymore. I took a quick glace through the terms and couldn't find it; maybe they finally nix'd it.

    PS: We're not CONSUMERS. We are PEOPLE, who MAY be CUSTOMERS.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by hedwards ( 940851 )
      I for one am very curious as to what Google plans on doing with that part of the spectrum. It is almost a sure thing that they'd unveil some sort of network, but I'm curious as to how they plan on actually using it.

      Probably ad supported, but seems like we're getting closer and closer all the time to a Google antitrust investigation, the way that MS was investigated. To some extent it surprises me that Google was allowed to purchase double click. Should Google purchase that part of the spectrum and fund it w
  • I really hope that Google, the EFF, etc. file amicus briefs on this one.

  • Wahhh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RevHawk ( 855772 ) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @05:26PM (#20596053)
    Hey Verizon? Too bad. You don't own anything. The airwaves are OURS, no matter what our corrupt FCC/DOJ want to lead you to believe.

  • Writer not from Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)

    by tkrotchko ( 124118 ) * on Thursday September 13, 2007 @05:26PM (#20596057) Homepage
    "Once again, it is American consumers who lose from these tactics."

    I'll bet a couple of people around here were wondering how they misspelled "loose".

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by kcbrown ( 7426 )

      I'll bet a couple of people around here were wondering how they misspelled "loose".

      Man, no kidding...

      Hmm...let's try the New Slashdot Spelling on for size...

      "It makes me loose confidence in the American education system when people have such lose spelling standards. When you can't even spell such simple words, you're hopelessly loost. Heaven help us when such people are losed upon the world."

      Bah. I think I'll stick with my old, curmudgeonly way of spelling these words. Damn kids these days

    • "Once again, it is American consumers who lose from these tactics."
      I'll bet a couple of people around here were wondering how they misspelled "loose".


      They also misspelled Rumpelstiltskin.

    • Loose your attitude, dude.
  • I was hesitating to sign up with Verizon as my wireless carrier a year ago. I still have 1 year left on my contract and I don't want to feed money into a company that acts like this. Now I'm stuck giving Verizon my money for another year, how do I get out of this bull shit without doing the costly termination crap!?!

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by prothid ( 302906 )
      Verizon pro-rates their termination fees. You could also try to find someone that will buy your phone and inherit the rest of your contract for you. I know that there is at least one website that lets you post/search for contracts to trade.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by s.bots ( 1099921 )
      I don't know what it's like in the States, but with Bell Mobility in Canada you can put your phone on freeze which basically holds your phone number, but you get no service whatsoever. I think it's around $8CAD a month. I believe you can still have voicemail on the account, which would wind up being ~$15 a month for an answering machine...

    • Re:I dont' like companies like Verizon (Score:5, Insightful)

      by IndustrialComplex ( 975015 ) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @05:47PM (#20596295)
      Write down your complaints into a letter to give to Verizon when you do terminate. Like what they are doing now or not, you did sign up with them for a contract.

      If it makes you feel any better, I'm in the same boat until March. I do plan to terminate my service with them primarily on their constrictive practices. What I find particularly distasteful is that they push legislation that practically makes it a legal requirement to bleed their customers with fees. Fees that seem to inevitably return to Verizon's pockets.

    • Re:I dont' like companies like Verizon (Score:4, Insightful)

      by lb746 ( 721699 ) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @05:48PM (#20596317)
      Try and find a place where your phone is roaming in another network, but covered by your "nation wide roaming plan". Generally your phone will show something like "Cingular network" on the phone. Make a phone call from that area during your "free nights and weekends minutes", and just leave that phone on as long as you can in that area. I actually went as far as to put my phone into a ziplock bag on vibrate and hid it in some bushes so it could sit there until the battery died. I could go daily to pick it up before work and drop it back off after work. Within 2 weeks my contract was canceled by Verizon without any termination charges.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by whirred ( 182193 )
      It's actually quite easy, particularly if you have a phone eligible for their "unlimited" data plan like a Treo or something similar.

      Sign up for their "unlimited" data plan, plug in your phone, get a nice big SD card, and download like crazy. They'll get rid of you as a customer within 10 days and release you from your contract.

      Just so you all know, their "unlimited" data plan does not allow you to download music or video... You can do it, but it's technically against what they authorize.

    • how do I get out of this bull shit without doing the costly termination crap!?!

      Call customer service..... a lot.

    • check out slickdeals those guys are always finding ways to stick it to the man
    • i'm sure the early term fee would be less than you'd pay over the next year in monthlies. doesn't verizon pro-rate that shit now based on how long you stuck around??

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by gmor ( 769112 )
      Always check the fine print at the back of your bill for price increases. For example, last month's statement said that Verizon will pass onto its customers an increase in the California PUC surcharge. Since this is a fee to Verizon that they willingly forward to their customers, it is considered a Verizon fee increase, so I have the right under the ToS to end service without an early termination fee. It took some arguing, but by pointing to the clear wording on the back of the bill and the terms of service
  • First you have 5gb limit you unlimited data plan.

    You also lock down your phones to fore people to use the data planes so they pay to get photos off of the phone.

    You hire people who don't know that $0.002 and 0.002 cents are not the same number.

    You also put your poor UI on most of your phones.

    What do you want to do next to rip us off?

    This maybe way you did not get the iPhone.

    • Just to be pedantic, $0.002 is actually 0.2 cents, if I'm not mistaken. I'm sure you meant to say something slightly different.

    • What amuses me is that after all above, there are thousands of fools in Verizon stores THIS moment, signing up "I hereby give Verizon all the rights to fuck me from various direction using all the various holes in my body while being tied to painful things with painful things, gagged with various organic and inorganic materials. I accept, that in return, Verizon will let me make some phone calls for which I will have to pay out of my sore ass."

      But then, I should not be surprised by this. After all, its j

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bkr1_2k ( 237627 )
        I don't like Verizon very much, but calling my fiancee's T-Mobile phone is a lesson in annoyance. Her phone constantly drops calls, routinely doesn't get any signal where my phone has it, and often (maybe 15%-20% of the time) won't even connect when it does have a signal. It's not the hardware, either, since it's been like that with every phone she's tried (and her friends have T-Mobile as well with the same issues.) Other times it's just "network too busy" errors when trying to call.

        Until I see consiste

  • Running Scared (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aldheorte ( 162967 ) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @05:35PM (#20596163)
    This shows you how scared the carriers are about these rules and Google getting hold of the bands.

    Verizon's move vacates its primary contention. The open access rules are going to make the bidding intense because those who want to keep the other two open access rules off the table are going to being bidding heavily. Moreover, it is quite likely that Verizon and others will, if the two existing open access rules stick, attempt to buy up the bands and then simply not build or activate the infrastructure, thereby trapping consumers into the other bands where they are not subject to these rules.

    Point being, this is sleight of hand. Their real move is going to be trying to buy the bands and keep them dark. Therefore, the bands are worth more with these rules in place than without and Verizon's contention that the FCC is disenfranchising the government of revenue by adding these rules is void.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      They wont be able to keep the bands dark. If you read the development rules, they are required to do several billion dollars worth of Public Safety and emergency band build out over the next 10 years. I don't think any of these companies have the chops to spend $5B or more for band width, $5-$15Bn more on federally mandated build out and not put them to use.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ciroknight ( 601098 )
        If you read the development rules, they are required to do several billion dollars worth of Public Safety and emergency band build out over the next 10 years.

        If you would have read those very same rules a bit more closely, you would realize that the Public Safety bands and the Commercial bands are two different bands being auctioned off independently. The "C" block auction is the one that has these two rules attached that Verizon is trying to get thrown out.

        http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070815

    • Re:Running Scared (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 13, 2007 @05:51PM (#20596351)
      They can't do that. The auction already has a build-up clause. The winner of the auction must build up infrastructure (or convert existing owned infrastructure) to deliver to a certain percentage of the population within 2 years, and then a larger one in 5 years - don't remember the numbers off the top of my head. I believe if they fail to do so, they lose their ownership of the band, or at least heavy penalties until they build it out.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ciroknight ( 601098 )
        "The 22MHz C block also comes with requirements: 40 percent coverage within four years, 75 percent coverage within 10. The FCC will automatically reclaimed "unserved portions of the license area" from companies that do not meet the build-out requirements."

        What they didn't say is This spectrum should be available to the public under fair and decent pricing or anything of the like; they only added the two "Google Caveats". The phone companies could build up the entire infrastructure on top of existing infr

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by kcbrown ( 7426 )

        They can't do that. The auction already has a build-up clause ... I believe if they fail to do so, they lose their ownership of the band, or at least heavy penalties until they build it out.

        Yeah, as if that's going to deter the telcos from not breaking the agreement, just like they didn't build out the internet infrastructure the way they promised after getting a pile of tax breaks and other "incentives" from the government. What was the smackdown they got for that? Nothing? Yeah, that's what I thoug

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by grumling ( 94709 )
        Except that the day they win the auction, they start lobbying congress for extensions, due to "technical issues" that are making it harder to roll out service. And that open access thing? Well, that's much harder than we thought too. Gonna take more time, like, about another 8 years. Yea, just long enough for a new FCC chairman to be appointed by a new President, one who will forget all about this silly open access/90% roll-out clause.

    • Re:Running Scared (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gravos ( 912628 ) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @05:57PM (#20596431) Homepage
      I don't think you guys are giving the parent enough credit. Verizon may follow the letter of the agreement, but they certainly wouldn't follow the spirit.
    • Point being, this is sleight of hand. Their real move is going to be trying to buy the bands and keep them dark. Therefore, the bands are worth more with these rules in place than without and Verizon's contention that the FCC is disenfranchising the government of revenue by adding these rules is void.

      What?

      Why does Verizon care if the Government gets the revenue?

      I don't understand why the open access rules would make any difference to the existing carriers if they just want to leave the band unused.
      • If they buy the bands with the open access rules on them, they have to leave them unused (unused = complying so narrowly with the FCC requirements that the bands are effectively underutilized) and therefore it's a very expensive way to protect their existing position. It protects one revenue stream, but does not add another. If they can get the open access rules off, then they can treat the bands as just an extension of their existing anti-competitive position and use it as extra bandwidth unchallenged.

        They

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by JoelKatz ( 46478 )
      Maybe I'm not thinking clearly, but this just doesn't make sense. Any qualified bidder could voluntarily adopt the open access rules, thus forcing anyone who didn't want the bands subject to those rules to outbid that bidder. I can't see how this restriction could possibly raise the value of the bands -- it only takes some applications off the table, applications that might be worth more than the open access ones.

      Those who want to keep open access rules off the table would still have to outbid companies lik
  • Couldnt play in a playground that is open eh ? Afraid of competition ? Eh ?

  • Why Verizon's Claims are Total B.S. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @06:08PM (#20596563)

    Under the FCC's rules, whoever wins the spectrum auction must allow consumers to use any device and any lawful application on their networks. After the FCC's decision, Verizon quickly made its position clear. "Imposing any such requirements in the competitive wireless market would reduce the revenue the government will receive from the spectrum auction and limit the introduction of new and innovative wireless services,"

    Total B.S.! If I can use any device, then I can use the most innovative devices from anyone building them. If Version provides the most new and innovative wireless services at a fair price, they get my business. If someone else does, my business goes there. In short, Version contradicts themselves in the very same sentence.

    As for reducing the revenue the government will receive from the spectrum auction, like how does that happen? Is Verizon going to pay a bazillion dollars for the spectrum if you have to buy only their devices and services afterwards, and that no one will buy a single Hz of it otherwise? I doubt that!

    It's all such total B.S. from Verizon that nobody should be taking them seriously for a single instant -- and throw those blighters out of court!

    • It may be true that they will pay more if they can charge more for less services and keep competitors out.

      The problem is, is that this is a national resource and the decision should also consider what the bidder is going to do with the spectrum and how much they are going to charge the consumer. These resources should be used in interest of citizens and not the monopoly which would like to hoard a limited resource which it uses as bat to beat it's own customers.

  • Hey Verizon,

    If you don't like the rules, then don't participate in the auction. You won't be missed. In fact, given that you already have the phone service side of the duopoly, I'd prefer that you not be part of this anyway! Pick up the toys you tossed out of the pram, and just go home.

  • A good example here (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Whuffo ( 1043790 ) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @06:13PM (#20596625) Homepage Journal
    This situation presents a case study: will American courts protect the public interest, or will they sell us out to corporate interests again?

    If any of you ever felt like you might want to write some letters or make some phone calls, this would be a good time. Keep in mind that Verizon won't be hurt in any way if they don't get this frequency band. It's you and I that'll get hurt if they do...

    • This situation presents a case study: will American courts protect the public interest, or will they sell us out to corporate interests again?

      The American courts will probably follow the law as written. If it gives the FCC the power to make this decision, they'll tell Verizon to go whistle, if it doesn't they'll say the same to the FCC. In great detail.

      The place to buy the law is in congress. Federal judges are pretty much immune to external pressure due to the appointment system. In high-profile stuff

  • Regrettable but predictable (Score:5, Informative)

    by snowwrestler ( 896305 ) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @06:14PM (#20596641)
    Ask the CLECs about Verizon's willingness to abuse the courts to get what they want. 10 years after passage of the 1996 Telecomm Act, the unbundling rules were finally finalized. But only because Verizon finally stopped suing. And they only stopped because they couldn't gut the 1996 Act, or gut broadband competition, any further.

    I hope Google is willing to go to court because this simply will not end. Verizon will sue infinitely to delay the auction if they don't get what they want, and if the auction happens they will sue infinitely to block usage of the spectrum or to block open access. They've proven that nothing is enough for them.
  • all I know if that if it's something one of the baby bells wants (which Verizon is one, despite its name), I don't like it.

    Not one bit!

  • Selling spectrum is short sighted idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cozytom ( 1102207 ) on Thursday September 13, 2007 @09:29PM (#20598479)
    The future is coming fast, and the sold spectrum is a problem.

    Imagine the day you are carrying a little device in your pocket. This device is an all in one thing. It has a software defined radio in it, a reasonable sized display (3in diagonal maybe, 800x600 pixels?), some kind of keyboard, a microphone and a speaker. You can make phone calls, instant message, and almost any other form of communication. The infrastucture is WiFi, WiMax, CDMA, GSM, 3/4G, point to point, HDTV, AM, FM, XM, Sirius, GPS, pager, bluetooth and zigbee on whatever frequency is appropriate (remember software defined radio, it can do all of this in software).

    You pick up the device, it has an address. You wish to communicate with someone else, they have an address. The device knows them, and their address. Through the infrastructure, Your device can find their device, picking the most suitable communication mechanism available. If they are in the same room, it'll do point to point, if they are in the same building, it'll do WiFi. Across town, maybe your device will do CDMA, and theirs will do GSM. Want to send email to someone, it'll figure out a route.

    The only way this will work, is opening up everything. The spectrum, especially will have to be unencumbered (not owned). The carriers will have to act like carriers, accepting these all purpose devices, without a monopoly.

    Sure verizon and ATT will scream, it isn't good for anyone. But actually it will work in their and our best interest. Their infrastructure could be more efficiently used (won't have to handle calls to the guy in the next cube). Sure we may have to pay what it costs to utilize their network instead of a flat fee, with silly gimicks. Initial purchase price will a little high (device not bundled with the service). They won't have to service the devices, or they could, if they build their own.

    To get here, the spectrum that has already been sold will have to be returned to the rightful owners (us), and that will be expensive!!! The government could claim eminant domain, but that would probably be even less popular, and the lawsuits would probably cost even more money. We need to stop selling spectrum NOW!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by SL Baur ( 19540 )

      The only way this will work, is opening up everything. The spectrum, especially will have to be unencumbered (not owned). The carriers will have to act like carriers, accepting these all purpose devices, without a monopoly.

      That would be too logical. Sure would be nice though.

      I'll say this, I'm disgusted with everything about the US cellphone market. From its backwardness in technology to vendor lock in and thoroughly crappy service. Recent phones are almost caught up to where Japanese domestic cellphones were four years ago and my Cingular sim works better in my wife's phone (a Nokia purchased in a random store in Manila) than on the phone I purchased when I started the account (I've only paid one of the two fines needed

    • We need to stop selling spectrum NOW!

      The spectrum is not sold, it is leased under contract. The only difference here is that the price of the lease is determined by auction and not simply set ahead of time by the seller. If the winner of the leasehold does not meet the terms of the contract then the FCC should turn around and re-auction the lease to somebody else. However, the scheme that you suggest would result in a very serious case of Tragedy of the Commons [wikipedia.org] as every device fought for spectrum and in
    • I believe you're touching on the idea of "unlicensed" spectrum. That's not a bad idea... essentially like wifi.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by F34nor ( 321515 ) *
      Take this one more step. Fractal Antennas allow to broadcast and recive on more than more frequency. Get rid of all the bands and have one open specrum, give each device a bot that allows it to bid in an open free market for the bandwidth it needs for the task at hand. Make each device a p2p node. Antennas were the major limit for this idea and nows that's gone. What's left but corporations?
  • Verizon is just inviting a decision like the Carterfone decision of 1968. It would be ironic if such a decision were made, and applied to the entire spectrum. Sometimes I wonder if we would have been better off without the breakup of the old AT&T. At least the old AT&T had some glimmer of a conscience, Verizon and the new AT&T show no signs of one whatsoever.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )
      One of the motivations in the AT&T break up -- which seems ludicrous in retrospect -- is that competitors would bring innovative products to market. Instead, the competitors drove the price of long distance service to unheard of cheapness. This in itself is good, but it doesn't leave margin or attention span for technological innovation.

      By in large the US telecommunications market is not very innovative. US telecom services are like US food: cheap, plentiful, but not very good.

  • Boycott (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ayounge ( 906996 )
    Can anybody say boycott?!
    • I wish I could boycott Verizon because of this, but I was already boycotting them because of their patent-troll lawsuit against Vonage. Vonage has saved me hundreds of dollars in phone bills over the past few years and it pisses me off that a company like Verizon comes along and sues them for something so obvious as phone-number-to-IP-address conversions instead of competing with them in the marketplace.

      I recently renewed my Cingular/AT&T contract with the AT&T 8525 which I'm very happy with... I ch
    • Yes, but will anyone perform a Boycott?
  • I personally appreciate the rules, and most netizens seem to love the idea of open standards, open devices, etcetera, but the fact of the matter is that it isn't the government's place to make rules like this. It's odd enough that they need to control the airwaves, but since we gave up our freedom in exchange for less anarchy in the system, I suppose they get to make up the rules. It'll be interesting to see how the court rules on this.
    • I personally appreciate the rules, and most netizens seem to love the idea of open standards, open devices, etcetera, but the fact of the matter is that it isn't the government's place to make rules like this.

      You're quite wrong. If the government (ie the people) doesn't make those rules, the corporations sure wont. So where will these regulations come from? What will keep those telephone companies from only allowing us to use one phone, rented from them (as they use to do in the old days?) What will keep th
  • Once again we see the wisdom of market rule. In most other countries, mind you, cell customers don't even get charged for incoming calls!!!

    A modest proposal:

    What if there was an "X-prize" in the mould of the private competition to spur on space travel, to push an open source CITIZENS-BAND SATELLITE into earth orbit? Now my guess is that with lobbyists and all, such a thing could never get off the launchpad in this country. So maybe Larry Ellison or Google (or some other ambitious visionary bunch) in collabo
  • If Verizon keeps doing stuff like this, they won't have any customers. Then the American people win...except for those who were employeed by Verizon.
  • what if like globalist corps people just set up a satellite network outside the states that caters to open standards....somebody else just mentioned it...I was thinking if they can run sweatshops in China and run wages down everywhere else why not set up businesses that gut existing business models that are closed in an effort to circumvent the ability of these companies to circumvent and restrict technologies? In the same way someone brings in goods from China or imports workers from Mexico or elsewhere, w

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close