Verizon's diabolical plan to turn the Web into pay-per-view

I find it hard to believe that Verizon's management and lawyers have really thought this matter through.

The legal precedent is very well established. If you edit the content, you're responsible for it. Yes, Verizon owns the lines and can control what goes over them. But if they do so, they become responsible for that content and lose their common carrier status.

Bomb threat goes over the lines? Verizon's responsible. Bank robbery planned? Verizon's responsible. Terrorist act? Verizon's responsible. Child porn? Verizon's responsible.

You get the idea. There's no way a communications company can accept that responsibility and survive the resulting lawsuits.. I expect they think they're too big and too important to have the law actually applied to them in that way. They may even be correct, but for their sake, they had better be correct.

Verizon are being pirates. By their logic I could argue that since I have allowed their fibre to travel down my street in my town I have a right to control what flows down this electronic pipe as well. The problem with arguments like Verizon's is that it is so selective and patently self interested. Sure they provided infrastructure and deserve a return on it. That is called my monthly internet/tv/phone bill.. Asking for more is asking for trouble. Standard Oil and Bell got broken up remember?

> By their logic I could argue that since I have allowed their fibre to travel down my street in my town I have a right to control what flows down this electronic pipe as well.

And since what they have is undoubtedly an easement granted by the local government, you are correct, as long as you do so via means of that local government. If Verizon succeeded, local governments could consider this a non-negotiated change in the terms of the easement, and void the easement as a result. And absent appropriate bribes, err, campaign contributions, from Verizon, it probably wouldn't take too many complaints by landowners to get that result.

> Sure they provided infrastructure and deserve a return on it. That is called my monthly internet/tv/phone bill.

I agree completely. I'm merely confused that they don't seem to understand the rather obvious repercussions of their arguments.

>the rather obvious repercussions of their arguments

I understand by this that Verizon clients may quit and subscribe to other carriers. What if all carriers agree to same insane behaviour ? I don't know about competitive rules in business in the USA.

In France, businesses can't unite in a cartel, they have to submit to competitive rules. One ISP made much noise about making major internet players, like Google, Yahoo..., pay them to allow their data streams through their wires. They seemed to have government support, but other major ISPs did not follow. That particular ISP added one more option for their subscribers, who can now decide whether or not they are presented advertisements in web pages. So if elementary logic prevails, such behaviour is bound to fail.

> I don't know about competitive rules in business in the USA.

I'm not sure anyone else does either. The administration and courts seem to make them up on the fly anymore.

Quoting:I don't know about competitive rules in business in the USA.

He who has the gold makes the rules.

I'm not a fan of statute law.

Either the statutes have to be written so broadly that the enforcers have "discretion" and it ends up being rule of men rather than rule of law, or

The statutes have to be written in such detail that we end up with entire libraries of statutes covering every contingency, and since no one is capable of knowing all the laws at the same time the only way to know is to get prosecuted, and we're right back to selective enforcement and rule of men rather than rule of law.

No matter what, it eventually works out to making stuff up as they go along, and the better lawyer wins regardless.