Post #333,320
9/28/10 8:33:11 PM
|
try reading the link
T-Mobile, the company wrote in a filing (.pdf) in New York federal court, Âhas discretion to require pre-approval for any short-code marketing campaigns run on its network, and to enforce its guidelines by terminating programs for which a content provider failed to obtain the necessary approval.Â
Such approval is necessary, T-Mobile added, Âto protect the carrier and its customers from potentially illegal, fraudulent, or offensive marketing campaigns conducted on its network. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #333,323
9/28/10 10:38:47 PM
|
Someone aleady quoted that
They're not claiming it's a problem with bandwidth. They're claiming it's to "protect" people from "illegal, fraudulent, or offensive marketing campaigns". So it's not that they can't carry it, they don't want to. That's the story they're telling, anyway.
--
Drew
|
Post #333,330
9/28/10 11:04:27 PM
|
one more time, if the ruling goes against
they will have to carry
"illegal, fraudulent, or offensive marketing campaigns" and so does everyone else. you dont have a problem with that?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #333,332
9/28/10 11:42:06 PM
|
A pleading doesn't determine the ruling.
"Your honor, if we lose, the world will end. And I will have a sad."
You expect them to argue differently?
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #333,346
9/29/10 8:02:08 AM
|
if the ruling states they MUST deliver it does exactly that
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #333,350
9/29/10 9:48:38 AM
|
And if wishes were horses ... We'll see.
|
Post #333,334
9/28/10 11:43:02 PM
|
Please answer these two simple questions
1. Was the campaign they were trying to block in this story "illegal, fraudulent, or offensive"?
2. Who gets to decide that?
--
Drew
|
Post #333,345
9/29/10 8:01:31 AM
|
Re: Please answer these two simple questions
1. they couldnt tell because they were not asked for approval
2. t-mobile as they mentioned in their filing
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #333,381
9/29/10 6:10:03 PM
9/29/10 6:12:01 PM
|
Hear that
#1 - You claimed spam.
Now you claim other.
I claim shenanigans.
It's a very simple switch, and it is obviously (to all) that you realized you were full of shit, and then decided to delve back in to the article.
So now that you've admitted you were wrong there, ok I'll answer this too.
The ISP created a spam blast mechanism that they allow some people to use, and not others. There are LOTS of FED vs LOCAL laws, they conflict, and the f'ing ISP is not the expert on them. They are creating an opaque mechanism to slow down and hassle those they don't like.
If they have the right to control, then they have the responsibility. Is this an accepted legal issue, or do I need to explain it to you? Safe harbor means that they aren't allowed to filter on content (except for spam, which you've already shown you know this is not), no safe harbor means they HAVE to filter and can be sued for pretty much anything they carry.
Are you telling me that they will be legally responsible for every message that gets through, as well? Meaning suable for fraudulent content.
Edited by crazy
Sept. 29, 2010, 06:12:01 PM EDT
|
