>>96958690>https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/net-neutrality-violations-history/The Madison River Communications case, besides being a small local provider, isn't an example of preferential treatment, it didn't discriminate in it's limitation of access to the type of service
The second case "Verizon denied the request, telling NARAL that the company, ?does not accept issue-oriented (abortion, war, etc.) programs—only basic, general politician-related programs (Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, etc.).”"
Again, indiscriminate refusal to service for violation of policy. Next you're going to tell me Twitter doesn't have the right to ban users who break their site rules.
Also, this 'case' was solved by... social pressures and consumer backlash. Almost like there are non-governmental solutions to these problems.
The third case in this article is about Verizon asking Google not to host tethering apps, I fail to see how anyone would consider this inappropriate behavior, they didn't interfere with any software, and did not disallow access to such applications, the fact that the FCC saw fit to fine Verizon for this is just another reason they shouldn't have anything to do with the internet.
Fourth Case, "usage of the app on its network was eating up so much bandwidth that the network couldn’t keep up with demand, and restricting the app’s use to people who signed up for that more expensive plan would reduce the strain on its network infrastructure."
Again, another completely justifiable action that consumers didn't like and was shut down from bad PR. Isn't this article supposed to be supporting NN?
The Comcast vs BitTorrent is as simple as it can be. BitTorrent was causing large amounts of network congestion, and Comcast attempted to solve this problem poorly, and a US Court of Appeals agreed the FCC overstepped it;s bounds
The XBOX case is the same situation of, a bad, but clearly not illegal move customers didn't like being solved by bad PR.
Character Limit
