|
I'm sorry. The *incident* had nothing to do with net neutrality.
The incident was they were throttled, like everybody else with a data plan who goes over it. The plans weren't different, before and after the rule changes. The practices weren't different. It's most likely a mistake was made.
Verizon says they failed to apply the conditions for an emergency provider to the plan. If this is a net neutrality thing, aren't they supposed to just brazenly change their policies? Not, like, make a customer support mistake and then fix it.
I mean, anyone use Verizon Wireless? Anyone ever have 'em make a mistake? Okay then.
But the thing is, last year, pro-net-neutrality elected officials in Santa Clara County filed a suit against the FCC for ending net neutrality.
Now, they get to add this incident as an addendum, of evidence that their suit has merit.
It doesn't mean that it has merit. Doesn't mean anything at all really. It appears to be lawyer money, spent by public officials in pro-net-neutrality land, using public funds to make sure they get re-elected by their pro-net-neutrality voters.
Ordinarily, a pro-plaintiff lawyer making an addendum is not really newsworthy. But if you are Ars Technica, you are part of the process and you can write not just one, but two stories about it.
Santa Clara County's lawyers explicitly tied the story to net neutrality? YES THEY DID. They gettin' PAID to do that shit.
|