5 ms·
>Verizon imposed these limitations despite being informed that throttling was actively impeding County Fire's ability to provide crisis-response and essential e
by RIMR 8y ago
>Verizon imposed these limitations despite being informed that throttling was actively impeding County Fire's ability to provide crisis-response and essential emergency services
Interfering with emergency services is a felony. Whoever signed off on throttling them after learning that doing so would inhibit crisis-response ought to be arrested.
- whatpad 8y agoArmchair grandstanding. If an EMT asks a bystander for help and he refuses, he did not commit a crime.
- wtallis 8y agoThe situation with Verizon is more like a case of an EMT asking a bystander to get out of the way, which the bystander absolutely has an obligation to comply with. But it's complicated by the fact that Verizon isn't just a bystander but a company that had an existing contract with the fire department, and had previously been informed that their throttling was causing problems.
- walshemj 8y agoTelecoms is CNI its entirely different
- FireBeyond 8y agoNo, but if I as an EMT or paramedic, ask you to get out of my way, and you refuse, you absolutely are committing a crime.
- thsowers 8y ago> Whoever signed off on throttling them This was likely the work of an automated system following a set of pre-programmed business logic. However, one would think that this could easily be undone with human intervention and a click of a button