@17 carriers shouldn't be allowed to block any port they want? They own all those ports so....
@18 Skype is free to NOT sign a deal with a carrier that requires an exclusive; what you are describing is actually "competitive"
@19 Two companies deciding to raise prices is not "anti-competitive," it's "competitive." "Anti-competition" requires government intervention into free markets, and I see none of that here. Skype and Verizon are in business to make money; If you feel screwed by their plans, then start your own carrier.
I do not think that word means what you think it means
@17 carriers shouldn't be allowed to block any port they want? They own all those ports so....
@18 Skype is free to NOT sign a deal with a carrier that requires an exclusive; what you are describing is actually "competitive"
@19 Two companies deciding to raise prices is not "anti-competitive," it's "competitive." "Anti-competition" requires government intervention into free markets, and I see none of that here. Skype and Verizon are in business to make money; If you feel screwed by their plans, then start your own carrier.
Anti-competitive?
While I will agree that Skype appears to be engaging in some hypocrisy, I don't see the "anti-competitive" doings mentioned in the first paragraph.
Verizon owns its network, and should be allowed to dictate who can use it, and for what purpose. Skype can choose to market any product it wishes.
You think differently?