dslreports logo
 story category
Verizon: Neutrality Rules Violate Our Free Speech Rights
The Same Rules Verizon Largely Helped Author
Verizon is heading to court for just the beginning of their legal challenge against the FCC's rather wimpy network neutrality rules, which went into effect last year. The rules were largely based on a set of equally wimpy guidelines crafted by Google and Verizon, who wanted to make sure the rules didn't really cover wireless networks and their new Android partnership (as a result, they don't). Verizon got what they wanted but decided to sue anyway -- eager to establish the FCC's authority as limited, in order to prevent the agency from potentially ever expanding the rules. Verizon's filings with the court this week proclaim the rules impose "dramatic new restrictions on broadband Internet access service providers" and violate the company's right to free speech. "Broadband networks are the modern-day microphone by which their owners engage in First Amendment speech," says Verizon.
view:
topics flat nest 

cableties
Premium Member
join:2005-01-27

cableties

Premium Member

HA!

Free speech! This from the very company that controls facilitates most of our countries communication!

And would easily turn off your account...
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Help...

Can someone help me understand how Verizon's rights are violated by net neutrality. Per Verizon, they are using their service as a microphone to engage in speech. What ideas are they expressing with this microphone and how is it impacted if we give everyone, including Verizon, equal access to this microphone?

Do they by chance become a broadcaster with this microphone? Does that mean they need to offer equal time to opposing views?

I know corporations have some of the rights that ordinary citizens have but is free speech one of them? I know they have the ability to contribute unlimited amounts of money to political interests, just like a real person can but has a precedent been set regarding their free speech? I know they cannot yet vote.
Wilsdom
join:2009-08-06

Wilsdom

Member

Re: Help...

Sounds crazy to me too, but it seems like Verizon's goal is to make the internet like cable TV, with it selecting website programming to display to passive internet viewers. If metering is back in style, why not AOL?

Somnambul33t
L33t.
Premium Member
join:2002-12-05
00000

Somnambul33t to rradina

Premium Member

to rradina
said by rradina:

Can someone help me understand how Verizon's rights are violated by net neutrality. Per Verizon, they are using their service as a microphone to engage in speech. What ideas are they expressing with this microphone and how is it impacted if we give everyone, including Verizon, equal access to this microphone?

Do they by chance become a broadcaster with this microphone? Does that mean they need to offer equal time to opposing views?

I know corporations have some of the rights that ordinary citizens have but is free speech one of them? I know they have the ability to contribute unlimited amounts of money to political interests, just like a real person can but has a precedent been set regarding their free speech? I know they cannot yet vote.

a business *should* have the right to provide whatever service they want, to whomever they want, for whatever amount they want and in any form they want, all provided it doesnt infringe on the rights of others. Unfortunately this isnt always the case thanks to crony capitalism (a business lobbies the government to pass laws that benefit the company, harm their competitors, or prevent new competitors or technologies from emerging) and the law of Unintended Consequences when governments meddle with an economy or market.

Verizon is certainly guilty of this at many levels of government, as are many corporations or their lobbying groups and even small businesses at the local levels. However, they do still have the right to speak, contribute, and help shape laws just as we do as citizens.

If a business isnt allowed to provide it's service or product in whatever way it sees fit, which it would logically also believe is in the best interest of the business, then what else will it be barred from doing? Who is the government to say an ISP can't provide internet service tiers, or provide different levels of service based on your plan? If the government can prevent this, they can really prevent anything, and that is a genuine hindrance to free markets and the ability of businesses to adapt to market conditions and innovate. I think VZ is calling this ability "free speech", tho i may be wrong.
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

axus

Member

Re: Help...

Businesses should be prevented from harming their customers or treating their customers unequally.

For example, if Verizon wanted to record all landline calls and make some money selling the contents of your conversations, we can say this is unfair and Verizon should be prevented from making money in this way.

Also, if Verizon wanted to block certain phone numbers on the other side of the country, if they did not pay to receive calls from New York for example, we can say that it is unfair; Verizon customers in New York should be able to call anyone in the country.

Furthermore, if Verizon degrades the signal quality of all calls to California, this is not right. Or maybe phone calls to Pizza Hut, because Dominoes is paying Verizon to have better phone quality among pizza restaurants.

I think requiring neutrality on communications, as much as possible, is a good thing.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Re: Help...

If genuine competition exists and NY customers who need to call California can take their business elsewhere for similar quality and cost without the shenanigans, I say let them do what they want and lose business. If customers cannot do this then I agree, a minimum service definition is warranted to protect consumers.
rradina

rradina to Somnambul33t

Member

to Somnambul33t
said by Somnambul33t:

a business *should* have the right to provide whatever service they want, to whomever they want, for whatever amount they want and in any form they want, all provided it doesnt infringe on the rights of others.

I believe that to be true when competition exists. By nature, humans are incredibly selfish. We will leverage every conceivable advantage for our own benefit. Only competition or rules tempers the degree to which we take from others to please ourselves.

Provided Verizon operates in a market with genuine competition, I believe Verizon should be able to run its business as it sees fit. Who believes a truly competitive market exists for high speed Internet? We can cite that everyone has access to several forms of high speed Internet access. That's probably true if we consider hard lines, wireless and satellite are competing for the same market. Who believes that to be true? For instance, if you are served by a hard-line Internet service provider and they decide to double the rate and charge $1/GB after a maximum quantity per month, week, day is reached, can you take your business to a second hard-line provider, wireless or satellite? Would you? If the answer isn't YES for the vast majority of us, then I wouldn't be able to justify an opinion that genuine competition exists.
TheRogueX
join:2003-03-26
Springfield, MO

TheRogueX to Somnambul33t

Member

to Somnambul33t
One problem. No single company owns the Internet. Only in very rare circumstances does a person's traffic originate and terminate without ever leaving the same ISP's network.

Also, being paid to push some data ahead of others is not 'free speech.' Sorry.

Net neutrality is absolutely necessary. It establishes that EVERYONE'S voice is the same volume. Keep in mind that if networks were allowed to directly control traffic in this way, we would end up having the internet potentially look and act vastly different depend on what ISP you were on.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT

BiggA to rradina

Premium Member

to rradina
I don't get it either. If anything, I would think the free speech thing would undermine their argument and make an argument FOR net neutrality.

danclan
join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA

danclan

Member

Well Companies are People after all...

just ask the SCOTUS.....

roc5955
Premium Member
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY

1 recommendation

roc5955

Premium Member

Re: Well Companies are People after all...

I'll believe that they are people when Texass or Floriduh execute one of them.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

FCC rules left wireless alone; now Verizon wants wired free

The rules Verizon & Google helped write protected wireless from FCC regulation on net neutrality. Well now, Verizon wants to make sure the FCC keeps its hands off wired as well. It is called fighting 1 battle at a time. Verizon compromised last year to protect their wireless system while giving in on wired. Now they want to get what they want for wired too. Government has a natural tendency to regulate more & more and business has a natural tendency to resist government regulation. A never ending battle.

SHoTTa35
@optonline.net

SHoTTa35

Anon

Re: FCC rules left wireless alone; now Verizon wants wired free

Translation

Verizon: We would like to control speeds so we can charge both ends for higher speeds.

jjoshua
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ

jjoshua

Premium Member

Dumb pipe

Just be the dumb pipe that I pay for. My $ is the only "free speech" that verizon needs to worry about.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Dumb pipe

I doubt you are paying for a dumb pipe

jjoshua
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ

jjoshua

Premium Member

Re: Dumb pipe

said by openbox9:

I doubt you are paying for a dumb pipe

You would be wrong. That's exactly what I'm paying for and it's all that I want to pay for.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Dumb pipe

said by jjoshua:

You would be wrong. That's exactly what I'm paying for and it's all that I want to pay for.

You want to pay for a dumb pipe, but you're likely paying for more. What does your service agreement stipulate? What are the ToS and/or AUP for the "dumb pipe" that you believe you're paying for?

jjoshua
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ

jjoshua

Premium Member

Re: Dumb pipe

said by openbox9:

said by jjoshua:

You would be wrong. That's exactly what I'm paying for and it's all that I want to pay for.

You want to pay for a dumb pipe, but you're likely paying for more. What does your service agreement stipulate? What are the ToS and/or AUP for the "dumb pipe" that you believe you're paying for?

I have no clue what you're talking about or what point you're trying to make.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Dumb pipe

You think you have a dumb pipe and my point is that you likely don't. That is all.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to jjoshua

Member

to jjoshua
That is 100% correct. They are a dumbpipe and there is absolutely nothing that any subscriber needs from them other than a valid IP address. Once a user has that they are free to express all the speech they want.

I think their entire argument about it being restrictive in their free speech is hypocrisy in that they want to be able to limit what is on their network (restrict speech) only when it is convenient for them.

Duramax08
To The Moon
Premium Member
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX

1 edit

1 recommendation

Duramax08

Premium Member

So if broadband networks are the modern-day microphone..

And they are charging us overages after a pathetic 2 GB, are they limiting our first amendment?

Yeah, I went there!
elefante72
join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

elefante72

Member

The issue is access

What Verizon is arguing against essentially a rehash of DSL which allows competition via third party access to "private property" that Verizon says they own.

So the whole point they are making is that this is not a utility, so it's my pipe so go f**k yourself and I can do what I want with it.

So Verizon is basically saying step off, otherwise call it a utility. The wireline is a bogey for the restrictions placed on the 700mhz band which they really hate. Already AT&T is trying to get new bands assigned so they can sidestep these rules.

The point is they don't want LTE to work together. If they are successful they can wipe out regional players just like they did in DSL by charging network access rates that are unprofitable for third party carriers. Add in the fact that they are making backroom backhaul deals w/ the cablecos for lower cost and that will seal the deal.

So if you don't "own" spectrum--funnily enough a public utility--then you will be out. 21st century squatting.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Yawn, verizon singing the same song

Verizon claiming free speech rights to censor its customers communications is nothing new. Check this FCC filing from 2008 »apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/docume ··· 20007657

Alex G Bell
join:2002-07-02
Boston, MA

Alex G Bell

Member

Free Speech?

It's sort of like Verizon arguing that it has the right to insert pre-recorded commercials in your telephone calls--"free speech."

IowaCowboy
Lost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA

IowaCowboy

Premium Member

In another 83 years

Hopefully it won't take 83 years to bring real competition to the broadband marketplace. That is how long it took before the AT&T/Bell System monopoly was broken up. Thanks to competition in the telephone market, voice prices are dirt cheap. If Bell System was never broken up, we'd be paying AT&T exorbitant rates for long distance calls that cost AT&T pennies on the dollar to provide.

Comcast and Verizon behave pretty much the way AT&T/Bell System behaved before the 1984 breakup.