Do You Think Verizon Should Be Able to Edit the Internet Before You Access It?

[FoxKat]

Conoco gets to tell you exactly what blend of gasoline you can put in your car. Within the parameters of certain regulations.

Verizon certainly has a prerogative ipso facto to control the content they serve over their service.

The question is, to what degree will we tolerate filtering, and at what point will we use government coercion (regulation) to force Verizon to conform to our expectations?

NOTE: To be clear, I'm all for government regulation to compel Verizon to back the hell off.

The "inverted free speech" argument can be obviated relatively easy by Congress; it's "only" a matter of how far they (we) are willing to go regarding the classification of Verizon in particular or ISPs in general.
___
Sent from my phone. Please excuse typos.

Impressive... sounds like we have a law student/career/educator posting. I could enjoy having you around! :hail:

 

[FoxKat]

The central issue here appears to be "speech" -- at least, that's the legal tact that VZW has taken. So I ain't no lawyer, but it seems to me that if this issue reaches a courthouse, the argument will focus on two fundamental questions: (1) what role, if any, does VZW play in the process of (a) someone "broadcasting" their message, and (c) someone "consuming" the message? And (2) what legal precedents, if any, are there for comparable roles in speech "broadcasting" and "consumption"?

We're focusing here on metaphors. Personally, the gasoline metaphor feels way off to me. I think a more apt place to focus is newspapers, magazines, TV, and other forms of mass media. So then the question is whether VZW (or any ISP) functions like any of those media forms and obviously they don't. VZW's role isn't even a delivery system, properly speaking, it's more an electronic infrastructure for search and acquisition of content. The closest thing I can think of is a river or a highway -- it's the physical pathway or channel you use to find the content you want.

I honestly don't think we have a valid metaphor yet for such a pathway. What seems obvious and clear, however, is that HOWEVER the pathway is provided (by government or private party) there is no logical argument to be made that the party who provides the pathway has ownership or control over the content that flows through it. It's a bridge. How anyone uses the bridge (which is not free, you have to pay a "toll" to use the bridge) to reach their own destination is their decision, not the guy who owns the bridge.

-Matt

Actually there IS ONE metaphor for a comparable pathway...the good old telephone line. The phone company in no way restricts what content I can obtain through a phone line. They may have some limits on what number I can call, but that's only due to the type of service they provide or that I subscribe to. If I choose not to carry Long Distance service, then I am limited only to numbers that are available on area codes and exchanges that can be reached without a long distance carrier. If I choose to carry only "local" service, then I am limited to numbers that don't require a 1 before the area code (Plus 1 service). Same holds true for International calling. Still, if I call a phone number and over that number I choose to receive voice, data, video, images, faxes, essentially anything that can be converted into a modulated signal, the phone company can make no restrictions on that data.

There is the inherent restriction of bandwidth (though not technically a restriction so much as a limit of the equipment itself), but even that to a certain extent can be remedied by compression technology. So if I want to use a dial-up internet service provider (I know...who uses dial-up...but bear with me), and use that service over a Verizon phone line, I can obtain any information that the dial-up service provider will offer up, and I can carry that through the Verizon phone lines, and in the end, they would have no way of restricting that data for content or suitability. If Verizon the phone company were to try to restrict my content, it falls under the Federal Wiretapping laws and perhaps this is where the so-called "editorial rights" would fail. An argument could be made that by monitoring what content I retrieve from the internet (other than content that Verizon itself "publishes", in order to "edit out" or "inject in" what they think I want or what I should want or what they think I shouldn't get, they will be effectively tapping my internet wire and eavesdropping, a violation of the Federal Wiretapping law.

 

[94lt1]

Gasoline to me is a great way of comparing... its a product, purchased from any of a number of vendors/providers. That once purchased, we should be able to use in any manner we see fit.

A telephone line is a good metaphore...

Really any product purchased is. You buy a car, the government says you have to drive it a certain way except on a track for safety reasons,

You buy a phone, and they say not to use it while driving again, for safety reasons

You buy a data package and they tell you that you can't use it for............ because they want you to use it on...........because they padded their pockets....

Hmmmm. Sounds familiar... but this is normal... I mean, we live in china right??

I won't be censored.. infact ::icon_censored: lmao
DROID RAZR MAXXIMIZED!!!! PREPARE TO BE VANQUISHED!!!

 

[cucucachu0000]

It's a really dumb way of making there argument. I think it's there way of arguing against the law without smacking down big government which by the way helped them out by breaking up there only real competition (AT&T+TMobile) and kept what is now the government sanctioned monopoly that is Verizon on top. If a company starts blocking your Internet you can just switch. When your government does the censoring you can't switch just ask the people in China and Iran. If you get rid of the providers ability to censor things like terrorist websites or child porn government Internet censorship is the only other option. And if you think bible thumping republicans aren't going to try to censor all porn and pirated material your nuts.

 

[nikecar]

It's a really dumb way of making there argument. I think it's there way of arguing against the law without smacking down big government which by the way helped them out by breaking up there only real competition (AT&T+TMobile) and kept what is now the government sanctioned monopoly that is Verizon on top. If a company starts blocking your Internet you can just switch. When your government does the censoring you can't switch just ask the people in China and Iran. If you get rid of the providers ability to censor things like terrorist websites or child porn government Internet censorship is the only other option. And if you think bible thumping republicans aren't going to try to censor all porn and pirated material your nuts.

the problem is that in some areas, you only get one or two companies. Sure there is Clear and other smaller companies, but if you use a bundle (which may come out cheaper for all three services) then you really don't have an option.

i have VZ and BrightHouse. I know Orlando has/had Time Warner ONLY. So its hard to just be able to jump. Its not like cellular where we have 4 national companies and a few smaller ones that are prepaid.

I usually pit VZ and BH against each other. I have to do the "Leave the current and go to the other for a month and then switch back" trick in order to get what i want, but oh well, their loss. VZ didn't want to lower my bill and give me the new customer rates, so I left to BH for a month with a free month credit, then I came back as a new customer, got my deals, and made VZ work more as the tech had to redig and install the FiOS line, then another crew had to come and bury it better. So they just lost some dough doing all that instead of giving me the deals to start. I feel no love for them.

 

[johnfish]

First off watch the bible thumping republican remark. Not all of us conservatives are as draconian as the media would have you believe! Second, Verizon is a business, as a business they can decide what they provide and how they provide it. There should be no government interference in the way a private business runs unless they are overtly breaking established laws. If Verizon decides it wants to censor the internet and they are providing access to do it they have the right to rewrite their TOS. Of course if they rewrite thier TOS that would make everyones contract null and void and we would be free to end the contract without an ETF and go to another provider. I feel if they did this there would be a mass exodus from Verizon and they would fold like a cheap tent. I for one hope they do as I want out of my contract with them but if not I will hold on for the last year and a half of my contract and then jump ship.

 

[cucucachu0000]

I know that's why I said bible thumping I was being specific to the type of republican. I'm one myself just a libertarian republican, I'm just sick of the guys like santorum who like liberals think they need to save me from myself. I totally agree with you, just as a store can stop selling crappy merchandise or porn or an apartment building can ban pets or Google can ban searches on guns in there shopping Site (I have to use crappy bing) its a private company and as long as the government stops breaking up Verizons competition we can switch companies if it matters to you.

 

[johnfish]

Well said cucucachu0000! Less govenrment control more personal responsibility!

 

[jadesaber2]

They compare themselves to newspaper editors deciding what to print? I see them more as the paperboy deciding he doesn't want you to get the Business section of the newspaper.

 

[johnfish]

Newspaper editors may be an apt analogy. And it is becuase of newspaper editors that I no longer subscribe to any newspaper. It is also the reason that many newspapers are going belly up. Verizon should really look at that analogy. They are going to go the way of the newspaper. My fear is that they have grown so big that they feel they are a monopoly and can screw the customer anyway they want and it wont hurt them. This is a huge mistake on thier part. the only reason I have held on to them is because they have superior service. But I will be pushed only so far. Do I need a phone that does internet? No Do I need a phone on me all the time? No Have they tried to convince me I do? Yes. Watch out Verizon because there are a lot of people (myself included) that are not drinking your coolaid anymore.

 

[JoshuaTucker]

That's such a ridiculous argument on VZW's part. It's scary when you have people thinking they should be able to censor what we see online.

 

[MissionImprobable]

Their argument is so pathetic I doubt the people who put it together have any concept of what sound, logical reasoning is. That said, sure, let them do whatever they wish so long as they make it fully evident to all potential customers that this is going on. If they want to continue their recent spate of idiotic ideas they are free to do so. They are just further digging their own corporate graves.

 

[badtoy1986]

I have been a loyal Verizon customer for 10 years. If they keep pushing this I will switch to a new provider. This is such crap.

 

[jseah]

Newspaper editors may be an apt analogy. And it is becuase of newspaper editors that I no longer subscribe to any newspaper. It is also the reason that many newspapers are going belly up. Verizon should really look at that analogy. They are going to go the way of the newspaper. My fear is that they have grown so big that they feel they are a monopoly and can screw the customer anyway they want and it wont hurt them. This is a huge mistake on thier part. the only reason I have held on to them is because they have superior service. But I will be pushed only so far. Do I need a phone that does internet? No Do I need a phone on me all the time? No Have they tried to convince me I do? Yes. Watch out Verizon because there are a lot of people (myself included) that are not drinking your coolaid anymore.

I thought the main reason for newspaper readership being down is because of the availability of the news on the internet? Why pay for a newspaper when you can read the same articles online for free? I know that's why I cancelled my newspaper subscription. They were charging me nearly $250 a year for an annual subscription, and yet 80% of the articles appearing in the daily newspaper is AP articles that were available on the internet the day before.

 

[swc2001]

Ya Know forget even arguing against stupid Verizon
I cant wait till someone bigger and better than them come along and I switch services!!