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

[dgstorm]

In it's ongoing legal fight against the U.S. Government to stop Net Neutrality and the FCC's Open Internet Order, Verizon has made the laughable argument that it should be able to edit the internet at its discretion for its customers. Basically, Verizon's "point of view" is that as a broadband internet provider it should have "editorial discretion" to choose which content to provide to its customers, just like a newspaper editor, and that the Government is stepping on its constitutional right to do so. Here's a quote from Verizon's legal argument,

Broadband providers transmit their own speech both by developing their own content and by partnering with other content providers and adopting that speech as their own. For example, they develop video services, which draw information from, and are then made available over, the Internet. Many also select or create content for their own over-the-top video services or offer applications that provide access to particular content. They also transmit the speech of others: each day millions of individuals use the Internet to promote their own opinions and ideas and to explore those of others, and broadband providers convey those communications.

In performing these functions, broadband providers possess “editorial discretion.” Just as a newspaper is entitled to decide which content to publish and where, broadband providers may feature some content over others. Although broadband providers have generally exercised their discretion to allow all content in an undifferentiated manner, Order ¶ 14 (JA__), they nonetheless possess discretion that these rules preclude them from exercising.

This perspective stretches the limits of logic and borders on insanity. Verizon believes that they have a Constitutionally protected right to decide which content that their customers can access. Basically, Verizon is claiming that their right to free press guaranteed by the Constitution is being hampered by the Government because they are not being allowed to hamper your free speech rights to access whatever information you choose. They provide access to the Internet, they do not create the content that is on it. They should have no say in what we choose to find. How can any rational person wrap their head around this?

Source: BGR

 

[justin82]

we pay for there service its out device we should be able to view whatever we want to

 

[syndicate0017]

Sometimes I wonder if Verizon even listens to the fountain of BS they spew. Or do they say these things with their fingers plugging their ears?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[94lt1]

Exactly justin.... censorship is not being able to have a steak because a 6month old can't chew it!!!

If they start trying to censor what we see, as adults??? Really?? If I want to see blood and guts.. then I want to see it.. if I want to see other things that they as a company don't agree with... so???

Like was previously said... I pay for it... they can't tell me what I use it for.
.
When I buy gas, does conoco get to tell me where I can drive?? And how fast?? NO!!!

Off my soapbox

DROID RAZR MAXXIMIZED!!!! PREPARE TO BE VANQUISHED!!!

 

[skidoo]

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.

 

[HardlyClerkin]

This one more thing that we need to vote with our dollars, we won't because they tend to be the best option in most cases. And unfortunately they know that and are trying to use that to their advantage.

 

[surferdave]

They aren't really interested in making moral decisions about what you can or cannot see. They are interested in favoring the websites of parties who pay them to do so.

But no doubt once they use this excuse to route your browser to Bing instead of Google if Microsoft is the high bidder, special interest groups who specialize in being offended will start hammering them to censure the web, and they will fold like all companies do.

 

[nikecar]

The problem is on the broadband front. When I signed up for fios, I signed up for Internet at a certain speed. I didn't sign up for verizon's Internet content instead.

Verizon has no right to tell me what I can view as long as it's within reason. Sure I could accept no access to child porn etc.

Verizon offers their own portal if I choose to use it, obviously I don't.

 

[GAstorino]

Crazy that anyone would be for this in any form. They are providing the internet much like Xfinity, Hughes, etc. When they start "Filtering" what you get then you are going down the path of Communism or Facism. THey can then only filter what reality they want you to hear much like the Alphabet channels do today. We need unfettered data from all sides and the internet is the only way you can get that data in this day and age.

 

[Quicksilver7714]

I'm going to make this simple. VZW can not filter my access to the Internet. I pay Verizon for Web access not for specific websites like a cable package.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Narsil]

 

[jseah]

Didn't ISP's make this same argument back in the P2P and Napster days when a lot of people were sharing pirated movies and mp3's over the net and the RIAA were suing people left and right? They wanted the ability to block P2P or cancel subscribers who were illegally sharing music because the RIAA were suing them for "facilitating" the piracy of music.

 

[Chizzele]

This is a nice thing to ask for, what if next they would want to listen to our calls because they provide the cellular service... anyone up for beeps instead of the F word when talking to a buddy :blink:

 

[94lt1]

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.

Conoco can only sell what's allowed by the government ratings
.. that in no way dictates what I will or can buy.. availability differs by location from state to state.. some states sell 100+ octane.. however, once they sell me the product, they have no control over how I use it.

As a gear head, I can tell you any number of ways to increase your HP, or your MPG while still using stock gas while staying under a new cars warranty..

What vzw wants to do is essentially saying.. buy all of the gas you want, BUT you can't travel over here, or here, and once they get that.. then it will change as often as the top dollar dictates..


Edit..also, conoco is told what they can sell, and the government tries to dictate how our vehicles should utilize that product.. all in all, if I want to, and if I have the means...I can by pass conoco all together.. anybody can. but the bottom line is this.. conoco isn't going to try to manage these things.. and vzw, nor anybody else, should be able to tell anybody how to use a product simply for their financial gain..

But, its happening more and more

DROID RAZR MAXXIMIZED!!!! PREPARE TO BE VANQUISHED!!!

 

[gadgetrants]

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