America's Net Neutrality Question: Should the FCC Define the Internet as a 'Common Carrier'? (fcc.gov) 132
The Washington Post's editorial board looks at America's "net neutrality" debate.
But first they note that America's communications-regulating FCC has "limited authority to regulate unless broadband is considered a 'common carrier' under the Telecommunications Act of 1996." The FCC under President Barack Obama moved to reclassify broadband so it could regulate broadband companies; the FCC under President Donald Trump reversed the change. Dismayed advocates warned the world that, without the protections in place, the internet would break. You'll never guess what happened next: nothing. Or, at least, almost nothing. The internet did not break, and internet service providers for the most part did not block and they did not throttle.
All the same, today's FCC, under Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, has just moved to re-reclassify broadband. The interesting part is that her strongest argument doesn't have much to do with net neutrality, but with some of the other benefits the country could see from having a federal watchdog keeping an eye on the broadband business... Broadband is an essential service... Yet there isn't a single government agency with sufficient authority to oversee this vital tool. Asserting federal authority over broadband would empower regulation of any blocking, throttling or anti-competitive paid traffic prioritization that they might engage in. But it could also help ensure the safety and security of U.S. networks.
The FCC has, on national security grounds, removed authorization for companies affiliated with adversary states, such as China's Huawei, from participating in U.S. telecommunications markets. The agency can do this for phone carriers. But it can't do it for broadband, because it isn't allowed to. Or consider public safety during a crisis. The FCC doesn't have the ability to access the data it needs to know when and where there are broadband outages — much less the ability to do anything about those outages if they are identified. Similarly, it can't impose requirements for network resiliency to help prevent those outages from occurring in the first place — during, say, a natural disaster or a cyberattack.
The agency has ample power to police the types of services that are becoming less relevant in American life, such as landline telephones, and little power to police those that are becoming more important every day.
The FCC acknowledges this power would also allow them to prohibit "throttling" of content. But the Post's editorial also makes the argument that here in 2023 that's "unlikely to have any major effect on the broadband industry in either direction... Substantial consequences have only become less likely as high-speed bandwidth has become less limited."
But first they note that America's communications-regulating FCC has "limited authority to regulate unless broadband is considered a 'common carrier' under the Telecommunications Act of 1996." The FCC under President Barack Obama moved to reclassify broadband so it could regulate broadband companies; the FCC under President Donald Trump reversed the change. Dismayed advocates warned the world that, without the protections in place, the internet would break. You'll never guess what happened next: nothing. Or, at least, almost nothing. The internet did not break, and internet service providers for the most part did not block and they did not throttle.
All the same, today's FCC, under Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, has just moved to re-reclassify broadband. The interesting part is that her strongest argument doesn't have much to do with net neutrality, but with some of the other benefits the country could see from having a federal watchdog keeping an eye on the broadband business... Broadband is an essential service... Yet there isn't a single government agency with sufficient authority to oversee this vital tool. Asserting federal authority over broadband would empower regulation of any blocking, throttling or anti-competitive paid traffic prioritization that they might engage in. But it could also help ensure the safety and security of U.S. networks.
The FCC has, on national security grounds, removed authorization for companies affiliated with adversary states, such as China's Huawei, from participating in U.S. telecommunications markets. The agency can do this for phone carriers. But it can't do it for broadband, because it isn't allowed to. Or consider public safety during a crisis. The FCC doesn't have the ability to access the data it needs to know when and where there are broadband outages — much less the ability to do anything about those outages if they are identified. Similarly, it can't impose requirements for network resiliency to help prevent those outages from occurring in the first place — during, say, a natural disaster or a cyberattack.
The agency has ample power to police the types of services that are becoming less relevant in American life, such as landline telephones, and little power to police those that are becoming more important every day.
The FCC acknowledges this power would also allow them to prohibit "throttling" of content. But the Post's editorial also makes the argument that here in 2023 that's "unlikely to have any major effect on the broadband industry in either direction... Substantial consequences have only become less likely as high-speed bandwidth has become less limited."
Interesting argument. (Score:5, Interesting)
And to be honest, much as I am for NN and was against Pai's revocation of that status, it's a good one. Much more of our infrastructure is now carried on the internet. POTS is dying has been mostly replaced by VOIP.
I could actually see this argument being used for Congress to potentially legislate this, so it can't be overturned on a whim by the next administration. It's unlikely, but possible using this line of reasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
Dammit. s/good one/better one than NN/
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well yeah, taxes are probably coming because the government absolutely hates it when technological change results in reduced tax revenue. That's like here in Florida they're proposing a $200 registration tax on EVs. Thing is, that's roughly equivalent to the amount of gas tax you'd pay driving the average 13,500 miles per year in a vehicle that gets roughly 23.8 MPG. That's actually pretty bad efficiency for an ICE vehicle these days (the average fuel economy is currently 31.7 MPG).
Oh, fun fact, here in
Re:Interesting argument. (Score:5, Interesting)
Net Neutrality allows for the uninterrupted data to go from point a to point b. DNSS was introduced because carriers decided they would inject their advertisement in where they felt like it. It should also prevent you as being seen as a product to DNS providers, ISP providers, and your phone. But I guess all that advertisement is better than having the gubbermint in to tell them to stop treating you like a piece of meat and to provide exactly what they advertise.
I wonder if people really like paying extra for bandwidth that they already paid for, or getting walked all over and data horded by companies that want to make a buck off your movements. Because thats better than the gubbermint having it, right?
By the way, the gubbermint still gets that data on you, they just dont have to go through the courts or tell you that they are doing it. They just pay the carrier instead of the carrier paying them for these taxes you all are so afraid of.
I wonder where they get that money from to pay the carrier who actively spies on you so they can all do an end run around your fifth amendment rights. Because it sure as shit isnt the businesses or rich.
Re: (Score:3)
What I was agreeing with was that history has demonstrated the government will use the opportunity to regulate as justification for collecting additional taxes, and in some cases it's a blatant cash grab. POTS is going away and they're gonna be looking to replace that income somehow.
From what I've seen, the FCC seems more concerned with someone saying "fuck" on the radio or a boob popping out of a shirt on TV than they're concerned with most radio and TV stations across the country all being owned by a han
Re: (Score:2)
So I really dont think you care about it at all, and are likely only creating walls that dont need to be there. Im sure there is a word for it, maybe you can help out with that.
Re: (Score:2)
How much is registration for ICE vehicles?
Here in WA even my motorcycle registration is $80. My truck is $115, EV's are $200 (I think.)
You have to subtract off the regular registration fee to get the EV make up for no gas tax surcharge.
Re: (Score:2)
How much is registration for ICE vehicles?
Here in WA even my motorcycle registration is $80. My truck is $115, EV's are $200 (I think.)
You have to subtract off the regular registration fee to get the EV make up for no gas tax surcharge.
In Utah, all powered road vehicles with the same manufacture year have the same registration fee; doesn't matter the value of the vehicle or gas mileage. There was a movement to introduce a per mile road use tax, but it failed to pass. Yes, that proposed tax was an attempt to recoup gas tax revenue that is decreasing as vehicles become more efficient or more people go electric.
Re: (Score:2)
"That's like here in Florida they're proposing a $200 registration tax on EVs. Thing is, that's roughly equivalent to the amount of gas tax you'd pay driving the average 13,500 miles per year in a vehicle that gets roughly 23.8 MPG."
Your math isn't mathing.
Re: (Score:2)
You should be glad Florida isn't doing one of those other cockamamie schemes that have been proposed like putting a GPS tracker on EVs so (among many other things) they can see exactly how much you drive and charge a tax accordingly.
A tracker would be invasive and creepy, but ultimately it'd be more fair to tax people based on how much they actually drive rather than just penalize them for being early adopters of new tech. Florida's wireless taxes began much the same way, because originally wireless phone service was considered to be something of a luxury for people who had extra money. Of course, now landlines are old and busted and cell phones are pretty much a necessity. In my neighborhood, you can't even get a POTS landline anym
Re: (Score:2)
You should be glad Florida isn't doing one of those other cockamamie schemes that have been proposed like putting a GPS tracker on EVs so (among many other things) they can see exactly how much you drive and charge a tax accordingly.
A tracker would be invasive and creepy, but ultimately it'd be more fair to tax people based on how much they actually drive rather than just penalize them for being early adopters of new tech. Florida's wireless taxes began much the same way, because originally wireless phone service was considered to be something of a luxury for people who had extra money. Of course, now landlines are old and busted and cell phones are pretty much a necessity. In my neighborhood, you can't even get a POTS landline anymore because AT&T has decided not to upgrade their equipment and no longer allows new customers to sign up for any of their legacy services.
So, now Floridians pay luxury taxes on what is an essential service, which ironically isn't even used much these days for voice calls. Most of the younger folks seem downright annoyed if you actually call them on their phone.
Utah was considering a per mile fee in lieu of a gas tax. You're right that electric vehicles also contribute to road wear and tear, but avoid the gas tax. Two main points prevented Utah's per mile fee from passing. You mentioned the invasion of privacy if a tracker is used. If a tracker is not used, it would be impossible to determine how many miles a vehicle drove on public roads in that state. The miles I drive on Grandpa's farm don't add any wear to public roads kept up by this fee. When I go road tripp
Re:Interesting argument. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you think Sales tax sucks
Don't speak for others. Many people don't believe taxes suck because we don't live in caves off the grid outside of society and actually get direct benefits from a collective pool of taxation.
Let me guess, you paid to build your own road between you and the supermarket you drive to? Paid for the certification of the car you drive to get there yourself? Paid for the infrastructure that provides power to keep that fridge on allowing you to get that frozen pizza?
If not, then maybe stop bitching about not wanting to pay for something you use.
Re:Interesting argument. (Score:4, Informative)
> The shitty part about having the internet regulated is the taxes that will come with it
Canada ruled internet is CC back in the oughties. I can buy by internet service from dozens of carriers and switch among them at will. There are no "internet taxes".
The UK is currently working on same, Australia has the NBN, etc. No one has "internet taxes".
But sure, this is 'murica, so (all government actions) = (bad and taxes).
> And honestly what problem are we trying to solve?
The problem that many people in the US have only one carrier they can get access from, at least on landlines.
With CC, you can, in theory at least, get access from anyone that will sell it to you, even if that comes in on someone else's lines. For instance, I get my internet from Start, which is owned by Telus, but it is carried on a Rogers cable. Telus and Rogers are bitter rivals, but due to CC, they have to carry each other's traffic. And if Telus, which recently bought Start, starts jacking up the prices, I have a half dozen other small firms I can switch to. But for now, I'm getting unlimited for the equivalent of $35USD a month and that's working for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"The agency has ample power to police the types of services that are becoming less relevant in American life, such as landline telephones, and little power to police those that are becoming more important every day."
Over time, the FCC hurts the technologies it regulates, because it ends up captured by a combination of industry big players and political hacks. All of the "problems" used to justify FCC regulations are a combination of speculative non-issues and minor issues where the "cure" is worse than the
Re: (Score:1)
>"Congress has not been able to legislate a commode flush much less it's required appropriations bills in decades."
Indeed. They find it easier to just create more bureaucratic regulatory agencies to do the dirty work for them so they don't have to read complex bills or be held accountable for the votes they cast. And what they do pass are these insane bills that combine dozens or hundreds of different and unrelated things so, again, they can't be held accountable for the single things inside them. You
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I grew up in the Old South in the 50's and 60's when
...the bulk of the power (was) closer to the people, in the States.
I remember well how that was working.
Without the intervention of the Federal Government, I suspect very little would have changed there.
Seeing the current crop of red states gerrymandering their way to a permanent legislative majority with a minority of voters, I don't think that would be the panacea you imagine.
Alas, that same strategy is being perpetrated by revanchist forces at the national level, and it is apparent that an uncomfortably large p
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
>"Without the intervention of the Federal Government, I suspect very little would have changed there."
They were ignoring the Constitution. Powers were given to the Federal government, by the States, in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. So pointing to that as an example where the Federal government can just grab power NOT in the Constitution is not valid.
>"Seeing the current crop of red states gerrymandering their way to a permanent legislative majority"
Both parties have been doing that for a very
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with common carrier status is that the common carrier is not allowed to obstruct any lawful activity. Such as email marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
> the common carrier is not allowed to obstruct any lawful activity. Such as email marketing.
The telcos are being ordered to block spam calls all the time.
I'm on a CC internet, and my IPS blocks spam email.
So, no.
Re: (Score:2)
The telcos are ordered to block -illegal- calls. The ISPs could be order to block illegal emails. But right now that's only emails that disguise their source or pitch an illegal product. Merely advertising via email, when that advertising is unwanted, is not illegal.
Re: Interesting argument. (Score:2)
Pai, as I recall, pointed towards the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) to enforce the various consumer protections that advocates typically refer to as Net Neutrality - did the FTC ever step up to protect consumer rights?
Moreover, we empower the Federal Trade Commission to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers. But today, we are putting our nationâ(TM)s premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. The FTC will once again have the authority to take action against Internet service providers that engage in anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptive acts. As FTC Chairman Maureen Ohlhausen recently said, âoeThe FTCâ(TM)s ability to protect consumers and promote competition in the broadband industry isnâ(TM)t something new and far-fetched. We have a long-established role in preserving the values that consumers care about online.â Or as President Obamaâ(TM)s first FTC Chairman put it just yesterday, âoethe plan to restore FTC jurisdiction is good for consumers. . . . [T]he sky isnâ(TM)t falling. Consumers will remain protected, and the [I]nternet will continue to thrive.â~/quote>
Source: Ajit Pai's statement when he "killed" Net Neutrality [theverge.com]
Define it as what it is. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Stop running a goddamn auction house.
That sweet buyer's premium though.
I'm in (Score:5, Insightful)
And contrary to what the article said, the internet did break numerous times because of that deregulation, it just wasn't anything that brought down the entire internet in the same day, but rather functionality breaks for LOTS of stuff... Anybody else remember Comcast intentionally F'ing over Netflix data so your streams were lousy until they agreed to pay Comcast a lot of money? Well I certainly do, and that wasn't the even close to the only shakedown from both ends.
Net Neutrality was the default for the internet until greed seeped in from the corporate giants, let's get Net Neutrality back!
Re: (Score:1)
Comcast vs. Netflix had nothing to do with Net Neutrality [cnet.com]. Their dispute also happened in 2024, well before the deregulation in 2017. Were they time travelers, to cause it?
The "corporate giants" prefer the FCC regulating their industry, because that way they can use their political and commission connections to get rules put in place over time limiting their competition, which has the side effect of stagnating the industry. Regulatory Capture [wikipedia.org] is a much larger threat to the Internet than anything which has h
Re: (Score:2)
Typo for 2014....
Re: (Score:2)
Net Neutrality was the default for the internet until greed seeped in from the corporate giants, let's get Net Neutrality back!
A few years ago I agreed with this. I still agree with it, philosophically, but in practice I don't think it matters as much any more because there's more competition in Internet service today, and competition is a better solution than regulation. In particular, wireless Internet options have gotten a lot better and a lot cheaper. Between 5G cellular service and Starlink, most people do have at least one option other than whoever owns DSL. More fiber is being rolled out by more companies, too.
I think this
In other words how to ban TikTok (Score:2)
There was nothing about the original Net Neutrality regulation that opened the internet and made access more equal. The whole scheme is about allowing the FCC to regulate the content of the internet and giving government more power to try and regulate speech on the internet. It's about trying to do to the internet what they did to the airwaves.
Re: (Score:2)
They're banning TikTok regardless of the classification of broadband. And their ability to monitor and regulate the content of your web sites or social media posts isn't really affected by "common carrier" status. Defining broadband as a "common carrier" means that an ISP can't refuse or hamper service to competitors. For example, AT&T might want to find a way to place obstacles in the way of Netflix using their infrastructure to reach customers, because they'd like you to subscribe to DirecTV Stream in
Title. (Score:2)
Regulation and compliance costs money (Score:1)
The key phrase is "nothing happened". You can be assured that once it's regulated, an army of people will be required to oversee the regulation on the government side and a corresponding army of people to comply with the regulations on the provider side. Both of those armies will need to get paid and will get paid well. That means that taxes and fees will either go up or be added to your bill, most likely both. There will also be two armies of overpaid lawyers involved. The consumer won't see any tangibl
Re: (Score:2)
+1
Shhhhhhhh.... stop making sense. It won't fly here.
That is not how anything works (Score:5, Insightful)
"The internet" is not the common carrier. "The internet" is, for all the flaws in the "information superhighway" metaphor, like the road network. The ISPs would be the common carriers.
What we need most in the regulatory department is a mandate to permit and enable competition. For example, municipal broadband must be made legal in a way that state law can't contravene. Any and all monopoly agreements must be terminated with prejudice. Those of us who are getting bad deals on our internet service (grossly overpriced, terrible service, or both) are getting them as a result of a lack of competition.
Re: (Score:3)
Your beef is with the summary, not with the article. The article itself discusses the FCC classifying *broadband* (i.e., broadband ISPs) as common carriers. So you're right, but the FCC itself didn't get the idea wrong here.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Those of us who are getting bad deals on our internet service (grossly overpriced, terrible service, or both) are getting them as a result of a lack of competition."
100% correct
But I don't see the solution (like you do) of making the government the competition. The governments CREATED the lack of competition in the first place by allowing all these "exclusivity" deals. That is absolutely the case where I live, and most people I know. We have no competition BECAUSE they gave Cox exclusive access to t
Re: (Score:2)
But I don't see the solution (like you do) of making the government the competition.
Because municipal broadband generally has high customer satisfaction. In fact municipal utilities are generally superior to private ones, despite notable and obvious exceptions like Flint's water.
Re: (Score:2)
I could see some cases where I might support it. Especially if it is only at the local level and commercial interest could not be garnered or there was gross abuse by a single monopoly. But government-owned/run services are often MUCH less responsive and lower quality compared to commercial ones due to the lack of financial pressure and accountability.
I have often thought the pole and run to the house could be the domain of municipal service, but the ISP and data running on it (plus customer service, bill
Re: (Score:2)
But government-owned/run services are often MUCH less responsive and lower quality compared to commercial ones due to the lack of financial pressure and accountability.
https://www.consumerreports.or... [consumerreports.org]
https://www.govtech.com/dc/cit... [govtech.com]
https://www.americanbar.org/gr... [americanbar.org]
Re: (Score:2)
In Australia the government owns the network (the NBN) and any ISP can offer service over it (which means there is competition and a dis-incentive to charge obscene prices or offer crappy quality).
Its far from perfect (especially if you get a crappy service because the LNP ruined things in your area) but its better than having a commercial entity running things and getting to dictate prices and stuff.
Well this is a crock of shit (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
>""they did not block and they did not throttle" Hmmm... I'm pretty sure you'd be hard pressed to find an ISP or telco who doesn't throttle on their "unlimited" plans."
They are referencing throttling and blocking COMPETITION (what source to what destination), not as an inherent part of the plan. All plans have some type of limit to the customer. The max speed or the amount of data per period or both. That wouldn't change with "Net Neutrality". In that regard, "unlimited" is a marketing lie.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's okay, my ISP doesn't charge or meter bandwidth to Facebook. That is okay isn't it? /s
Actually this post is not entirely sarcastic. I did actually have a wireless plan that specifically stated some popular services were excluded from metering. Fuck the ISPs discriminating content based on destination.
Yes, but... (Score:2)
Yes, it's a common carrier
No, I don't trust government to make things better
Re: (Score:3)
Which do you trust more, the government or Comcast?
Regulation is a double-edged sword. But when dealing with a monopoly, it is often better to have a regulator than have nothing.
For many areas, it would be really nice to have two broadband ISPs. It would be a big thing for the local small businesses, startups, and business development organizations. Think about the marketing possibilities for small municipalities if servers could be set up almost anywhere.
Currently, well connected servers can only go i
Yes (Score:2)
n/t
Internet is 100% obviously common carrier (Score:2)
If you don't care who does it as long as it does what's expected, that's common carrier.
I don't care how my phone calls get routed and I don't care how my internet gets routed. That's because it's common carrier. There is no value add beyond basic "latency is bad" type of deals but that's table stakes.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't care who does it as long as it does what's expected, that's common carrier.
That's exactly backwards. It's they do what's expected and they don't care who you are.
Nothing happened? Not that's incorrect. (Score:3)
No David you are simply incorrect. After NN was thrown out your current data is being throttled on daily basis depending on what kind of data it is and where it's from. The problem is that most users just have no idea that this is actually taking place, and this includes David here. It takes a university reseacher to actually find out this information:
https://news.northeastern.edu/... [northeastern.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
That article/study/whatever is only about cell carriers, not ISP's in general. And it really is only about restricting video, a class of data that places huge load on the limited bandwidth.
There was zero data showing a carrier throttling JUST CERTAIN video sites with the intention of asking those sites or customers to pay some type of extortion fee. Even if a carrier is differentiating, it is based on the TYPE of data only because of the AMOUNT of load it places on the network. Video is *hugely* more loa
Re: (Score:2)
Throttling you after you hit a certain cap (or if the network is congested or or whatever) is fine. Throttling based on what server you are talking to or the content of your message isn't.
If video is using up all your bandwidth, either get more bandwidth or just charge more for everything (and make your customers actually pay for all that bandwidth they are using) instead of specifically targeting video.
phone was (Score:3)
Yes (Score:2)
Way to co-opt net nuetrality (Score:2)
I don't support common carrier (Score:4, Interesting)
There is a metric ton of complexity in Title II (over 600 pages) being held at bay by technocratic fiat (AKA forbearance). I personally would rather see ISPs not regulated as common carriers and instead be governed by reasonable targeted legislation to address NN and related issues.
I prefer to see streamlined targeted legislation favor smaller operators and fostering competition rather than seeing them drown in process or forever living under swords of damocles controlled by technocrats.
As long as they do not add content regulation. (Score:2)
"safety and security" is the pretext (Score:2)
It moves on to content regulation and cutting off peoples' internet access via regulatory creep in the name of safety and security.
Take your pick, but only one (Score:2, Offtopic)
Part of the problem is that some entities on today's internet want to have their cake and eat it too. Common carrier status used to be reserved for those which carried all conversations (i.e. telephone company) and were therefore not liable for carrying conversations which might have resulted in harm to someone (i.e. they were precluded from deciding which conversations to carry or not carry and were therefore not liable for conversations carried.
For those entities which wanted control (editorial or otherwi
Not even common carrier (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd note that the FCC has never regulated ISPs as common carriers, even before Trump. They classified ISPs under the same law as common carriers, but exempted them from the majority of the regulations that apply to common carriers. What was left, what network neutrality being restored would revert things back to, amounted to "Don't use your monopoly over the last mile to put a thumb on the scales of which services your customers can access cheaply vs. which ones they have to pay through the nose to access.". ISPs were never prohibited from throttling traffic due to congestion, for instance, they were only prohibited from throttling a given bandwidth usage to one service, calling it a congestion issue, while not throttling the exact same bandwidth usage to another service that'd signed a kickback deal with the ISP. The whole bit about "common carrier" in the current argument is the ISPs not wanting to even have to deal with that small nod to the consumers.
No, the idea that the Internet didn't implode when the Trump FCC deregulated ISPs completely doesn't mean that network neutrality isn't needed. The main reason things didn't go to Hell in a hand-basket is that states immediately jumped in and put regulations in place along the same ones as what the FCC had removed. And the Trump FCC was dead-set on getting those state-level regulations removed as well, the only thing that stopped them was the courts refusing to buy the idea that the FCC didn't have the authority to regulate when talking about Federal law but did have the authority when talking about state law.
I support it on ONE condition: (Score:1)
First Amendment free speech rights must be GUARANTEED in writing under Net Neutrality. That means the tech companies and especially the likes of YouTube and social media companies cannot discriminate on their own whim.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First Amendment free speech rights must be GUARANTEED in writing under Net Neutrality. That means the tech companies and especially the likes of YouTube and social media companies cannot discriminate on their own whim.
You're right, First Amendment must be GUARANTEED. So tech companies like YouTube and Social Media should be free to discriminate and not associated themselves with content they don't want on *their* platform.
If you want freedom of speech you need freedom from speech. Your rights are no more important than those of others, including those who don't want anything to do with you. Net Neutrality should be designed in such a way that you're not unfairly hindered from making your own service allowing you to post
Five Nines (Score:1)
Define it as a common carrier, just like the telcos. And then expect 99.999% uptime, just like the telcos.
Just to see the cable-TV companies squirm.
No to Federal Control of Broadband (Score:1)
Oh wait, I'm a libertarian. Never mind. Let the people speak. Yes, even the ones I disagree with.
Some do see Federal Internet regulation as yet another way to stile speech they don't like. Fascists gotta be fascists, I guess.
For me though, something else is key.
Centralizing control
STFU Bezos (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Everything now has seemingly flipped 180 degrees.
Re:Conservative hypocrisy (Score:5, Informative)
The government forcing a private company to publish speech it does not agree with is violating the free speech of said company.
Re:Conservative hypocrisy (Score:5, Informative)
>"The government forcing a private company to publish speech it does not agree with is violating the free speech of said company.
The argument was that when said company becomes a "commons square" by being almost monopolistic (like YouTube and Twitter), should they then have some duty to not censor? Or at least do it transparently? Or at least not collude with government agencies on what gets censored?
And the word "publish" (your Freudian slip) implies they are a publisher, not just a carrier, and then should be held liable for postings.... and yet they are not, due to section 230.
It isn't quite as cut and dry as it would seem. They want it both ways- to claim they are open and free commons and thus should be exempt from liability, and yet also want to censor, demonetize, shadow-ban, blacklist, disclaim, discriminate, downlist, and lots of other "shaping" and interference (outside of user control and often awareness), like a publisher would do.
Re: (Score:2)
The argument was that when said company becomes a "commons square" by being almost monopolistic (like YouTube and Twitter), should they then have some duty to not censor? Or at least do it transparently? Or at least not collude with government agencies on what gets censored?
That some services are large and show monopolistic tendencies is an anti-trust issue and not a 1A issue. Arguing that companies that fulfills criteria X shouldn't have 1A rights is the road to some really fucked up things like the government explicitly tampering with the 1A in certain scenarios, and then the 1A become this fluid morass of shit that won't matter very much in the end. And in regards to colluding, no such things happened. Was there some improper behavior exhibited, sure - but most of the stuff
Re: (Score:2)
>"If you actually read what the authors of section 230 said about it is that all internet services that hosts 3rd party speech are publishers but they aren't legally treated as such when they publish 3rd party speech. This changes if they choose what is published beforehand (editorial selection of content), then they become a publisher in the legal sense too (although there are some minor caveats to that)."
But they *are* choosing what is "published" (beforehand or not) and how it is published or seen or
Re: (Score:2)
hey really are not playing by what many people, including me, think is the main spirit of 230
What you, me and others think is the main spirit of 230 matters very little, it all boils down to what the creators of section 230 envisioned.
They are hiding behind the "Good Samaritan" portion to push agendas of their own, silencing valid dissent and diversity of thought and at the same time claiming they are not.
Can you give specific examples of valid dissent, diversity and thought that have been silenced and how widespread that is with factual data? Unless there is an actual measuring stick that can be factually evaluated for this behavior all we have are anecdotes, and when it comes the moderation of billions of posts daily how often does it go awry and can we distinguish t
What all due respect what are you on about? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I don't think that anybody today would consider the nazis or the Italian Fascists to be right-wing extremists; the nazis (I won't capitalize that name because I consider it a highly improper noun.) were National Socialists, and fascism also grew out of socialism, and yet, they both came into power
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that anybody today would consider the nazis or the Italian Fascists to be right-wing extremists; the nazis (I won't capitalize that name because I consider it a highly improper noun.) were National Socialists, and fascism also grew out of socialism
The National Socialists were as socialist as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy/republic...
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think that anybody today would consider the nazis or the Italian Fascists to be right-wing extremists; the nazis (I won't capitalize that name because I consider it a highly improper noun.) were National Socialists, and fascism also grew out of socialism
The National Socialists were as socialist as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy/republic...
And Antifa are Anti-Facist. Oh, wait....
Re: (Score:3)
The government forcing a private company to publish speech it does not agree with is violating the free speech of said company.
Gee - given that the Internet combined with the Web now constitutes essential infrastructure, maybe it's time to get past this "private company" baggage. This seems especially and obviously true for the last mile, where competition is almost non-existent. But I would argue that it also applies farther up the chain.
As for a company having 'free speech' rights, repeat after me: "Corporations do not deserve and should not have the same rights as flesh-and-blood citizens". Corporate personhood is a cracked croc
Re: (Score:2)
Internet providers are not publishing speech. They are carrying it. The endpoints are the ones publishing.
Re: Conservative hypocrisy (Score:2)
So you agree with Citizens United SCOTUS decision that corporations have rights, just like a person?
Social media sites are, and always have been able to censor the information they publish, but they then are responsible for the content they decide to publish... Social media sites want the ability to edit content like a newspaper does, but be free of legal responsibility for anything they publish, unlike a newspaper publisher.
We've see the federal government "suggest" that certain content be moderated/thrott
Re:Conservative hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The 2 party layout is both sort of by design and also an unavoidable consequence of using first-past-the-post voting. The spoiler effect is a real and strong phenomenon and 3rd parties as we have seen time and time again simply are not viable, any serious candidate will align themselves with one of the two parties.
But that is also the silver lining, both parties do in fact have primaries and they are not exactly difficult to get into the race for either party. Just like we are seeing in the GOP primary rig
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I wish we could implement a system to break the two party duopoly without requiring any kind of coalition government.
This is like wishing global warming is over tomorrow. Not only is the current system not representative, it is actively and continuously getting less representative https://www.npr.org/2023/10/27... [npr.org]
Re:Conservative hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
And the woke Leftists brought us Cancel Culture. So what else is new?
The mindset of "I hate your politics so I'll have nothing to do with you" is as old as democracy itself. The internet has just made it easier to find out which way a business/celebrity has politically aligned themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
The mindset of "I hate your politics so I'll have nothing to do with you" is as old as democracy itself. The internet has just made it easier to find out which way a business/celebrity has politically aligned themselves.
Cancel Culture is far older than even democracy and was prevalent in historical monarchies as well. But it wasn't named Cancel Culture. Actually it wasn't even named Boycotting since this practice predates Charles Boycott by a couple of millennia.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny. Before that, the "woke leftists" called it "consequences". Or did you think freedom of speech from government reprisal meant your friends wouldn't call you an asshole for being one?
This is really what freedom of speech is about the ability to communicate thoughts and ideas without reprisal. Whether that reprisal is from the state, society or friends it's all part of the same equation.
Freedom is fundamentally underwritten by tolerance and integrity. This is the opposite of cowardice and intolerance pervasive in modern society especially among younger generations.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny. Before that, the "woke leftists" called it "consequences". Or did you think freedom of speech from government reprisal meant your friends wouldn't call you an asshole for being one?
This is really what freedom of speech is about the ability to communicate thoughts and ideas without reprisal. Whether that reprisal is from the state, society or friends it's all part of the same equation.
Freedom of speech has never been the same thing as consequence-free speech. For example, in theory, freedom of speech gives you the right to advocate the violent overthrow of the government, but if you actually succeed in getting a mob to form and somebody dies, you can still be punished even though your freedom of speech likely protected you from any prior restraint on that initial advocacy.
Psychological safety, however, does require at least freedom from unreasonable levels of reprisal. If speech isn't
Re: (Score:1)
Funny. Before that, the "woke leftists" called it "consequences". Or did you think freedom of speech from government reprisal meant your friends wouldn't call you an asshole for being one?
This is really what freedom of speech is about the ability to communicate thoughts and ideas without reprisal. Whether that reprisal is from the state, society or friends it's all part of the same equation.
Freedom of speech has never been the same thing as consequence-free speech. For example, in theory, freedom of speech gives you the right to advocate the violent overthrow of the government, but if you actually succeed in getting a mob to form and somebody dies, you can still be punished even though your freedom of speech likely protected you from any prior restraint on that initial advocacy.
Psychological safety, however, does require at least freedom from unreasonable levels of reprisal. If speech isn't actively trying to cause someone harm, then causing someone physical or psychological harm for that speech, threatening their jobs, taking away things they care about, or generally treating them as less than human for being honest is not okay, period, full stop, and if anybody disagrees with that, they can f**k themselves with a wooden spoon.
This is not to say that people should ignore flagrant intolerance, ageism, misogyny, misandry, bigotry in any form, etc., but 99.99% of the time, when somebody thinks that's what's going on, that's not what's actually going on. And disagreeing with a person doesn't give someone the right to be a complete a**hole to that person.
Basically, as a society, at some point along the way, we seem to have forgotten that other people are human beings just like us. And the world is f**ked up enough without people going full vigilante on anyone they don't understand or they disagree with or they don't like for whatever reason and treating those people like s**t and trying to ruin their lives. Cancel culture is f**king bulls**t, whether it is coming from the left, the right, the center, the front, or the back.
That's why if there's only one thing that you impart upon the next generation, teach your kids this: Always assume good intentions in others until proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. Treat others with the respect that you would want to be treated if someone disagreed with you, didn't understand you, was angry at you, was afraid of you, was hurt by you, or just generally didn't like you. In other words, don't be an a**hole.
Freedom is fundamentally underwritten by tolerance and integrity. This is the opposite of cowardice and intolerance pervasive in modern society especially among younger generations.
Not just younger generations. That sort of bad behavior has always been around. The only difference I see is that a lot of younger people no longer seem to be ashamed of their bad behavior, and for that, I blame their parents for failing to teach them to treat others the way they would want to be treated.
Also, complaining about the youth of today has always been around. We’re just getting old.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, complaining about the youth of today has always been around. Weâ(TM)re just getting old.
The use of loaded language "complaining" and invoking unfalsifiable arguments to dismiss any and all related ideas without regard for objective merit is not constructive.
When I said "This is the opposite of cowardice and intolerance pervasive in modern society especially among younger generations." I was articulating my understanding of polling research related to topics of free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of speech has never been the same thing as consequence-free speech.
I disagree.
For example, in theory, freedom of speech gives you the right to advocate the violent overthrow of the government, but if you actually succeed in getting a mob to form and somebody dies, you can still be punished even though your freedom of speech likely protected you from any prior restraint on that initial advocacy.
This is confusing separate issues. Freedom of speech is not analogous to anarchy. It isn't a grant for people to do whatever they damn well please so long as they achieve it thru the act of speaking.
While believing and communicating that you approve of violent overthrow of the government is a good idea is free speech endeavoring to actually achieve it by gathering mobs etc is not. Free speech itself is rather feckless.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh look, an old person is harping about today’s kids.
Re: (Score:1)
And I mean, technically, legally, factually, your guarantee of free speech only protects you from government reprisal. And that’s all it should.
Re: Conservative hypocrisy (Score:2)
Commercial consequences for political statements isn't anything new.
I seem to recall people refusing to buy Coors beer because one of the Coors heirs was found to be financially supporting anti-Semitic causes back in the 70s. Going back a little further in history, I remember people refusing to buy Ford automobiles because the company's founder was a Nazi sympathizer prior to WW2.
Before the Dixie Chicks, few performers took polarizing political positions and broadcast their opinions far-and-wide - yes, occa
Re:Conservative hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember, when they felt they couldn't exploit Twitter then wanted social media to be forced to carry right-wing propaganda.
Funny thing is, the free market actually did sort it out, with that guy who does the things with the electric cars and rockets buying it to the tune of $44 billion.
The original idea of NN was that a small startup company would be on equal ground with say, Netflix. Without NN, the startup could potentially be at a disadvantage if they couldn't afford to pay to be put on the same so-called "fast lanes" as their competitors. But these days it's more likely to be another industry whale with a ton of cash that's entering the market, rather than two guys with a garage and a dream. Furthermore, as we've seen demonstrated by the dominant players in the social media sphere, receiving preferential bandwidth allocation hasn't been necessary to maintain a stranglehold on your marketshare.
That being said, I do think NN should be a thing, but it since it's really an issue of avoiding a specific anti-competitive practice, it seems like it should fall under the jurisdiction of the FTC, not the FCC.
Re: Conservative hypocrisy (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
FD was applicable to the airwaves which were a limited public resource regulated by the FAA. Twitter was a private company using it's own resources.
Re: (Score:2)
The principal is exactly the same and if you think the internet is unlimited then why do we have to pay for it?
Nice try.
Re: (Score:3)
How many radio stations can you pick up on your radio? OK.. Now, how many websites can you access?
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, so what? If you have a point, make it.
Radio reaches the entire country with nothing but a $5 Walmart cheap ass radio receiver and has been around forever.
But, true, the net requires much more expensive hardware and a subscription so therefore we should apply different freedom of speech and association rules. Or something?
Wtf are you trying to say? Whatever it was you were feeling (you weren't thinking), you utterly failed to express it.
Re: (Score:1)
Radio is limited by frequency allocation. The Internet isn't. My website doesn't stop yours. My broadcasting on your allocated radio spectrum does.
One of those things is a limited public resource and the other isn't. Since you're not that bright, it's the radio that uses limited spectrum.
Re: (Score:1)
Lmao!
Gore wasted investor money to provide leftist content. But no one wanted it. This is easily looked up public historic fact.
Nice try at retcon, though, AC moron.
And I'm not a conservative, you cunt, I'm libertarian. Everything that is "other" to your tiny little worldview isn't conservative. I oppose the Unfairness Doctrine, I oppose net faux neutrality and anything else the government wants to control for the sake of controlling. Oh wait, no, I mean everything the government touches is better beca