I somewhat agree with the assertion that the First Amendment does limit the government’s ability to regulate free speech. However, a completely textual argument would suggest that government can only be limited when it “abridges” (deprive, diminish, reduce in scope – http://m-w.com/dictionary/abridge) rather than expands free speech. If the net neutrality regulations are promulgated under the FCC authority in order to protect free speech/access to information, then I don’t think that the ISP companies would have much of a chance by challenging the constitutionality of it on 1st amendment grounds. There is precedent for this type of regulation. Turner Broadcasting v. FCC. I doubt that a regulation on how much ISP companies charge its customers will fall under strict scrutiny because the law isn’t directly regulating speech per say.
Essentially, it would come down to whether the net neutrality rules actually do have a chilling effect on free speech/access to information. So, how do you measure the chilling effect other than less users of the internet? Would net neutrality cause less users? Also – the United States isn’t the only one using the Internet, so how will anyone be able to show less speech without doing a headcount (on the internet?!).
On the flip side, do we have the right to FAST Internet access or access? I remember a time when I was suffering through 56k modems, when it took me 1 hour to download a 3MB song (even when it was legal). Do we even have the right to access the Internet at all? Not everyone has free internet. We pay for services provided by a company. If IPS companies wanted to charge me more based on how much bandwidth I used, I wouldn’t have a 1st Amendment complaint against the cable company (since the 1st Amendment only applies against the government).
HOWEVER, I think it’s unfair how I have to pay the same amount of money for my use of the internet (mostly Twitter, Hulu, and various message boards) while my neighbor can download seasons upon seasons of television shows. Maybe a tiered system would give me more control of how much bandwidth I use and I can end up spending less money in the long run. BUT, I like having the choice of using more bandwidth if I want to. So, really, it’s all just trade-offs.
Of course, I wouldn’t mind regulations on charging me more money for Internet use regardless, mostly because ISPs/cable companies/phone companies have easements on my property and they probably didn’t have to pay much for it. [And believe me, I doubt those companies were complaining when those easements were taken under some kind of statute.]
Comments
5 responses to “In re: “Net Neutrality Supporters Have First Amendment Upside Down””
I don’t know if the chilling effect would show up as less users of the Internet, mainly because many people are uninformed & it would be business as usual…until neutrality started to be enforced. How would it be unforced, upon whom, where would it end?
I do pay for one of the higher tiers of bandwidth. Yes, occasionally my ISP hikes its rates but offers ridiculous limited time offers for services I don’t want or need, charging me more for using less. It’s annoying, but if I had half a brain I would switch providers. Seeing as how it’s just more convenient to keep what I have, I don’t think the whole country should be potentially punished because I’m lazy. That’s my take, anyhow.
I am probably missing the mark…what would be the limitations of net neutrality as it currently stands? How much would my own bitching & ranting be limited? This is always the bottom line for me. 😉
Net neutrality is not only about how ISPs can charge, of course. It’s also about the legitimacy of artificially modified quality of service.
Some would argue that it should not be allowed for an ISP to, say, de-prioritize traffic for BitTorrent connections so as to ensure that e-mail, web browsing, etc. are as fast as possible. I do not personally subscribe to this school of thought. I think that there are valid reasons for prioritizing or de-prioritizing *types* of traffic …
… but the other aspect of traffic shaping / QoS, the one that net neutrality really does have something to say about, is that it is entirely technically possible for Large ISP A to, for example, rate-limit traffic to Search Engine X so that Search Engine X seems really slow and annoying to their customers who will then be more likely to use Search Engine Y which they have a financial interest in or relationship with. Worse, they could even block access to Search Engine X entirely.
My biggest interest in net neutrality is ensuring that I don’t end up with all the broadband options (of which there’s really only 2 available to me) being ISPs who, for example, sign big deals with Microsoft and block access to Google.
@mavjop I understand the fear of monopolies and ISPs making it hard for users to essentially choose how they surf the web. I would be worried about that type of inability to do what I want to do. I sure don’t want Time Warner Cable restricting the speed of CBS & Fox websites for the occasional viewing of episodes.
BUT, (and you may hate this analogy) – how is that different from the current health care bill that just passed the House (HR 3962)? There is NO requirement for them to provide the basic plan that will be required to be purchased; insurance companies can offer the basic plan with additional benefits at a higher cost, even though you may not want to purchase the extra. That’s money coming out of my pocket and it’s government mandated. Of course, in this situation, the government would be trying to stop the reverse – but similar potential for screwing the consumer over.
I don’t really have an answer on how to fix the potential harm to consumers if ISPs did decide to rate-limit traffic. I’m pretty sure a lot of people will be outraged about it. Whether there will be an effect on the companies’ purses, may be small enough for them to not care. But, again, there is the potential for computer-savvy and technology savvy business to pick up the slack – find a way to hack it so you can visit the blocked search engines, or smaller companies offering better plans. Don’t know if that’ll be a good enough incentive to prevent companies from doing it. *shrugs*
@tabin That’s nice in theory, but it shouldn’t be necessary for people to use “hacks” to visit sites that should be directly accessible and pretty much any “hack” can be blocked if the ISP chooses.
The argument that the consumers will vote with their wallets and that this will allow other, new companies to come into existence and take up market share is makes some sense, except that in this particular case I don’t entirely buy it. The problem is that being an ISP — at least, one which can offer broadband service — requires infrastructure. A *lot* of it. Infrastructure is so prohibitively expensive to create from scratch that incumbents pretty much rule the world of wiring to people’s homes. Sure, companies add wiring all the time, but mostly big, existing companies expanding into new areas–rarely new companies.
While the FCC mandates that CLECs (competetor, vs. incumbent–ILEC) be allowed to use the ILEC’s wiring to provide service (ISPs, long distance carriers, etc.), this doesn’t help much if your house is too far from the CO (central office–not really an office; a switching station) to get DSL … which means your only options are cable (only one provider) or satellite (very, very high latency).
In the San Francisco Bay Area, one of the high-tech centers of the world, many of my friends and colleagues (and I, myself!) are out of range for DSL. There are still plenty of people in the US who have no broadband options or only one. I would guess that most people in the country have very few broadband options.
Since Cable TV companies are not required to provide access to their infrastructure to competitors, unlike the phone company, you really do have no recourse if your only access option is cable Internet access. You’re stuck with your ISP.
I meant to say in that last paragraph that … not only do you have no choice, but no CLEC type ISPs can offer you broadband access because there’s no DSL for them to utilize and the cable company is not required to (and thus sure as heck won’t) provide them access to offer you service. I suppose I implied it, but I wanted to say it outright.