When challenged over allegedly illegal content going over its network, Verizon claims it's a common carrier, a mere conduit that others are using. It has no control — and it accepts the protections of the DMCA for such things.
But when it comes to net neutrality, it's now arguing that it has a First Amendment right to "editorial capability" to control what people get over their Verizon Internet connection (so they can, for example, favor some sites and content over others).
It's not clear to m how they can be both hands-off neutral and hands-on controlling and have it stand up in court (or in public).
Reshared post from +Media Matters for America
Verizon filed in court to try to control all the content across its wires – or more succinctly, it filed for the "freedom" to edit your internet.
What do you think about that?
Embedded Link
Verizon Wants The "Freedom" To Edit Your Internet
Google+: View post on Google+
This net neutrality issue reminds me of the same problem with Google the Search Engine: When does it become a public utility and not a private company?
If verizon were a tv network, they would have total control over what they broadcast. If they were a magazine, they could control their articles. If they were a department store, they could control what products were on their shelves. As a non-gov't provider of a paid service, do they not have the same right?
And yet, just as with google searches, has access to the web become something more than just a private business product? Should it be treated differently, in the same way I assume electricity providers are treated differently even when privately owned?
This net neutrality issue reminds me of the same problem with Google the Search Engine: When does it become a public utility and not a private company?
If verizon were a tv network, they would have total control over what they broadcast. If they were a magazine, they could control their articles. If they were a department store, they could control what products were on their shelves. As a non-gov’t provider of a paid service, do they not have the same right?
And yet, just as with google searches, has access to the web become something more than just a private business product? Should it be treated differently, in the same way I assume electricity providers are treated differently even when privately owned?
PS – I forget which direction I should post to show up here and the blog. Post on G+, or post on the blog?
Feel free to delete duplicate comment on the blog, and I will delete here if a second comment from me shows up.
+Derrick Mims , yes, if Verizon were a TV network, they would have total control over what they broadcast. They would also be criminally and civilly liable for it, too (e.g., getting fined for "wardrobe failures"). They can't have it both ways.
I'm not sure Internet backbone is at "utility" stage, but if not, ti will be soon — and probably be legally treated as such in the next 10-15 years, tops.
If you post comments here, they will get echoed over to the blog (where people who are just on the blog can respond to them). Vice is not versa, unfortunately.
Good point re boobs on tv.
That's what I mean about the whole utility thing. If it's not, then — much as I hate to say it — net neutrality is a failed request. I wish it weren't. But just as the gov't can't say what a newspaper prints in most cases, it shouldn't say what an internet provider provides — except for illegal material like child porn or copyrighted stuff. I am talking about ISPs giving preference to certain material. I don't like the idea of their doing so, but I don't think it's objectively wrong until we are ready to make internet access into a public utility class of business.
And that's a good note on the utility aspect, then. And Verizon's in an odd place there, because as a phone carrier, it's very much utility; it's only in the data realm that it can reasonably claim the ability to give preference.
(Imagine if Verizon were to say that it would give preferential treatment in the actual phone calls made to other Verizon customers — if you were an AT&T customer, your calls might click and whir in silence for a ten seconds before they went through, or the connection quality would be demonstrably worse. Or if they did the same thing, only to favor companies that "sponsored" higher quality calls.)
The problem for Verizon is that it cannot actually regulate everything that it could become liable for in its data connections. As soon as it abandons (or a court determine it has abandoned) common carrier status for data, they're going to be in a world of hurt.
Here in 2012, the Internet is a utility. It's time for us to accept that. If you are going to get by today, you probably need at least some means of access.
Many of us (self included) live in rural areas where we have only one realistic choice of provider. That means we're living under a monopoly, and some regulation is needed to make sure that monopoly doesn't roll over on its customers.
We can't just choose to go to a competing company or technology. We have no cell access so switching to a mobile plan isn't going to happen until somebody builds us a tower. Satellite internet is expensive to install and also terrible. How is the market going to take care of us when our provider decides it has a right to limit our access to content?
All good questions, +Kit Malone . I suspect that something similar to regulation (and public subsidies for) rural phone service will have to come into play.