Doesn't the Internet Count Under the 1st Amendment?

[Knightskye]

Doesn't it? The right to free speech?

Playing devil's advocate. Net neutrality would, allegedly, keep the phone companies from taking over the Internet. But the government would be guarding the Internet, which seems like the fox guarding the hen house.

Isn't it their job to protect our 1st Amendment rights?

Doesn't the Internet count as a forum for free speech?

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

The Constitution doesn't apply to private businesses, only to government.

You can't come into my living room and demand free speech any more than you can require a private business to carry your speech. But you CAN choose which internet company you use, so let the market work.

[humanic]

The Constitution doesn't apply to private businesses, only to government.

You can't come into my living room and demand free speech any more than you can require a private business to carry your speech. But you CAN choose which internet company you use, so let the market work.

One thing I don't understand about the net neutrality debate though: Where I live, and where most people live I think, there is only one or two choices for high speed internet, and they are both major cable and telecom companies. How did these corporate giants get their monopolistic infrastructure in place in the first place? Didn't they have to get special charter of some type from local municipalities and whatnot? Can any challenger do the same? If not, it seems to me that its not a free-market type of industry and that we aren't able to let the market work.

Anyone know more about this?

[torchbearer]

The constitution is written to restrain government, not the people.
Meaning, the government can not regulate information over the internet, but private companies and people can.

[RoyalShock]

One thing I don't understand about the net neutrality debate though: Where I live, and where most people live I think, there is only one or two choices for high speed internet, and they are both major cable and telecom companies. How did these corporate giants get their monopolistic infrastructure in place in the first place? Didn't they have to get special charter of some type from local municipalities and whatnot? Can any challenger do the same? If not, it seems to me that its not a free-market type of industry and that we aren't able to let the market work.

Anyone know more about this?

I live in a small rural town (pop. 1300). We are fortunate enough to have a homegrown technology company that invested in fiber-optic infrastructure so they could offer TV (DirecTV), phone and high-speed internet, just like the "big boys". Of course, one of the "big boys" sold our cable service to a small company several years ago and there's no way they will invest in the infrastructure necessary to provide that kind of service.

But to answer your question, at some point a company rep secured a franchise agreement with the municipality's governing body before installing infrastructure. I'm sure it's different from state to state, but in our state I don't think we (as a city) can enter into an exclusive franchise agreement.

[Alawn]

One thing I don't understand about the net neutrality debate though: Where I live, and where most people live I think, there is only one or two choices for high speed internet, and they are both major cable and telecom companies. How did these corporate giants get their monopolistic infrastructure in place in the first place? Didn't they have to get special charter of some type from local municipalities and whatnot? Can any challenger do the same? If not, it seems to me that its not a free-market type of industry and that we aren't able to let the market work.

Anyone know more about this?

Most cities sign monopoly agreements with companies that only allow 1 cable company and 1 telephone company. There cannot be any competition. If I want cable I am only allowed to get Comcast. If I want telephone I can only get AT&T. If I want to come in and start my own company to compete the local government says I am not allowed.

[humanic]

[...] But to answer your question, at some point a company rep secured a franchise agreement with the municipality's governing body before installing infrastructure. [...]


Most cities sign monopoly agreements with companies that only allow 1 cable company and 1 telephone company. There cannot be any competition. If I want cable I am only allowed to get Comcast. If I want telephone I can only get AT&T. If I want to come in and start my own company to compete the local government says I am not allowed.

If this is the case, then it seems to me that these are not simply private companies operating in a free-enterprise system. Rather, these companies have set up public-private partnerships; monopolistic/cartel-type agreements that are supposed to be for the public good and which should rightfully be subject to public oversight and regulation.

In other words, we allowed them to dig up our neighborhoods and/or install cable and telephone poles and cables specifically to provide us with an apparatus that we can use to connect to these worldwide telephone and internet networks. I would think that the implicit assumption, or maybe in some cases explicit agreement, is that this publicly-granted privilege does not include an ability to control what information travels through that apparatus. This, I think, is what is referred to as Net Neutrality or "the first amendment of the internet", and advocates of Net Neutrality are fighting to enforce this deal in the interest of promoting a free and open society. These companies did not have a right to come in and put their infrastructure in place; we granted them a conditional privilege and we can revoke that privilege when they try to control what we can do.

Am I missing something here or do you all agree?

[travismofo]

If this is the case, then it seems to me that these are not simply private companies operating in a free-enterprise system. Rather, these companies have set up public-private partnerships; monopolistic/cartel-type agreements that are supposed to be for the public good and which should rightfully be subject to public oversight and regulation.

In other words, we allowed them to dig up our neighborhoods and/or install cable and telephone poles and cables specifically to provide us with an apparatus that we can use to connect to these worldwide telephone and internet networks. I would think that the implicit assumption, or maybe in some cases explicit agreement, is that this publicly-granted privilege does not include an ability to control what information travels through that apparatus. This, I think, is what is referred to as Net Neutrality or "the first amendment of the internet", and advocates of Net Neutrality are fighting to enforce this deal in the interest of promoting a free and open society. These companies did not have a right to come in and put their infrastructure in place; we granted them a conditional privilege and we can revoke that privilege when they try to control what we can do.

Am I missing something here or do you all agree?

A contract is a contract. Period. One of the evil things government does is to come in and violate the freedom of contract. If you think you may not like the deal a few years or decades down the road, don't sign it.

[humanic]

A contract is a contract. Period. One of the evil things government does is to come in and violate the freedom of contract. If you think you may not like the deal a few years or decades down the road, don't sign it.

Yes, but is that the case here? Did we sign contracts which give them the monopolies which never expire and the unrestricted right to prioritize the data that travels through their infrastructure however they choose?

[JenH88]

We were able to choose a local telephone service here, and I use a local company for dialup internet..

One time I was so close to just giving in and signing up for high speed (yes, waiting 20 minutes for a youtube video to buffer gets annoying sometimes).. but I just could NOT bring myself to click "I agree" to that insane privacy policy.. high speed internet isn't worth signing my freedoms away for.. I goto Panera Bread for their free wi-fi when I need to download anything big...

[danberkeley]

I voted no. But with that, I submit that there is nothing in the constitution that allows Congress to regulate the Internet.

[Knightskye]

The Constitution doesn't apply to private businesses, only to government.

You can't come into my living room and demand free speech any more than you can require a private business to carry your speech. But you CAN choose which internet company you use, so let the market work.

But do the phone companies own the Internet, as you own your living room?

[danberkeley]

We were able to choose a local telephone service here, and I use a local company for dialup internet..

One time I was so close to just giving in and signing up for high speed (yes, waiting 20 minutes for a youtube video to buffer gets annoying sometimes).. but I just could NOT bring myself to click "I agree" to that insane privacy policy.. high speed internet isn't worth signing my freedoms away for.. I goto Panera Bread for their free wi-fi when I need to download anything big...

By going to Panera Bread, you are defeating the entire purpose of not having high speed at your home. Also, you computer is more susceptible to attacks at public internet cafes than at home.

[nate895]

I voted no. But with that, I submit that there is nothing in the constitution that allows Congress to regulate the Internet.

Good point. That hasn't seemed to stopped them lately, however.

[travismofo]

But do the phone companies own the Internet, as you own your living room?

If they provide it to you, then yes THEY own it and THEY give you the privilige of using it.

[danberkeley]

Good point. That hasn't seemed to stopped them lately, however.

Certainly not.

[Knightskye]

If they provide it to you, then yes THEY own it and THEY give you the privilige of using it.

So, free speech zones on the Internet are okay?

[Kludge]

The internet is a series of tubes.

Who owns the tubes, owns the internet -- to an extent, it is private property.

[mediahasyou]

The government doesn't have the legitimacy to control the internet. Just ask around

[Knightskye]

The internet is a series of tubes.

Who owns the tubes, owns the internet -- to an extent, it is private property.

Let's compare it to an apartment.

Billions of people pay rent to use it. Do they have 1st Amendment rights?

[Kludge]

Let's compare it to an apartment.

Billions of people pay rent to use it. Do they have 1st Amendment rights?

They have the right to say it, but the owner is justified (perhaps not legally) in kicking them out for their speech.

[danberkeley]

They have the right to say it, but the owner is justified (perhaps not legally) in kicking them out for their speech.

There is nothing in the Constitution that protects a lessees "freedom of speech" while on private property. With that, there may be state or local laws that may protect them.

[kpitcher]

After a decade of owning an ISP I'll take a shot at this :

The existing telecommunications industry is made up of legalized monopolies. The FCC calls these the ILECs - incumbent local exchange carriers. These are the baby bells, Verizon, AT+T, Qwest. They own the wires within their territories and they control the telecommunications infrastructure within that territory. You want to touch the network in their territory, you must go through them

Other companies may exist, CLECs - competitive local exchange carriers. However they are second class citizens at best. The ILECs don't have to interconnect with a CLEC, can charge anything they want, or make it nearly impossible to jump through the loopholes. Also a CLEC can't just connect to another CLEC, bypassing the ILECs.

Back in the 90s the telecom industry was deregulated, the telecom deregulation act of '96. Part of this ruling was to allow the growth of CLECs, allow true competition within areas. CLECs sprouted up all over the country. Internet access grew to rural areas that didn't used to have it, or dropped in price. It was a good thing for the industry.

Then Bush got into office and put Powell's kid in as the chairman of the FCC (Talk about nepotism). They immediately started the rollback of deregulation. Today the telecommunications infrastructure is heavily regulated and controlled by the monopolies again. The few CLECs that survive focus on niche markets that the ILECs don't want to bother with.

The telecommunications grid was built with public monies. Over 200 billion has been (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html) given as tax rebates and/or billed with phone bills to grow 'high speed internet'. But the monopolies have taken the money and outright ignored the requirements for taking it.

So in effect the US has a duopoly at best of internet services. The ILEC within your area (Whomever you can get local phone service through. In some areas if there are more than 1, you're most likely still using just one company's wires). Or you can get cable. There are a few minor exceptions but realistically that's it.

All data is being sent though NSA computers. Except possibly if you use Qwest (http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/nacchio-feds-blacklisted-qwest/2007-10-15) as they stood up to the warantless wiretaps. Gotta love monopolies, no choice but to use them. If these monopolies decide to filter the internet there isn't much choice the average user has to bypass it. Net neutrality only exists if there is true competition for access which there is not.

[Knightskye]

Blimp.

[Truth Warrior]

It would IF the first amendment did or ever really counted.<IMHO>

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Federal Constitution Is Dead (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gutzman/gutzman17.html)
Kevin Gutzman on who killed it.

[Knightskye]

It would IF the first amendment did or ever really counted.<IMHO>

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Federal Constitution Is Dead (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gutzman/gutzman17.html)
Kevin Gutzman on who killed it.

What about private companies? They're just allowed to violate the 1st and 4th Amendment rights without us having the ability to respond to that?

[jonahtrainer]

What about private companies? They're just allowed to violate the 1st and 4th Amendment rights without us having the ability to respond to that?

the 1st and 4th Amendments only apply to State Actors. Perhaps you can find a tort cause of action or be protected through your exercise of freedom of contract.

[Knightskye]

the 1st and 4th Amendments only apply to State Actors. Perhaps you can find a tort cause of action or be protected through your exercise of freedom of contract.

But phone and cable companies don't let you change the contract, do they?

[Mini-Me]

What about private companies? They're just allowed to violate the 1st and 4th Amendment rights without us having the ability to respond to that?

I voted no because, although the Internet counts under the 1st Amendment as far as the government is concerned (the government may not restrict or punish speech on the Internet just like anywhere else), the tone of the original post indicated the question was about whether the 1st Amendment applies to private companies.

However, because of government-created monopolies, this is a much more complicated issue:
If ISP's were ordinary private companies, they would have every right to dictate whatever terms they want for us to use their services. As others rightly said, the 1st and 4th Amendments restrict government only, and depending on your views of the incorporation doctrine, they may only specifically restrict the federal government. HOWEVER, most of our ISP's are monopolies set up by governments (municipalities, not the federal government), usually through renewable 15 year exclusive monopoly contracts.

Because of that, their very status as "private" entities is highly suspect in my opinion, since you could argue that in many ways, such companies have merely become extensions of the government. It's worthwhile to note that the federal government is not permitted to "get around" the 4th Amendment by hiring private agencies to search and seize citizens' property with impunity (by receiving blanket pardons from the executive branch, for instance). While it's not a perfect analogy by any means, you could say that when government-created monopolies stifle speech over the only Internet wires the government legally permits, a similar abuse is occurring.

Until free competition is actually allowed and these monopoly contracts expire without renewal, I believe that people have a strong argument for net neutrality legislation at the local or state level (but not at the federal level for Constitutional reasons, scope, and because of the selective way the federal government would almost certainly enforce such legislation). While it's silly for government to create monopolies and then regulate them to keep them in line, it's even worse for government to create monopolies and then give them free reign.

In addition, regardless of your feelings on public property, your cable company's Internet lines must currently go through public property - which the public collectively owns and will continue to own for the foreseeable future. As long as our roads and such are public, we the people (of each state and locality) collectively own the roads those lines run through, and we therefore have the right to dictate to ISP's what terms and conditions they may operate their lines under. That means any companies that run infrastructure above or below our streets are rightfully at our mercy. As such, I have no qualms about people in local communities or even at the state level taking control of government and saying, "Alright, Comcast/Time Warner/etc., if you want to use the lines you installed in OUR property, you're going to have to abide by these conditions..." Similarly, because these companies won their monopoly contracts through wining and dining politicians (essentially bribery), I also have no problem with local communities declaring the terms of such contracts to be wholly invalid even in mid-term. Private entities have the right to make contracts with each other and have those contracts upheld, but if they corrupt a government to turn it against the people, any contracts arising from those circumstances between the corrupt government and "private" entities become fair game for termination in my book.

By the way, I wanted to mention that kpitcher made a very good post.

[Truth Warrior]

What about private companies? They're just allowed to violate the 1st and 4th Amendment rights without us having the ability to respond to that? Yep, the Bill of Rights ( so called ) is only about restrictions ( so called ) on the US Federal Government ( so called ). :rolleyes:

[kojirodensetsu]

We were able to choose a local telephone service here, and I use a local company for dialup internet..

One time I was so close to just giving in and signing up for high speed (yes, waiting 20 minutes for a youtube video to buffer gets annoying sometimes).. but I just could NOT bring myself to click "I agree" to that insane privacy policy.. high speed internet isn't worth signing my freedoms away for.. I goto Panera Bread for their free wi-fi when I need to download anything big...
I would say (and the people I live with would most definitely agree) that a big advantage to not using dial-up is that you can be on the internet and phone at the same time. Although I suppose if you use a cell phone as your main phone you never have to worry about that.


Anyways back to topic. I voted 'yes' prematurely. I initially figured the topic was about protecting the internet from the government censoring. But if you're asking about like suing some forum or something because they banned you for swearing then no. As said the 1st amendment is to protect you from the government, not private organizations.

[newbitech]

One thing I don't understand about the net neutrality debate though: Where I live, and where most people live I think, there is only one or two choices for high speed internet, and they are both major cable and telecom companies. How did these corporate giants get their monopolistic infrastructure in place in the first place? Didn't they have to get special charter of some type from local municipalities and whatnot? Can any challenger do the same? If not, it seems to me that its not a free-market type of industry and that we aren't able to let the market work.

Anyone know more about this?

I work for telecom as do most of my friends. We are designing the FIOS network in FL. I won't go into a lot of detail (maybe if this thread is up later) but what it comes down to as someone mentioned earlier is infrastructure.

Next time you take a walk down the side walk or see a power pole, notice all the cabling and or "handholes" that are spread throughout the neighborhood. All of this cable whether its fiber, coax, or twisted pair copper is privately held.

In order for the phone company to get its signal to you, it has to use the utility easements which the town, city, county, or state owns. They cannot just run the cable straight to your house through your neighbors back yard obviously.

In order for them to use the public right of way, they must obtain permits. Not only is the material extremely costly, but so is the permitting. Permits can be very tricky. Each town, city, county, or state has its own special rules for the telecom company. The "government" doesn't make it easy for a telecom to become a giant unless there is some great benefit to the government. Money makes things go really easy. Telecoms PAY to get those rights.

One more thing quickly here. Once that infrastructure agreement is in place, the telecom still has to secure rights to bring that signal to the house. Advertising etc... very costly enterprise indeed.

[constituent]

I live in a small rural town (pop. 1300). We are fortunate enough to have a homegrown technology company that invested in fiber-optic infrastructure so they could offer TV (DirecTV), phone and high-speed internet, just like the "big boys".

That happened where i grew up too, then they all got screwed over and/or bought up.

[constituent]

P.S.

Constitutional concerns regarding the internet should focus on the Fourth Amendment.

Making it a first amendment issue is sure-fire fail.


After all, what's the internet w/out (privately owned) servers?







If you own a server connected to "the internet," why do you allow law enforcement on your property w/out a warrant?
Should this not be challenged in court?

[Truth Warrior]

P.S.

Constitutional concerns regarding the internet should focus on the Fourth Amendment.

Making it a first amendment issue is sure-fire fail.


After all, what's the internet w/out (privately owned) servers?







If you own a server connected to "the internet," why do you allow law enforcement on your property w/out a warrant?
Should this not be challenged in court?
Because they have many more and much bigger guns? ;) :D

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

Even when there is a local cable or phone company cartel, there is still internet competition. You can almost always choose between cable, DSL (phone line), satellite dish, and wireless (cell carrier). Plus dial-up. So there's no true internet monopoly.

You're asking the government to expand its powers and get its hands into the internet. Trust me, you don't want that.

[Knightskye]

Even when there is a local cable or phone company cartel, there is still internet competition. You can almost always choose between cable, DSL (phone line), satellite dish, and wireless (cell carrier). Plus dial-up. So there's no true internet monopoly.

If there's four giant companies that are all evil, instead of one, it's still stupid and it's still very similar to a monopoly.

Yeah, there's Netzero and Earthlink and others, but they aren't fast. Plus, who owns the phone lines? Ding!

Bleh.


You're asking the government to expand its powers and get its hands into the internet. Trust me, you don't want that.

I'm asking the government to protect my civil liberties, which is what they should be doing already. Nobody should have the ability to take away your liberties. Not the government, not corporations.

[Mini-Me]

If there's four giant companies that are all evil, instead of one, it's still stupid and it's still very similar to a monopoly.

Yeah, there's Netzero and Earthlink and others, but they aren't fast. Plus, who owns the phone lines? Ding!

Bleh.



I'm asking the government to protect my civil liberties, which is what they should be doing already. Nobody should have the ability to take away your liberties. Not the government, not corporations.

Truly private companies cannot take away your liberties in the way you're suggesting, because if you're using their service, they can attach whatever contractual terms they want to your use of such. You're allowed to say whatever you want in public, but nobody is required to carry your message for you. Furthermore, if you say something someone doesn't like on their private property, they can kick you off, and that's not a violation of your rights or civil liberties. Now, if they jail you or harm you for saying something they don't like, that IS a violation of your rights, and that's what government is instituted to prevent.

However, as I elaborated on in my earlier post, our ISP's are not really private in every sense, and they could easily be considered extensions of the government because of their monopoly contracts.