Left In Lowell

Why Net Neutrality? First Amendment, That’s Why

12 Responses to “Why Net Neutrality? First Amendment, That’s Why”

1. Josh Says:
   October 1st, 2007 at 9:05 pm

   1.) The first amendment only applies to state actions, so it really has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

   2.) Do you really think that AT&T is going to try to piss off its customers by restricting their internet access? I realize that you think since politicians can get away with doing such things then big mean corporations can do the same except that businessses are kept in line by that dirty little concept known as profit. You don’t make a profit by pissing off the people you rely on to pay for your services. Calm down.

   3.) People are dying in Myanmar at the hands of the government. What AT&T is doing has really no comparison and I think making one really minimizing what is happening over there.

2. Mr. Lynne Says:
   October 1st, 2007 at 9:49 pm

   “Do you really think that AT&T is going to try to piss off its customers by restricting their internet access?”

   AT&T will do whatever they can get away with to maximize profits for their shareholders. If people don’t speak up about it, the odds of them getting away without consequence on their customer base increase.

3. tim Says:
   October 1st, 2007 at 11:46 pm

   Josh, have you ever dealt with any companies in your life? Large companies in particular - they piss off their customers all the time. They’re betting on a couple things:
   1 - there are only a few other choices - how many high speed internet providers can a person choose from?
   2 - the other choice is just as bad, or the difference isn’t worth the hassle of switching
   3 - enough people are busy or lazy (that’d be me) enough to not bother to switch

   Oh yeah, and don’t forget year-long service contracts, and high initial set up fees.

   You’re also assuming the people making decisions are a) rational and b) not assholes. Which is assuming way too much, if you ask me.

4. Shawn Says:
   October 2nd, 2007 at 10:13 am

   So..
   I provide a service, with rules that you cannot use my service to bash me.

   I see no problem with that. there are plenty of commercial interest and opinion sites that are a better method for posting those concerns anyways.

   The freedom of speech is in terms of government… not the use of private property.

   If the government wants to convert these services to utilities (as I think they should, unless we can eliminate the monopolies regarding high speed cable access in our communities) then the rules change. I’m not sure how far, but then the complaints can go to the licensing authority, who can use them during relicensing.

   Right now the only way to show discontent with the service is by way of the feet.. and as Tim said, most are too lazy to do so. That’s their won fault.

5. Jacob Says:
   October 2nd, 2007 at 11:40 am

   Net Neutrality brings up interesting issues, although i do agree with Josh that saying First Amendment rights will be trounced is a bit of a stretch.

   However, with net neutrality we will be damning ourselves to a slow internet for life.

6. Jacob Says:
   October 2nd, 2007 at 11:41 am

   Lynne,

   I bet a lot of things send chills down your spine.

7. Mr. Lynne Says:
   October 2nd, 2007 at 11:55 am

   Why is neutrality ok for the phone, but somehow a disservice for other communication?

8. MikeC01824 Says:
   October 2nd, 2007 at 2:37 pm

   AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and the like aren’t entirely free enterprises. They use public right-of-way to get their cables into your home. They license (not own) public spectrum to sell their mobile service.

   Since these are public property, and since free speech is at the core of our nation, we have a right to put restrictions on how they may be used, even when they’ve been licensed to profit-making enterprises.

   Would it be okay for Verizon to discontinue landline service to any customer who owned a Sprint mobile phone?

   Would it be okay for them to discontinue landline service to any customer who made a phone call to a Comcast order line or a Sprint mobile phone?

   As more people switch from having a landline to only having mobile phones, ensuring that access in the mobile space is not determined by the content will also be important.

   Political speech is more sacred than commercial speech. All forms of legal communication should be carried without censorship by these service providers.

   Having competition in the communications sector has brought tremendous benefits, but they still serve at our leisure and we still have the obligation to insist that communication is not censored.

9. Shawn Says:
   October 3rd, 2007 at 5:40 am

   “Political speech is more sacred than commercial speech. All forms of legal communication should be carried without censorship by these service providers.”

   The first sentence here does not justify the second.

10. MikeC01824 Says:
    October 3rd, 2007 at 10:22 am

    If it didn’t make sense to you, it’s probably because you ignored the part where these companies use public resources to make a profit. Therefore, the public has every right to insist that they don’t interfere with the public good, like free speech.

    How is this different than being able to petition against Wal-Mart while standing on the Wal-Mart sidewalk? That’s legal and protected.

11. Jay Booth Says:
    October 3rd, 2007 at 12:39 pm

    Shawn, you’re right, logically speaking there, but then the second sentence shouldn’t need to be justified. It should be a given.

12. Shawn Says:
    October 3rd, 2007 at 2:07 pm

    ah.. but then you get into the argument as to who decides what is “legal” communication.. lol (check out burma)

Leave a Reply