{"id":70320,"date":"2012-07-04T12:14:06","date_gmt":"2012-07-04T12:14:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.designerchildren.com\/verizon-playing-dangerous-game-in-net-neutrality-battle\/"},"modified":"2012-07-04T12:14:06","modified_gmt":"2012-07-04T12:14:06","slug":"verizon-playing-dangerous-game-in-net-neutrality-battle","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/free-speech\/verizon-playing-dangerous-game-in-net-neutrality-battle\/","title":{"rendered":"Verizon Playing Dangerous Game in Net Neutrality Battle"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    Its been awhile since net neutrality has been in the    headlines, but that doesnt mean the war is over--far from it.    In its renewed challenge to the net neutrality rules imposed    by the FCC, Verizon is     citing its First Amendment right to free speech. The    argument itself seems dubious, but if Verizon wins it could    lead to unintended consequences it might like even less.  <\/p>\n<p>    First, a little background on net neutrality itself. The    framework of rules developed by the FCC is intended to ensure    an even playing field for all on the Internet, and prevent    Internet service providers (ISPs) like Verizon or Comcast from    blocking certain content, or giving preferential treatment to    other content.  <\/p>\n<p>        Verizon    claims the FCC net neutrality rules violate its right to free    speech.Verizon originally     filed suit against the FCC in early 2011. However, that    case was thrown out of court because the FCC had not yet    officially defined the rules and the court ruled that Verizon    couldnt sue the FCC over rules that didnt technically exist    yet.  <\/p>\n<p>    In that case, Verizon simply asserted that the FCC was    exceeding the bounds of its authority. However, according to the FCC site,    \"The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and    is charged with regulating interstate and international    communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable.    The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of    Columbia, and U.S. possessions.\" That sweeping charter appears    to grant the FCC the exact authority Verizon claims it doesnt    have.  <\/p>\n<p>    This time around, Verizon is playing the First Amendment card.    The challenge, essentially, is that by limiting Verizons    ability to choose which content to block or promote, the FCC is    infringing on Verizons right to free speech.  <\/p>\n<p>    There are a couple major flaws in the argument. First, an    individuals right to free speech shouldnt apply equally to a    corporation. Im not a Constitutional scholar nor a legal    expert, but it seems to me that a corporation can say what it    chooses as a function of the fact that the people actually    saying it have an individual right to free speech. However, the    corporation as an entity doesnt necessarily enjoy that same    right, andin factthe corporations right to free speech is    already limited by rules governing false advertising or    mandates to include specific text or warnings on products.  <\/p>\n<p>    Second, the FCC net neutrality rules dont actually inhibit an    ISPs ability to express itself freely. Under the FCC rules,    Verizon is free to publish whatever content it chooses--it    simply cant block or discriminate against other content as a    matter of business practice.  <\/p>\n<p>    The fact of the matter is the vast majority of the data    traversing the ISPs network (like Verizon) doesnt belong to    the ISP in the first place. An argument could be made that by    throttling or blocking traffic Verizon is actually the party    guilty of stepping on the First Amendment rights of others.  <\/p>\n<p>    Lets assume for a minute, though, that Verizon has a First    Amendment right to free speech, and that the court agrees this    right is somehow violated by the FCC net neutrality rules.    There is another approach to the problem that might make net    neutrality the lesser of two evils by comparison.  <\/p>\n<p>        Perhaps the real problem is that the pipe owners    shouldn't also deliver content.Part of the    underlying problem is the fact that the major ISPs are also    content providers. Verizon has a vested interest in     preventing Netflix traffic because it has its own streaming    entertainment services. Comcast is owned by NBC, so it could    gain a strategic advantage for its own content by throttling    the bandwidth for rival networks. The simple solution is for    Congress to impose regulations banning ISPs from delivering    their own content, or being owned by companies that publish or    deliver content.  <\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>Continue reading here:<br \/>\n<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.pcworld.com\/businesscenter\/article\/258755\/verizon_playing_dangerous_game_in_net_neutrality_battle.html\" title=\"Verizon Playing Dangerous Game in Net Neutrality Battle\">Verizon Playing Dangerous Game in Net Neutrality Battle<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> Its been awhile since net neutrality has been in the headlines, but that doesnt mean the war is over--far from it. In its renewed challenge to the net neutrality rules imposed by the FCC, Verizon is citing its First Amendment right to free speech. The argument itself seems dubious, but if Verizon wins it could lead to unintended consequences it might like even less.  <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/free-speech\/verizon-playing-dangerous-game-in-net-neutrality-battle\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[162384],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-70320","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-free-speech"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70320"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=70320"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70320\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70320"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70320"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70320"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}