Verizon Sues for Right to be Your Internet Editor

[check_status]

Last week, Verizon filed a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit laying out their various and sundry complaints against the Federal Communications Commission's Open Internet Order, which put net neutrality regulations in place for Internet service providers. The telecom giant is suing to have the FCC's order thrown out, and one of their legal arguments is raising more than a few eyebrows. Verizon, per the court document, considers itself your Internet editor. Or your Internet editor-in-waiting.

It goes like this: the Open Internet Order says that Verizon, as a provider of broadband Internet, can't block or slow access to (legal) online content because they disagree with its message or are being paid by an outside party to do so. This is essentially how the internet has operated since its inception, and the Open Internet Order is intended to prevent ISPs like Verizon from becoming gatekeepers. Verizon, however, argues that it has the constitutionally protected right to decide which content you, as a Verizon customer, can access -- that it is no different from a newspaper editor.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/07/09/verizon-wants-the-freedom-to-edit-your-internet/187003

WTF! Do we live under some communist regime?

[1715044022]

1715044022

[1715044022]

1715044022

[1715044022]

1715044022

[myrkul]

WTF! Do we live under some communist regime?

Yes. Imagine, the nerve of the government, trying to tell Verizon what it can and cannot serve over it's pipes... Sheesh.

Seriously, though, If Verizon wants to edit what they show, I say let 'em. I'll be using another network, though.

[repentance]

I can't even wrap my head around their argument.  It sounds like "in order to protect your free speech we must censor it".  It also sounds very much like they want to be allowed to accept payment for blocking access to certain types of content (file sharing anyone?).

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the US.

[compro01]

I'll be using another network, though.

Which other network?  The cable company which is going to follow in lockstep?

NCTA v. Brand X, combined with the FCC being "fair" neatly hamstrung any sort of real competitive market in ISPs.

[dree12]

WTF! Do we live under some communist regime?

Yes. Imagine, the nerve of the government, trying to tell Verizon what it can and cannot serve over it's pipes... Sheesh.

Seriously, though, If Verizon wants to edit what they show, I say let 'em. I'll be using another network, though.

Boy, this issue will have the general political direction of this forum split .

[RodeoX]

WTF! Do we live under some communist regime?

Fortunately we have a free market. That means I can decide to never be a Verizon customer. In fact I would not even conciser "edited" content.

[grantbdev]

I think you guys would be singing a completely different tune if all the cable companies (which are usually local monopolies) were arguing the same thing.

[myrkul]

I think you guys would be singing a completely different tune if all the cable companies (which are usually local monopolies) were arguing the same thing.

No, same tune, different lyrics. We'd be arguing to remove the monopolies, instead.

[tvbcof]

WTF! Do we live under some communist regime?

Yes. Imagine, the nerve of the government, trying to tell Verizon what it can and cannot serve over it's pipes... Sheesh.

Seriously, though, If Verizon wants to edit what they show, I say let 'em. I'll be using another network, though.

Sure.  Verizon can start paying me, as a citizen, the rate I want for the right-of-ways where there infrastructure lays.  And they can start paying me for the intellectual property rights to the technology which originated from a DARPA project (read, my tax dollars.)  Then they can act as shitty and totalitarian as they like with 'their' infrastructure.
 
Interestingly it was not that long ago that the CEO of Verizon (I think it was) actually got prosecuted by the justice department for supposed financial reasons.  The funny thing about it is that he was about the only one over the last decade.  Some suppose that it may have had something to do with Verizon having the audacity to ask for subpoena before allowing our intelligence services troll in the oceans of their customer's data.  AT&T and the rest had no compunction about doing so, and were subsequently granted retro-active blanket immunity for their crimes (presumably if they agreed to commit such crimes on demand going forward.)  I figure that Verizon would fall into place...if not jump out in front.