Ars published a story:
Major Internet service providers have seemingly given up on the argument that net neutrality rules violate their First Amendment rights. But one small ISP is continuing its fight against the Federal Communications Commission, claiming that it should be allowed to favor some Internet content over others because doing so qualifies for freedom of speech protection.
"With prioritization, broadband providers convey a message by 'favor[ing]' certain speech—that prioritized content is superior—because it is delivered faster," Alamo Broadband argued in a brief filed yesterday as part of the broadband industry's lawsuit against the FCC.
The article notes that other ISP's seem to have given up on this argument, but Alamo Broadband continues to make the argument, but the FCC continues to argue that ISPs do not have the right to edit the Internet.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 07 2015, @04:00PM
The tubes are a commodity. ISP's are common carriers. I don't want to hear any more about it. Just shut up and provide the bandwidth to your customers. Mucking around with side contracts and prioritization amounts to censorship. Want your business license revoked? Just start limiting the ways in which I can use my bandwidth.
Alamo broadband? Funny - the people who made the Alamo famous were all about freedom. Crocket and his pals would have frowned upon any attempt to censor people. If you have the vaguest idea of censoring what your customers can view, then you're not fit to use the name of the Alamo.
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Wednesday October 07 2015, @04:39PM
They want the unfettered freedom to monetize their users without disclosure, because information wants to be free and hacker ethos and cyber security and all that.
I am sure if they are not permitted to monetize, they will say prices have to go up because the bits are getting expensive to carry.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 07 2015, @04:48PM
"they will say prices have to go up"
I'm so desparate for real broadband - I might be willing to negotiate a price increase. But, any concessions on our end would have to be matched with enforceable guarantees that they'll get off their asses, and build out that "last mile". We've only paid for those last miles three or four times over already. Pay for it one more time, but get an ironclad contract that will convince any judge to put the bastards out of business for failure to comply.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday October 07 2015, @06:00PM
I feel for you. But, the prices shouldn't go up by much if they do. CenturyLink finally deployed FttH here this year and I got it last month. The cost for that will be comparable to what I was paying for a 7mbps connection when the promotional rate gets reset to the regular rate.
The people in areas where you should see a substantial increase in rates by upgrading the options mostly weren't getting broadband to begin with. Anybody in an urban or even suburban area shouldn't require that much money to provide. Yes, there's a substantial up front cost, but after that it isn't that much different.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday October 08 2015, @01:14AM
they will say prices have to go up because the bits are getting expensive to carry.
Only if there's no competition.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Tork on Wednesday October 07 2015, @04:59PM
The tubes are a commodity. ISP's are common carriers.
That's a good point. If they want to prioritize traffic, then they know what traffic is passing through those 'tubes'. If they want that so badly then they can also make it their job to police their tubes for child porn, phishing scams, and to scrub their tubes clean of *AA infringement.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2, Insightful) by CaTfiSh on Wednesday October 07 2015, @06:15PM
Make them legally culpable for all the content that passes and they'll howl for a return to Common Carrier status.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday October 07 2015, @09:22PM
Careful what you wish for. Companies like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon would be fine with this as long as the cost of policing every byte that passes through their system as long as they get enough money in increased fees and government spying contracts to make up for it. They have willingly been in bed with the NSA for years.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday October 07 2015, @05:54PM
Exactly. If Alamo had to actually pay market value for an easement to every single property owner their lines crossed, the costs would be so high they would never have even been founded. The only way they have a viable business is by using the public rights of way -- underground conduits, poles, or whatever, that utilities and common carriers have been granted. Then there are local monopoly issues. For example, if competition is barred from entering the markets they serve, then they don't have a right to do anything they want because they have to take on the role their competition would naturally play such as providing unfettered access.
Had they actually paid fair market value for the space to string their lines, and if there's a half dozen competitors to pick up the customers who want to flee their throttling, then sure, they would have an argument. Barring that, it's a classic example of wanting their cake and eating it too.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @08:38PM
> Funny - the people who made the Alamo famous were all about freedom.
I think you have bought into a mythology, probably of Disney origin. Besides, if one man made the Alamo famous, it was Santa Ana. Without him nobody would remember the alamo and the stories about Santa Ana all contain a ton of (discrediting) spin.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @09:01PM
Disney??? Try John Wayne.
And Santa Ana got his butt whipped at San Jacinto and thus, Texas was born. It was him that made the Alamo famous because of the cries "Remember the Alamo!"
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday October 07 2015, @11:45PM
Funny - the people who made the Alamo famous were all about freedom
Depends if 'freedom' means minimal government interference, in which case their desperate net-neutrality argument isn't ironic at all.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @04:21PM
If someone punches the executives of that ISP in the face, he also conveys a very clear message. So according to their own logic, restricting him from doing so would be a free speech violation, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @04:51PM
I see Juris Prudence is not your cup of tea... Don't quit your day job, kid!
I understand you're angry but really, stop spewing dumb shit...
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Wednesday October 07 2015, @04:53PM
No. Freedom of Speech is an obligation of the government to never prosecute someone for the content of their message. Prosecutions (should be) are based on intent. A prosecution in that case would be for the intent of battery, not for the intent of a message.
The trick that the Right to the Freedom of speech applies to citizens being protected from the government, not from the government being protected from citizens. Pretending that ISPs aren't branches of government is the mistake being made.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday October 07 2015, @05:24PM
Pretending that ISPs aren't branches of government is the mistake being made.
That's pretty much a stretch.
If they were, the FCC wouldn't be trying to control them.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by mendax on Wednesday October 07 2015, @08:00PM
Actually, from a legal point of view, when a common carrier becomes a regulated utility, like landline phone service, for all intents and purposes with regard to the First Amendment, that carrier *is* a branch of the government. I believe this [justia.com] is the relevant case. It's interesting reading.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @08:17PM
Does that mean my body is a branch of the government since the DEA controls what I can and cannot put into it?
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Wednesday October 07 2015, @05:11PM
I think that would also be a Second Amendment violation. Or are "arms" not legally considered "arms"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @05:42PM
If you're a master in any martial arts involving body limbs they're legally considered potentially deadly weapons. So all those dreams of being Karate Kid and whooping ass of anyone who crosses you will land you charged with assault with deadly weapons and some nice new digs to spend the next 5 years or so, if you're lucky.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @09:36PM
When you have shot and killed a man you have in some measure clarified your attitude toward him. You have given a definite answer to a definite problem. For better or worse you have acted decisively. In a way, the next move is up to him. --R.A. Lafferty
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @04:26PM
So let me get this straight. Your first amendment argument is that you get to censor/edit/limit other peoples first amendment rights?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday October 07 2015, @04:38PM
In exchange for money, which automatically makes it an American value.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Thursday October 08 2015, @05:49AM
Actually, traditionally, industrial progress was considered an "American value". The off-shoring, taxing business income as much as possible, associating corporate ownership with being evil, government fingering every business transaction, living on credit and dying in debt is a relatively recent change to "American values".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @04:41PM
<sarcasm>Well, yes, obviously. People today are flummoxed by the influx of very bad information on all sorts of very bad subjects that might potentially urge very bad people to do very bad things. How can you possibly stand in our way of protecting the hearts and minds and souls of everyone in existence? Can't you see our way is best? You are too ignorant to make this decision on your own. Now sit down and go do whatever it is you do and leave running the country to those who know how.</sarcasm>
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday October 07 2015, @11:37PM
Welllll.....the 1st amendment just says that the federal government (and, by implication, their agents) can't restrict freedom of speech. So if they give up all government supplied benefits (like access to people's property to manage the wiring) then I can see their argument. I just don't think that an ISP could operate under such constraints. I haven't heard them offering to forego the privileges, but perhaps I've just overlooked it. (That said, there's no reason an ISP couldn't use independent subcontractors who followed federal policies to free themselves from following federal requirements, but do note the word "independent". Subsidiaries wouldn't count. Nor would companies with only one customer. Etc.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by goody on Thursday October 08 2015, @12:39AM
It's the new American conservative political correctness where citizens must be free to deny others of their freedom, religious freedom is being free to impose your religion on others, opposing bigotry, racism and intolerance is intolerant, and anything not in line with sacred documents as interpreted by those who channel the dead founding fathers' intents and wishes is unconstitutional, and evil.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday October 07 2015, @04:38PM
Go ahead, edit the copyrighted material like web pages and stuff that pass thru your paws. Its not like copyright holders are litigious or anything when people so much as look at their stuff without signed licenses and contracts. Copyright holders have such a tame calm reputation for turning the other cheek when people F with their imaginary property. (Insert Alfred E Neuman saying What Me Worry?).
Go right ahead, MITM the new york times and replace the ads with your own, edit the hollywood movies delivered over the internet, mess with music, it not like those folks are litigious or anything, are they?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @05:05PM
Broadcasting and cableco monopolies (and competitive restrictions) are a violation of free speech. They are a way government grants special speech privileges to broadcasting and cableco monopolists that the rest of us don't get. That's a government abrogation of speech because it's the government favoring one type of speech (the speech that the monopolists favor) over another (the speech that the monopolists don't like that everyone else should have an equal opportunity to present but can't because the government gave a certain group of people special exclusive privileges over broadcasting spectra and cableco/communications infrastructure).
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @05:55PM
Now after the FCC has buried these guys we can shout "Remember the Alamo"!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Francis on Wednesday October 07 2015, @06:18PM
It's rather ironic that people never remember the parts of the Alamo that were actually important. Sam Houston had ordered them to abandon the Alamo so they could fight elsewhere. They set back their cause because there was no way they'd win.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @10:55PM
As much as i also dont want ISPs screwing with my packets, the Constitution does not apply to a commercial entity, only the government. There may be other laws in effect that restrict their behaviors, but not that one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @07:42AM
Alamo Broadband is a corporation (of some sort). Alamo Broadband is not a person. Alamo Broadband does not have freedom of speech.
(Score: 1) by DeVilla on Tuesday October 13 2015, @07:58PM
If being able to mess with interfere with network traffic as a matter of free speech, then I think they should be help liable for anything that goes over their wire. No safe harbor. They want the freedom, they get the responsibility.