« Intense Debate
Cask Beer »

Net Neutrality Is Sexier as a First Amendment Issue

Published October 29th, 2007 in Tech & VC

Ars Technica has a timely article about how the Net Neutrality issue is gaining traction again in the wake of some mistakes by the carriers. What were the infractions?

It’s interesting that the debate was reignited when it was framed in the context of first amendment issues. Prior to these events, the major net neutrality argument was a financial one: carriers could get greedy and charge both web services and end-consumers money for “fast lane” access. That financial argument didn’t resonate with people because there wasn’t any strong examples of misbehavior by the carriers to support the argument. It was generally hypothetical.

But, now there are first amendment violations that exemplify the necessity and urgency of net neutrality legislation. I think these first amendment violations represent a stronger argument because it is more personal; it strikes at a more fundamental perceived right. People expect corporations to be greedy, so the financial argument for net neutrality didn’t surprise anyone. But, free speech is more sacred. In the public eye, blocking political lyrics and blocking text messages by NARAL is far more unsettling and is not commonly expected behavior by a corporation.

Simply put, to argue for Net Neutrality using first amendment violation examples is sexier. And I welcome this discovery. Just how sexy is it? Sexy enough that Obama made it a featured part of his platform.

2 Responses to “Net Neutrality Is Sexier as a First Amendment Issue”  

Feed for this Entry
  1. 1 Anonymous Coward Oct 31st, 2007 at 9:49 am

    Private companies can’t commit ‘first amendment violations’. It’s disturbing to me that with what happened in Myanmar last month (violent government crack down on free speech) we in this country get up in arms about our ‘freedom of speech’ when a private company doesn’t act exactly how we want them too. I don’t mind calling it censorship, but I think it belittles the phrase ‘freedom of speech’ and the constitution when you use that to refer to AT&T not letting you hear Eddie Vedder rail against President Bush or that you can’t download P2P bootleg albums from Comcast anymore.

  2. 2 Andrew Parker Oct 31st, 2007 at 9:49 am

    If private companies are using a public asset (cellular network spectrum are property of the people and leases to that property are licensed), then I fully expect that they will not discriminate traffic based on content. If they are discriminating I believe their license should be revoked. People licensing spectrum should be acting in the public’s best interest. This practice has been true for radio since the beginning for radio broadcasts, and absolutely applies to data transfer in other wireless forms.

    Also, no need for anonymous comments. People disagree with me all the time (read through archives). I don’t take it personally. I’d appreciate if you’d leave some identifying information next time, unless there is something about the nature of your job that prevents you from doing so (in which case, please specify).

Leave a Reply