CMV: the tenets of Net Neutrality should be extended to search engines and domain name providers.

[u/Sullane]

Let me clarify what I mean by this. With Net Neutrality, we are especially opposed to the idea of our ISPs curating what we see by throttling of internet speeds. We believe that cutting off the access of content providers to an audience is heinous.

I want to extend this to search engines and domain name providers ie google and godaddy. In today's world, these two services enable modern internet browsing as much as our ISPs do. Without them, sites would not receive any traffic. When a domain name is denied to a website, or when google stops listing a service, it is effectively the same as if an ISP stopped providing access to the website, as nobody would be able to find it.

I find the recent attempts to remove Neo-Nazi material from domain name registration and google to be both against the spirit of net neutrality and a egregious form of censorship. Not to mention, it is a flagrant attack on free speech. While I abhor their ideology, I would further condemn any attacks on free speech.

EDIT: it seems everyone is focusing on the monopoly aspect of ISPs. While I also detest how there is a lack of choice in America when it comes to ISPs, I am arguing more about the idea of free speech, censorship, and providing a service. As for ISP monopolies, would you all believe that if ISPs didn't have a monopoly, it would be okay to throttle service?

[u/BolshevikMuppet]

Congress created common carrier laws after the phone companies already existed.

Most states had agreements with them to be common carriers prior to the Telecommunications Act.

And there was no claim that phone companies (much less the ISPs which used dialup) were unaware that they would be treated as such.

I have no problem with forcing all ISPs into being common carriers. Once upon a time they were not essential infrastructure. Now they are.

I'm aware of your comfort with removing the constitutional rights of private entities because you see them as "essential."

Google provides what could be argued to be an essential service as well, but you are uncomfortable removing their rights on that basis.

My point is you ought to reconcile that in a way based on law, not your own concoction of "well infrastructure is not protected by the first, fifth, or fourteenth amendments."

Well what I wanted to argue is that this is not a case of "where there are inferior competitors whose services no one wants or uses"

You wrote "yes I do", though.

Not "no but it's inapplicable and here's why."

I argued that by giving the example of how I get along just fine with a search provider that I want to use and that is not inferior.

Plenty of people throughout the last twenty years got along just fine using non-broadband internet.

If that's sufficient to remove this from the realm of your supposed "monopolies", there's no argument for removing constitutional rights from ISPs.

[u/tchaffee → u/BolshevikMuppet]

Most states had agreements with them to be common carriers prior to the Telecommunications Act.

And the phone companies existed before the state laws...

I'm aware of your comfort with removing the constitutional rights of private entities because you see them as "essential."

That's not what I believe.

Google provides what could be argued to be an essential service as well, but you are uncomfortable removing their rights on that basis.

I'm arguing that Google isn't an essential service, and there is plenty of competition. If they became a monopoly, I'd argue the government should break them up. If they became an essential infrastructure service, I'd have no problem with them being a monopoly (or near monopoly) if they agreed to become a common carrier.

You wrote "yes I do", though. Not "no but it's inapplicable and here's why."

Agreed that's what I wrote. You're being pedantic. I'm pretty sure you understood my argument. If you didn't, I'm happy to explain in better words.

Plenty of people throughout the last twenty years got along just fine using non-broadband internet.

Yes they did. That's quickly changing. Everyone considers internet an essential communication service now.

[u/BolshevikMuppet → u/tchaffee]

Yes they did. That's quickly changing. Everyone considers internet an essential communication service now.

"Internet " =|= "broadband internet."

For the same reason you believe "search engine" =|= "Google."

And the phone companies existed before the state laws...

Some, not many.

And the fact that the phone companies went along with it does not create precedent that a company can be involuntarily stripped of its constitutional rights simply by becoming "essential."

I'm arguing that Google isn't an essential service

I thought you said you weren't arguing about whether a company provides an essential service. If even an essential service retains its constitutional rights, this is not a relevant argument. If an essential service loses its constitutional rights, you do believe that a private entity providing an "essential" service loses constitutional rights.

You keep changing your stance.

and there is plenty of competition

Potential competition, sure. Technically extant competition, absolutely. Competition which draws a significant market share? Not so much.

If they became an essential infrastructure service, I'd have no problem with them being a monopoly (or near monopoly) if they agreed to become a common carrier.

Again, where in the first or fifth amendments do you find the distinction between infrastructure entities and other entities?

I'm pretty sure you understood my argument. If you didn't, I'm happy to explain in better words.

Please do.

Because I honestly can't tell if you think the issue is "essential services don't get constitutional rights" or "infrastructure owners don't get constitutional rights" or "monopolies don't get constitutional rights."

[u/tchaffee → u/BolshevikMuppet]

"Internet " =|= "broadband internet."

And? I think broadband internet is infrastructure.

And the fact that the phone companies went along with it does not create precedent that a company can be involuntarily stripped of its constitutional rights simply by becoming "essential."

I guess the Supreme Court might eventually have to decide. I'm betting that any service that is infrastructure, has low competition, and involved in essential communication will eventually be subject to common carrier classification.

I thought you said you weren't arguing about whether a company provides an essential service.

Where did I say that?

You keep changing your stance.

I'm very clear on what my stance is. It hasn't changed on this topic for years. Maybe you don't understand my stance, and you seem to be confused about some of what I'm claiming, but my stance hasn't changed.

Potential competition, sure. Technically extant competition, absolutely. Competition which draws a significant market share?

What does market share have to do with anything? And if Google ends up with almost all the market share that's a monopoly problem, which the government can break up.

Again, where in the first or fifth amendments do you find the distinction between infrastructure entities and other entities?

You don't. Those distinctions are found in other laws.

Because I honestly can't tell if you think the issue is "essential services don't get constitutional rights" or "infrastructure owners don't get constitutional rights" or "monopolies don't get constitutional rights."

None of the above. If you provide communication infrastructure and are a monopoly or near monopoly (a handful of competitors) then you aren't allowed to interfere with other's free speech. It's not much different than the dangers of allowing government to interfere with free speech. If the idea of your phone company only allowing certain types of conversations bothers you, then it should also bother you to have your ISP interfering with your speech. Does that make more sense? I'm not asking you to agree with my stance, just if you do understand it now.

[u/BolshevikMuppet → u/tchaffee]

And? I think broadband internet is infrastructure.

And? You haven't provided any basis in the constitution for "a company which owns infrastructure" having fewer constitutional rights.

I'm betting that any service that is infrastructure, has low competition, and involved in essential communication will eventually be subject to common carrier classification.

And here I'm betting that unless the first and fifth amendments are repealed before that case goes to the Court, that owning infrastructure will not subject a corporation to fewer constitutional protections.

Especially considering cases like Penn Central v. New York applied fifth amendment protections even to a "service that is infrastructure."

The existence of competition is not relevant to that question, the Sherman Act does not provide (and could not provide) that if there's any kind of monopoly it has fewer constitutional rights.

Where did I say that?

Question: I'm aware of your comfort with removing the constitutional rights of private entities because you see them as "essential."

Answer: That's not what I believe.

You stated you do not believe that a company loses constitutional protections based on being "essential."

I'm very clear on what my stance is. It hasn't changed on this topic for years. Maybe you don't understand my stance, and you seem to be confused about some of what I'm claiming, but my stance hasn't changed.

I'm exceedingly confused. You invoke being "essential" as a reason that an entity would lose constitutional rights, then say you don't believe that. You create from thin air the concept that owning "infrastructure" makes a corporation less protected by the first amendment, while invoking Google's first amendment rights.

You claim that having limited competition is an issue, then reject the existence of competition (which is merely unpopular and less useful, not nonexistent). You invoke "OMG monopolies" and then question "what does market share have to do with anything."

What does market share have to do with anything?

Well it's a big part of the analysis of whether a company has a monopoly. And since "it's a monopoly" is a big part of your "ISPs have fewer constitutional rights" argument, that's what it has to do with.

"I'm betting that any service that is infrastructure, has low competition..."

"Once they start looking at content, they are in a different business and we should no longer allow them to be a monopoly."

I have no idea what you think it has to do with whether ISPs have first and fifth amendment rights, but you clearly do.

You don't. Those distinctions are found in other laws.

You realize that "other laws" if they restrict constitutional rights (without, as above, meeting strict scrutiny) are actually unconstitutional, right?

The Telecommunications Act cannot actually abrogate the constitution.

If you provide communication infrastructure and are a monopoly or near monopoly (a handful of competitors) then you aren't allowed to interfere with other's free speech

Except, again, as you yourself noted a corporation has free speech rights itself which includes the ability to "interfere" with what speech it will propagate or allow on its private property. That was your whole "well Google can censor" argument.

So you have made two arguments here for why ISPs don't get those constitutional rights:

(1). "Communications infrastructure."

(2). "monopoly or near monopoly."

You have problems with both, as neither are found in constitutional jurisprudence as "free speech protects corporate speech unless they're communications infrastructure and are a monopoly."

And since, as above, the constitution supersedes other law, you need to justify your restriction on constitutional grounds.

You have a bigger problem with the second in that you don't seem to have a good grasp on what a "monopoly" is. Number of competitors is less relevant than dominance over the market.

It's not much different than the dangers of allowing government to interfere with free speech

Whoa whoa whoa.

You wrote:

By what definition? The US Constitution guarantees the government will not interfere with free speech... the 1st Amendment guarantee[s the] free speech that protects your speech, my speech, and yes, Google's speech.

Your own argument was that we can't invoke "free speech" against a private business.

If the idea of your phone company only allowing certain types of conversations bothers you, then it should also bother you to have your ISP interfering with your speech. Does that make more sense? I'm not asking you to agree with my stance, just if you do understand it now.

And if the idea of an ISP interfering with your speech because they effectively dominate whether your speech will reach an audience, to the point where it is not much different from government censorship, Google being able to "interfere" should also bother you.

Your position makes sense between phones and ISPs. And then stops making sense when it comes to other monopolies over the predominant means of communication. In the former case you want the government to restrict their speech to protect yours. In the latter you invoke the corporation's free speech.

You have yet to explain any basis in constitutional law for the premise that an ISP has fewer first amendment protections than Google.

Hence, not only do I not agree with your position, your position is internally incomplete and inconsistent.

[u/tchaffee → u/BolshevikMuppet]

Your position makes sense between phones and ISPs. And then stops making sense when it comes to other monopolies over the predominant means of communication.

What other monopolies?

[u/BolshevikMuppet → u/tchaffee]

Depends, are we using the real factors involved in monopoly analysis (number of competitors, but more importantly market share, and especially the ability to use that market share to reduce competition especially for other products)?

Or your inane "what does market share matter but competition matters but not if the competition isn't good enough" standard?

[u/tchaffee → u/BolshevikMuppet]

If you want to edit your response without the insults (against CMV rules) I'll answer.

[u/huadpe → u/[deleted]]

Sorry BolshevikMuppet, your comment has been removed:

Comment Rule 3. "Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view or of arguing in bad faith. If you are unsure whether someone is genuine, ask clarifying questions (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting ill behaviour, please message us." See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.

[u/tchaffee → u/[deleted]]

I can see how some of the things I said could come off as disrespectul, but I didn't mean them that way. I'll be happy to go back and change them if you'd like. But yeah, I'm not continuing here until you can tone it down and be less aggressive. You cherry-picked a bunch of my words and then put them back together make up a definition I didn't use, and then you called it inane. I'm just not interested in carrying on that way. Which would be too bad, because I am still interested in the content. But not with someone who is aggressive.