[Copernicus]

"The Commission points to a hodgepodge of provisions to support its claim of 'broad authority,'" Verizon writes. However, the firm says, the FCC "does not and could not suggest that any of these provisions expressly authorizes these rules." Indeed, Verizon notes, "since 2006, at least 11 pieces of 'net neutrality' legislation were introduced and debated in Congress. None were enacted."

"Broadband networks are the modern-day microphone by which their owners [e.g. Verizon] engage in First Amendment speech," Verizon writes.

That's not all. Verizon also believes the FCC's rules violate the Fifth Amendment's protections for private property rights. Verizon argues that the rules amount to "government compulsion to turn over [network owners'] private property for use by others without compensation." The Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of private property without compensation. According to Verizon, network neutrality rules are "the equivalent of a permanent easement on private broadband networks for the use of others without just compensation."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...speech-rights/

Verizon is such a whiny little bitch.

[Devolution]

Well companies are people too.

[SquiddyCracker]

Corporations should not to be treated as people.
Fuck your free speech and property rights, Verizon.

[blame space]

i'm so confused. they're the microphone but they have rights?

[Cipherr]

A company is not a person.

[AlanzTalon]

Corporations should not to be treated as people.

corporate personhood decisions by the US supreme court would argue otherwise.

[linkboy]

A company is not a person.

Unfortuntly, the Supreme Court says otherwise.

[The Faceless Master]

Verizon = master trolls.

[Riposte]

i'm so confused. they're the microphone but they have rights?

Microphones are people

[corn_fest]

I wish one of the big tech companies would invest more in broadband. I know Google is testing their fiber service in limited areas, but we really need competition in this area.
You would think they'd be down for it, as they make a lot of money from online services and Verizon and Comcast are continuously trying to fuck them over with bandwidth caps, non neutrality, etc.

[Cipherr]

Unfortuntly, the Supreme Court says otherwise.

Well to hell with them then :(

[Kurdel]

Well, corporations are people.

[Prologue]

[Cyan]

According to Verizon, network neutrality rules are "the equivalent of a permanent easement on private broadband networks for the use of others

Well, yes. Public interest, bitches.

[AstroNut325]

How difficult is it to start a local ISP? Running fiber or copper to homes in a 15-20 mile radius... how much money/effort are we looking at?

[brucewaynegretzky]

They're legally right.... Guess them's the breaks when you get a virtual monopoly from your government contracts and administrative approvals.

EDIT: Dear everyone,

This has NOTHING to do with Citizens United or "corporate personhood" (which may be the most poorly defined "issue" ever).

Thank you for your time,

bwg

[mre]

Well, yes. Public interest, bitches.

Their Fifth Amendment argument is at least interesting and worth discussion. Their little First Amendment quasi-argument is laughable.

[AlanzTalon]

corporations are made of "people" so they say....and the act of organizing yourselves as a business unit cannot be grounds to take away first amendment rights, be it for business, political, or other reason.

a problematic issue, but that is the ruling. So Verizon can piss and bitch and cry all they want, complain all they want. our only recourse is to A) not be a customer and give them money B) Elect officials of such high personal character that they will not take Verizon lobbying money or C) support the FCC and Public Knowledge in the fight against them.

[Devolution]

corporations are made of "people" so they say....and the act of organizing yourselves as a business unit cannot be grounds to take away first amendment rights, be it for business, political, or other reason. a problematic issue, but that is the ruling. So Verizon can piss and bitch and cry all they want, complain all they want. our only recourse is to A) not be a customer and give them money B) Elect officials of such high personal character that they will not take Verizon lobbying money or C) support the FCC and Public Knowledge in the fight against them.

Sucks when corporations such as them have monopolies in various areas so A) doesn't really pan out.

[claviertekky]

How difficult is it to start a local ISP? Running fiber or copper to homes in a 15-20 mile radius... how much money/effort are we looking at?

Very difficult.

For example, AT&T's been lobbying laws to make municipal broadband illegal.

Recently, this bill passed for South Carolina.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...pal-broadband/

The North Carolina legislature approved something similar last year.

http://gcn.com/articles/2011/08/24/a...-carolina.aspx

Of course, the irrationals are blaming the government when really it's just give money to politicians to protect corporate interests.

[AlanzTalon]

How difficult is it to start a local ISP? Running fiber or copper to homes in a 15-20 mile radius... how much money/effort are we looking at?

nope, Verizon et al will destroy you there too...

http://www.wired.com/business/2011/0...uni-broadband/

[ElectricBlue187]

Well, corporations are people.

A corporation is more of a person than Mitt Robotney

[devilhawk]

I agree with Verizon that net neutrality does violate their rights. However, I also believe the government should have the ability to restrict these rights due to the circumstances of industry. Verizon and the other few large broadband companies hold an oligopoly and it is only going to condense further. These companies have received billions in subsidies and help from the government for lines laid and spectra. This industry does not allow for any start ups to appear and spread and with no competition there is no true free market. Since there is no free market, no ability for customers to change companies when they are dissatisfied, the industry needs to be regulated.

[Yoritomo]

Wow.

If those bits are Verizon's speech then isn't Verizon infringing copyright by transmitting copyrighted intellectual property without permission?

I agree with Verizon that net neutrality does violate their rights. However, I also believe the government should have the ability to restrict these rights due to the circumstances of industry. Verizon and the other few large broadband companies hold an oligopoly and it is only going to condense further. These companies have received billions in subsidies and help from the government for lines laid and spectra. This industry does not allow for any start ups to appear and spread and with no competition there is no true free market. Since there is no free market, no ability for customers to change companies when they are dissatisfied, the industry needs to be regulated.

I agree 100%. Well said sir.

[Angry Grimace]

The problem is that if you follow Verizon's line of argument they're trying to have it both ways. Verizon licenses frequency bands from the government; therefore they should be subject to the first amendment rights of individual users. Trying to argue that net-neutrality provisions are a taking is a real stretch. Nothing is ever a taking.

[Nerfgun]

Part of the reason this argument is so dumb is that it can so easily be turned against Verizon.

i.e. lack of Net Neutrality impugns my right to speech

[demon]

The problem is that if you follow Verizon's line of argument they're trying to have it both ways. Verizon licenses frequency bands from the government; therefore they should be subject to the first amendment rights of individual users.

Corporations want to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to being treated as "persons". It's all a giant load of shit.

[whatsinaname]

Isn't going against Net Neutrality Verizon's attempt at giving one entity's Free Speech rights precedence over another entity's?

[Angry Grimace]

I actually see this backfiring against them in the manner I stated above. I think they will lose, even at the Supreme Court level because they're trying to set up a totally unregulated and unrestrained monopoly that even conservative justices aren't going to want to uphold.

[brucewaynegretzky]

Corporations want to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to being treated as "persons". It's all a giant load of shit.

Wtf does this mean?

[eLZhi]

Maybe I won't pay my overdue phone bill after all, Verizon.

[SimleuqiR]

You guys should read this Verge article:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/5/313...tion-editorial

The day a company with as much cash as Apple decides that they don't want to deal with the likes of Verizon, is the day carriers will start shitting bricks.

Carriers and ISPs are stifling innovation, while at the same time protecting their business model and squeezing your wallet.

Just look at the tragic story of Palm, which went from darling of CES 2009 to legendary failure in just 31 short months. The company initially wanted to ship its Pre smartphone on Verizon, but the carrier backed out and Palm was forced to languish on Sprint, where it was unable to compete directly against the iPhone. When Verizon finally picked up the Pre Plus the next year, the carrier ordered millions of devices and then flippantly refused shipment and decided to focus on the Motorola Droid, leaving Palm sitting on millions of unsold units that couldn't be used on any other carrier in the world. The decision cost Palm hundreds of million of dollars and led directly to the company selling itself to HP — and the once-promising webOS platform slowly dissipated into a puff of mismanaged open-source smoke.

Fuck off Verizon!!

[MetatronM]

"Broadband networks are the modern-day microphone by which their owners [e.g. Verizon] engage in First Amendment speech," Verizon writes.

If what is being sent through the microphone is the First Amendment speech of the microphone's creator, then Shure, Sennheiser, and a handful of other companies apparently own the rights to almost all of the music created in the last century or so. Interesting, I had no idea that was the case, Verizon.

[brucewaynegretzky]

Wait are we talking about their wireless business or their wired business? Cuz if they're talking wireless they can fuck off for claiming a property interest in frequencies they get licensed from the government.

If they're talking wired services then MAYBE I can see it, but they're getting government licenses there too. Overall claiming a property interest in this stuff seems pretty arrogant on their part.

[Copernicus]

Wait are we talking about their wireless business or their wired business? Cuz if they're talking wireless they can fuck off for claiming a property interest in frequencies they get licensed from the government. If they're talking wired services then MAYBE I can see it, but they're getting government licenses there too. Overall claiming a property interest in this stuff seems pretty arrogant on their part.

Wireless. Verizon doesn't give two shits about the wired business at this point, which is why they are being preventive as wireless communications grow.

SimleuqiR: dat cdma.

[Persona7]

How difficult is it to start a local ISP? Running fiber or copper to homes in a 15-20 mile radius... how much money/effort are we looking at?

Millions of dollars.

[empty vessel]

Their Fifth Amendment argument is at least interesting and worth discussion. Their little First Amendment quasi-argument is laughable.

I would agree in the context of modern law. But I don't think corporations have any Fifth Amendment rights. Their investors do (at least those of them that are actual citizens and not other legal entities created by a government), but that is on them, individually, to deal with. The corporation should not be permitted to assert it on their behalf.

If a state revokes a corporate charter, is that a taking?

[brucewaynegretzky]

I would agree in the context of modern law. But I don't think corporations have any Fifth Amendment rights. Their investors do (at least those of them that are actual citizens and not other legal entities created by a government), but that is on them, individually, to deal with. The corporation should not be permitted to assert it on their behalf. If a state revokes a corporate charter, is that a taking?

If that's the case you don't think companies should be able to sue for theft because they haven't been denied a property right..... They couldn't conduct transactions because they'd have no interest in property to convey....

You want corps to get shareholder approval for every transaction involving property? This is ridiculous.

[Dead Man]

private broadband networks

Say what now?

[FLEABttn]

According to Verizon, network neutrality rules are "the equivalent of a permanent easement on private broadband networks for the use of others without just compensation."

I'm not being justly compensated for the easement the local telco has on my private property. If they have a problem with permanent easements, I guess they'll understand when I dig their lines up and cut them at the boundaries of my property. I mean, cause private property and such.

[Joe]

Socialized broadband please. It should be abundant and cheap.

[mre]

I would agree in the context of modern law. But I don't think corporations have any Fifth Amendment rights. Their investors do (at least those of them that are actual citizens and not other legal entities created by a government), but that is on them, individually, to deal with. The corporation should not be permitted to assert it on their behalf. If a state revokes a corporate charter, is that a taking?

Just to be clear: are you stating that a corporation cannot hold interests in property or that it shouldn't be able to hold interests in property?

[empty vessel]

Just to be clear: are you stating that a corporation cannot hold interests in property or that it shouldn't be able to hold interests in property?

I'm stating a corporation, as a government-created legal entity, ought not have any constitutional rights. A corporation can (and ought to) hold interests in property, provided its charter granted by the people permits it.

[AstroNut325]

nope, Verizon et al will destroy you there too... http://www.wired.com/business/2011/0...uni-broadband/

Very difficult. For example, AT&T's been lobbying laws to make municipal broadband illegal. Recently, this bill passed for South Carolina. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...pal-broadband/ The North Carolina legislature approved something similar last year. http://gcn.com/articles/2011/08/24/a...-carolina.aspx Of course, the irrationals are blaming the government when really it's just give money to politicians to protect corporate interests.

So outright starting your own private venture ISP is not possible? Is it possible to start a kick starter to bribe local politicians (state and city level) to eliminate restrictions on municipal broadband?

Edit:
I'm seriously asking the question. Not trying to be comical. If we can raise lobbying funds to do away with these laws then that should be the first step.

[mre]

I'm stating a corporation, as a government-created legal entity, ought not have any constitutional rights.

I don't disagree with you, in general, on that point. Since corporations can own property, however, I tend to lean towards applying the same constitutional protections to a corporation’s ownership of property as I would towards an individual’s. I feel that judicial economy almost mandates that we allow corporations to act to protect their property, rather than allowing it to dissolve into a bunch of derivative actions by shareholders to protect their interest in the corporation’s property.

[empty vessel]

I don't disagree with you, in general, on that point. Since corporations can own property, however, I tend to lean towards applying the same constitutional protections to a corporation’s ownership of property as I would towards an individual’s. I feel that judicial economy almost mandates that we allow corporations to act to protect their property, rather than allowing it to dissolve into a bunch of derivative actions by shareholders to protect their interest in the corporation’s property.

I added a sentence to my prior post. I don't have a problem with corporations acting to protect their property, except for one instance: vis-a-vis the government through the Fifth/Fourteenth Amendments. And that is merely because the corporation qua corporation simply does not have (or, should not have) that legal ground available to it to assert as a defense.

[sans_pants]

Socialized broadband please. It should be abundant and cheap.

then corporations couldnt make staggering profits

[AlanzTalon]

So outright starting your own private venture ISP is not possible? Is it possible to start a kick starter to bribe local politicians (state and city level) to eliminate restrictions on municipal broadband? Edit: I'm seriously asking the question. Not trying to be comical. If we can raise lobbying funds to do away with these laws then that should be the first step.

if Google and Apple both decided that they don't have the money or Manpower..and Lightsquared was litigated to death over spectrum for a dedicated broadband 4G network...

it ain't happening for you or anyone. the only way is if legislation is passed that severely checks Verizon/AT&T et al into a tightly regulated market.

and any politician with an (R) or (D) next to their name won't do that or be labeled a "job killer" by those corporate interests. if they even had a basic understanding of this technology anyway.

so no, it isn't going to happen anytime soon.

[brucewaynegretzky]

I added a sentence to my prior post. I don't have a problem with corporations acting to protect their property, except for one instance: vis-a-vis the government through the Fifth/Fourteenth Amendments. And that is merely because the corporation qua corporation simply does not have (or, should not have) that legal ground available to it to assert as a defense.

Can you name any type of corporate charter that SHOULD NOT include a provision that gives the corporation the ability to obtain property rights? I can't imagine a corporation functioning without that ability.

[mre]

I added a sentence to my prior post. I don't have a problem with corporations acting to protect their property, except for one instance: vis-a-vis the government through the Fifth/Fourteenth Amendments. And that is merely because the corporation qua corporation simply does not have (or, should not have) that legal ground available to it to assert as a defense.

Fair enough. I disagree, but I understand where you're coming from. Since taking a corporation's property is essentially the taking of its shareholder's property, I do not have a problem with extending the protection of the Fifth Amendment to corporations, for the reason of judicial economy.