4 ms·
How does the amount of bandwidth capable for carrying channels relate to whether something should be carried or not in a legal or constitutional sense? Carryin
by eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
How does the amount of bandwidth capable for carrying channels relate to whether something should be carried or not in a legal or constitutional sense?
Carrying white supremacist content has a cost to both Comcast and YouTube/Facebook. Nobody expects Comcast to carry the KKK channel and yet they have hundreds of channels and clearly space to carry it. So why aren’t they compelled to do so if Facebook is?
- ams6110 8y agoComcast is few-to-many model, Facebook is many-to-many. A few content producers create the content that Comcast could potentially carry. Comcast selects what they want to provide to their many customers. Comcast has never marketed themselves as a place where anyone can have their content provided to subscribers. Facebook has, in fact that is the essence of what they do.
- bjt2n3904 8y agoTo answer your first question, the constitutional response would be "it doesn't". Legally, I'm unaware of any edge cases, except potentially some net neutrality related things. (I'm not very certain about NN.) My point, however, is that this is neither a legal nor constitutional obligation, but a social and voluntary obligation to a free society.
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y agoAgreed. Just wanted to see if there was some precedent I was missing :)