6 ms·
> the FCC loves to censor things like television, and it wouldn't be insane to think they would consider doing the same with the internet Unfortunately, this i
by warfangle 12y ago
> the FCC loves to censor things like television, and it wouldn't be insane to think they would consider doing the same with the internet
Unfortunately, this is kind of a red herring. There are a few places in the telecommunications act that require the FCC to fine for indecency/obscene material. Cable operators themselves, for example, are not responsible for channels that display obscene material - the original transmitter is. That's under Title VI (cable communications) and Title III (radio and television).
Title II is all about common carrier status. Cable television, broadcast radio, and broadcast television are not common carriers, and Title II does not give the FCC either the requirement or permission to fine or censor obscene content. Neither does it give ISPs the requirement or permission to censor obscene content.
As Title II has been interpreted by courts, you are actually _more_ protected from internet censorship if they are considered Title II common carriers.
They can't terminate based on suspicion of unlawful use; there must be evidence:
* Shillitani v. Valentine, 53 NYS 2d 127 (1945); "a telephone company may not refuse to furnish service and facilities because of a mere suspicion or mere belief that they may be or are being used for an illegitimate end; more is required."
* Nadel v NY Tel., 170 NYS2d 95 (1957); carrier suspected caller of using the telephone for illegal gambling transactions and terminated their service. Court ruled that service should be reinstated: the telephone company "is not at all qualified, in the absence of evidence of illegal use, to withhold from the petitioner, at will an essential and public utility."
They are not authorized to collect said evidence themselves (this could be interpreted to mean that, as a common carrier, ISPs are not allowed to read the contents of the packets that they transmit, only the headers -- like telephone numbers -- as needed to get the packet to its destination):
* People v. Brophy, 49 Cal.App.2d 15, at 33, 120 P2d 946, at 965; "public utilities and common carriers are not the censors of public or private morals, nor are they authorized or required to investigate or regulate the public or private conduct of those who seek service at their hands."
You, as an internet user, are not protected from those actions unless your ISP is classified as a Title II common carrier.
- innguest 12y ago> Unfortunately, this is kind of a red herring. There are a few places in the telecommunications act that require the FCC to fine for indecency/obscene material. That is the true red herring we hear over and over again. Don't worry about censorship, you can still say indecent/obscene things... if you happen to have been awarded the broadcasting license. Sir, or Ma'am, please understand. The censorship problem we anti-FCC complain about is the problem of not being able to get a license in the first place. You and others like you are always addressing this red herring non-issue of indecency and obscenity. That can only happen if you get a broadcast license. The problem with the FCC is that they are a gatekeeper for getting a broadcast license and it is at that point, when they are deciding whether to give the license that they exert the most dangerous kind of censorship. Not after you have the license.
- CzechsMix 12y agoHow is it that nobody thinks forcing people to obtain a license for broadcasting isn't censorship, and/or forced monopoly? Like how do you reason yourself into believing those two things are false? Like, the biggest problem is that people are unhappy with comcast and there's no alternative. Then they get the bright idea that making entry into the market harder will fix this problem?
- feld 12y agoThere's very limited spectrum and if everyone is fighting to see who can broadcast the loudest the entire system will fail.
- innguest 12y agoThere's also very limited land but land is not tightly controlled by an unelected government agency the same way radio waves are. If what you say is true then we should be able to buy and sell radio wave frequencies from each other. But radio waves are treated specially by the government because they're a long range means of communication. Same with the internet. That's why the FCC wants in. Not because "it's limited". Land is limited, where is the FCC for land? Gold is limited, yet we can freely buy and sell. Everything is limited but the FCC only has eyes for LONG RANGE MEANS OF COMMUNICATION. Why? EDIT for temporal: Please explain this: "One of our troubles in getting legislation [to nationalize the airwaves] was the very success of the voluntary system we had created. Members of the Congressional committees kept saying, 'it is working well, so why bother?'" -- Herbert C. Hoover, The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover: The Cabinet and the Presidency 1920-1933, at 142 (1952). Cited in Hazlett, 1990.
- TeMPOraL 12y agoAside from the fact that radio waves have strategic role for every country, it's mostly tragedy-of-commons case. You can't just let anyone start broadcasting anything at any power and frequency, because there's no way they'll themselves coordinate to use the spectrum wisely instead of trying to overpower one another until the whole thing collapses into a total and unusable mess.
- unprepare 12y agoThis is awesome information, thank you! Other than censorship, do you foresee any major gotchas in the upcoming regulations?
- warfangle 12y agoThe other major one that garners complaints is the regulations surrounding rate and fee setting. But the FCC has already stated that those would be under forbearance. And even if they weren't, there is a clear process for companies to petition for forbearance on regulations which they find too burdensome.