Verizon asks U.S. Government for permission to edit the Internet

“The Open Internet Order says that Verizon, as a provider of broadband Internet, can’t block or slow access to (legal) online content because they disagree with its message or are being paid by an outside party to do so,” Media Matters’s Simon Maloy wrote. “This is essentially how the internet has operated since its inception, and the Open Internet Order is intended to prevent ISPs like Verizon from becoming gatekeepers. Verizon, however, argues that it has the constitutionally protected right to decide which content you, as a Verizon customer, can access.”

You got to love the idea of corporate interests claiming to have rights afforded to natural human beings. Let me get this right. In essence Verizon is claiming the right to censor free speech? So in turn they claim the right to to diminish the rights of others? Am I missing something here?SOURCE

Im on a verizon cell connection right now. Guess i need to switch providers now.

Wasn't this all sorted out almost two years ago?

After more than a year, the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday finally approved rules regarding net neutrality by a vote of 3-2.

The order provides three high-level rules: transparency; no blocking; and no unreasonable discrimination.
The transparency rule applies to fixed and wireless networks. Providers must disclose their network management practices, network performance, characteristics, and the commercial terms of their broadband services. This will ensure that consumers and innovators have the information they need to understand the capabilities of broadband services, the FCC said.

On the no-blocking part, fixed providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, and non-harmful devices. Fixed providers also cannot charge providers of these services simply for delivering traffic to and from the network. Wireless providers, meanwhile, would be banned from blocking access to lawful Web sites or blocking applications that compete with their own voice or video telephony services. It does not apply to mobile broadband app stores.

voices.washingtonpost.com...
www.pcmag.com...

Years ago I read a story about a young girl who figured out what to do with the mountains of used tires. She thought to grind them up and put them in road pavement. It was tested on a road and it lasted much longer and need little maintenance.

On the way of patenting and moving it towards production and use for it will build better roads while dealing with the growing problem of used tires. Long story short. the paving union to the matter to court and had the product banned for it would cost many jobs in the construction and maintenance of roads across america.

So therefore you have the right to destroy something if it threatens to destroy you.

reply to post by GD21D


I'm with T-Mobile now. For all I know they may be the next to do this. In the meantime: Note to self--Never buy or use anything from Verizon, and spread the word....

There's a huge difference between reality and what Verizon reckons its rights are. Customers can choose a better ISP, or they could simply use one of several ways to get around the Internet filtering.

By Verizon's own logic, they should be able to block or otherwise disrupt cell phone calls between me and people they don't particularly care for.

Now I know why my calls keep dropping.

sadly, it's only a matter of time before these providers have paid off enough people to pass a bill that will allow this type of thing.

I used to use Verizon for my business internet, but use comcast cable now. If a law such as this ever did pass, It could potentially hurt my business, as I am a website developer and if a certain site owned by a client, or what not were to get blocked, I could potentially lose a lot of business and/or not be able to get a job done in time, since content on a site wouldn't be available to me.


I hope this goes public and people boycott Verizon for such measures.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


You'd think. But it's never really sorted out. There's always some corporation that will plead "special circumstances," or find a loophole, or pay for a private law, or some damn thing.

All you can do is try to hurt their bottom line. Don't buy from them; talk to friends and family to see if you can convince them to drop them; if you know somebody who's ready to buy, discourage them....

Originally posted by XeroOne
There's a huge difference between reality and what Verizon reckons its rights are. Customers can choose a better ISP, or they could simply use one of several ways to get around the Internet filtering.

I agree with what you are saying, but there is a difference between what we know to be right and what money says is right. That is the reality we live in.Will anything come of this? Probably not, but give corporate interests time and sooner or later they'll get what the want.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


They started using the tires on horse tracks after they were ground up then all of a sudden it became to "expensive" to grind them up....This is a total crock because at my company we have one of these machines that we use to grind up thousands of pounds of end of job paper stock each day. The machine we have will grind up tires with ease and the only maintenance it has had in years is new blades of which we just rotated them the other way and they work just fine.

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
By Verizon's own logic, they should be able to block or otherwise disrupt cell phone calls between me and people they don't particularly care for.

Now I know why my calls keep dropping.

If Verizon's refusing to do the job you're paying them for, bin them. It's a free market.

Oh, and if worst comes to worst, have a search for the Calyx Institute. They're in the process of setting up a surveillance-proof ISP.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
Wasn't this all sorted out almost two years ago?

It was. But on Monday (July 3, 2012) Verizon and another company filed a court brief claiming "First Amendment Infringement".

This time around, Verizon is playing the First Amendment card. The challenge, essentially, is that by limiting Verizon’s ability to choose which content to block or promote, the FCC is infringing on Verizon’s right to free speech.

pcworld.com

They claim that it is no different than a newspaper's editorial control.

"Just as a newspaper is entitled to decide which content to publish and where, broadband providers may feature some content over others," lawyers for the two carriers wrote. "Although broadband providers have generally exercised their discretion to allow all content in an undifferentiated manner, they nonetheless possess discretion that these rules preclude them from exercising."

pcworld.com

I really really hope that customers that can afford to switch carriers do.

And I really wish that courts would stop mucking up the First Amendment with "corporate rights".

OiO

In my personal opinion and basing it on nothing more than observation from afar of course, I believe there is a very robust and healthy black hat community of computer security..specialists..and they sure aren't on summer break. Verizon is waving a red flag in front of not just one bull, but a whole line of wild eye and generally angry bulls.

If they'd like to take the first BIG step out of line and volunteer as the first private sector U.S. entity to make censorship a part of their business model, why who are we to stop them? Just try not to be on Verizon services if they actually move forward with this.

(Puts on Ms. Cleo Hat) I foresee great technical difficulties in the Verizon service future....from many directions...and many many determined young folks with nothing better to do.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Years ago I read a story about a young girl who figured out what to do with the mountains of used tires.

Has all the hallmarks of a fake urban legend.
Rubberized asphalt has been around for decades now, limited in its use only by the laws of physics.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Years ago I read a story about a young girl who figured out what to do with the mountains of used tires.

Has all the hallmarks of a fake urban legend.
Rubberized asphalt has been around for decades now, limited in its use only by the laws of physics.

Not so much a legend.

Rubberized asphalt continues to be labeled as experimental and thus funding for its use can be hard to obtain. Other reasons for its less than wide spread use include state preferences for the use of older methods for pavement, 'impostor' projects that don't adhere to standards, thereby resulting in failures, and the Interstate Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), mandate.


ISTEA provides federal funding through the FHWA for transportation projects and was superceded by Tea-21 in May of 1999. The ISTEA mandate holds that funding must be used to research and implement studies on the use of rubberized asphalt.

en.wikipedia.org...

I guess in the internet age and with the kids today is that if you dont have a link, it didnt happen.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Years ago I read a story about a young girl who figured out what to do with the mountains of used tires.

Has all the hallmarks of a fake urban legend.
Rubberized asphalt has been around for decades now, limited in its use only by the laws of physics.

Not so much a legend.

Rubberized asphalt continues to be labeled as experimental and thus funding for its use can be hard to obtain. Other reasons for its less than wide spread use include state preferences for the use of older methods for pavement, 'impostor' projects that don't adhere to standards, thereby resulting in failures, and the Interstate Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), mandate.


ISTEA provides federal funding through the FHWA for transportation projects and was superceded by Tea-21 in May of 1999. The ISTEA mandate holds that funding must be used to research and implement studies on the use of rubberized asphalt.

en.wikipedia.org...

I guess in the internet age and with the kids today is that if you dont have a link, it didnt happen.

note that wiki neglects to inform us who invented the process

because corporate and government skullduggery
and inventors who get cheated
are nothing but urban legends to some

uh-huh

there was a pilot project here a couple of years ago [PR], never put into practice,
and never heard from again

highways and streets here get retarred every year, so i'm not surprised at all

great comeback too
it was about time IMO

In performing these functions, broadband providers possess “editorial discretion.” Just as a newspaper is entitled to decide which content to publish and where, broadband providers may feature some content over others. Although broadband providers have generally exercised their discretion to allow all content in an undifferentiated manner, Order ¶ 14 (JA__), they nonetheless possess discretion that these rules preclude them from exercising.

This text comes from the source I included in the OP.I find the argument laughable at best, They possess "editorial discretion"? Really? There is one teeny tiny problem with this argument. Newspapers actually employ the services of writers, in which they have a right to editorial discretion. People employ the services of broadband providers, not the other way around. I love the play on words. If you're an average idiot you would more than likely find the argument plausible, and somewhat justifiable. I just hope there aren't that many average idiots out there. Ahhh, who am I kidding. There are a bunch of average idiots out there. Sigh.

So, Verizon wants to be allowed to mess with access to content...

because they disagree with its message or are being paid by an outside party to do so.

I think we can safely assume that they are not doing this because they disagree with its message.

What outside party is paying them how much to edit/block what content?

Great thread by the way, OP. This is a very important story.. I've spent a bit looking into this a bit more for a very specific reason and I'm afraid I find nothing here that says they can't do it. First..they can block content, I believe. "can" is relative to finding the right Judge. However, if I were Verizon, I might use the library argument as an opener and go from there. Public Library's are well established as having the full right to control and limit the content they are allowing across the internet service they are providing. I just knew letting things like that to come in baby steps might come back and bite hard some day and that would be one precedent to cite.

Maybe they can't slow and throttle, but if they can outright block...under precedent law covering other entities...then we all have a huge problem. Epic. As anyone who uses VPN's or other proxy networks like TOR knows, the ISP can see full well where we're going and what we're up to....right into the 1st node. Then, for all intents and purposes to the ISP, we're ghosts. Gone. Just....out there somewhere and who knows where. They see TOR or whatever VPN or VSN someone it using though. If they can block anything, legally, I'll bet cash money that the entire set of similar masking services hits #1 on their censor list, before any commercial competition issues even enter the picture. How do you out-fox the foxes when they own the field and simply lock the gates with razor wire across the top?