Net Neutrality Threatened?

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Siva Vaidhyanathan, associate professor of media studies and law at the University of Virginia and contributor, talks about the relationship between Google and Verizon and possible threats to net neutrality.


Siva Vaidhyanathan

Comments [15]

Interesting segment, but the guest needs to take a breath---his non stop talking is so annoying.

Aug. 17 2010 02:40 PM
grad Stuyvesant Stud from muntree-All in the free state of Quebec

John Lobell seems to be misleading readers here.

The United States Constitution is what the Supreme Court and lower federal courts say it is. When the Congress passed the Civil Rights Acts in Reconstruction and when it passed the 14th amendment and managed to have the states ratify it, it intended to have the Bill of Rights to apply against the states also. In the pre war era, the High Court had held that the 5th amendment's "Takings Clause" <<... nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation>> only prevent the Federal govt from "Takings" and it [[Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)]].

The 14th Amendment reverses the non-incorporation holding of Barron v. Baltimore.

In the 1st part of the 14th Amendment it says <> to protect the new Federal Citizens. The earlier part of that sentence was meant to reverse Scott v. Sandford.

If we repeal the 14amendment, blacks are no longer citizens as the Dred Scott case held.

However, shortly after, the High Court in the <> held that the 14th Amendment did n;t apply the privileges and Immunities against the state goivernment of Louisiana.

It took the 20th Century to incorporate the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment via its "Due Process" clause.

Thus the First Amendment now prevemnst BOTH state and federal government from abridge free speech.

But many cases have allowed
1.) Time Place and Manner restriction on assembly... like the Free Speech Cattle Pens outside the RNC in 2004

2) Government to imprision draft card burners despite the speech aspect [[ Obrien]]

3) FCC to ban indecent but not obscene speech from TV and radio [but not cable]

4) FCC can enforce fair comment and equal time and FCC can remove equal time and the fairness doctrine on broadcast.

So today, government is allowed to regulate speech a great deal.

First Amendment law is a study of how free speech is honoured in the breach

Aug. 17 2010 11:26 AM

here's two videos continuing the discrussing and the theme that Google may gave gone to the dark side.
What Net Neutrality Means (or meant) for Journalists
Pulitzer Center Projects Coordinator Christina Maria Paschyn interviews David Sohn of the Center for Democracy and Technology on how the recent court ruling on net neutrality could affect the state of journalism.
Google and CIA hook up
According to a recent article in Wired the investment arms of the CIA and Google are both backing a company that monitors the web in real time — and says it uses that information to predict the future.

Aug. 17 2010 11:08 AM
GradStuydent from Montreal, sovergn country of Quebec

The First Amendment does protect any business from having to make speech. For example the famous "Miami Herald" case where the Florida Legislature illegally granted Politicians the right of reply in Newspapers, the US Supreme Court found that Florida statute UnConstitutional. Because the statute would have forced a newspaper to carry speech of someone other than the speakers chosen by the editorial voice of the newspaper.

Likewise cable companies have free speech rights. However, in the "Must Carry" case of Turner [Cable], the Supreme Court held that it was permissible for the government to FORCE the cable company to carry over the air TV channels.

In addition, the Supreme Court held in Pacifica [Geo Carlin's 7 dirty words] that the federal government may regulate Broadcast TV and Radio because electromagnetic spectruum is a scarce public resource and radio stations don't own spectrum. They have a license to use and don't have as much freedom as an newspaper owner as in the Miami Herald case.

Aug. 17 2010 11:03 AM
artista from greenpoint

thanks for this segment.
I think a lot more along this line needs to be explored.
Interesting that the right wing remains right wing, even in this. Killing net neutrality will lead to another version of Citizens United, access bought by corporate and billionaire money.
I am not at all sure that the case was well stated here by your guest by his brushing past the idea that 'those who use more must pay more' without examining even that argument. Who says metering is an axiom of everyday life?

Aug. 17 2010 10:50 AM
John Lobell from New York

There seems to be some confusion about the First Amendment -- it says "Congress shall make NO LAW.." Congress has been in violation of this for a long long time ---

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Aug. 17 2010 10:47 AM
Carly from NYC

@John Lobell seems to have more trust in two monopolistic corporations that have the mission to maximize profit for their stockholders (Milton Friedman tells us more about this) and will never protect the rights of the public if they conflict with their own interests.

Aug. 17 2010 10:46 AM
Charl from Jersey City

In a world where we are increasingly pushed into wireless at every turn, the argument that it's 'just the wireless, don't get stressed' is completely ridiculous. Google (and Verizon) have sold us out for the big dollar! I operate a small business which has an equal footing in the market with the internet as it is... being shunted to a low-teir, low-speed group will completely change that. It's not up to the network providers to decide what information should be given priority!!!

Aug. 17 2010 10:45 AM
D from NYC

Everyone will look back at this and say -We should have stopped Google then......".

Aug. 17 2010 10:42 AM

this is what a non neutral net might look like for us average users:

google is evil...

Aug. 17 2010 10:41 AM
Harry from Sunnyside,NY

Don't forget that "the mobile web will be bigger than desktop Internet use by 2015." According to a study from Morgan Stanley.

This has already been the case in Japan for more than half a decade.

Aug. 17 2010 10:40 AM
John Lobell from New York

The Internet and Web, thus far, have served us better than has any medium controlled by the government. This is because the government has not controlled it.

Could your guest convince us that "net neutrality" is not just a way for the government to take control of the Internet.

Aug. 17 2010 10:38 AM
GradStuydent from Montreal, Nation of Quebec

The cablecos like Comcast own their wires. We cannot tell them what to do. But when they run the wires on PUBLIC right of way. The wires are subject to public regulation. The FCC regulates telephone calls in a neutral way. You can call anyone up at the same speed. If the internet is brought to you with telephone wires or coaxial cables that run on the PUBLIC right of way. It should be neutral. We don't want many more people digging up the ground needlessly.

Read Scalia's dissent in the BrandX Cable case.

Aug. 17 2010 10:37 AM

Google's motto is:
Don't! Be evil!

Fixed the punctuation for you.

Aug. 17 2010 10:24 AM
Leah from Brooklyn

Google's motto is "Don't BE evil," not "Don't DO evil," just FYI.

Aug. 17 2010 10:01 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.