Supreme Court Nominee: ISPs have 1st Amendment right to block websites

[Zodiark1593]

22 minutes ago, imreloadin said:

There isn't any difference though. Of course LTT can't stop you from accessing the internet, they don't own the internet. What about an ISP makes it so they don't have the right to block access to the infrastructure that they own? Did something change in the past that made it so they are required to sell me internet service? "Blocking content for whatever reason" and "blocking KKK websites" are literally the same thing, they're both arbitrary reasons. Who said anyone has to be objective with their reasoning?

Could ISPs be compared to the mail system (s)? They're both communication infrastructures that service individuals from arbitrary locations. Only difference being one service delivers paper. The other, the delivery of precise, electrical pulses. I don't recall the USPS being allowed to pick and choose who or what I can recieve mail from (beyond proven criminal or terrorist organizations). Should ISPs be allowed the power to do so?

[asus killer]

29 minutes ago, imreloadin said:

There isn't any difference though. Of course LTT can't stop you from accessing the internet, they don't own the internet. What about an ISP makes it so they don't have the right to block access to the infrastructure that they own? Did something change in the past that made it so they are required to sell me internet service? "Blocking content for whatever reason" and "blocking KKK websites" are literally the same thing, they're both arbitrary reasons. Who said anyone has to be objective with their reasoning?

i give up, have a nice day 

[imreloadin]

24 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Could ISPs be compared to the mail system (s)? They're both communication infrastructures that service individuals from arbitrary locations. Only difference being one service delivers paper. The other, the delivery of precise, electrical pulses. I don't recall the USPS being allowed to pick and choose who or what I can recieve mail from (beyond proven criminal or terrorist organizations). Should ISPs be allowed the power to do so?

The only difference is that the postal service/private couriers don't own the mail routes, ISPs on the other hand own a lot of the infrastructure that users use to access content.

[handymanshandle]

30 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Could ISPs be compared to the mail system (s)? They're both communication infrastructures that service individuals from arbitrary locations. Only difference being one service delivers paper. The other, the delivery of precise, electrical pulses. I don't recall the USPS being allowed to pick and choose who or what I can recieve mail from (beyond proven criminal or terrorist organizations). Should ISPs be allowed the power to do so?

USPS is owned by the federal government, ISPs aren't.

However, Fedex and UPS could.

[imreloadin]

17 minutes ago, asus killer said:

i give up, have a nice day 

You give up? You have't even said anything to support your argument You're the one saying how LTT filtering content on its site is different from ISPs filtering content from their network but you haven't given a single reason why! I just want a reason why they're different. I always see people say they are different but when I ask them why they are all I ever get are people just going "well I want to be able to access things that I want so that's why" or "who makes it so they can arbitrarily pick what I can and can't see".

[handymanshandle]

1 hour ago, Christophe Corazza said:

 

Not that I'm aware of 

I think they only can see PMs if it's reported.

[Zodiark1593]

11 minutes ago, imreloadin said:

The only difference is that the postal service/private couriers don't own the mail routes, ISPs on the other hand own a lot of the infrastructure that users use to access content.

While it is true that courier services do not own the routes, they do own fleets of vehicles to facilitate delivery of content. These vehicles would be part of the infrastructure required for courier services to perform their work, so it would be more accurate to say that courier services "own" part of the infrastructure.

[imreloadin]

1 hour ago, Zodiark1593 said:

While it is true that courier services do not own the routes, they do own fleets of vehicles to facilitate delivery of content. These vehicles would be part of the infrastructure required for courier services to perform their work, so it would be more accurate to say that courier services "own" part of the infrastructure.

When I said they don't own the mail routes I was saying they don't own the roads. The trucks that UPS and Fedex use would be like LTT's servers in that analogy as they're private companies who use the current infrastructure (roads/ISP networks) to do their business. Roads are analogous to the underground fiber that ISPs use except that they are largely privately owned and not publicly owned. FedEx can't just go driving down private roads to do their business unless they have authorization from the owner to use them.

[Christophe Corazza]

1 hour ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

I think they only can see PMs if it's reported.

 

Theoretically, they *can* see it.

But they will only do so when it is reported.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, imreloadin said:

There isn't any difference though.

 

There is a huge difference.   One is a service that sells INTERNET access.  the other is a service you can use on the internet.   The internet includes everything that is connected to it.  If a private ISP blocks or throttles any part of the internet without saying they will before you sign your contract they are both misrepresenting their services and denying you access to what you paid for.   Here we are talking about ISP's that will block a website or traffic for no other reason than it suits their agenda.  Not because an end user is breaking the law or running a server against ToS.   Therefore they are not the same at all.

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, imreloadin said:

So LTT doesn't log/read/moderate any private messages sent between forum users then I take it?

That wasn't what you were asking or even saying. Because clearly you missed the part where LLT forum is not analogous to an ISP or a courier.

 

4 hours ago, imreloadin said:

@leadeater's analogy was asking why USPS or FedEx or UPS can't open your packages and mail and that's because they don't own those items, you can't own a mail route either sooo they're simply the transportation of said items so it doesn't make any sense. ISPs actually own the infrastructure that this information is being sent/viewed on so why shouldn't they be able to filter content just as LTT does with the website that they own themselves?

None of those own the roads either and the majority of the time the plane the parcel or mail item is on either. ISPs also do not own most infrastructure they lease access to it as well as create peering agreements.

 

So in fact most of the time the ISP does not own the infrastructure other than the stuff they need to operate, like billing servers and routing equipment in shared distribution areas (or leased ports on a  shared router).

[imreloadin]

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

There is a huge difference.   One is a service that sells INTERNET access.  the other is a service you can use on the internet.   The internet includes everything that is connected to it.  If a private ISP blocks or throttles any part of the internet without saying they will before you sign your contract they are both misrepresenting their services and denying you access to what you paid for.   Here we are talking about ISP's that will block a website or traffic for no other reason than it suits their agenda.  Not because an end user is breaking the law or running a server against ToS.   Therefore they are not the same at all.

I'm pretty sure that is in every user agreement that current ISPs have when selling service to new customers. The ISP owns the network that the users are on, the fiber node that runs to their house/block/apartment building/whatever so why can't they filter the content on it? When you go to work and are at your workstation would you not get fired for watching porn on it? It's the same concept. Your employer owns the network you're using at work therefor they can filter the content you can see why you're at work. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand...

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, imreloadin said:

I'm pretty sure that is in every user agreement that current ISPs have when selling service to new customers. The ISP owns the network that the users are on, the fiber node that runs to their house/block/apartment building/whatever so why can't they filter the content on it? When you go to work and are at your workstation would you not get fired for watching porn on it? It's the same concept. Your employer owns the network you're using at work therefor they can filter the content you can see why you're at work. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand...

That's irrelevant, show me in the ToS where they say they will block content at will.

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, imreloadin said:

I'm pretty sure that is in every user agreement that current ISPs have when selling service to new customers. The ISP owns the network that the users are on, the fiber node that runs to their house/block/apartment building/whatever so why can't they filter the content on it? When you go to work and are at your workstation would you not get fired for watching porn on it? It's the same concept. Your employer owns the network you're using at work therefor they can filter the content you can see why you're at work. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand...

So it's fine for Cogent to block, filer or throttle access to websites when they are not your ISP and is a peer route provider for you ISP? Then it must also be fine for an airline to divert your priority parcel you paid extra money for to a slow flight that makes more stops and fails to get to you at the agreed delivery time period?

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, imreloadin said:

I'm pretty sure that is in every user agreement that current ISPs have when selling service to new customers. The ISP owns the network that the users are on, the fiber node that runs to their house/block/apartment building/whatever so why can't they filter the content on it? When you go to work and are at your workstation would you not get fired for watching porn on it? It's the same concept. Your employer owns the network you're using at work therefor they can filter the content you can see why you're at work. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand...

 

You have confused ownership with rights.  When you're at work your boss provides internet access so you can do your job.  When you are at home you pay your ISP to give you access to he internet.  See the difference. One is a work tool you have no right to misuse and the other is a private service you have paid exclusively for.  And that is before we even get into workplace law.

 

[CyanideInsanity]

4 hours ago, imreloadin said:

Yes...LTT can filter content on their site to what they see fit...so why can't ISPs do the same?

What nobody has explained to me is how it's ok for LTT to filter content on a website they own but ISPs aren't allowed to filter content that passes through infrastructure that they own. That is where the cognitive disconnect is for me. You seem to be someone who wants ISPs to not be able to do this so how is it justified for LTT to do it but not for ISPs when they both own the stuff?

As I said in a previous comment in this thread, on paper they can. But thats the thing, on paper doesn't include context. To give them the ability to block websites gives them the power to inhibit competitiors, but also stifle innovation. Not only do they raise a shitstorm any time there's another ISP trying to enter their 'turf' they also want to prevent increase in cable cutters. LTT could block mention of competing websites, but they can't stop you from accessing them. Verizon could easily block netflix, and they already have throttled the service into the ground in the past, making television or their own streaming service the only video content customers can use. 

[Clanscorpia]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 and the other is a private service you have paid exclusively for. 

This is the key thing many people are missing here. It is a private service. You have no right in the Constitution to have access to an ISP, as you said, its just a service. While I dont agree with ISPs limiting content at all, they are a private business supplying a private service that you pay for, something you dont have the right to.

[imreloadin]

1 minute ago, Clanscorpia said:

This is the key thing many people are missing here. It is a private service. You have no right in the Constitution to have access to an ISP, as you said, its just a service. While I dont agree with ISPs limiting content at all, they are a private business supplying a private service that you pay for, something you dont have the right to.

This is what I've been trying to say, how can a private company not be able to filter content like every other private company out there? Websites and forums everywhere are all like "It's muh platform I can make my own choices on what I allow or not". Why do ISPs not get that same prerogative?

[PocketNerd]

On a Technical level, he's not wrong... But pulling a Picard and saying "Make it so" is only going to destroy the Internet for all.

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, Robert Morgan said:

C'mon there, Mister Moderator. Television channels are content creators, content hosts and content deliverers, especially in this age of satellite radio and TV. 

Some are and some are not, in the context of TV most stop at the level of content hosts and are not delivers. There is the actual fine detail issue of how exactly the TV transmission actually gets to you end to end because it's no where near as simplistic as you might be thinking nor as independent closed loop to the TV service provider you are paying money to or the channel you are watching

 

A TV channel is nothing more than a website, a TV channel has multiple programs from many different creators or from themselves, that TV channel is provided to consumers from a content deliverer most often an entity not the TV channel.

 

Content deliveres should never be gatekeepers between the content hosts and the consumer, there of course can be certain ground rules but they need to be non discriminatory and universally applied. If a content host wants to self censor or not do business with someone that is up to them but that is not for the deliverer to decide, just like a postal service doesn't get to decide whether or not to deliver your letter unless they know doing so is a violation of a law.

 

The only thing that makes it so messy in the US is they have allowed such large singular entities to become all three of the mentioned things giving them control they should really not have, this is not really a thing outside of North America for both TV and internet which is why service quality is generally universally the same for everything whether it be bad or good it's the same for everyone.

 

 Point was there is a difference between the three things and different operating rules do and should apply to them even if a single entity is all three at once.

[SpencerC]

On 7/11/2018 at 5:07 AM, huilun02 said:

Making America great again

Making America Terrible Again

 

FTFY

[Stefan Payne]

11 hours ago, imreloadin said:

So LTT doesn't log/read/moderate any private messages sent between forum users then I take it?

You have a report button on Private MSGs as well.

And you also need it...

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, Clanscorpia said:

This is the key thing many people are missing here. It is a private service. You have no right in the Constitution to have access to an ISP, as you said, its just a service. While I dont agree with ISPs limiting content at all, they are a private business supplying a private service that you pay for, something you dont have the right to.

 

5 hours ago, imreloadin said:

This is what I've been trying to say, how can a private company not be able to filter content like every other private company out there? Websites and forums everywhere are all like "It's muh platform I can make my own choices on what I allow or not". Why do ISPs not get that same prerogative?

No you've missed the point, unless you can show where they state in their ToS that they will limit access to parts of the internet for their own gains (i.e not because of a government authorities order), then they must give you full access, that is what you paid for that is what is in the contract.   Failing to provide the service promised (in this case access to the internet and not just part of it) is tantamount to fraud. 

 

Honestly sometimes you guy's get so wound up in "the rights" of something that you totally overlook cases where genuine fraud and deception are being practiced.

[leadeater]

37 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Honestly sometimes you guy's get so wound up in "the rights" of something that you totally overlook cases where genuine fraud and deception are being practiced.

Also consumer protection comes above the rights of a business to turn a profit, or at least it does in our countries. Businesses can't just do what ever they want or make up rules to allow them to do it, even if there is something in the ToS of an ISP to allow filtering and blocking of certain websites it doesn't actually mean they are allowed to.

 

It doesn't matter how much, say Vodafone, wants to restrict your access to only their services or block competitors they can't do that, even if you are or are not a paying subscriber to that competing service.

 

ISPs are allowed to prioritize traffic, in a non discriminatory manor to the served content/data. In fact we as a paying customers can already pay for the unthinkable, a fast lane, i.e. a business plan or a plan with lower contention ratio however that applies to all the traffic not just some which is what the fast lane hub bub was about.

 

The private entity position doesn't work because the ISP can directly effect other non partnered or competing private entities businesses and I'm not aware of anything that allows that sort of thing. I know I can't hire a security guard to block people from going in to a mall that isn't coming to my store and I know another store owner isn't allowed to pay the mall owner to prevent customers from going to another store in the mall.

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

 the ISP can directly effect other non partnered or competing private entities businesses and I'm not aware of anything that allows that sort of thing.

Apparently the US government does. Aggressively so in some cases.