Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Would somebody please help this poor fellow out?
Richard writes this comment on Internet: Freedom or Privilege:
Obviously you do not know what freedom of speech is. You have freedom of speech but this does not give you the right to infringe on the freedoms and right of others. Freedom of speech only applies to the government and not individuals. It applies to the relationship to government and the people; that the government can not prohibit political speech. Private individuals should have the right to set any policy of speech on their private property; thus since the internet, I.E. the pipes are private property the owner has every rights to set limitation at will.Maybe I don't know what Freedom of Speech is. Maybe the "pipes" are private property owned by the telcos. Maybe connecting to the Internet (or even making a phone call) is a privilege. What do the readers of isen.blog think?
# posted by Richard : 1/24/2006 2:49 PM
Technorati Tags: Constitution, Freedom
Comments:
There is no freestanding right to connect to a particular network over a particular wire, cable or slice of spectrum. In every case that I can think of, the right to do such a thing is based on a contract or some other form of consent by the owner of the network.
On the Internet, these contracts include everything from backbone interconnection agreements down to the terms of service that individuals agree to when they subscribe to a dialup or broadband service. Another form of consent is that given by the proprietor of a coffee shop to use their wireless router.
It makes sense to refer to a generalized right to access the Internet only when you have a publically owned network, or a privately owned network with which the public has contracted for such a right.
On the monopoly telephone network, the public basically contracted for a such rights (subject to tariff terms) by giving the phone company a monopoly along with the right to make a "reasonable" return. Since the public does not guarantee a monopoly to any Internet access provider, it will have to do something else if it wants to create a generalized right to Internet access.
The public may or may not decide to regulate some (or all) of the terms and conditions on which Internet access is provided. But such regulation would not create any generalized rights. At most it would affect the nature of the contract rights available to individuals.
On the Internet, these contracts include everything from backbone interconnection agreements down to the terms of service that individuals agree to when they subscribe to a dialup or broadband service. Another form of consent is that given by the proprietor of a coffee shop to use their wireless router.
It makes sense to refer to a generalized right to access the Internet only when you have a publically owned network, or a privately owned network with which the public has contracted for such a right.
On the monopoly telephone network, the public basically contracted for a such rights (subject to tariff terms) by giving the phone company a monopoly along with the right to make a "reasonable" return. Since the public does not guarantee a monopoly to any Internet access provider, it will have to do something else if it wants to create a generalized right to Internet access.
The public may or may not decide to regulate some (or all) of the terms and conditions on which Internet access is provided. But such regulation would not create any generalized rights. At most it would affect the nature of the contract rights available to individuals.
# posted by 
: 1/24/2006 3:43 PM
: 1/24/2006 3:43 PM
Bandwidth is an electro-magnetic property of the geosphere. As such, it is part of the public commons, a resource that belongs to the people to use freely for their own purposes.
Commercial entities and providers that rent transmission "pipes" to people to access the bandwidth that people already own cannot charge them unreasonable fees or interfere with what is being transmitted. They cannot slow down, limit, censor or prohibit any collateral content or service providers from using their pipes to access their customers. If they do, users must be free to create their own "pipe" providers through their own commerical entitites, municipalities, public/private partnerships, etc.
Interference with the exercise of the people's rights to unfettered and reasonably-priced access to bandwidth constitutes an unfair restraint of trade and commerce, which should be circumvented when need be by alternative fair-play providers and outlawed wherever possible.
Commercial entities and providers that rent transmission "pipes" to people to access the bandwidth that people already own cannot charge them unreasonable fees or interfere with what is being transmitted. They cannot slow down, limit, censor or prohibit any collateral content or service providers from using their pipes to access their customers. If they do, users must be free to create their own "pipe" providers through their own commerical entitites, municipalities, public/private partnerships, etc.
Interference with the exercise of the people's rights to unfettered and reasonably-priced access to bandwidth constitutes an unfair restraint of trade and commerce, which should be circumvented when need be by alternative fair-play providers and outlawed wherever possible.
If you read between the lines of the comment I suspect you will find someone whose ability to frame an extended thought is a bit limuited. He appears to have no idea that the internet is independent of its wires, that, in fact, you don't connect to it, but contribute to it and that nobody can contribute their pipes, private or otherwise to the internet unless they accept the agreement (http://www.worldofends.com/).
The voice I hear in this comment is one completely confused and rather fearful of the idea that there really is "Nobody in Control"
Its the voice of someone whose car is rolling down a steep hill and who has just realised that the brakes have gone.
The voice I hear in this comment is one completely confused and rather fearful of the idea that there really is "Nobody in Control"
Its the voice of someone whose car is rolling down a steep hill and who has just realised that the brakes have gone.
The difficulty in concept that you are running up against is the same one that libertarians have had to deal with when they talk about freedom and private roads. How can you have freedom if you have to pay to travel anywhere? I encourage you to read up on private provision of local roads at your local libertarian bookstore. The problem is not insurmountable.
Roads are generally considered to be a public good for the very obvious reason that it would be extremely difficult to have a competing set of local roads. And yet that same problem doesn't exist (at all) for local connectivity. You can run black cable, or silver cable, or orange cable, or unfettered light or radio waves, and all at the same time.
Roads are generally considered to be a public good for the very obvious reason that it would be extremely difficult to have a competing set of local roads. And yet that same problem doesn't exist (at all) for local connectivity. You can run black cable, or silver cable, or orange cable, or unfettered light or radio waves, and all at the same time.
Wow. If Richard is right, then we live in a far scarier world than I already thought.
However, I think he is wrong. But he is only wrong as long as most people disagree with him. I'm pretty sure that most people disagree with him. Because if he is right, then there isn't even really any free speech left to argue about.
Post a Comment
However, I think he is wrong. But he is only wrong as long as most people disagree with him. I'm pretty sure that most people disagree with him. Because if he is right, then there isn't even really any free speech left to argue about.
