Libertarians make the case: net neutrality is unconstitutional

It's alway sad when there is "libertarians" wanting to preserve nothing more than corporate rights over people's rights using skewed interpretation of the (US) constitution.<p>And yes, I'm using libertarians with quote because a real libertarian would have thought a bit more than just "The constitution is the supreme rule!!!" and more about every right involved and how to maximize everyone liberty.

This reminds me of the "libertarian" argument that business owners should be allowed to choose not to serve black people.<p>Civil rights were something the government had to step in to protect. I think that net neutrality might be the same kind of thing.

We wouldn't accept any federal agency enforcing "Printing Press Neutrality", requiring the owners of printing presses to submit to government rulemaking about what pamphlets, periodicals, and books are printed on their presses. We would understand, instinctively, that having government involved in such matters is inviting the fox into the henhouse.<p>For some reason, with newer media, the simple principle of "no meddling in private communications/publishing" gets lost. So we have the FCC, censoring broadcast media, and used via licensing and ownership rules to extract 'favors' for the political classes. And we have people who are ostensibly in favor of free speech inviting this censorious, political-establishment-subservient agency into Internet regulation. No, thank you.<p>There's no need to tame the Internet to be safe and 'neutral'/neutered like regulated broadcast TV. It's working just fine without the FCC's enlightened approach, which historically has included set-asides for certain favored classes of programming [1], moral crusades, and other benefits for the politically-connected [2].<p>[1] <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2008/06/17/the-fccs-obsolete-quotas" rel="nofollow">http://reason.com/blog/2008/06/17/the-fccs-obsolete-quotas</a><p>[2] <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2008/06/12/the-central-committee-is-in-se" rel="nofollow">http://reason.com/archives/2008/06/12/the-central-committee-...</a>

My quick and dirty analogy:<p>Imagine a world where each street is owned by a company. Then they start deciding who is allowed to drive which road. People who pay for the premium package don't have to stop at red lights, and right of way. Freetards aren't allowed between 08am and 12am. Only bicycles with UEFI are permitted.

" Specifically, the groups say that compelling private companies to “speak,” by requiring them to carry all traffic across their networks, instead of allowing them to discriminate as they see fit, violates the principle of freedom of speech. "<p>As someone pointed out in the comments below the article, this seems like a path the ISPs <i>really</i> don't want to go down. If you equate all packets running through your network to your speech, then you're implicitly making yourself responsible for their contents. This is hardly in their best interests, considering the amount of pirated content, [everyone's favorite boogeyman] kiddy-porn, and God-knows-what-else running down their pipes every day.

The actual article (not the comment section) - <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/libertarians-make-the-case-net-neutrality-is-unconstitutional" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/libertarians-make...</a>

I read sometimes about how few choices you US people have when buying your Internet connection. Something about only a single ISP allowed by the city etc.<p>That would make your ISP the de facto government for your online activities. A government that is potentially very invasive, inspecting your every data package, limiting your access to certain sites and dictating what kind of content you can download at full speed.<p>How is that libertarian?

I propose a simple compromise in which ISPs can elect into one of two regulatory statuses:<p><i></i>Unregulated and unprotected<i></i> - The ISP is free to "curate" the content they deliver to customers as they see fit. However, customers may also hold the ISP responsible for their content, for example by initiating civil litigation if pornography is delivered.<p><i></i>Regulated and protected<i></i> - ISPs cannot be held legally responsible for the content they deliver, but they must deliver all content requested by customers, in accordance with published tiers of service and rate cards.

Just to play Devil's Advocate, this is what I'd imagine the average Libertarian response to this would be:<p>In a free market the consumers hold the power. An ISP that didn't restrict Internet usage or tier what it offered would become in-demand, and would profit and succeed more than the others. In other words, the market would correct itself towards those ISPs that espoused the principles of staying neutral. If that didn't happen, then net neutrality isn't a big enough concern to drive the average consumer's purchase.<p>It's a simplified generalization, but take from it what you will.

Why shouldn't the government, as the representative of the people, place constraints in its contract with the providers? There is nothing compelling them to provide service, rather than a different provider. It is unfair to call this a libertarian position: it is the position of some specific capitalist-anarchist-libertarians. Not all libertarians see the social contract as less valid than other sorts, nor do all libertarians believe freedom of business trumps the freedom of consumers.

Useful Idiots: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot</a>

If I say something in defense of libertarians, will I get down-voted and burn through karma? Experience says that the answer is yes.<p>What are the implications for the level and type of discussion here at HN?

I agree with Ted Stevens... <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE</a>