Slashdot Mirror
Does Net Neutrality Violate the Fifth Amendment?
SonicSpike writes "A forthcoming paper from Boston College Law Professor Daniel Lyons offers an even stronger basis for challenge: The Fifth Amendment. Under Prof. Lyons's theory, net neutrality would run afoul of eminent domain. It would constitute a regulatory taking, requiring just compensation.
Under US Supreme Court precedent, any governmental regulation that results in 'permanent, physical occupation' of private property constitutes a per se taking. This is true even where the government itself is not doing the occupying. If the government grants access to other parties to freely traipse across private property, it's still a taking. In effect, the government has forced one party to give a permanent easement to another party, destroying the first's 'right to exclude.'"
If the government grants access to other parties to freely traipse across private property, it's still a taking. In effect, the government has forced one party to give a permanent easement to another party, destroying the first's "right to exclude."
The carriers already allow access to other parties. They just want to discriminate against some 'parties' which probably violates some other law, regulation and/or amendment.
No propery is being taken.
any governmental regulation that results in "permanent, physical occupation" of private property constitutes a per se taking
If so, then the speed limits on the highways constitute a per se taking. And I don't see how a regulation can be considered a "permanent, physical occupation". The laws against battery apply as much inside my own home as it does in a public place.
Free Martian Whores!
So any gov't regulation of, say, electrical power quality from private power utilities or water potability (drinking safety) for water companies constitutes a taking? Because minimum quality regulation (eg. that internet access is not arbitrarily limited on bandwidth to/from specific source addresses) seems like an equivalent and reasonable regulation.
People who accept this argument really believe that any kind of regulatory limitation by gov't on economic activity constitutes a taking. Taken to it's logical conclusion, enforcement of fraud laws constitutes a taking from my right to con people.
Even easier. The 5th amendment is still subject to the Interstate Commerce clause and nobody in their right mind can claim the Internet isn't integrated just about fully with interstate commerce these days.
Go anywhere NEAR the level of the Supreme Court and their response will be "5th amendment? Sorry, Interstate Commerce. Buh-bye now." Even the 9th Circus couldn't manage to mess that ruling up.
the website: openmarket.org
the conclusion: That's not smart policy -- jeopardizing taxpayer dollars for a scheme that was ill-conceived from the very beginning.
Why am I not surprised.
Somewhere along the line, "open markets" became an end unto themselves,
mostly through deregulation, instead of a means to create better competition.
And they make an entirely unconvincing argument about net neutrality
being equivalent to an easement on the service providers' property...
Property which itself could not exist without numerous easements on public and private land.
Hell, I have one of those large green easements in my front yard. And another for the power company.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
This sounds to me like a strong argument for a publicly-owned network infrastructure. If private companies have a constitutional right to screw with your data, then the only answer is create a municipal organization with legally instantiated regulatory oversight to ensure neutrality.
So many times the Internet has proven that you cannot build stable competitive markets on top of proprietary services (just look at Facebook, Apple, WoW, etc--what happens to all the add-on companies when the host company gets fickle or bankrupt?). In order for there to be a proper free-market in web-delivered services, the web itself has to be freely accessible and not subject to the whim of huge corporations.
Just think about the US highway system. Everyone is allowed to use it for whatever purposes they like, fees for using it are for the most part levied fairly and without favoring one member of the competition or the other. Now imagine if all the roads in the country were private toll roads. Which trucking company would come out ahead: the one with superior efficiency and service, or the one with back-room discounts granted by the toll companies?
Granted, this will not protect us from government meddling, but that's no different from the current system. There would simply be fewer layers in which to obfuscate the interference.
It is time for an open Internet, and that does not include for-profit companies with private property. The Swedish Pirate ISP is only an interim solution, but I am looking forward to seeing how it fairs.
Guess what the ISP's precious pipes run across? Oh, thats right, easements carved out of people's physical property by eminent domain.
The 5th amendment argument is cute, and maybe the professor will get a paper out of it; but "Oh no, not eminent domain!" is not an argument that the ISPs would be wise to start.
With the exception of bits and pieces of backbone, that may in fact be owned outright, the majority of an ISP, cable company, or telco's lines run across easements carved out of private property by eminent domain. Although they have been very effective at propagandizing to the contrary, the majority of their cabling(and basically all of the "last mile" that actuallly allows them to have customers) is permitted at the mere pleasure of the state, theoretically representing the interests and consent of the citizens.
Their "property" is founded entirely on 'state taking' by eminent domain. If they want to argue that they should be immune, they had better have an excellent reason why the millions of people whose property their wires cross should not. The ISPs have, rhetorically, been very effective at linking what they want with the value of "upholding private property"; but their very existence is, in fact, predicated on the systematic expropriation of private property on a massive scale.
Given the relative political influences involved, this would never happen; but a real upholding of the Fifth amendment would be to reverse the ISPs' easements, and tell them that they have a week to either agree to our terms or remove their equipment.
Hell, it'd be one of the few claims of authority under the IC clause that's actually legit.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
They retain the right to exclude... they don't have to use their circuits or equipment for internet connectivity. They don't have to sell any service at all to any customer, let-alone internet services.
The internet is not the property of an isP. There is no "right to exclude" individual internet services and still call it internet.
It is more of a "truth in advertising thing" If you advertise an internet connection, then provide full internet connectivity and don't tamper with disable or break specific internet services, otherwise you are lying.
This is like saying the FCC rules that regulate phone companies, and prevent them from participating in discriminatory practices such as blocking calls to competitors deprive telcos of their property rights.
Or that the regulations requiring telcos to let you plug in a Carter Fone, computer modem, or other equipment not provided by the telco, deprive them of their 5th amendment rights.
Most Slashdot articles which have a title that is a question can be answered "no".
Does Net Neutrality Violate the Fifth Amendment? No.
Is StarCraft II Killing Graphics Cards? No.
Should Professors Be Required To Teach With Tech? No.
Etc.
Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
If you have only one broadband provider, then even if they are brutally honest about how they mess with your traffic, then most people are still going to use that.
Sayeth the pot to the kettle.
You would be talking about Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). The case related to the fifth amendment, but it didn't bring in the interstate commerce clause. Why would it? It was about a city exercising the power of eminent domain under the authority of a state statute. No federal laws were at issue. Instead, the issue was whether the city's exercise of emininent domain power legitimately qualified as a "public use" even though the city was not going to use the condemed property itself:
You are right that the interstate commerce clause has incredibly broad scope. But, Kelo isn't the best case to refer to in discussing its power (except, perhaps, in discussing supreme court judicial philosophy about deferring to legislative processes in defining certain constitutional boundaries of protection).
It's a cute theory but if it were true then the Federal government would lack the authority to regulate virtually all business activity from, "You can't tell me I can't build a trash dump here" to "You can't tell me I'm not allowed to sell this grade-B beef as hamburgers." The Feds obviously don't lack that authority (at least where it pertains to interstate commerce), hence the theory is wrong.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
I fail to see how the Commerce Clause trumps the Bill of Rights. Isn't the whole point of the Bill of Rights to list out things that the government can't do, even if the Constitution would otherwise allow it. You're acting like it's the other way around. As an example, that's like saying the government can arrest you for complaining about Walmart because the Commerce Clause trumps the First Amendment.
All property rights come from the government.
What country are you from? In the US people have natural rights, the government can only restrict those rights based on the Constitution. No rights "come from" the government.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
It's all about double-dipping for the same content. They want to charge home users per-byte for content travelling across their network - and ALSO charge 'popular' content providers a fee at the OTHER end of the pipe so their content will be admitted to go to the customer in the first place.
It's simple why, though. They see companies like google making money hand over fist by providing popular services; and despite them getting paid once by the end-user to transmit that data, they don't feel that their fees for bit-shifting are giving them enough profit - they want some of google's profit too, because hey, they're the middle man, and why shouldn't they get to charge both parties for the same transmission and get paid twice?
If net neutrality meant that they weren't going to get paid by *either* party, then yes, they might have a point about being required to carry the traffic anyway. Being 'forced' to carry the content their customers have already paid to have delivered? How the hell is making them live up to their side of the contract without pulling a mafia 'nice website, be a shame if anything happened to your customer base' unconstitutional?
Still; in the UK, the sender pays for phone calls, texts, MMS, etc, it's always free to receive. In the US, I understand both sender and receiver are charged for calls and texts on mobiles? So maybe there's a precedent for your telecoms providers double dipping.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
I think the government forced me to allow the telco to run wires across MY property. Oh wait, not only that, they gave the telco most of the land for the original deployment of the phone system. So eminent domain does apply here - the network was originally built for "public use" and arbitrary restrictions should not be allowed.
I'm pretty sure that the content-providers, like Google, still have to pay their ISP for connectivity to the internet on their end. This is even more transparent greed than you imply. It's not just charging the sender and receiver. Its charging the sender and receiver and then the sender again.
I pay my ISP for access to the internet. JimBob's RibShack pays its ISP for access to the internet. Google pays its ISP for access to the internet.
I have a homepage where people can see my resume allowing me to get work that makes 5 figures a year. JimBob's RibShack has a website with their menu and phone number, helping them make 6 or 7 figures a year. Google has a website that they sell ad revenue to and it makes something like 11 figures per year.
Suddenly my ISP and JimBob's ISP both want Google to pay them extra money, cause...hey...Google's making money.