The Internet is not a Channel Brett

Bret Kavanaugh Believes That ISPs Have a Right to Excercise Editorial Control Over the InternetI was disappointed to discover that supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was against network neutrality as I believe network neutrality is a vital part of ensuring a competitive marketplace that will continue to produce winners in the global marketplace but I was much more concerned when I read why.Mr Kavanaugh fervently believes that ISPs have a first amendment right to exercise editorial discretion over the global marketplace of ideas. This leads me to believe that he has fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the internet. The internet isn't a channel on tv its the gateway to all of our culture and communication. A packet is the lowest common denominator which everything from a phone call to your mother to a symphony is reduced to in order to be communicated over a dumb pipe between one person and another.When Kavanaugh writes that he sees no difference between allowing Verizon to deciding to transmit espn and espn.com he has further fundamentally misunderstood the situation. A network has a small and finite number of slots chosen by network execs and opting to fill a time slot with a given item affirmatively communicates something and compelling such speech would be wrong.The internet is a fundamentally different animal because the ISP is providing a medium for others to communicate 1 to 1 or 1 to many and by convention is a dumb pipe not a party to nor responsible for the the communication.This changing convention between a handful of old men in suits getting to decide what the nation watches and an open market of ideas is fundamental to our age and necessary for our progression as a species which is why we all fight so feverently for the internet to remain free.Perhaps 5 ISPS less by half a hundred people control access to most of the dumb pipes leading into our nations homes but these old guard must not and cannot contain or define our culture and I reject outright the notion that they have a right to exercise "editorial control" over our speech.People like Bret Kavanaugh who can't grasp the unsubtle difference between the gateway to all culture and communication and another channel on TV are fundamentally unsuitable to serve on the highest court in the land because his ignorance will serve as an barrier to the progress of our culture, our people, our nation, and our species.https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/9/17548612/trump-supreme-court-brett-kavanaugh-net-neutrality-surveillance"Additionally, Kavanaugh wrote, restricting the actions of internet service providers amounted to intruding on their “editorial discretion.” As a result, he argued, the net neutrality rule violated First Amendment protections. (The rules blocked ISPs from favoring certain kinds of internet traffic.) Despite Kavanaugh’s dissent, the court ruled against a petition for a re-hearing, supporting the FCC’s authority on the issue."https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/net-neutrality-rules-are-illegal-according-to-trumps-supreme-court-pick/"Internet service providers may not necessarily generate much content of their own, but they may decide what content they will transmit, just as cable operators decide what content they will transmit," Kavanaugh wrote. "Deciding whether and how to transmit ESPN and deciding whether and how to transmit ESPN.com are not meaningfully different for First Amendment purposes." via /r/technology https://ift.tt/2zoclsE