> So you support the idea that Verizon and AT&T should be free to block whatever content they wish, correct?
Not necessarily. Apple is a non-monopoly making a judgement about their corner of a decentralised protocol. That’s quite different from an ISP, where many Americans have little or no choice. Particularly when said ISPs have often received lawful monopolies and government subsidies. Context matters. Finally, my ISP doesn’t have terms of use in respect of content; Apple does.
In my area, I have access to Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and many other smaller ISPs. Since there is no ISP monopoly in my area, should these ISPs be allowed to block content?
> Since there is no ISP monopoly in my area, should these ISPs be allowed to block content?
You cherry-picked one point. Taken together, Apple’s lack of monopoly status, terms of use and lack of an explicit history of subsidies and markets exclusively granted by fiat make the First Amendment less applicable to it than e.g. Verizon.
In the cases where customers dinged ISPs for throttling, it came down to the ISPs having marketed “Internet access,” not some convoluted expansion of the First Amendment to private actors.
I believe in encouraging a public forum for the exchange of ideas. But I also believe in private citizens’—including corporations’—rights to decide with what they’re associated. In this particular case, we have someone who serially relays emotionally-charged and unambiguously-false information to his viewers. Not going to defend him unless a government tries to shut him down.
Except Apple receives tons of subsidies.[1] Apple is much more of a monopoly than the ISPs in my local area. I can choose between Google or Apple. On the other hand, I can choose between Sprint, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Sonic, or T-Mobile.
> Apple is much more of a monopoly than the ISPs in my local area
The courts disagree. ISPs can be treated as public utilities by states, if they so choose. (New York's Public Service Commission just kicked an ISP out of the state [1].)
In any case, we are talking about specific products. Internet service with respect to ISPs; podcasting with respect to Apple. Apple does not have anything resembling a monopoly in podcasting.
No, because ISPs are natural monopolies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly). The government allows them to have a regional monopoly in exchange for investing in the infrastructure. As such, there’s no easy way for competition to happen. (You would have to invest in a new infrastructure. Notice how you never have two cable companies or two DSL companies unless it’s one company selling under two names). The reason net neutrality is a big deal is because ISPs want their cake and eat it too. They like the protections of a natural monopoly but they don’t like the regulations that comes with it.
So ISPs dictating what content is acceptable would be like your garbage collection company refusing to collect political flyers for an opposing party or something. Even though it’s not technically the government, I would see it as a government sponsored entity.
Now if you want something compariable, consider the bakery refusing to serve a gay couple. Even though I support gay rights, I agree there with the Supreme Court that a private entity should not be forced to endorse speech they do not agree with. And that would be what Apple is doing here.
The definition of an "internet service provider" is "a company that provides subscribers with access to the Internet". Almost every American has access to AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile for their mobile internet. Should these companies be allowed to block content?
Apple isn't a public utility. It does not maintain iTunes as a public service, nor does it have any sort of monopoly over podcast distribution. It would be very strange to regulate it as such. (To be clear, internet access is not regarded as a public utility in the US, although I think I lean heavily in that direction.)
I can switch my ISP from Verizon to AT&T or Comcast with a single phone call tomorrow. Apple is far more of a monopoly than the ISPs in my area. Should we regulate Apple as a public utility?
Because AT&T is DSL, Comcast is cable, and Verizon is Fiber. If you want the fastest internet, you really don’t have a choice. And telling people “you have a choice, just switch to something slower” is not the same as “you have a choice, download the podcast elsewhere” because in the second case you get the same quality (lol I said quality when referring to infowars but I digress) podcast.
In Atlanta At&T, Google and Comcast all offer fiber. I don't believe we have Verizon here.
Also, just because one company offers a faster connection than another does not make it a monopoly. Whatever company that sells the fastest production car does not automatically have a monopoly on supplying automobiles. Choosing an ISP is more complex than simply finding the fastest speed. Price and customer service come to mind immediately as very important. And if all the ISPs offer speeds that are above your needs, speed might not even be a major factor in your decision.
There are multiple service providers that provide similar internet download speeds (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile). In your view, would it be okay for these companies to restrict content?
Verizon, AT&T et al according to the US Supreme Court have the right to freedom of speech just as much as you do. So yes they are free to block whatever content they want.
And you have the right to not support them, campaign against them or build your own ISP. But your right to freedom of speech shouldn't stop others right to their freedom of speech.
Not necessarily. Apple is a non-monopoly making a judgement about their corner of a decentralised protocol. That’s quite different from an ISP, where many Americans have little or no choice. Particularly when said ISPs have often received lawful monopolies and government subsidies. Context matters. Finally, my ISP doesn’t have terms of use in respect of content; Apple does.