Of course, this isn't quite as cut and dried as either side would like it to be.
That's about the best way to say it, but even your coverage is slanted. This isn't necessarily about "messages they don't like", so much as it is about messages that could result in jail time.
Are there safe harbor provisions that protect wireless carriers from knowingly carrying illegal messages? Just because you and others call them "legal dispensaries" doesn't make it so.
Yes, they are legal under California law. However, the US Dept of Justice and the DEA consider them illegal. If you were a wireless operator, whose existence was regulated by the FCC, would you want to run afoul of the DOJ/DEA by allowing your network to be used to promote marijuana sales?
This has less to do with "messages they don't like" and more to do with messages promoting drug sales that are not undoubtedly legal.
That said, your argument falls apart when it comes to cable networks. Cable has never been government funded, and access to the rights of way was negotiated and paid for using private capital.
So you may be correct about the takings clause not applying to the old common carriers - who received guaranteed rate of return and access to rights of way. However, you're dead wrong when it comes to cable. Takings would most assuredly apply.
This was, to some extent, part of the reasoning behind Brand X. The government cannot force a company to be a common carrier.
If you end up, under your argument, forcing the telephone companies to operate under Title II, and cable under something else, then you end up exactly where you were before the FCC reclassified AT&T and Verizon.
[T]hose in the TV industry might want to look over to their friends in the telco industry. They used to scoff at the idea of cord cutters as well... and now 25% of all households have dumped their landlines entirely.
The trend in phones has always been toward smaller and more powerful. The trend in television has always been toward larger.
Yes, there will come a day when all TV is delivered is over broadband (wired or wireless), but the idea that we'll all be happy to take it on our 2 inch cell phones or 8 inch iPads is ridiculous.
We'll still want the 72 inch TV in the living room that our neighbors can see glowing through our very thin walls. As long as the market for high-value content on that device remains, there will always be a) protected content and b) a video industry. That will be the case regardless of delivery.
And just as AT&T and Verizon have moved toward wireless, but are still the biggest names in voice, I would suspect you'll be seeing Comcast for quite a while.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Michael Turk.
Not cut and dry...
That's about the best way to say it, but even your coverage is slanted. This isn't necessarily about "messages they don't like", so much as it is about messages that could result in jail time.
Are there safe harbor provisions that protect wireless carriers from knowingly carrying illegal messages? Just because you and others call them "legal dispensaries" doesn't make it so.
Yes, they are legal under California law. However, the US Dept of Justice and the DEA consider them illegal. If you were a wireless operator, whose existence was regulated by the FCC, would you want to run afoul of the DOJ/DEA by allowing your network to be used to promote marijuana sales?
This has less to do with "messages they don't like" and more to do with messages promoting drug sales that are not undoubtedly legal.
Cable and Rights of Way
Full disclosure, I used to work for NCTA.
That said, your argument falls apart when it comes to cable networks. Cable has never been government funded, and access to the rights of way was negotiated and paid for using private capital.
So you may be correct about the takings clause not applying to the old common carriers - who received guaranteed rate of return and access to rights of way. However, you're dead wrong when it comes to cable. Takings would most assuredly apply.
This was, to some extent, part of the reasoning behind Brand X. The government cannot force a company to be a common carrier.
If you end up, under your argument, forcing the telephone companies to operate under Title II, and cable under something else, then you end up exactly where you were before the FCC reclassified AT&T and Verizon.
You understand the difference between phone and TV, right?
The trend in phones has always been toward smaller and more powerful. The trend in television has always been toward larger.
Yes, there will come a day when all TV is delivered is over broadband (wired or wireless), but the idea that we'll all be happy to take it on our 2 inch cell phones or 8 inch iPads is ridiculous.
We'll still want the 72 inch TV in the living room that our neighbors can see glowing through our very thin walls. As long as the market for high-value content on that device remains, there will always be a) protected content and b) a video industry. That will be the case regardless of delivery.
And just as AT&T and Verizon have moved toward wireless, but are still the biggest names in voice, I would suspect you'll be seeing Comcast for quite a while.