Commentators so far have not focused on the First Amendment arguments in the D.C. Circuit’s net neutrality opinion. Some of the challengers argued that the net neutrality rules violated their free speech rights by forcing them to transmit messages that they might not want to carry. As I wrote in a 2011 law review article, I think this is wrong: mere transmission of speech doesn’t implicate the First Amendment, for broadband providers or FedEx. A contrary argument means that Ma Bell, with the best lawyers money could buy, missed a winning constitutional argument against its telephone networks being treated as common carriers — they were transmitting speech! The key under Supreme Court jurisprudence is that a person or company is engaged in substantive communication beyond mere transmission. That is why the Supreme Court’s Turner Broadcasting v. FCC opinion emphasized the choice that cable companies make regarding which channels to air. If mere transmission were sufficient, then Turner wouldn’t have relied on the editing function as giving rise to First Amendment interests. As I noted in the article, if a broadband company decided to offer a curated Internet experience, then it would be engaging in speech.