I think any interpretation of the 1996 act that would make the service you use to reach Facebook and Amazon via URLs in a browser a "telecommunications service" rather than an "information service" has to be revisionist. Congress had a pretty good idea what "telecommunications" were in 1996 (i.e., what Ma & the Baby Bells sold to nearly every American for decades), and IP-based protocols for information exchange were very much the opposite of what they had in mind. If you disagree, can you nominate a plausible "information service" that Congress was intending to regulate under that section of the act in 1996?
From the text of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:
(b) POLICY- It is the policy of the United States--
(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and
other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that
presently exists for the Internet and other interactive
computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3) to encourage the development of technologies which
maximize user control over what information is received by
individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and
other interactive computer services;
Congress knew about and was thinking about the internet. As for the distinction between information services and telecommunication services, here's the definition of an information service, from the bill:
(41) INFORMATION SERVICE- The term `information service' means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service.
The relationship between them is that an information service generates data, while a telecommunications provider moves data between two parties. So Facebook and Amazon are information services, while ISPs are telecommunication services.
Of course Congress knew about the internet. The whole purpose of the act was to create a new regulatory regime for internet services that wouldn't suffer from the legacy of Ma Bell, but also wouldn't allow telecom companies to rebrand traditional phone service in such a way as to escape longstanding access and service requirements. Hence the information/telecommunications distinction.
Facebook doesn't provide an information service, it's an endpoint of one.
(41) INFORMATION SERVICE- The term `information service'
means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring,
storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or
making available information via telecommunications, and
includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use of
any such capability for the management, control, or operation
of a telecommunications system or the management of a
telecommunications service.
Facebook stores, transforms, and makes available information, so it's an information service.
> Facebook doesn't provide an information service, it's an endpoint of one.
It provides information service at an endpoint of a telecommunication service.
To me this bill reads rather like an attempt at codification of the "smart endpoints, dumb transport" principle and decoupling of "content" from ISPs. Consider:
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that
presently exists for the Internet and other interactive
computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
If you know something about the history of this bill which contradicts this interpretation please elaborate.
You may not remember it, but back in 1996 there was something called "Moviefone". One used POTS to contact this service, via a phone number to obtain information about currently-running motion pictures. Did the fact that POTS was used to connect to an information service make POTS itself an information service? Of course not, so the same argument fails in the ISP case as well.
To be fair, TechCrunch and many others are mostly mad because this is coming from the Trump administration and it's cool to hate Trump if you live in the valley.
It doesn't take much to imagine if Obama was president and FCC did the same thing they'd write a different article.
The FCC under Obama reclassified the Internet as a title 2 common carrier, allowing the FCC to regulate ISPs as the infrastructure they are.
Trump appointed an old Verizon veteran who was already in the FCC when he took office with the pretty blatant instruction to reverse that decision and go further by fully authorizing ISPs to do paid prioritization of service.
That kills the Internet as it is, since if there is no competition ISPs will extort whomever they want and can, and anyone but the largest players (Facebook et al) won't have the money to pay them off to get access to users.
Early in the Obama administration, when he hadn't taken much of a position on NN and nominated (then-)suspected ISP opponent Wheeler to chair the FCC, I think you'd be right. But folks are informed enough on this issue now that even if the Democrats turned on NN, their base would oppose that stance.
Really it'd be hypocritical for them to support something they never previously supported just because of the president. The tech industry has been in favor of net neutrality for as long as it's been an issue i.e. far longer than the trump administration has been around.
A lot of people that voted for Obama, including me, were very disappointed that Wheeler headed the FCC and voiced the anger of essentially a lobbyist taking the reins.
We fought to inform people and comment to the FCC.
Then something amazing happened: Wheeler actually listened.
> A lot of people that voted for Obama, including me, were very disappointed that Wheeler headed the FCC and voiced the anger of essentially a lobbyist taking the reins.
Those people did not do a very good job researching Wheeler. His two telecom lobbying positions (head of main cable trade group, and then later head of main wireless trade group) were far in the past (over 30 years for cable), and were at times when those industries were the disruptive outsiders taking on the big entrenched near-monopolies to provide an alternative for consumers. Working for those industries at the time was being pro-consumer.
The obvious response to his comment on the Title I vs. Title II definitions is that he ignores the word "capability".
Of course ISPs offer a "capability" to do things like electronic publishing. I'm using that capability to do it right now! The word "capability" implies a handoff to third parties where the actual publishing occurs; it doesn't imply that ISPs offer publishing tools themselves.
As comments on this piece note, this question has already been tested at the Supreme Court, which has found it ambiguous enough to grant the FCC the discretion to classify ISPs under Title I or Title II, so this line of argument is not only specious but irrelevant. Net neutrality won't be saved on a technicality; it'll only be saved if enough people are convinced on the merits and make a big enough stink about it.
> Net neutrality won't be saved on a technicality; it'll only be saved if enough people are convinced on the merits and make a big enough stink about it.
Not to underplay the absolutely shitty stuff Pai is doing at the FCC, but I seriously hope this is a wake up call for other countries to stop relying on America to be the benevolent overseer of the internet.
America contributed enormously to the development of the internet as we know it today, but it's quite clear that American political interests are aligned against the consumer now. Couple this with the fact that you have countries like the UK who will likely heavily censor the internet should the conservatives win a majority (which seems likely) and I think we should all expect the global internet to change in the coming years.
China showed it's possible to censor the internet on a massive scale. America is about to show it's possible to sell out equality for money. UK will likely sell out privacy for "security"
The current model of internet governance is incompatible with freedom and privacy.
The way Techcrunch frames it the FCC's position is patently absurd: AT&T is then a restaurant because you use it to call for pizza delivery.
And to extend their logic: by routing the call via SS7, just as much as BGP, you aren't making an "endpoint to endpoint" connection but letting the network decide.
21 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 60.3 ms ] thread(41) INFORMATION SERVICE- The term `information service' means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service.
The relationship between them is that an information service generates data, while a telecommunications provider moves data between two parties. So Facebook and Amazon are information services, while ISPs are telecommunication services.
Facebook doesn't provide an information service, it's an endpoint of one.
(41) INFORMATION SERVICE- The term `information service' means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service.
Facebook stores, transforms, and makes available information, so it's an information service.
It provides information service at an endpoint of a telecommunication service.
To me this bill reads rather like an attempt at codification of the "smart endpoints, dumb transport" principle and decoupling of "content" from ISPs. Consider:
If you know something about the history of this bill which contradicts this interpretation please elaborate.It doesn't take much to imagine if Obama was president and FCC did the same thing they'd write a different article.
Trump appointed an old Verizon veteran who was already in the FCC when he took office with the pretty blatant instruction to reverse that decision and go further by fully authorizing ISPs to do paid prioritization of service.
That kills the Internet as it is, since if there is no competition ISPs will extort whomever they want and can, and anyone but the largest players (Facebook et al) won't have the money to pay them off to get access to users.
https://techcrunch.com/2011/12/22/over-40-internet-companies...
Really it'd be hypocritical for them to support something they never previously supported just because of the president. The tech industry has been in favor of net neutrality for as long as it's been an issue i.e. far longer than the trump administration has been around.
We fought to inform people and comment to the FCC.
Then something amazing happened: Wheeler actually listened.
Those people did not do a very good job researching Wheeler. His two telecom lobbying positions (head of main cable trade group, and then later head of main wireless trade group) were far in the past (over 30 years for cable), and were at times when those industries were the disruptive outsiders taking on the big entrenched near-monopolies to provide an alternative for consumers. Working for those industries at the time was being pro-consumer.
Of course ISPs offer a "capability" to do things like electronic publishing. I'm using that capability to do it right now! The word "capability" implies a handoff to third parties where the actual publishing occurs; it doesn't imply that ISPs offer publishing tools themselves.
As comments on this piece note, this question has already been tested at the Supreme Court, which has found it ambiguous enough to grant the FCC the discretion to classify ISPs under Title I or Title II, so this line of argument is not only specious but irrelevant. Net neutrality won't be saved on a technicality; it'll only be saved if enough people are convinced on the merits and make a big enough stink about it.
Not to underplay the absolutely shitty stuff Pai is doing at the FCC, but I seriously hope this is a wake up call for other countries to stop relying on America to be the benevolent overseer of the internet.
America contributed enormously to the development of the internet as we know it today, but it's quite clear that American political interests are aligned against the consumer now. Couple this with the fact that you have countries like the UK who will likely heavily censor the internet should the conservatives win a majority (which seems likely) and I think we should all expect the global internet to change in the coming years.
China showed it's possible to censor the internet on a massive scale. America is about to show it's possible to sell out equality for money. UK will likely sell out privacy for "security"
The current model of internet governance is incompatible with freedom and privacy.
And to extend their logic: by routing the call via SS7, just as much as BGP, you aren't making an "endpoint to endpoint" connection but letting the network decide.
What is wrong with these people?