Slashdot Mirror
FCC Struggles To Convince Judge That Broadband Isn't 'Telecommunications' (arstechnica.com)
A Federal Communications Commission lawyer faced a skeptical panel of judges on Friday as the FCC defended its repeal of net neutrality rules and deregulation of the broadband industry. From a report: FCC General Counsel Thomas Johnson struggled to explain why broadband shouldn't be considered a telecommunications service, and struggled to explain the FCC's failure to protect public safety agencies from Internet providers blocking or slowing down content. Oral arguments were held on Friday in the case, which is being decided by a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Throttling of firefighters' data plans played a major role in today's oral arguments.
Of the three judges, Circuit Judge Patricia Millett expressed the most skepticism of Johnson's arguments, repeatedly challenging the FCC's definition of broadband and its disregard for arguments made by public safety agencies. She also questioned the FCC's claim that the net neutrality rules harmed broadband investment. Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins also expressed some skepticism of FCC arguments, while Senior Circuit Judge Stephen Williams seemed more amenable to FCC arguments.
Of the three judges, Circuit Judge Patricia Millett expressed the most skepticism of Johnson's arguments, repeatedly challenging the FCC's definition of broadband and its disregard for arguments made by public safety agencies. She also questioned the FCC's claim that the net neutrality rules harmed broadband investment. Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins also expressed some skepticism of FCC arguments, while Senior Circuit Judge Stephen Williams seemed more amenable to FCC arguments.
FCC should stick to regulating the very finite radio spectrum as common property. Broadband is essentially unlimited, need to hook up another city? Bury some more cable. It should be telling that when the FCC was initially created, it wasn't created to regulate telegraphs.
The FCC should definitely get out of the business of regulating the content of the airwaves and Internet. Dancing around the 1st Amendment ought to be way outside of their purview.
If a regulatory organization needs to be created to manage the market of Internet service providers, that's certainly something that can be considered separate from what powers the FCC tried to grab. Just because it has the word "communication" in its name, does not mean it is authorized to regulate all forms of communication. Why not have them regulate letters and print, that's communication too? You have to be very careful not to fall into the trap of deriving too much from a name.
Ajit Pai needs to be replaced. Does he know what voice over IP is? That's not a category of telecommunications? Does Pai know what Whatsapp and Skype do?
At one time, we used analog modems at 300 baud over a copper land line. That was telecommunications. Now we use fiber optic cable and much faster digital modems. That's telecommunications using a 7 layer stack.
Hello, Mr. Pai. Maybe people on the other side of the world use smoke signals. Not here. Get with the times.
"Just pass a law" is a lot tougher than "random employee of major telcom makes a decision while taking a poop". We need strict government regulation of Internet connections ASAP. The "free market" doesn't work in this case.
I don't respond to AC's.
I'm not a fan of the federal government exercising any authority not granted to them in the constitution, but regulating telecommunications to ensure fair interstate commerce seems to be constitutionally sound.
The FCC should regulate frequency and power of wireless communications and ensure that telecom services do not discriminate based on content, origin or destination.
The FCC should not do any more than that.
It is time for a hero like Elon Musk to use 1000's of Satellites to give free WiFi to the world.
"Just pass a law" is a lot tougher than "random employee of major telcom makes a decision while taking a poop".
Sometimes the needful is hard. We need a law because anything less is trivial to change, and fuck us over again.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
VOIP services use the Internet to make phone calls. This should be the only argument that is needed to shoot down Pai's FCC lies. However, there is too much money being fed into the government bodies, via lobby money to "campaigns". by ISP's that direct their puppets to only help the ISP's. It's a shame that the US is so damn corrupt. There was a time when regulators actually worked to help Americans improve their lives and the nation to better itself. Thanks to corporations being "people", and lobbying (buying support) to work against the public instead of for it, we're sliding downhill as a nation. Make America Free From Excessive Corporate Greed Again.
the Internet ran over Dial-up phones (telecom) and now phones run over the internet. And I'm communicating with you at a distance electronically. Tele-com.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
The existence of air and water are enough to imply the FCC is lying these days. They went from misguided and ineffective to blatantly malignant. Sounds like it's time to drain the swamp.
This is why the Republicans win time and again. They fight to win. While you're busy debating whether the existing laws allow for Net Neutrality they're busy taking over state legislatures so they can gerrymander and keep your pro-NN law from passing.
The existing laws are there, use them. You just need to vote for people who will enforce them. Fight to win or get ready to lose... everything.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
AC Past federal rules did not allow for much freedom for community broadband and new innovative ISP services.
More new political NN laws to replace past NN rules could result in the same monopoly networks getting more protection from any new competition under new federal laws.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
how many handsets
Two. iOS and Android devices. A duopoly isn't much better than a monopoly.
Competing in mobile requires the purchase of spectrum and building cell towers on a few select sites. Competing in broadband has huge right-of-way and construction costs associated with it. The spectrum is sold by the Federal government. The hard-line side of things is controlled by every individual municipality out there (along with right of ways along interstates or other routes for the fiber connecting you to the big players. And really, even in mobile there aren't that many competitors in many markets because of right of ways to construct cell towers and spectrum issues. Bandwidth is higher today. But bandwidth is higher in general for most customers only because the cable companies were able to run internet over cable. That's the only reason that is relevant to most people in the country. You aren't having to lease your own T1 for a measly 1.5 Mbps (compared to dialup) and in a lot of places the modern day equivalent to dial up that the phone companies offer isn't that much faster than dialup was. Once you start running internet over a cable system, you're at the mercy of the cable system for what they decide to upgrade in order to offer anything faster or whether they even want to serve an area. Our company is on the other side of the street from where cable is run. It has been a struggle to even get the local cable company to come and look at putting a connection over to any of our buildings on the block we are situated on (and we even have conduits running under the two of the facing streets. Comparing mobile to broadband is silly. It's like saying look at all the switch manufacturers we have (handsets)... Everything must be cool.
Never smoked anything heavy (or light for that matter).
Competition? In 10 years we've gone from 5 major cellular providers in the US to 4 (soon to be 3 since the Sprint and Verizon merger has been approved). If the government hadn't prevented one other merger, it would likely be 2.
If, a phone service provider company, notices/informed, that some people/company scamming all their customers, or, abusing their service in any way, should, the phone service provider company, be able to do absolutely nothing to stop it, because all phone traffic must be always absolutely treated equal?
That's how it works today. Phone companies don't do squat to stop callers from spoofing other numbers.
How about, if, an Internet service provider company, notices/informed, that some people/company scamming all their customers?
Who defines what is and is not a scam? Some televangelist collecting donations online, purportedly to do charitable work. But that work ends up being another business jet for himself. Should my ISP be auditing the balance sheets of its customers? ISPs have terms of service to stop some of the more abusive uses of its network. Like sending out too many e-mails in a short time. But if that is your (legitimate) line of business, there is nothing about NN that prevents them from selling 'commercial grade' accounts that allow such use. Just as long as the terms are the same for all customers of that class.
Have gnu, will travel.
The title would have you believe the FCC says internet service isn't telecom. The argument is that internet service is more than telecom.
Telecom: Short for telecommunications
Tele: to or at a distance, "from afar"
Communications: Communications
Internet service == Telecom
Removing the NN rules means we can have ISP provided, network level pi-holes to block ads now.
Yeah, that's right, your ISP is going to route all traffic through a raspi.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
IMHO, net neutrality (always treating all internet traffic equal), sounds like obvious common sense, at first, but, is it really so?
Is all phone traffic is really equal, for example?
Yers. Just like it's been for about 100 (plus or minus a few) years.
If, a phone service provider company, notices/informed, that some people/company scamming all their customers, or, abusing their service in any way, should, the phone service provider company, be able to do absolutely nothing to stop it, because all phone traffic must be always absolutely treated equal?
Yes. Scammers get treated like they have always been: Catch'em and nail'em.
How about, if, an Internet service provider company, notices/informed, that some people/company scamming all their customers?
Due process. Well understood. ISPs are not, and should not be, enforcement agencies. Inform relevant agencies, then let due process take its course.
What if somebody using their internet service to run a ransomware system, or, a botnet to attack any targeted websites?
Due process, catch and prosecute anyone scamming people just like always.
What if somebody using their internet service to run any kind of DARK WEB websites to sell drugs etc?
What if somebody using their internet service to let people download any/all kind(s) of illegal video/files?
Catch thieves, nail'em.
Should, the Internet service provider company, be able to do absolutely nothing to stop it, (to protect their customers & to serve common good of the public), because all Internet traffic must be always absolutely treated equal?
(But, one may think, what if a phone/internet service provider company itself is doing anything illegal?
Catch thieves, nail'em.
On the topic of "absolutely equal always equal" is a willfully bogus "argument": ISPs have ALWAYS been able to charge for bandwidth. More BPS, more dollars. You know that, and your use of this "argument" is either trolling or shilling.
Then realize that, all phone/internet service provider companies are always under close watch by their customers & government, already!)
That would be a good idea, but is currently inadequately policed.
Generally speaking, this society needs to get over the whole "...with a computer" trick. Stealing with a computer or comms is different from stealing with a getaway car, and clearly enforcement needs updated forensic methods and tools. Anyone fucking over someone else illegally should be caught and nailed under the auspices of law enforcement agencies, and always under the rules of due process.
Yes, especially when the choice is laws or Madmax, because that's what you get without laws.
That's not true. Agencies cannot change regulations for ideological reasons alone - they need to provide some justification. That's why Scott Pruitt was so incompetent at the EPA... he overturned a bunch of rules but with no legal basis. That's why they're being fought over in court.
Also, the FCC is always 3-2 politically (by law).
Your ad here. Ask me how!
So, you used to be in favor of NN, then you weren't to get feature X. But, feature X cannot technically exist. And you're still against NN for that reason. To say nothing of NN "enabling" X, but it was never going to happen, just like legalizing murder could just be used to kill criminals who get off on technicalities, but it won't happen that way.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Telecom's classic definition is phone service.
It's classic function is for spreading gossip, but yes, the internet pipe should be just as dumb as POTS. Now, imagine having to call an IPv6 address on a rotary phone.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Let's not have any laws then.
Honestly, I can get pretty pissy about government overreach, but this isn't that.
The war on drugs was doomed to failure from inception because they were trying to legislate a morality that most Americans are ambivalent about or are actively in disagreement with. Over half of all Americans are (or were willing to be temporarily) on the illegal side of that war: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publ...
Consequently, the LEAs wound up in a game of whack-a-mole, where they arrest a dealer and a new one pops up in his place before he gets arraigned. And, as an ex-con, I'm here to tell you that they are good at arresting dealers. I met a lot of drug dealers inside. Of course, for a lot of cops, this is just job security, so they don't really mind.
NN is different because the number of offenders is vastly smaller and the violations are exponentially harder to hide (this is the problem with crimes that actually have victims). Additionally, because the network operators' money is actually already in the banking system, they have much more to lose.
As to whether we fare better behind NN regulation or NN law, I don't know. Legislation is probably less prone to abuse, but it is also much slower to respond to changing market conditions.
"...to shoot down Ajit Paid's FCC lies."
FTFY and probably answered a few why's from people.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
More dangerous by far is the fact that webkit is becoming a monoculture and Google is talking about removing the api that lets ublock origin work ... MS is ditching one of the few competitors to it (chrome, chromium, Vivaldi, Safari and others all use webkit).
Adblock will still work, because they're going to let it work. Why? Because they can pay to whitelist themselves on it. Along with anyone else with the bucks, and we're back to malware distribution via ads again.
While more secure DNS might make pihole not work, the pushback is to not allow anything BUT the one URL you surfed to serve anything at all to you. Drastic, like noscript, but if people do that - websites will clean up very quickly, and start vetting any internal ad content because then they will be liable - and easy to prove it - (let the lawyers do some good for a change) if they infect your stuff...
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
I think most definitions of NN don't prohibit true QOS-based prioritization. NN is aimed at participant-based prioritization, which is all about market plays. QOS management is not a market play. Selling fast lanes to content providers and providing free prioritization or free bandwidth to in-house or partnered content providers are market plays (both potentially immensely profitable.)
Where and when do you believe the free market has been tried in last-mile broadband?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
but it is 100's and 100's of pages of legal speak(confused, conflicting, legalistic gobbly gook).
;)
If Net Neutrality is
- peek in to the packets you loose your common carrier liability protections.
- don't peek in to the packets you keep your common carrier liability protections.
I am all for that definition of Net Neutrality
But the government/businesses and activist are in the courts arguing about certain little things in the 100's and 100's of pages of crap. And who gets what and who pays who!! On both sides!!
And most things that come out of our courts today are rarely good for the people! Because it is a bunch of unethical lawyers and judges who are ideological/paid off arguing their causes or to get their clients, someone else's money.
If Net Neutrality is not the simple definition I stated above. I want the governments slimy fingers as far away from the internet as possible. Would things get bad? Yes, but eventually the individuals, businesses and the market would figure out what people are willing to buy.
Just my 2 cents
Johnson said that broadband is an information service because Internet providers offer DNS (Domain Name System) services and caching as part of the broadband package. DNS and caching "are determinative here" because they allow broadband users to perform all the functions listed in the definition of an information service (e.g. acquiring, storing, and processing information), he argued.
I really hope the judges are learned in the technology. Using the ISP's DNS is obviously not a requirement, nor is using their caching. Using either of these technologies is not integral to the passing of bits from one IP to the other. What a shit argument. If anything, one could argue that the indirect use of the ISP's routing tables are some form of information service, but they aren't typically directly queried by your home/business broadband connection.
ERROR: SIG NOT FOUND (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?:
Really? Neither the dictionary nor the Telecommunications Act have such a narrow defintion:
The language of the law clearly ends with internet service being an information service just as the bipartisan legislation dictated that the US government would take a light touch approach to regulating our internet access.
There should be no struggle here. The FCC's Open Internet Order was clearly in violation of the text of the law, and it's on the right side of the statute in fixing that error today.
Outlets like Ars Technica and Slashdot could do a better job of representing the stakes in this controversy. If we need to update the laws then we can push our representatives to do so, but to push the FCC to ignore the clear requirements of the law is the wrong way to go.
At the very least self-consistency should be demanded. Right now we have a definition of "information service" which depends on "telecommunications services" to facilitate providing the information service. By definition an information service cannot exist without telecommunications service to facilitate it.
This begs question where is the telecommunications service required to support "information service"? If you blanket assert ISPs are information services then your argument fails self-consistency.
Internet is layered sufficiently to clearly separate providing access to IP network from servers (NNTP, Gopher, WAIS, CHARGEN, WAP..etc) that offer information services over IP.
Saying an ISP can't offer both information and telecommunications services is like saying a movie theatre can't charge for admission to a movie and popcorn.
Arguing ISPs are information services because they have DNS servers is like arguing the business of movie theatres is selling popcorn not film viewing.
I personally would rather not see Title II applied to broadband or anything else.
Much better off with clean NN or meaningful legislation which actually encourages competition instead of FCC using its power to shield large providers from the burden of having to compete.
Unfortunately, over the last several decades congress has allowed the executive branch to acquire more power with less oversight. If congress and the president are from the same party, then congress is extremely reluctant to say no, but worse they also have a tendency to hand over extra powers under the mistaken idea that their party will never lose power.
Yes, technically congress has similar powers as the executive it's just that they don't use it much. Voters often don't care because they seem to often think that the president should be authoritarian, as it's the only office they bother to vote for.
For balance, the judges seemed skeptical that the issue wasn't already settled with the 2005 'Brand X' case, where a Supreme Court ruled that cable modem service was an 'information service'. It's possible they'll contradict that decision or say it doesn't apply, but that seems less than clear.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
The agencies do not have legislative power, and yet presidents campaign as if they do because they make promises that technically can't be kept without either assistance or non-action by congress and the courts. None of these agencies would ever have existed without congressional action in the first place, and their mission is usually spelled out in law. Of course elections have become nothing more than popularity contests based upon good versus evil rhetoric rather than campaigns based on actually governing.
Why didn't she do it when Democrats were in control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency?
Because the Republicans filibustered everything almost never let anything come to the floor for a vote.
They hated Obama with a passion that went beyond rational thought and fucktards like Mitch McConnell were willing to wreck the legislative process in order to frustrate anything he did.
Mitch McConnell is a genuine impediment to democracy- his bushwacking of the Merrick Garland appointment (for example) is a clear demonstration that he's using his power as a sword instead of a shield.
From Mitch's own mouth: "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.'"
Is that how government is supposed to work?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Laws are government force enforced with violence.
Is this what you really want?
Yes, that is what I want.
Some entity MUST be the "ultimate authority" and have a monopoly on the use of force. That's the way governments work unless you're a libertarian living in la-la land.
Would you rather that your heavily-armed, meth-smoking neighbor to be the decider of who gets to do what?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
A lot of crap happened since 2008 that made it important.
Columbus, OH, kind of. We have two providers (Spectrum & WOW) both with their own set of wires. We'll never get more than two, though. It's not worth it to build out the infrastructure and convince people to switch.
High time for Trump's executive branch to apply Andrew Jackson's words: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."
I......don't think that was a great example of what a president should do.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Erm, no. Telecommunications = tele (far) + communication (sending & receiving messages). That's pretty much what the internet does. It's a telecommunications system & everybody knows it. It's only the corporate lobbyists & lawyers who are trying to argue otherwise, & they have a clear conflict of interest.
The "free market" doesn't work in this case.
You mean, "We don't have a free market in this case". Telcos exploit government regulation to prevent competition. If you and I could just switch ISPs on a whim there would be no need for regulation, except perhaps to protect whistleblowers from corporate retaliation.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Yes, it is. Consider though, the corporations that would be regulated only exist because that same government granted their charter. If government butts out entirely, they cease to exist and their limited liability becomes full personal liability. Sound good?
Is that how government is supposed to work?
No, it's really not, and those of us who don't live in the US are a bit worried how you guys have sunk so low so fast.
At some point one of your political parties decided that winning was more important than anything else, and stopped governing in a responsible manner.
They are supported by a bunch of fools like the A/C above, who think that:
High time for Trump's executive branch to apply Andrew Jackson's words: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.
is a reasonable way to run a country.
I don't think you can argue with someone who claims to believe the old "violently imposed monopoly" nonsense.
They are a libertarian, and so they believe in magic.
A dedicated network for public safety use only is currently being built because they know that they're going to need it if everyone can hog as much bandwidth as they want.
Kid, you don't even know what troll means. The above is the honest truth, which you appear to be afraid of. Run along and let the adults moderate.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You donâ(TM)t know what youâ(TM)re talking about. Chromium (Chrome, Opera, and soon Edge) uses Blink which forked from WebKit almost 6 years ago.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
At some point one of your political parties decided that winning was more important than anything else, and stopped governing in a responsible manner.
Exactly. In the 1960s the Republicans adopted what was called the "Southern Strategy", which "refers to a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans."
Basically the GOP, primarily composed of racist goobers who wanted to live in 1863 rather than 1963, threw in their lot with older white men and religious people, both of whom were on average much more racist than the rest of the country. They hitched their wagon to a dimming star as America inevitably became (becomes) more racially diverse. "Segregation now, segregation forever!" was one of their rallying cries. (Look up "Governor George Wallace" for an example.)
Except their target audience was literally dying off and not being replaced, and the GOP became more and more desperate to hold on to whatever was left of a shrinking base.
Eventually they realized that counting on just white men to vote in sufficient numbers was a losing game- they were going to be a minority as the country matured...and so they threw out their morals, ethics, sense of fair play, and honesty because that was literally the only way they could remain in the game. "Cheat cheat cheat" was the name of the game. Voter suppression and gerrymandering are the province of the GOP/Republicans, and while it occurs on the left, it's a fraction of what occurs on the right. This is a fucking fact although I'm sure many here will dispute it.
So to boil it down, the entire country swerved out from under them, moving toward the left, while at the same time the GOP was veering madly to the right. It's why they're so out of touch with the average American. The GOP became irrelevant in the 1970s and early 80s and have remained so ever since. They've become "The Party of No" because that's about all that they know how to do anymore.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Is someone paying anti-NN trolls to mod down comments here, or what?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
They are a libertarian, and so they believe in magic.
And they can't even agree on a definition of "magic".
Poll 500 libertarians and you'll get 500 definitions of what a "libertarian" is.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
The law should state that state and municipalities should be legally allowed to provide cable/internet connections. These institutions control the barriers to entry, so if Comcast et al. act like the price gouging asses that they are, then they'll be out priced by municipalities.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Why do you hate toilets so much? Do you need some stronger medicine?
This is a young country, but it's not THAT young. The classic definition is long-distance communication.
The Constitution of 1776 put all the known channels of telecommunication (post offices, post roads, and navigable waterways) firmly in federal control, so that states and local for-profit enterprises couldn't interfere.
The office of Postmaster General pre-dates those of Chief Justice, President, Senator, and Representative. Communication was too important, back then, to be delayed; it still is.
Be careful to make sure you don't just feel that way because you don't like "the other side" - there's plenty of dirty pool being played by both parties.
Remember that McConnell was able to partially justify that horse shit behind a floor speech made by the Chairman of the Judicial Committee in 1992 - one Senator Joseph Biden from Connecticut.
Remember that the Constitution requires "advise and consent" of the Senate for bench appointments, which was technically fulfilled - the Majority Leader advised that the seat would remain open until after the election, and the Judicial committee did not give their consent.
Was it dirty political hackery? You bet. But the Democrats would have done (and basically did) the exact same thing, and you know it. No, that doesn't excuse it; it's just the world we live in, and have for quite some time. See: John Adams and the "midnight appointments" for examples going back to the very beginning of the Republic.
Stop acting like it's "the other guys" who are the problem, because it's your guys too.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
If he said that to Andrew Jackson, he'd have dragged his butt out back to the Rose Garden, pistols at 20 paces.
Justice done.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
Um. I don't think you understand how to read laws or how they are applied if you reference a "purpose" to understand a definition. Nothing in that first section is a definition that will be used by the courts, regulators, or lawyers to understand the term "telecommunications". "Communication by wire and radio" doesn't tell you how or what. That first section is a statement of purpose. What is the intent of this law. If you notice in court proceedings they will muse about what the legislature was thinking and what their intent was with a law. It's better to publish that as part of the law to limit the courts interpretative power.
Going to the definitions section from your link with the updated version (1934 with 1996 changes).
Sec. 3.43:
(43) TELECOMMUNICATIONS.--The term ''telecommunications'' means the transmission,between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.
That is much more than just "communication by radio or wire". Particularly, the "without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.". In laymen terms, broadcast (but broadcasting only applies to radio in the definitions).
However, just understanding the term telecommunications isn't the full story because, as we know, telecommunications are regulated by different subsections depending on their classification. With regards to NN and the idea to use "title 2" and "common carriers". The part that tickles the jimmies are Title 2 Sec 202.a
It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations,facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.
See no throttling. (which if they can't treat anyone differently would that mean that they couldn't give the Fire Fighters in the article a "free upgrade" during an emergency? I am sure there are exceptions for emergency though I just haven't seen it.)
Now, before anyone says "The law is clear! ISPs are telecommunication service providers and they must be regulated under Title 2!!". Internet Service Providers are not defined in the law. How they are classified is through the FCC and the courts and it's an argument going back and forth over whether they are "telecommunication service providers" or "Information service providers" and that is sometimes depends on how an ISP operates. Remember, Obama NN treated satellite ISPs different than DSL which were treated different than Cable ISPs. There have been multiple back and forth court opinions and FCC challenges that is the fundamental argument of why the law needs to change at the very least to define an ISP so the FCC can't change it's mind and the courts have a solid language to fall back on for their opinions. I can't be bothered to look up those court opinions and challenges right now, sorry. For reference, an information service definition.
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 internet doesn't work by broadcast as every one here should understand the OSI model. ISPs are more than just a broadcast across a wire or radio wave. ISPs do many of those things listed in the definition of an information service.
I haven't listened to the linked 4 hour oral arguments ( I plan to ) and maybe they are making a different argument but please don't quote a purpose in trying to understand a legal definition.
have a monopoly on the use of force
The government has a monopoly on premeditated force. I can act with legal force for defense as an example.
I find it incredibly sad we live in a world where lobbyists have to be told what "tele" and "communication" mean.
FTFY
I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
The problem is that the lawyers arguing the case clearly don't have a clue. They're letting the FCC play word games with terms like "broadband".
The argument here is ACTUALLY ABOUT "is providing internet access a telecommunications service".
The FCC argument that it is NOT (because DNS, and WebPages are Information Services) is specious because THOSE THINGS are NOT part of "providing internet access".
Yes they are (almost) always INCLUDED WITH the provided "broadband" but they are NOT (not at all, not even slightly) PART OF IT.
SERIOUSLY FOLKS: that's like arguing that BECAUSE your car dealer INCLUDES fuel in the vehicle you purchase, he's NOT a car dealership, he's actually a DISTRIBUTOR OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.
An ISP can provide a TOTALLY AWESOME internet service without providing ANY DNS/NTP/WebServers accessible to its customers.
Pool.ntp.org, gmail.com, google DNS, OpenDNS, etc etc etc etc etc
Yes typically every ISP provides their own services, yes they include them for free, but they are not THE INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE (aka "broadband") being provided.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Once you start running internet over a cable system, you're at the mercy of the cable system for what they decide to upgrade in order to offer anything faster or whether they even want to serve an area.
I can see houses that have cable service from my driveway, but TWC (at the time, now Spectrum) wanted $26,000 to install at my house from the *opposite* direction. I passed.
Luckily, the phone company (coop) where I live installed a crap ton of fiber to replace their aging copper, and now I get rock solid 4 Mbits (with up to 1 Gbit available) for the same price I used to pay for flaky DSL. Most people are not that fortunate.
I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
Biden was from Delaware, not CT; you're thinking of Joe Lieberman.
Be careful to make sure you don't just feel that way because you don't like "the other side" - there's plenty of dirty pool being played by both parties.
Stop with the false equivalency- the GOP and Republicans do this so often and so regularly that they've practically made it into an art form.
Yes, shit goes on with the Democrats too, but the Republicans have been the masters of dirty tricks, voter suppression, and gerrymandering for decades.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
The government has a monopoly on premeditated force. I can act with legal force for defense as an example.
What's your point?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
A single entity isn't required to have a monopoly of force and in fact the government doesn't have a monopoly of force. What you said was factually wrong and I pointed it out.
I'm so sorry you guys have wound up having to deal with that.
During the recent unpleasantness with the Japanese, my Grandmother lived in a town which had something like 500,000 of your marines come through on R&R.
She, like most of the women of the town made some money doing their laundry, and she was hugely impressed by what a marvelous bunch of young men they were.
That is the reputation Americans have where I live, honest, brave and hardworking. I hope your government don't spoil that, but I can't help feeling you won't really be our friends in a few years.
A single entity isn't required to have a monopoly of force
It does if it wants to act as the government with the authority to carry out its duties.
the government doesn't have a monopoly of force.
Well they pretty much do. Look around. Who else is legally allowed to roll a tank and a SWAT team up to your house extract you, or pull you over for speeding, or decide who gets the child in a divorce? Who else is legally allowed to use coercion to administer or enforce these actions?
We're not talking personal interactions, like if someone tried to mug you.
We're talking about an entity with the sole legal right to adjudicate disputes and crimes, determine property rights, incarcerate you, etc etc etc. No private entity has those rights; those are supposed to be reserved for the government, which has the ultimate say-so and the power to enforce its decisions.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
That is the reputation Americans have where I live, honest, brave and hardworking.
I think that generally speaking, most Americans are decent people who don't agree with the tone and actions of the current administration. But this administration's actions are destroying many of the core values that the majority of American hold, and it may take decades to repair the damage.
And yet his goober-brained followers hoot and holler and gleefully applaud the destruction of the very things that has made this country such an amazing place.
The text below explains in part why they're so partisan and excuse everything Trump does...I didn't write it but it's a good description of what's going on:
Identity Fusion - aka “Sports team” mode
A majority of the United States is confused by the behavior of ~34% of the rest of the country. To grasp what has happened, you just have to realize that some political supporters have gone into “Sports Teams” mode. They have turned politics into an Identity Fusion issue.
Basically, they have stopped thinking about the representative government as a functional group of public servants. They are thinking about it as if it's their "team" and everything political has become "us versus them."
Some characteristics of a team fanatic (I'm using Trump Supporters as an example because it's currently the most obvious example, but it can apply to both sides to some degree.)
Once you realize this is what's happening, the common attributes are there to see:
- Wearing identifying clothing (hats, badges, colors, logos, slogans) in everyday life.
- Loyalty regardless of performance or behavior of their "team."
- Instant disrespect for any member of the opposing team based solely on team affiliation.
- Hatred of any perceived disloyalty from fellow team fans.
- Having rallies and parades even when there is no pending game with the primary goal to celebrate and re-enforce being loyal.
- At gatherings, fans chant slogans and/or sing.
- Team players (not fans, but players) are 100% supported unless they leave the team. Then they are ostracized and demonized even though they are basically the same person.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
That is so patently untrue that I wonder how you can say it without blushing, or are you blushing?
Obama had not only control of the three branches of government during the first two years of his presidency, he had two thirds of the senate, which means for the first time in a century he actually had enough votes, with only Democrats to override a filibuster and force closure on a bill, which is how we got Obamacare, since not a single Republican voted for it.
Obama didn't do it during that time because he spent all his political capital on a health care bill written by the insurance companies that was so patently unpopular with even his own party that he had to lie to them to get them to vote for it.
Fixing Internet regulation, immigration or any of a hundred other problems which would have gotten some bipartisan support would have been simpler, but instead he went for the legacy legislation which will eventually be totally replaced with something that will actually work.