Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday August 01 2015, @03:16PM   Printer-friendly
from the squirming-a-bit dept.

Just like the title says, ISPs are once again trying to take down net neutrality by claiming that because the Internet uses computers, it is not a telecommunications service, but rather an information service, which would make it subject to lighter regulation.

Internet service providers yesterday filed a 95-page brief (PDF) outlining their case that the Federal Communications Commission’s new net neutrality rules should be overturned.

One of the central arguments is that the FCC cannot impose common carrier rules on Internet access because it can’t be defined as a “telecommunications” service under Title II of the Communications Act. The ISPs argued that Internet access must be treated as a more lightly regulated “information service” because it involves “computer processing.”

“No matter how many computer-mediated features the FCC may sweep under the rug, the inescapable core of Internet access is a service that uses computer processing to enable consumers to ‘retrieve files from the World Wide Web, and browse their contents’ and, thus, ‘offers the ‘capability for... acquiring,... retrieving [and] utilizing... information.’ Under the straightforward statutory definition, an ‘offering’ of that ‘capability’ is an information service," the ISPs wrote.

Internet providers are now common carriers, and they're ready to sue. "If broadband providers provided only pure transmission and not information processing, as the FCC now claims, the primitive and limited form of 'access' broadband customers would receive would be unrecognizable to consumers," the ISPs also wrote. "They would be required, for example, to know the IP address of every website they visit. But, because Domain Name Service ('DNS') is part of Internet access, consumers can visit any website without knowing its IP address and thereafter 'click through' links on that website to other websites."

Since all of the ISPs are trying so hard to stop net neutrality, these laws are probably worth keeping on the books.

Source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/isps-net-neutrality-rules-are-illegal-because-internet-access-uses-computers/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 01 2015, @07:10PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 01 2015, @07:10PM (#216817)

    For those who aren't telecom policy wonks, the internet was previously regulated as a "telecommunications service" until the FCC arbitrarily changed it in the mid-2000s. It went to the SCOTUS which ruled that the FCC has the authority to choose which method of regulation it feels like. [wikipedia.org] At the time there was plenty of worry that the FCC's decision would destroy competition [nytimes.com] in the ISP market. Looks like they were right - when was the last time you got ISP service from a company other than the one managing the physical plant? Mindspring, Earthlink, Internet America, and hundreds more little guys who leased access to the cable plant, all faded memories now.

    So any time you hear the telecom lobby complain that the FCC can't decide which way to classify internet service, remember that the SCOTUS has already ruled that they have exactly that right and at the time, the telecom lobby was over joyed with that ruling. Karma, bitches!

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +4  
       Interesting=1, Informative=3, Total=4
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by Francis on Saturday August 01 2015, @08:11PM

    by Francis (5544) on Saturday August 01 2015, @08:11PM (#216829)

    The FCC has little to do with that. The reason why those options are largely no longer available has more to do with the right of weigh. Those poles that the electric company puts in to carry power can only support so many wires and so much hardware, so you wind up with a smaller number of companies providing the wires. Whereas in olden times, you didn't really need the extra wire, you could just use the phone line and get the best speeds that were available.

    I don't hear people whining about the FCC being unable to make the classification, I hear people whining that the ISPs continually take them to court to strip the meager protections out so they can continue to screw the consumers. That and the franchise agreements prevent 3rd parties from even trying to offer service.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 01 2015, @08:17PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 01 2015, @08:17PM (#216833)

      I'm not sure I get your point.

      But you are 100% wrong about right of way. It has never been about running additional lines. It has always been about leasing access to the lines that are already there.

      • (Score: 2) by Francis on Saturday August 01 2015, @10:08PM

        by Francis (5544) on Saturday August 01 2015, @10:08PM (#216864)

        My point is that we'd have terrible choices no matter what the FCC decided to do as running lines is the only way of setting up competition. Either you run them on the poles or the more expensive underground, but either way you need access to the right of way and the funds to do so. That's not to say that the FCC hasn't held things back, just that the franchise agreements and right of way have been a bigger problem over all. Companies buying and leasing space on the lines have always been at a significant advantage over the owners when it comes to providing service.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2015, @12:09AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2015, @12:09AM (#216894)

          > My point is that we'd have terrible choices no matter what the FCC decided to do as running lines is the only way of setting up competition.

          Ok, are are saying what I thought you were saying and you are just 100% wrong.

          I'm not sure how to say it so you will understand, I've already said twice that leasing access to the lines is how it used to work and can still work - not leasing space on the poles, leasing access to the lines that are already there, the cable plant itself. Both older DSL systems which are mostly implementations of ATM which is a packet-switched network and modern fiber based systems are capable of routing data from the end user to a central location where the 3rd party ISP's equipment then routes to the internet. You don't need any more lines on the poles or in the ground, you only need equipment on the termination points.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2015, @04:53AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2015, @04:53AM (#216936)

    There is great irony in that Brand-X ruling. Scalia took the minority opinion and said (paraphrasing) "duh, of course ISPs are telecommunications services" but Thomas disagreed with him (a rarity) as did the majority of the court which said (paraphrasing) "the original text is not specific enough to decide." So, Mr "textual originalist" Scalia gets over-ruled by the majority who think he's making up stuff that isn't in the actual text. Classic case of Scalia believing his own bullshit where he makes up exceptions to his own cherished principles but can't recognize that he's doing it - except for once he actually deployed his bullshit to come to a reasonable conclusion instead of his usual dick-move conclusions.