
The FCC’s case against net neutrality rests on a misrepresentation - rbanffy
https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/23/the-fccs-case-against-net-neutrality-rests-on-a-fundamental-deliberate-misunderstanding-of-how-the-internet-works/
======
pharrlax
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.

~~~
kogepathic
_> 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.

------
twoodfin
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?

~~~
jimrandomh
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.

~~~
twoodfin
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.

~~~
jimrandomh
The definition of an information service is

(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.

------
gumby
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.

What is wrong with these people?

~~~
bookmarkacc
My understanding is that AT&T is a pipeline that routes you to the pizza
place. The pizza place and you being endpoints.

~~~
gumby
That would be a sensible construction but if you read the FCC's position that
is not the interpretation they are taking!

------
Fjolsvith
Question: If ISPs get the removal of Net Neutrality, do they then become
liable for the content transferred through their connections?

