3 ms·

Your comment does not address the second clause of the sentence you quote: "...or making available information via telecommunications." Which is cited as a rea

Your comment does not address the second clause of the sentence you quote: "...or making available information via telecommunications." Which is cited as a reason to classify it as an Information service. Your third paragraph, "ISPs object to..." claims that the telecommunications portion is separable from the services provided (such as email, etc.), and yet the document you are critiquing claims the opposite in paragraph 11. I'm trying to find the reasoning as to why they claim inseparability. It's worth reading a relevant supreme court opinion to get an understanding of the opposing viewpoint [10]. I find that paragraph 67 of the universal service report (USR) to congress from the fcc (Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, FCC 98-67 [20], seems to be a counterpoint to yours. Specifically, the idea of an ISP apart from the physical connection -- ISPs make use of telecommunications but are not themselves the telecommunications service. "67. With regard to the lines leased by Internet service providers to provide their own internal networks, the analysis is straightforward. We explain below that the Internet service providers leasing the lines do not provide telecommunications to their subscribers, and thus do not directly contribute to universal service mechanisms." Paragraphs 80 and 81 of the USR states "The provision of Internet access service involves data transport elements: an Internet access provider must enable the movement of information between customers' own computers and the distant computers with which those customers seek to interact. But the provision of Internet access service crucially involves information-processing elements as well; it offers end users information-service capabilities inextricably intertwined with data transport. As such, we conclude that it is appropriately classed as an "information service." In offering service to end users, however, they do more than resell those data transport services. They conjoin the data transport with data processing, information provision, and other computer-mediated offerings, thereby creating an information service." [10]https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/04-277P.ZO https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/04-277P.ZO [20]https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/fcc98067.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/fc...

pdonis 9y ago
> the document you are critiquing claims the opposite in paragraph 11 That paragraph describes a previous ruling by the Commission. That's not what they're requesting comment on, which is why I didn't mention that paragraph. But it might well be worth someone else submitting a comment that focuses on logical errors in that previous ruling.
pdonis 9y ago
The Supreme Court opinion is interesting, but I don't see anything in the logic given that is not open to the same objections I raise in my comment. The key error I pointed out in the comment--that all the actual information services happen at endpoints, not in the network itself--is there in the court opinion's description of the Commission's logic. So I still think that error is a good point of attack.
pseudalopex 9y ago
I think the report mostly agrees with the grandparent; it's just that the meaning of "ISP" has drifted over the past 20 years. Paragraph 63 lists "America Online, AT&T WorldNet, Netcom, Earthlink, and the Microsoft Network" as examples of ISPs. Paragraphs 66-68 assume that an ISP pays for service from a telecommunications carrier. Paragraphs 75-76 use email and web hosting as examples of the services discussed in paragraphs 80-81, things the grandparent points out he doesn't use. They may be intertwined with data transport, but data transport isn't intertwined with them. Paragraph 75 does identify web access as an information service, but the same logic could be used to classify telephone service as an information service because you can use it to retrieve information from a PBX. Paragraph 81 repeats the assumption that ISPs consume telecommunications services. In general, the report seems to assume that Congress expected information services to coexist with telecommunications services, not to replace them.

pdonis 9y ago

> the document you are critiquing claims the opposite in paragraph 11 That paragraph describes a previous ruling by the Commission. That's not what they're requesting comment on, which is why I didn't mention that paragraph. But it might well be worth someone else submitting a comment that focuses on logical errors in that previous ruling.

pdonis 9y ago

The Supreme Court opinion is interesting, but I don't see anything in the logic given that is not open to the same objections I raise in my comment. The key error I pointed out in the comment--that all the actual information services happen at endpoints, not in the network itself--is there in the court opinion's description of the Commission's logic. So I still think that error is a good point of attack.

pseudalopex 9y ago

I think the report mostly agrees with the grandparent; it's just that the meaning of "ISP" has drifted over the past 20 years. Paragraph 63 lists "America Online, AT&T WorldNet, Netcom, Earthlink, and the Microsoft Network" as examples of ISPs. Paragraphs 66-68 assume that an ISP pays for service from a telecommunications carrier. Paragraphs 75-76 use email and web hosting as examples of the services discussed in paragraphs 80-81, things the grandparent points out he doesn't use. They may be intertwined with data transport, but data transport isn't intertwined with them. Paragraph 75 does identify web access as an information service, but the same logic could be used to classify telephone service as an information service because you can use it to retrieve information from a PBX. Paragraph 81 repeats the assumption that ISPs consume telecommunications services. In general, the report seems to assume that Congress expected information services to coexist with telecommunications services, not to replace them.