4 ms·

This problem stems from ISP unwillingness to be categorized as infrastructure, like a phone company. If they were, they could use the same arguments that you ca

This problem stems from ISP unwillingness to be categorized as infrastructure, like a phone company. If they were, they could use the same arguments that you can't force a phone company to terminate phone service just because people are using it for illegal activity. But if they were to be classified as infrastructure, they'd lose the lucrative edge they have now, so it's far better in their eyes to lose this fight, aggressively cut off internet access to some of their subscribers, and reap the rewards of a non-regulated service.

phkahler 5y ago
>> This problem stems from ISP unwillingness to be categorized as infrastructure, like a phone company. A.K.A. Common Carrier status.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  Which they lost when they lobbied to remove net neutrality requirements.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    At least cable was never a common carrier. DSL is more complicated.
cratermoon 5y ago
Back in the 90s I told anyone that would listen that ISPs needed to have common carrier status, that it would protect not only the customers but also the ISPs. It seems, however, the ISPs have grown too entangled with content creation companies – or are content creation companies – and they are OK spending a substantial portion of their revenues protecting the revenues of a Sony. They do so because they know their revenue stream depends on protecting the rent-seeking behaviors of the movie, publishing, and recording industries.
- 0x0nyandesu 5y ago
  I noticed after having both for years that FiOS doesn't care at all. You can pirate all you want. In contrast Comcast and Spectrum send out notices right away. I don't get the end game though. Cut off my gigibit line I pay through the nose for? Fine my roommate will just sign up. Or worse I just don't pay you anymore at all.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rsj_hn 5y ago
> But if they were to be classified as infrastructure, they'd lose the lucrative edge they have now, I was following your argument up until this point. Can you elaborate on what this edge is, and how it would be lost? Are you referring to net-neutrality? If so, how much money is that bringing in?
- kstenerud 5y ago
  It's more about not having their hands tied. Once a service becomes a requirement (like telephone service), they're much more restricted in how much they can charge, at what point they can cut off service, reasons for cutting off service, minimum service levels, and they'll also be required to provide service to money-losing regions. This would be on top of losing their net-neutrality battle, which has the potential to bring in a lot of money should they have a decisive victory. As a for-profit company, the only logical choice is to fight tooth and nail against becoming a common carrier.
  - AdamJacobMuller 5y ago
    > Once a service becomes a requirement (like telephone service), they're much more restricted in how much they can charge, at what point they can cut off service, reasons for cutting off service, minimum service levels I don't see why that would be the case. You're assuming that laws which establish common carrier status for ISPs have to mirror laws which established common carrier status for telephone companies and I don't think they need to. I would say some of these are good. Companies don't want to terminate users and I think they would gladly accept restrictions on who and when they can terminate, in exchange for immunity as long as they follow the rules. I think establishing a minimum service tier (50/50 or 100/100 seems safe) and putting a price cap on that minimum service, while allowing them to charge whatever the market will allow for higher service tiers seems safe and seems like something the existing ISPs won't hate too much. > they'll also be required to provide service to money-losing regions. I would fundamentally argue against this. I see no reason to force a company to service a customer they don't want to service. Create incentives which directly (not adjacently) align with your desired outcome. If the cost of providing that minimum level of service is above the price cap for that minimum level of service and the government wants to get involved, the most I think they should do is offer a post-paid per-customer subsidy. ISPs will complain mightily about this one since their costs are hugely front-loaded, but, it's not something they MUST do it's just something they would have as an option and it's an option that I think would encourage more rural fiber projects and more WISPs.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
> ISP unwillingness to be categorized as infrastructure, like a phone company Why do they have to be willing in order for this to happen? Regulators should just do it whether they want it or not.
- kstenerud 5y ago
  Because legislation rarely moves without a lobby pushing it one way or the other. And the ISPs have powerful lobbying at their disposal.

phkahler 5y ago

>> This problem stems from ISP unwillingness to be categorized as infrastructure, like a phone company. A.K.A. Common Carrier status.

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
Which they lost when they lobbied to remove net neutrality requirements.
- monocasa 5y ago
  At least cable was never a common carrier. DSL is more complicated.

cratermoon 5y ago

Back in the 90s I told anyone that would listen that ISPs needed to have common carrier status, that it would protect not only the customers but also the ISPs. It seems, however, the ISPs have grown too entangled with content creation companies – or are content creation companies – and they are OK spending a substantial portion of their revenues protecting the revenues of a Sony. They do so because they know their revenue stream depends on protecting the rent-seeking behaviors of the movie, publishing, and recording industries.

0x0nyandesu 5y ago
I noticed after having both for years that FiOS doesn't care at all. You can pirate all you want. In contrast Comcast and Spectrum send out notices right away. I don't get the end game though. Cut off my gigibit line I pay through the nose for? Fine my roommate will just sign up. Or worse I just don't pay you anymore at all.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

rsj_hn 5y ago

> But if they were to be classified as infrastructure, they'd lose the lucrative edge they have now, I was following your argument up until this point. Can you elaborate on what this edge is, and how it would be lost? Are you referring to net-neutrality? If so, how much money is that bringing in?

kstenerud 5y ago
It's more about not having their hands tied. Once a service becomes a requirement (like telephone service), they're much more restricted in how much they can charge, at what point they can cut off service, reasons for cutting off service, minimum service levels, and they'll also be required to provide service to money-losing regions. This would be on top of losing their net-neutrality battle, which has the potential to bring in a lot of money should they have a decisive victory. As a for-profit company, the only logical choice is to fight tooth and nail against becoming a common carrier.
- AdamJacobMuller 5y ago
  > Once a service becomes a requirement (like telephone service), they're much more restricted in how much they can charge, at what point they can cut off service, reasons for cutting off service, minimum service levels I don't see why that would be the case. You're assuming that laws which establish common carrier status for ISPs have to mirror laws which established common carrier status for telephone companies and I don't think they need to. I would say some of these are good. Companies don't want to terminate users and I think they would gladly accept restrictions on who and when they can terminate, in exchange for immunity as long as they follow the rules. I think establishing a minimum service tier (50/50 or 100/100 seems safe) and putting a price cap on that minimum service, while allowing them to charge whatever the market will allow for higher service tiers seems safe and seems like something the existing ISPs won't hate too much. > they'll also be required to provide service to money-losing regions. I would fundamentally argue against this. I see no reason to force a company to service a customer they don't want to service. Create incentives which directly (not adjacently) align with your desired outcome. If the cost of providing that minimum level of service is above the price cap for that minimum level of service and the government wants to get involved, the most I think they should do is offer a post-paid per-customer subsidy. ISPs will complain mightily about this one since their costs are hugely front-loaded, but, it's not something they MUST do it's just something they would have as an option and it's an option that I think would encourage more rural fiber projects and more WISPs.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

> ISP unwillingness to be categorized as infrastructure, like a phone company Why do they have to be willing in order for this to happen? Regulators should just do it whether they want it or not.

kstenerud 5y ago
Because legislation rarely moves without a lobby pushing it one way or the other. And the ISPs have powerful lobbying at their disposal.