4 ms·

Even this court opinion makes the same stupid mistake of misunderstanding what an ISP does in their attempt to further define what an information service is. >

Even this court opinion makes the same stupid mistake of misunderstanding what an ISP does in their attempt to further define what an information service is. > In short, an “information service” manipulates data, while a “telecommunications service” does not. Hacker News manipulates the data you put into the text box to post that comment into the list of comments it serves to me. My ISP absolutely did not in any way manipulate a single bit of that data Hacker News sent as a reply to me when I requested to Hacker News, not my ISP for that comment data. So even with this opinion's simplified standard of what an information service is, ISPs absolutely fail to meet this standard. Its astounding to me people can actually think an ISP is an "information service" under the 1996 definition. And before you suggest "well the ISP probably did some other weird stuff inside their networks to actually transit those packets to you", the 1996 definition carves out that just doing the things needed to be a telecommunications provider does not make you an information service provider. > 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. https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ104/PLAW-104publ104.pdf https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ104/PLAW-104publ104.p...

tptacek 2y ago
For what it's worth, you're making a common parlance argument against statutory interpretation. Every word in the statute counts, and here it appears to have turned on the definition of an information service as something that offers a capability, whether or not its core function involves using that capability, as well as usage of the term "information service" elsewhere in federal law that clearly included ISPs.
- vel0city 2y ago
  > you're making a common parlance argument against statutory interpretation No, I included the actual text of the law of what an information service provider is in another comment and I'm using the test this opinion came up with. I'm not making up my own definition. Please tell me how my ISP does this, as this is what an "information service" is under the '96 law. "generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications" They don't generate it, they don't really acquire it (they don't know what my query is, its encrypted), they don't store it, they don't transform it (it's encrypted), they don't process it (it's encrypted), they don't actually retrieve it (it's not on their servers or their drives or whatever), they don't utilize it (it's encrypted), and they're not the one making it available or not. What part of what an ISP does involve any of that?! Please tell me how my ISP is manipulating the data we're posting and accessing through this comment section. Please tell me how that becomes an information service. > as well as usage of the term "information service" elsewhere in federal law that clearly included ISPs It doesn't unless you're severely corrupt, incompetent, or unable to read English at least from the few times I read the '96 act.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Starting on page 12 of the decision you're citing, and in very tedious detail, the appeals court rebuts you. I'm not even saying you're wrong, I'm saying that the plain English meanings of sentences do not always control in statutory analysis. I just helped take a case to the Illinois Supreme Court, and lost there, over a similar issue. My definition is better! But I respect the legal process that produced a conflicting, controlling definition.
    - vel0city 2y ago
      Its still stupid and corrupt argument that in no way refutes my point. The ISP doesn't offer the capability to watch Netflix. If Netflix decided to shut down tomorrow the ISP has no say in it. If Hacker News banned me the ISP has no part of it. The ISP doesn't control it; they don't offer anything but the ability for me to "call" the HN server and ask for the content. If ISPs are considered "offering the capability", then old phone systems were also not telecommunications providers because they offered the capability to call Moviefone or time and weather providers or modems or whatever, and then absolutely nobody is a telecommunications provider. It's a stupid, ignorant, and illogical opinion to have. My phone isn't a pizza delivery service. The court is saying it is. > the plain English meanings of sentences do not always control in statutory analysis I'm aware, and that's why I'm using their definitions in the law and their own writings in their opinions. > But I respect the legal process I don't respect these corrupt processes of revolving door industry people pushing these stupid illogical and incorrect ideas. Even this opinion which I'll requote again here would point to an ISP absolutely not, in any way, be an information service. > In short, an “information service” manipulates data, while a “telecommunications service” does not. This isn't my own definition, this isn't some common parlance, this is the definition the court gave me.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        The court is analyzing the statutes comprising the core of federal telecommunications regulation, and seems in effect to be finding that, e.g., an OC-192 link between two points is "telecommunications", and the facilities needed to use those links to find and retrieve content over the Internet is "information". It's not the definition I'd prefer, but it's hard for me to see how it's "corrupt". later Note that the "Definitions" section of the Telecommunications Act (section in question) refers to the term "Internet" in only 3 places, all of them about services running on top of telecommunications providers.
- wtallis 2y ago
  Can you (or the appeals court) specifically identify what information service capabilities ISPs are offering that keep them from being classified as telecommunications providers? With what protocols or software would I get my ISP to "generate, process, retrieve, or otherwise manipulate information"? Surely there's a concrete example of this hypothetical "offering a capability". Discussing it purely in the abstract is clearly not working to convince people the ruling is appropriately grounded in both the law and the technological realities of what ISPs actually do. Once we've identified concrete examples of information-manipulation capabilities offered by ISPs, then we can see whether any of them survive the exclusion of "use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service".
  - abduhl 2y ago
    We can read the brief from the petitioners starting on p 32 of https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca6.151470/gov.uscourts.ca6.151470.54.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca6.151... Looking at p 36, two information services offered are caching and DNS.
    - vel0city 2y ago
      How many people do you know pick their ISP because they prefer their DNS services? Phone companies are information services because they mailed you a shitty phone book! What an absolute bullshit argument. Back when the law was written, people actually used the services offered by their ISP and they were differentiating services for their subscribers. CompuServ newsgroups, Prodigy message boards, people generally used their ISP provided email services as their primary email, many services offered their own portals for their customers which were quite popular (remember AOL keywords?). None of that is true anymore. Nobody gives a shit about some landing page portal the ISP makes anymore, if they even bother reskinning Yahoo.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        ISPs are information services because in the context of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that's what the Internet was, an information service built on top of telecommunication services. If you passed a Telecommunications Act of 2025, it would be different, but that act has not in fact passed, and what the court is fixated on is what Congress actually authorized.
drdaeman 2y ago
> My ISP absolutely did not in any way manipulate a single bit of that data I'm certainly nitpicking here, but surely they modify the IP TTL field? And probably reset the DSCP bits too? And quite likely - unless you're lucky to have a globally routeable IPv4 address, or living in the IPv6-only future - perform NAT on your traffic? And I'm 99.9999% sure they shape/rate-limit your traffic. Buffering and/or dropping packets is almost inevitable for any larger telecommunication service. Nonetheless, it's not an information service, of course. Still a pipe, just not entirely dumb one.
- vel0city 2y ago
  > 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. Need me to say it again? > 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. NAT, TTL, shaping, etc are all a part of the management of a telecommunications service in the same way managing long distance prefixes and exchanges or dead peer detection or whatever were to the old phone systems.
  - abduhl 2y ago
    We can read the brief from the petitioners for the (apparently winning) response to this on p 38 of https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca6.151470/gov.uscourts.ca6.151470.54.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca6.151... “That exception focuses on inward-facing controls. But ISPs do not use DNS or caching to ‘manage, control, or operate’ their own purported ‘telecommunications system’ or ‘telecommunications service.’ Both DNS and caching provide a user-facing functionality.”
    - vel0city 2y ago
      Petitioners can write whatever they want to write. They can write 2+2=22 and I guess you'd believe it. What a dumb argument to parrot. Do you choose your ISP based on how good their DNS services are? No? Doesn't seem like DNS is the thing people are signing up for but simply a way for the service to function. Oh boy, I can't wait to get home to hop on my Comcast service so I can go query their DNS! It's what the family does on a Thursday evening. So riveting! In the end DNS isn't really the information people care about and actually largely is used for managing telecommunications service.

tptacek 2y ago

For what it's worth, you're making a common parlance argument against statutory interpretation. Every word in the statute counts, and here it appears to have turned on the definition of an information service as something that offers a capability, whether or not its core function involves using that capability, as well as usage of the term "information service" elsewhere in federal law that clearly included ISPs.

vel0city 2y ago
> you're making a common parlance argument against statutory interpretation No, I included the actual text of the law of what an information service provider is in another comment and I'm using the test this opinion came up with. I'm not making up my own definition. Please tell me how my ISP does this, as this is what an "information service" is under the '96 law. "generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications" They don't generate it, they don't really acquire it (they don't know what my query is, its encrypted), they don't store it, they don't transform it (it's encrypted), they don't process it (it's encrypted), they don't actually retrieve it (it's not on their servers or their drives or whatever), they don't utilize it (it's encrypted), and they're not the one making it available or not. What part of what an ISP does involve any of that?! Please tell me how my ISP is manipulating the data we're posting and accessing through this comment section. Please tell me how that becomes an information service. > as well as usage of the term "information service" elsewhere in federal law that clearly included ISPs It doesn't unless you're severely corrupt, incompetent, or unable to read English at least from the few times I read the '96 act.
- tptacek 2y ago
  Starting on page 12 of the decision you're citing, and in very tedious detail, the appeals court rebuts you. I'm not even saying you're wrong, I'm saying that the plain English meanings of sentences do not always control in statutory analysis. I just helped take a case to the Illinois Supreme Court, and lost there, over a similar issue. My definition is better! But I respect the legal process that produced a conflicting, controlling definition.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    Its still stupid and corrupt argument that in no way refutes my point. The ISP doesn't offer the capability to watch Netflix. If Netflix decided to shut down tomorrow the ISP has no say in it. If Hacker News banned me the ISP has no part of it. The ISP doesn't control it; they don't offer anything but the ability for me to "call" the HN server and ask for the content. If ISPs are considered "offering the capability", then old phone systems were also not telecommunications providers because they offered the capability to call Moviefone or time and weather providers or modems or whatever, and then absolutely nobody is a telecommunications provider. It's a stupid, ignorant, and illogical opinion to have. My phone isn't a pizza delivery service. The court is saying it is. > the plain English meanings of sentences do not always control in statutory analysis I'm aware, and that's why I'm using their definitions in the law and their own writings in their opinions. > But I respect the legal process I don't respect these corrupt processes of revolving door industry people pushing these stupid illogical and incorrect ideas. Even this opinion which I'll requote again here would point to an ISP absolutely not, in any way, be an information service. > In short, an “information service” manipulates data, while a “telecommunications service” does not. This isn't my own definition, this isn't some common parlance, this is the definition the court gave me.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      The court is analyzing the statutes comprising the core of federal telecommunications regulation, and seems in effect to be finding that, e.g., an OC-192 link between two points is "telecommunications", and the facilities needed to use those links to find and retrieve content over the Internet is "information". It's not the definition I'd prefer, but it's hard for me to see how it's "corrupt". later Note that the "Definitions" section of the Telecommunications Act (section in question) refers to the term "Internet" in only 3 places, all of them about services running on top of telecommunications providers.
wtallis 2y ago
Can you (or the appeals court) specifically identify what information service capabilities ISPs are offering that keep them from being classified as telecommunications providers? With what protocols or software would I get my ISP to "generate, process, retrieve, or otherwise manipulate information"? Surely there's a concrete example of this hypothetical "offering a capability". Discussing it purely in the abstract is clearly not working to convince people the ruling is appropriately grounded in both the law and the technological realities of what ISPs actually do. Once we've identified concrete examples of information-manipulation capabilities offered by ISPs, then we can see whether any of them survive the exclusion of "use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service".
- abduhl 2y ago
  We can read the brief from the petitioners starting on p 32 of https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca6.151470/gov.uscourts.ca6.151470.54.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca6.151... Looking at p 36, two information services offered are caching and DNS.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    How many people do you know pick their ISP because they prefer their DNS services? Phone companies are information services because they mailed you a shitty phone book! What an absolute bullshit argument. Back when the law was written, people actually used the services offered by their ISP and they were differentiating services for their subscribers. CompuServ newsgroups, Prodigy message boards, people generally used their ISP provided email services as their primary email, many services offered their own portals for their customers which were quite popular (remember AOL keywords?). None of that is true anymore. Nobody gives a shit about some landing page portal the ISP makes anymore, if they even bother reskinning Yahoo.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      ISPs are information services because in the context of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that's what the Internet was, an information service built on top of telecommunication services. If you passed a Telecommunications Act of 2025, it would be different, but that act has not in fact passed, and what the court is fixated on is what Congress actually authorized.

drdaeman 2y ago

> My ISP absolutely did not in any way manipulate a single bit of that data I'm certainly nitpicking here, but surely they modify the IP TTL field? And probably reset the DSCP bits too? And quite likely - unless you're lucky to have a globally routeable IPv4 address, or living in the IPv6-only future - perform NAT on your traffic? And I'm 99.9999% sure they shape/rate-limit your traffic. Buffering and/or dropping packets is almost inevitable for any larger telecommunication service. Nonetheless, it's not an information service, of course. Still a pipe, just not entirely dumb one.

vel0city 2y ago
> 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. Need me to say it again? > 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. NAT, TTL, shaping, etc are all a part of the management of a telecommunications service in the same way managing long distance prefixes and exchanges or dead peer detection or whatever were to the old phone systems.
- abduhl 2y ago
  We can read the brief from the petitioners for the (apparently winning) response to this on p 38 of https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca6.151470/gov.uscourts.ca6.151470.54.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca6.151... “That exception focuses on inward-facing controls. But ISPs do not use DNS or caching to ‘manage, control, or operate’ their own purported ‘telecommunications system’ or ‘telecommunications service.’ Both DNS and caching provide a user-facing functionality.”
  - vel0city 2y ago
    Petitioners can write whatever they want to write. They can write 2+2=22 and I guess you'd believe it. What a dumb argument to parrot. Do you choose your ISP based on how good their DNS services are? No? Doesn't seem like DNS is the thing people are signing up for but simply a way for the service to function. Oh boy, I can't wait to get home to hop on my Comcast service so I can go query their DNS! It's what the family does on a Thursday evening. So riveting! In the end DNS isn't really the information people care about and actually largely is used for managing telecommunications service.