4 ms·

> 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 i

> 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.
    - vel0city 2y ago
      > facilities needed to use those links to find and retrieve content I'm not using the ISP to find and retrieve the content though. They don't understand the queries I'm actually doing, they don't know what information I'm looking for. All that is encrypted noise to their perspective. Nothing they do manipulates the data or assists in the query for information except to pass along packets to a destination. If my ISP disappeared tomorrow Netflix would still work. Hacker News would still be there. How does my ISP do anything about making those things available outside of being the same thing as a phone line calling a library? > it's hard for me to see how it's "corrupt". Because it's the logic industry lobbyists project and is completely illogical past that understanding.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        Relying on that logic, the court could come back and say "Netflix could cease to exist, but Breaking Bad Season 2 would continue to exist; does that make Netflix a telecommunications provider?" I think one sane way to look at this is that the most reasonable way to look at the concepts of "telecommunications" and "information" are different in 2024 than they were in 1996, and the 1996 interpretation will control. Later I didn't see that bit about lobbying in your original comment, but you get that the "other side" of this issue has even more powerful lobbyists, right? Google alone is an order of magnitude more valuable than Verizon and AT&T combined.

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.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    > facilities needed to use those links to find and retrieve content I'm not using the ISP to find and retrieve the content though. They don't understand the queries I'm actually doing, they don't know what information I'm looking for. All that is encrypted noise to their perspective. Nothing they do manipulates the data or assists in the query for information except to pass along packets to a destination. If my ISP disappeared tomorrow Netflix would still work. Hacker News would still be there. How does my ISP do anything about making those things available outside of being the same thing as a phone line calling a library? > it's hard for me to see how it's "corrupt". Because it's the logic industry lobbyists project and is completely illogical past that understanding.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      Relying on that logic, the court could come back and say "Netflix could cease to exist, but Breaking Bad Season 2 would continue to exist; does that make Netflix a telecommunications provider?" I think one sane way to look at this is that the most reasonable way to look at the concepts of "telecommunications" and "information" are different in 2024 than they were in 1996, and the 1996 interpretation will control. Later I didn't see that bit about lobbying in your original comment, but you get that the "other side" of this issue has even more powerful lobbyists, right? Google alone is an order of magnitude more valuable than Verizon and AT&T combined.