3 ms·

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 to

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.
    - vel0city 2y ago
      It's corrupt because they gave us an obvious test: > In short, an “information service” manipulates data, while a “telecommunications service” does not. And then completely ignored it for $reasons. > does that make Netflix a telecommunications provider? This really makes it hard for me to take your arguments as good faith. Nowhere in common parlance definitions, legal definitions, or court opinions would make Netflix a telecommunications company. You don't even give one here. > but you get that the "other side" of this issue has even more powerful lobbyists Yeah but one side is ignoring the simple tests they themselves come up with while the other actually relies on the plain language laid out in the actual law instead of mental pretzels to make an inconsistent and illogical position.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        I'm not sure relegating all of statutory interpretation to "$reasons", over applying a common-parlance 2024 interpretation to a 1996 statute, is as forceful an argument as you think it is. Either way: I'm at a loss for why you think the ISP lobbyists are more powerful than their opponents here, since their opponents outgun them 40-to-1.
        vel0city 2y ago
        > I'm at a loss for why you think the ISP lobbyists are more powerful than their opponents here Because despite every definition in the law and past opinions and the test they just came up with there's practically zero logic in the outcome here. > over applying a common-parlance Now I know you're not arguing in good faith. I've consistently cited the statutory definitions. I'm not using common parlance in the slightest. I'm using the actual law and their own goddamn tests. How is my ISP modifying the data I'm posting here in the slightest, in any definition whether that be statutory or common parlance? You've still failed to answer this basic test just like how the courts failed to do so in their opinion.

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.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    It's corrupt because they gave us an obvious test: > In short, an “information service” manipulates data, while a “telecommunications service” does not. And then completely ignored it for $reasons. > does that make Netflix a telecommunications provider? This really makes it hard for me to take your arguments as good faith. Nowhere in common parlance definitions, legal definitions, or court opinions would make Netflix a telecommunications company. You don't even give one here. > but you get that the "other side" of this issue has even more powerful lobbyists Yeah but one side is ignoring the simple tests they themselves come up with while the other actually relies on the plain language laid out in the actual law instead of mental pretzels to make an inconsistent and illogical position.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      I'm not sure relegating all of statutory interpretation to "$reasons", over applying a common-parlance 2024 interpretation to a 1996 statute, is as forceful an argument as you think it is. Either way: I'm at a loss for why you think the ISP lobbyists are more powerful than their opponents here, since their opponents outgun them 40-to-1.
      - vel0city 2y ago
        > I'm at a loss for why you think the ISP lobbyists are more powerful than their opponents here Because despite every definition in the law and past opinions and the test they just came up with there's practically zero logic in the outcome here. > over applying a common-parlance Now I know you're not arguing in good faith. I've consistently cited the statutory definitions. I'm not using common parlance in the slightest. I'm using the actual law and their own goddamn tests. How is my ISP modifying the data I'm posting here in the slightest, in any definition whether that be statutory or common parlance? You've still failed to answer this basic test just like how the courts failed to do so in their opinion.