4 ms·

> 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 qu

> 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
        You’re citing a law that is about allowing the RBOCs to again provide local phone service as evidence of legislative intent around regulating ISPs. None of this is as straightforward as you’d like it to be.
        vel0city 2y ago
        ISPs are the splitting image of if not literally the same people as the RBOCs. They do essentially the exact same thing RBOCs did in '96 today. In '96 "give this signal to 456-7890", today I say "give this packet to 45.67.89.0. Around '96, what people thought of as ISPs (CompuServ, Prodigy, AOL, etc) were the modern Googles and Netflix and Spotify and Hacker News. Now ISPs are far more like the RBOCs, managing the lines and handling the "switching" and enabling the box at my home to talk to the box at Hacker News. Back then, AOL was my ISP. They modified my query for a keyword to give me informaation. This was on top of the lines SBC managed. Today, AT&T manages the lines I use to punch into a search engine to retrieve information. What is AT&Ts role today more like, AOLs or SBC? Think for yourself for two seconds on this one! It's an easy answer! If anything, you throwing RBOCs into this strengthens the argument for reclassification of ISPs as telecommunications providers instead of information services. It's illogical to see otherwise. Finally let me requote the standard this fucking court gave us and you tell me how this opinion makes any sense outside of just consistently saying "cOmMoN ParLaNcE" as some shield that prevents you from using your actual brain to understand words on the law. > In short, an “information service” manipulates data, while a “telecommunications service” does not. How is my ISP manipulating this data, right here, right now?! Please answer this!

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
      You’re citing a law that is about allowing the RBOCs to again provide local phone service as evidence of legislative intent around regulating ISPs. None of this is as straightforward as you’d like it to be.
      - vel0city 2y ago
        ISPs are the splitting image of if not literally the same people as the RBOCs. They do essentially the exact same thing RBOCs did in '96 today. In '96 "give this signal to 456-7890", today I say "give this packet to 45.67.89.0. Around '96, what people thought of as ISPs (CompuServ, Prodigy, AOL, etc) were the modern Googles and Netflix and Spotify and Hacker News. Now ISPs are far more like the RBOCs, managing the lines and handling the "switching" and enabling the box at my home to talk to the box at Hacker News. Back then, AOL was my ISP. They modified my query for a keyword to give me informaation. This was on top of the lines SBC managed. Today, AT&T manages the lines I use to punch into a search engine to retrieve information. What is AT&Ts role today more like, AOLs or SBC? Think for yourself for two seconds on this one! It's an easy answer! If anything, you throwing RBOCs into this strengthens the argument for reclassification of ISPs as telecommunications providers instead of information services. It's illogical to see otherwise. Finally let me requote the standard this fucking court gave us and you tell me how this opinion makes any sense outside of just consistently saying "cOmMoN ParLaNcE" as some shield that prevents you from using your actual brain to understand words on the law. > In short, an “information service” manipulates data, while a “telecommunications service” does not. How is my ISP manipulating this data, right here, right now?! Please answer this!