6 ms·

I think the pertinent question now is whether the FCC rewrites its rules to classify ISPs as common carriers. It seems to me, given the local monopoly or duopo

I think the pertinent question now is whether the FCC rewrites its rules to classify ISPs as common carriers. It seems to me, given the local monopoly or duopoly that the vast majority of ISPs enjoy, that this is an obvious move. But I have heard it barely discussed, which is distressing.

wdewind 13y ago
AFAICT (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the ruling actually disallows the FCC from regulating in anyway at all, including classifying ISPs as common carriers.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > AFAICT (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the ruling actually disallows the FCC from regulating in anyway at all, including classifying ISPs as common carriers. AFAICT, you're wrong. In fact, the dispute between the majority and the dissent in the ruling is that the majority not only accepted that the FCC can regulate broadband providers, but allowed some of the regulation in the Open Internet Order at issue (just not the key rules for net neutrality.) What specific language in the order gives you the idea you refer to?
  - wdewind 13y ago
    I haven't read the decision, just secondary sources, so I am probably incorrect. The reply above yours linked to: http://recode.net/2014/01/15/whats-net-neutrality-what-happened-to-net-neutrality-yesterday-what-happens-next-a-qa-for-the-rest-of-us/ http://recode.net/2014/01/15/whats-net-neutrality-what-happe... Which seems to do a good job explaining it. Specifically this bit: > It’s those rules [the Open Internet rules] that Verizon is saying the FCC had no legal authority to enact. The reason that Verizon was successful was because of the basic incongruity I described to you at the beginning — that 10 years ago, the FCC deregulated these actors. And it can’t now simultaneously pretend to regulate them. My original comment was incorrect: I meant they can either not regulate or classify ISPs as common carriers and then regulate. Again, totally open to being correct here, this is complicated and I could totally be wrong.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > My original comment was incorrect: I meant they can either not regulate or classify ISPs as common carriers and then regulate. That's true of the non-blocking and non-discrimination rules in the Open Internet Order, which were ruled to be equivalent to common carrier rules and thereby foreclosed so long as the FCC designated ISPs as "information services" (which cannot be treated as common carriers under the Telecommunications Act) and not "telecommunication services" (which are common carriers under the Act.) The FCC, under the ruling, still has power to regulate broadband ISPs in other ways, and the provisions in the Open Internet Order that were not found to be equivalent to common carrier requirements (and thus incompatible with the FCC designation of ISPs as "information services") were allowed to stand.
      - wdewind 13y ago
        Gotcha, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. So wont the FCC just recategorize ISPs as Common Carriers or...?
- taylorwc 13y ago
  Nice Q&A with law professor regarding what the FCC can/can't do related to this: http://recode.net/2014/01/15/whats-net-neutrality-what-happened-to-net-neutrality-yesterday-what-happens-next-a-qa-for-the-rest-of-us/ http://recode.net/2014/01/15/whats-net-neutrality-what-happe...
rayiner 13y ago
It's not an obvious move. Being classified as a common carrier carries a ton of baggage. The common carrier regulations are very much 1970's-style oppressive regulation, complete with extra taxes for providing service to rural subscribers, regulatory oversight of every business decision, etc. The FCC didn't want to impose that burden on ISPs in 1996, and they don't want to do it now. As an aside, it's amusing to me how people trumpet common carrier status here on HN while also complaining how U.S. providers lag the rest of the world in speed and prices. Imposing the common carrier regime on ISPs won't make that situation better, it will make it worse. Look at Google's approach to building out gigabit: focus on urban areas where the density lets you hit more subscribers per mile of fiber. That's exactly what you can't do if you're classified together with the phone companies and are forced to spread capital expenditures thin over the vast swaths of rural America. The current situation isn't ideal, but I think it's myopic to advocate treating telecom networks as regulated public infrastructure. I don't know if you have noticed, but public infrastructure in the U.S. sucks. One of the reasons it sucks is that we have a huge, spread-out country and gerrymandering that weighs rural votes about 2x as high as urban votes. We can't have nice high speed rail along the northeast corridor because politics mandates that Amtrak also has to support money-losing lines through rural Pennsylvania. Do you really want to bring the weight of all this ridiculousness down on the internet?
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  I don't think the rural telephone surcharge is a necessary component of common carrier. For example railroads are all common carriers and they are under no duty to run rail lines to every single community in the U.S. My understanding of common carrier is that is simply mandates that the provider must publish a single public rate card with objective criteria for the rates, and then charge everyone equally by those criteria. It's to prevent UPS (which I believe is regulated as a common carrier) from taking extra money from Amazon to slow down or lose shipments from Walmart.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    The relevant sense of "common carrier" in this context is as a classification in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It's a detailed set of regulations applicable to telephone companies. Classifying ISPs as "common carriers" would not just implicate all of those regulations, but implicate one of the animating principles of phone service under the Telecom Act of 1996, which is universal service. "Common carrier" is also a classification for various services under common law, but that's not what the recent D.C. Circuit opinion was about. Those involve not formal regulations, but certain rights and liabilities under common law, which differ depending on the particular kind of service.
prostoalex 13y ago
With classic ISPs, not just anybody can start digging trenches and lay fiber. With wireless, pretty much anybody can start renting the space from cell towers and resell their wireless capacity.
- erikpukinskis 13y ago
  Then you have to rent spectrum somehow too. And I would assume the towers are often owned by wireless industry organizations with very... specific ideas about whose equipment is sensible and prudent to put up.

wdewind 13y ago

AFAICT (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the ruling actually disallows the FCC from regulating in anyway at all, including classifying ISPs as common carriers.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> AFAICT (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the ruling actually disallows the FCC from regulating in anyway at all, including classifying ISPs as common carriers. AFAICT, you're wrong. In fact, the dispute between the majority and the dissent in the ruling is that the majority not only accepted that the FCC can regulate broadband providers, but allowed some of the regulation in the Open Internet Order at issue (just not the key rules for net neutrality.) What specific language in the order gives you the idea you refer to?
- wdewind 13y ago
  I haven't read the decision, just secondary sources, so I am probably incorrect. The reply above yours linked to: http://recode.net/2014/01/15/whats-net-neutrality-what-happened-to-net-neutrality-yesterday-what-happens-next-a-qa-for-the-rest-of-us/ http://recode.net/2014/01/15/whats-net-neutrality-what-happe... Which seems to do a good job explaining it. Specifically this bit: > It’s those rules [the Open Internet rules] that Verizon is saying the FCC had no legal authority to enact. The reason that Verizon was successful was because of the basic incongruity I described to you at the beginning — that 10 years ago, the FCC deregulated these actors. And it can’t now simultaneously pretend to regulate them. My original comment was incorrect: I meant they can either not regulate or classify ISPs as common carriers and then regulate. Again, totally open to being correct here, this is complicated and I could totally be wrong.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > My original comment was incorrect: I meant they can either not regulate or classify ISPs as common carriers and then regulate. That's true of the non-blocking and non-discrimination rules in the Open Internet Order, which were ruled to be equivalent to common carrier rules and thereby foreclosed so long as the FCC designated ISPs as "information services" (which cannot be treated as common carriers under the Telecommunications Act) and not "telecommunication services" (which are common carriers under the Act.) The FCC, under the ruling, still has power to regulate broadband ISPs in other ways, and the provisions in the Open Internet Order that were not found to be equivalent to common carrier requirements (and thus incompatible with the FCC designation of ISPs as "information services") were allowed to stand.
    - wdewind 13y ago
      Gotcha, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. So wont the FCC just recategorize ISPs as Common Carriers or...?
taylorwc 13y ago
Nice Q&A with law professor regarding what the FCC can/can't do related to this: http://recode.net/2014/01/15/whats-net-neutrality-what-happened-to-net-neutrality-yesterday-what-happens-next-a-qa-for-the-rest-of-us/ http://recode.net/2014/01/15/whats-net-neutrality-what-happe...

rayiner 13y ago

It's not an obvious move. Being classified as a common carrier carries a ton of baggage. The common carrier regulations are very much 1970's-style oppressive regulation, complete with extra taxes for providing service to rural subscribers, regulatory oversight of every business decision, etc. The FCC didn't want to impose that burden on ISPs in 1996, and they don't want to do it now. As an aside, it's amusing to me how people trumpet common carrier status here on HN while also complaining how U.S. providers lag the rest of the world in speed and prices. Imposing the common carrier regime on ISPs won't make that situation better, it will make it worse. Look at Google's approach to building out gigabit: focus on urban areas where the density lets you hit more subscribers per mile of fiber. That's exactly what you can't do if you're classified together with the phone companies and are forced to spread capital expenditures thin over the vast swaths of rural America. The current situation isn't ideal, but I think it's myopic to advocate treating telecom networks as regulated public infrastructure. I don't know if you have noticed, but public infrastructure in the U.S. sucks. One of the reasons it sucks is that we have a huge, spread-out country and gerrymandering that weighs rural votes about 2x as high as urban votes. We can't have nice high speed rail along the northeast corridor because politics mandates that Amtrak also has to support money-losing lines through rural Pennsylvania. Do you really want to bring the weight of all this ridiculousness down on the internet?

snowwrestler 13y ago
I don't think the rural telephone surcharge is a necessary component of common carrier. For example railroads are all common carriers and they are under no duty to run rail lines to every single community in the U.S. My understanding of common carrier is that is simply mandates that the provider must publish a single public rate card with objective criteria for the rates, and then charge everyone equally by those criteria. It's to prevent UPS (which I believe is regulated as a common carrier) from taking extra money from Amazon to slow down or lose shipments from Walmart.
- rayiner 13y ago
  The relevant sense of "common carrier" in this context is as a classification in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It's a detailed set of regulations applicable to telephone companies. Classifying ISPs as "common carriers" would not just implicate all of those regulations, but implicate one of the animating principles of phone service under the Telecom Act of 1996, which is universal service. "Common carrier" is also a classification for various services under common law, but that's not what the recent D.C. Circuit opinion was about. Those involve not formal regulations, but certain rights and liabilities under common law, which differ depending on the particular kind of service.

prostoalex 13y ago

With classic ISPs, not just anybody can start digging trenches and lay fiber. With wireless, pretty much anybody can start renting the space from cell towers and resell their wireless capacity.

erikpukinskis 13y ago
Then you have to rent spectrum somehow too. And I would assume the towers are often owned by wireless industry organizations with very... specific ideas about whose equipment is sensible and prudent to put up.