81–90 of 102 posts
Bandwidth isn't free. The universal all-you-can-eat model is very unfair to the bandwidth supplier. Either customers will need to be charged by meter. Or producers will need to pay by meter. It's only capitalism. By the way, why can't the VC say, "we love your idea, and we'll front the money you need to pay the telcos."?
What if the telcos won't allow anybody else to pay?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 cri…
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 al…
You are conflating two related but distinct issues, and then compounding that by badly confusing the issue of universal service. Of the conflated issues:
First, is requirements that define a common carrier, which the FCC can apply to entities designated as "telecommunications providers" under the Telecommunications Act but cannot apply to entities designated as "information service providers" under the Act, per the DC Circuit ruling recently, those requirements include things like the non-discrimination/non-blocking rules in the recent Open Internet Order. Designating a new category of "telecommunications service providers" (provided such designation survives any challenge -- there are definitions of what consistutes telecommunication service in the Act and the FCC would have to have reasonable grounds for this designation) allows the FCC to apply provisions that are essentially common carrier rules to entities in the newly defined category.
Second, is the particular regulations that the FCC has applied to particular classes of telecommunications providers, such as landline telephone providers. Designating a new class of telecommunications service providers would not automatically apply any existing regulations that the FCC has adopted for previously-defined classes of telecommunications providers to the newly identifed class.
Finally, universal service is not an "animating principle of phone service under the Telecom Act of 1996". Universal service was adopted for phone service in the Communications Act of 1934. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was notable in expanding the role of universal service to include "advanced telecommunication and information services". This expressly includes non-common carrier "information services" as well as common carrier "telecommunication services", so it is completely irrelevant tot he common carrier issue.
> "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.
Actually, applying the common law definition of "common carrier" to the particular regulations that the FCC adopted in the Open Internet Order to see if they conflicted with the Telecommunication Act's provision that common carrier rules could be applied only to "telecommunication service" providers and not "information service" providers (given the FCC's designation of ISPs as the latter rather than the former) was central to the DC Circuit decision.
This is the core problem of net neutrality arguments, which it is often defined as ‘I know it when I see it’. It amounts to principles, but if we are going to have an enforceable law, we need to do better than that.
AT&T is not offering any priority to any bits here. Nothing is being blocked or degraded. Content providers who pay for sponsored data do not get faster bits nor do they slow down anyone else’s.
It’s free shipping: http://clipperhouse.com/2008/06/03/the-long-game-on-metered-...
Now, I can understand objecting to it on its merits, and Fred is making that argument, which is great. And I can understand why it feels like a violation of net neutrality, but we need to do better than feelings.
Here’s how we test whether we’re defining net neutrality ad hoc: show me a clear, specific, widely accepted definition of net neutrality that describes AT&T’s behavior here, and that existed before this behavior was publicized.
The loss of net neutrality is bad from many perspectives, but to be honest, there will ALWAYS be opportunities for startups and entrepreneurs in the space and VCs will not be want for good ones. All this does is shake out many ideas in favor of other ones.
I don't see why the VCs have reason to panic. And while I understand the Entrepreneur ideas were straw men utilized to illustrate a point, the quality of these ideas are pretty low. Maybe we should see the silver lining on this dark cloud in that it will shake out some of these deals from being funded when they probably shouldn't be anyways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 al…
> 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. You are conflating t…
Moreover, the phrase "common carrier" is more or less coextensive with Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1934, which creates a heavy regulatory oversight regime. I'm not sure how the FCC could classify ISPs as common carriers and not bring them under the purview of Title II.
While Universal Service was not created in the 1996 Act, it is definitely an animating principle of the Act, because the Act expands the program. However, it doesn't go so far as to extend it to ISPs. Universal service contributions aren't totally coextensive with telecommunications provider versus information service classification, but are almost so. Anyone that provides something similar to voice telephone service (including cellular and VOIP), contributes, but internet providers do not.
I don't mention universal service to confuse the issue. I mention it as an example of the heavily-political, expensive, misconceived sort of program that becomes fair game when you bring internet service into the world of common carriers. The world of telecom has many different regimes. Not just from a legal standpoint, but from a philosophical and political standpoint. Phone service is considered crucial public infrastructure. It is subject to Title II. It is subject to USF. It is subject to extensive FCC oversight. It is the subject of political bellyaching about how people in rural America are entitled to have their high-cost service subsidized by everyone else. That's one regime. The other is internet and cable service. This is a land of ponies and cupcakes. Once you reclassify internet services as common carriers, you put internet service in a whole different bucket, not just legally, but philosophically and politically. And you don't want internet service in the same bucket as phone service. It's an awful place, full of people who think that companies shouldn't spend money building gigabit in New York when people in rural Alabama still have 256 kbps DSL.
Your point about the common law definition of common carrier is well-taken. It isn't irrelevant, because the D.C. Circuit did look to it in its opinion. However, it's indirectly relevant.
If you start at the last paragraph of page 45 of the opinion: http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D93... you can see that the court is interpreting the statutory definition of "common carrier." Specifically the phrase: "A telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier under this Act only to the extent that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services.” 47 U.S.C. § 153(51). "Common carrier under this Act" essentially refers to Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1934.
On page 47, the court notes that: "Offering little guidance as to the meaning of the term 'common carrier,' the Communications Act defines that phrase, somewhat circularly, as 'any person engaged as a common carrier for hire.' 47 U.S.C. § 153(11). Courts and the Commission have therefore resorted to the common law to come up with a satisfactory definition."
In other words, there are two definitions of "common carrier," one in the statute and one at common law, and because the one in the statute is underdefined, the court looks to the common law definition. But they are still separate definitions. 'snowwrestler said: "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."
The fact that the D.C. Circuit looked to the common law definition of "common carrier" to elucidate the statutory definition does not mean that the statutory definition cannot carry an independent set of obligations, different from the common law definition. Clear as mud?
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.
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 h…
Extra taxes /if/ they provide service to rural subscribers, or extra taxes /unless/ they provide service to rural subscribers?
Seems to be the latter would actually be a /humongous/ win for the customer. And might actually make these bozos build out some decent last-mile infrastructure (like they were supposed to do over a decade ago, and never ended up doing).
Bandwidth isn't free. The universal all-you-can-eat model is very unfair to the bandwidth supplier. Either customers will need to be charged by meter. Or producers will need to pay by meter. It's only capitalism. By the way, why can't the VC say, "we love your idea, and we'll front the money you need to pay the telcos."?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. You are conflating t…
I'm not really sure what distinction you're trying to create with the term "telecommunications service provider" versus "telecommunications provider" and "information service." The term "telecommunications service provider" doesn't appear at all in the D.C. Circuit's opinion. Moreover, the phrase "common carrier" is more or less coextensive with Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1934, which creates a heavy re…
If we as a society don't want to impose a requirement that rural communities be connected to the nation's essential communication infrastructure, then let that be the case; let's get rid of the requirement and rethink the whole thing. But if we as a society believe that rural areas should have access to the country's communication infrastructure, then we should change the requirement that service be provided via a 19th century technology. In the 21st century, isn't it just as bad for Internet access to be expensive and slow, as it was 80 years ago for telephone access to be expensive or unavailable? Standards have changed.
It seems to me that (specific legalities of the decision aside) you are focusing too much on the technical aspects of common carrier status, and not enough on the underlying policy objectives of that regulation. If universal service regulation is to have any relevance today, it should align itself with the reality of modern communications technology (where access to the Internet, not telephone networks, is what matters), and with what it means today to be "connected".
A "universal service" policy that ignores the fact that TCP/IP-based broadband Internet has replaced telephony as the essential communication technology is just a farce.
VC: Well since Amazon has paid all the telcos so that services delivered through AWS "telco-optimized elastic IPs" can be free on data plans, all you have to do is include Amazon's surcharges in your business plan.
> Well since Spotify, Beats, and Apple have paid all
> the telcos so that their services are free on the mobile
> networks, we are concerned that new music services like
> yours will have a hard time getting new users to use them
> because the data plan is so expensive
If a new music service could make a deal with telcos so that their service is free too, wouldn't this problem go away? In other words, if sponsored data was open to all, does this address the concern described?
The real concern seems to be that the cost base of a new service will go up because it will be forced to pay for sponsored data in order to compete, and VCs aren't happy about having to cover increased costs of their portfolio companies.
A similar argument could have been made about CDNs. Because the big services use CDNs to provide a better service, startups have to pay to use CDNs also in order to compete, and hence their costs are higher.