> that fetching a web page is, by the logic of the Act, fundamentally the same thing as making a request of Prodigy or AOL.
That's not actually in dispute. I fully agree with you on this point.
You're just being silly by pretending that the fact that AOL was called an ISP back then means that everything called an ISP now must be regulated the same way, when "ISP" isn't even the legally-relevant terminology.
> in a statute that pretty clearly saw the Internet as a use case for telecommunications
To the extent that "the Internet" can be seen as a "use case" in itself and not just an enabler of other use cases, it must be considered to be the packet network plus services atop it like email, WWW, etc.
I'm not saying AOL was considered an ISP back in 1996; I don't really think it was. I'm saying the Internet as a concept was not considered a raw telecommunications service. The Internet was something the Act wanted to force telecommunications providers to allow; its concern was much more that MCI and AT&T might try to suppress the Internet in favor of some MCI- or AT&T-specific information services.
For as much tsuris as this issue has caused on this thread, I don't think there's much dispute about this, legally; the issue made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled on it; only a particularly reach-y application of Chevron made the interpretation you want viable. Chevron is dead now, and so, too, mechanically, is administratively-enforced "net neutrality".
> Internet as a concept was not considered a raw telecommunications service
You're making a common parlance argument against statutory interpretation. Go with what the law actually says an information service is versus a telecommunications service.
> its concern was much more that MCI and AT&T might try to suppress the Internet in favor of some MCI- or AT&T-specific information services.
This is exactly the concern that NN proponents have today. It's the same RBOCs of yore wearing a mask and arguing they're something they aren't. And That by controlling the pipes (many of which have no viable or slim competition) the ISPs can (and have tried) to push certain information services they own and operate or have financial deals with over others with unequal billing and network management policies.
What you're making is an argument that Congress should pass a law regulating the ISPs as if they were RBOCs†. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 refers specifically to the "Bell Operating Companies", and does so because of the antitrust-enforced divestment of those very specific companies from AT&T. They're not an abstract concept in the law, and the FCC can't just say "it would make sense if the law was extended to ISPs too". That's Congress's job.
† or something; the 1996 Act actually de-regulates the RBOCs.
> What you're making is an argument that Congress should pass a law regulating the ISPs as if they were RBOCs
No. Your current bags of cash ISP position makes you incapable of reading the law and see there are no "ISPs" or "RBOCs" in the Communications Act of '96. For all the times you've harked on me about "CoMmOnPaRlaNCe", you've completely failed to actually read the law and read the court opinions and apply an ounce of clear, open, honest understanding to them.
> In short, an “information service” manipulates data, while a “telecommunications service” does not.
The court here gave us a very obvious test, one you constantly ignore here. Tell me how my ISP is manipulating my information outside of being a common carrier for our conversation here. You cant! You fucking can't! I've given you many chances, and you've failed every time!
I guess you didn't understand it, let me repeat it:
> In short, an “information service” manipulates data, while a “telecommunications service” does not.
This is the court's opinion.
Don't apply your own common parlance understanding of what an ISP is. Don't apply some twisted prezel-brained logic of what "provides access to". Tell me how my ISP lives up to the standard this court just gave us for what an information service is.
But you won't, you'll just ignore this and continue to count those dollars the ISPs are giving you and wonder where this corruption I talk about is.
I don't know what my "bags of cash" position is (I haven't worked for an ISP in over 25 years) but no, there obviously are RBOCs in the Act; you're looking for the search term "Bell Operating Company". Sorry to disappoint you on this.
That's a funny way of saying "sorry, I looked at the statute, and you're right, it repeatedly discusses the Bell Operating Companies", but: apology accepted.
> In short, an “information service” manipulates data, while a “telecommunications service” does not.
I will forever respond to your comments with this quote until you really answer how an ISP substantively manipulated my POST request to Hacker News. This is the standard the court gave us. Tell me how my ISP is an information service here.
That's not actually in dispute. I fully agree with you on this point.
You're just being silly by pretending that the fact that AOL was called an ISP back then means that everything called an ISP now must be regulated the same way, when "ISP" isn't even the legally-relevant terminology.
> in a statute that pretty clearly saw the Internet as a use case for telecommunications
To the extent that "the Internet" can be seen as a "use case" in itself and not just an enabler of other use cases, it must be considered to be the packet network plus services atop it like email, WWW, etc.