[opendtv] Re: Evidence of confused legal thinking
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2017 08:40:14 -0400
On Oct 5, 2017, at 4:05 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Are you kidding me? How lost are you, Craig? Do you ever read the links, or
do you just make it up as you go along? Look again at the title. "Evidence of
confused legal thinking." Here is the quote:
----------------------------
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-277.ZS.html
"Information service" providers-those "offering . a capability for
[processing] information via telecommunications," 47 U.S.C. § 153(20)-are
subject to mandatory regulation by the Federal Communications Commission as
common carriers under Title II of the Act.
----------------------------
Let me abbreviate it for you, Craig:
You “abbreviated” the paragraph, and thus got what the court was saying
COMPLETELY WRONG:
Conversely, telecommunications carriers–i.e., those “offering …
telecommunications for a fee directly to the public … regardless of the
facilities used,” §153(46)–are not subject to mandatory Title II regulation.
These two classifications originated in the late 1970’s, as the Commission
developed rules to regulate data-processing services offered over telephone
wires. Regulated “telecommunications service” under the 1996 Act is the analog
to “basic service” under the prior regime, the Computer II rules. Those rules
defined such service as a “pure” or “transparent” transmission capability over
a communications path enabling the consumer to transmit an ordinary-language
message to another point without computer processing or storage of the
information, such as via a telephone or a facsimile. Under the 1996 Act,
“[i]nformation service” is the analog to “enhanced” service, defined by the
Computer II rules as computer-processing applications that act on the
subscriber’s information, such as voice and data storage services, as well as
“protocol conversion,” i.e., the ability to communicate between networks that
employ different data-transmission formats.
I know this is a bit complex for you to understand Bert. But please try..,.
Information Services as defined above ARE NOT subject to Title II regulation.
So now Supreme Court justices are ignoramuses?
First of all, how many proof-readings did that glaring error survive, Craig?
The one I quoted right above, in case you missed it AGAIN! Does that imply a
lack of familiarity with the subject matter? Does to me.
Apparently you are the ignoramus here Bert, as you clearly ignored what the
court actually said.
So imagine how lacking in credibility anyone would be, if they claim that net
neutrality doesn't matter "because all the web sites people deal with are an
integral part of the ISP network." To be blunt, that's too stupid for words.
You make the problem go away by being so ignorant as to ignore the problem.
CORRECT. What you wrote above is too stupid for words. Fortunately it is not
what the Supreme Court said.
This is NOT a reading comprehension issue, Bert. You are trying to create a
completely different meaning for the plain English words used by the court. I
tried to address this yesterday and you simply ignored it, and restated the
same incorrect interpretation of what the Court said.
ISP service is useless without connection to the Internet
And how stupid of an argument is that? Is this not identical to your
telephone service is useless, without connecting to the global phone system,
and the people or the businesses reachable over it? Wow, that's profound.
And irrelevant. The court said that the purpose of an ISP service it to connect
to the Internet, NOT to a server operated by the ISP.
There are many information services offered that are not part of the Internet.
Boeing has private intranet services that are not part of the Internet. Boeing
also has the necessary infrastructure to allow you to access the Internet via
the networks at your office. ANd no doubt you can use your ISP service to
connect to the Boeing intranets with proper authentication.
The entire point here is that cable broadband was, and still is, being sold as
a gateway to the Internet, and the Court clearly stated that this should not be
regulated as a Title II Telecommunications service. But Congress DID tell the
FCC to regulate VOIP services delivered over these same cable wires as a Title
II Telecommunications service. THe intent was obvious, and the Court upheld
that intent.
Title II, and the Mann Elkins Act in 1910, were written **precisely** for
this reason. Because they want to ensure that people and businesses are
reachable throughout the country, over the telecom networks. (Country, Craig.
The FCC is not international.)
Ancient history Bert. We cannot change what happened more than a century ago.
At best we can analyze how successful a century of heavy handed
telecommunications regulation produced.
On the success side of the ledger we did get universal interconnections and
Universal Service (basically taxing those in profitable markets to pay for
infrastructure in less profitable markets and a lot of regulatory bureaucracy.
We have no way of knowing if the competitive marketplace would have fulfilled
these needs. What we DO KNOW is that the competitive cellular industry IS
delivering massive benefits to consumers via both collaboration AND
competition, without the FCC telling them how to run their businesses.
You live in a fantasy world where you believe regulation reduces costs and
delivers innovation to consumers. The truth is just the opposite.
An Information service as define by the 1996 Telecom act.
Hey, even that pointless anachronism doesn't matter. Read the top quote in
this post again, Craig. It's subject to Title II. They said so.
I give up. They said just the opposite.
END OF THREAD.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
