It *is* telecom

Post #331,837 by drook 8/25/10 5:34:01 PM Reply	It is telecom It's only a historical accident that anyone ever thought it wasn't. For the past 15 years, whenever someone said, "There's no law that covers that on the internet," they were wrong. Saying that existing laws can't be applied to the intenet is like saying all you have to do is add the words "on the internet" to a longstanding business process and you can get a patent. "We auction stuff off ... on the internet! Gimme a patent, bitches." -- Drew
Post #331,841 by beepster 8/25/10 6:14:40 PM Reply	Doesn't mean... it has to be classified the same way as your telephone. Doing that just lets them tax it by adding USF to it. It was only a matter of time. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #331,842 by drook 8/25/10 6:27:04 PM Reply	You don't like the USF. Now tell me why it's not a telecom. -- Drew
Post #331,847 by boxley 8/25/10 8:28:14 PM Reply	doesnt use the AIN so its not a telecom, no a-links needed your anology is like having amtrack administer the highway system as well as the FAA. Why not, its all transportation.
Post #331,850 by drook 8/25/10 8:50:14 PM Reply	Verizon says you're wrong No, actually the Telecommunications Act of 1996 says you're wrong. I just got the link from Verizon -- http://www22.verizon...tions_act_of_1996 Telecommunications Act of 1996 Public Law 104-104, enacted February 8, 1996, provided comprehensive reform of the 1934 Communications Act. The Act was designed to foster competition among local telephone, long distance telephone, cable and other communications companies. http://www22.verizon...nications_service Telecommunications Service As defined in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used to transmit the telecommunications services. http://www22.verizon...elecommunications Telecommunications As defined in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, transmission between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received. Any transmission, emission, or reception of signs, signals, writings, images, and sounds or intelligence by wire, radio, optical, or other electromagnetic systems. How does an ISP not fit that definition? -- Drew
Post #331,852 by boxley 8/25/10 8:55:20 PM Reply	federal court said you are wrong, they should know http://connectedplan...-p2p-ruling-0406/
Post #331,867 by drook 8/25/10 10:22:36 PM Reply	Have you read Brand X? The Comcast ruling was based on Brand X -- http://www.law.corne...ml/04-277.ZS.html You can read the whole thing, but here are the key points (as relates to the question of "is cable modem service telecommunications?"). In the Declaratory Ruling under review, the [Federal Communications] Commission classified broadband cable modem service as an "information service" but not a "telecommunications service" under the 1996 Act, so that it is not subject to mandatory Title II common-carrier regulation. ... In particular, the [district] court held [in overturning the Commission's finding] that the Commission could not permissibly construe the Communications Act to exempt cable companies providing cable modem service from mandatory Title II regulation. Rather than analyzing the permissibility of that construction under the deferential framework of Chevron U.S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, however, the court grounded that holding in the stare decisis effect of its decision in AT&T Corp. v. Portland, 216 F.3d 871, which had held that cable modem service is a "telecommunications service." ... Chevron requires a federal court to defer to an agencyÂs construction, even if it differs from what the court believes to be the best interpretation, if the particular statute is within the agencyÂs jurisdiction to administer, the statute is ambiguous on the point at issue, and the agencyÂs construction is reasonable. The key point here is that the ruling in Brand X was not whether cable modem service qualifies as "telecommunications service" or "information service", but whether the Circuit Court was allowed to overrule the finding of the FCC on an ambiguously worded statute. So what did the Circuit Court find? Because Portland held only that the best reading of §153(46) was that cable modem service was "telecommunications service," not that this was the only permissible reading or that the Communications Act unambiguously required it, the Ninth Circuit erred in refusing to apply Chevron. Pp. 10Â14. So the Ninth Circuit agreed with me, that cable modem is "telecommunications service". The Supreme Court didn't rule on that issue, merely saying that the issue was ambiguous and therefore within the purview of the FCC to define. As to whether the language was ambiguous -- ie: is it reasonable to conclude that cable modem is not "telecommunications service": Seen from the consumer's point of view, the Commission concluded, the cable wire is used to access the World Wide Web, newsgroups, etc., rather than "transparently" to transmit and receive ordinary-language messages without computer processing or storage of the message. ... It is common usage to describe what a company "offers" to a consumer as what the consumer perceives to be the integrated finished product, even to the exclusion of discrete components that compose the product. ... As the Commission recognized, the service that Internet access providers offer the public is Internet access, not a transparent ability (from the end-userÂs perspective) to transmit information. This view depends on defining "the consumer" as a single, monolithic block of users, none of whom understand the technology at issue. On this point I think the Supreme Court simply got it wrong, allowing the least technologically-aware segment of the population stand in as a proxy for the whole. Finally: *The traditional reason for its Computer II* common-carrier treatment** of facilities-based carriers was that the telephone network was the primary, if not the exclusive, means through which information service providers could gain access to their customers. The Commission applied the same treatment to DSL service based on that history, rather than on an analysis of contemporaneous market conditions. The Commission's Declaratory Ruling, by contrast, concluded that changed market conditions warrant different treatment of cable modem service. Unlike at the time of the DSL order, substitute forms of Internet transmission exist today, including wireline, cable, terrestrial wireless, and satellite. The Commission therefore concluded that broadband services should exist in a minimal regulatory environment that promotes investment and innovation in a competitive market. Part of the reasoning for the change has nothing to do with what the service is, and instead depends on whether there is a competitive marketplace, and what greater need is served. So as I said: A historical accident. Note that this ruling only applies to cable internet service. DSL is still regulated under the common carrier provisions. So: 1. The Circuit Court agreed with me that broadband internet service -- excuse me, cable internet service -- is a "telecommunications service". 2. The Supreme Court said that whether that was true or not, the regulations were sufficiently ambiguous that the Circuit Court should have allowed the Commission's interpretation to stand. 2a. They found that the regulation was ambiguous by assuming that end-users were not well educated about the offerings. 3. The court allowed a different interpretation of DSL broadband vs. cable broadband based not on the offering and how it was perceived by the end-user, but on market conditions and issues of competition. So the court didn't say I'm wrong. And in fact, now that I've read the decisions behind this story, I realize your case is even weaker than I thought. Because the decision hinged on the fact that the FCC has jurisdiction to determine whether cable internet providers should be considered common carriers. So it is entirely within the rights of the FCC to impose Net Neutrality. The existing case law supports their jurisdiction to do so. -- Drew
Post #331,877 by boxley 8/25/10 11:03:52 PM Reply	hafta take this offline if you are really interested Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #331,856 by beepster 8/25/10 9:20:15 PM Reply	I didn't say it wasn't telecom I said >they< want to reclassify it so it fits in with the USF so they can TAX it just like the phone. So you will see new excise, USF and other charges added. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #331,858 by Another Scott 8/25/10 9:32:06 PM Reply	Sure, it's all about TAXes. As always. Sure... :-/
Post #331,864 by beepster 8/25/10 10:05:25 PM Reply	Is that NOT what you think that earlier quote about restructuring the USF was about? If so, please enlighten us with what YOU think it means? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #331,873 by Another Scott 8/25/10 10:55:34 PM Reply	Let's see. What's the underlying context of this discussion? The National Broadband Plan - http://www.broadband...action-items.html Goal No. 1: At least 100 million U.S. homes should have affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 megabits per second and actual upload speeds of at least 50 megabits per second. Goal No. 2: The United States should lead the world in mobile innovation, with the fastest and most extensive wireless networks of any nation. Goal No. 3: Every American should have affordable access to robust broadband service, and the means and skills to subscribe if they so choose. Goal No. 4: Every community should have affordable access to at least 1 gigabit per second broadband service to anchor institutions such as schools, hospitals, and government buildings. Goal No. 5: To ensure the safety of American communities, every first responder should have access to a nationwide, wireless, interoperable broadband public safety network. Goal No. 6: To ensure that America leads in the clean energy economy, every American should be able to use broadband to track and manage their real-time energy consumption. What's the USF? http://www.usac.org/about/usac/ The Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) is an independent, not-for-profit corporation designated as the administrator of the federal Universal Service Fund by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). USAC administers Universal Service Fund (USF) programs for high cost companies serving rural areas, low-income consumers, rural health care providers, and schools and libraries. The Universal Service Fund helps provide communities across the country with affordable telecommunications services. The Universal Service Fund is one fund with four programs. The four programs are: * High Cost - This support ensures that consumers in all regions of the nation have access to and pay rates for telecommunications services that are reasonably comparable to those in urban areas. * Low Income - This support, commonly known as Lifeline and Link Up, provides discounts that make basic, local telephone service affordable for more than 7 million low-income consumers. * Rural Health Care - This support provides reduced rates to rural health care providers for telecommunications and Internet services so they pay no more than their urban counterparts for the same or similar telecommunications services. * Schools & Libraries - This support, commonly referred to as E-rate support, provides affordable telecommunications and Internet access services to connect schools and libraries to the Internet. This support goes to service providers that provide discounts on eligible services to eligible schools, school districts, libraries, and consortia of these entities. High Cost and Low Income support is managed by the High Cost and Low Income Division (HCLID). Rural Health Care support is managed by the Rural Health Care Division (RHCD). Schools and Libraries support is managed by the Schools and Libraries Division (SLD). USAC has a diverse 19-member Board of Directors comprised of representatives of universal service stakeholders. What's USF reform? http://en.wikipedia....al_Service_reform Current debate over the Universal Service Fund currently involves the scope of the funding, which technology types and companies should fund the program, which groups should be eligible for benefits, and the need to clean up waste and fraud in the program. Changes in technology and the marketplace have led to the need for reform of USF. The development of new telecommunications technology is constant. Many of the services covered by the USF are related to traditional telephone technology. There is a rising concern that some of the more recent developments in telecommunications are just as important to the consumer as these older technologies. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 specifically states that "advanced services" should be accessible to all Americans [Section 254(b)(3)]. A question currently debated is whether access to broadband internet should be supported by the USF and if so, how best to fulfill such a large mandate without damaging the stability of the fund. What does it mean? Well, since the FCC is pushing a mandate to expand broadband across the country to as much of the population as possible, it seems to me that the USF fits into that. Reform of the USF fits into that. It's not about TAXes. Its about expanding service and making sure that service is open. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #331,876 by boxley 8/25/10 11:02:55 PM Reply	Re: Let's see. i would be satisfied that every household have reasonable access to food and water, we aint there yet. Socialist much? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #331,878 by Another Scott 8/25/10 11:30:21 PM Reply	...
Post #332,595 by CRConrad 9/15/10 11:11:59 AM Reply	So you're in favour of letting people starve to death? Because not to do so would be "socialist". (If that's not how to read what you wrote, then what is?) You do realise, I hope, that the opposite of "socialist", in that case, seems to be "utter arsehole". But the Other Scott of course said all that so much more elegantly than I... Because all the above is exactly what his "..." meant, I am willing to wager. And to think I accused poor BeeP of being a Rush-head...!
Post #332,601 by boxley 9/15/10 12:42:45 PM 9/15/10 12:43:09 PM Reply	point=missed I am concerned that people have access to adequate food and water, in america some people do go to bed hungry (if they have a bed) Scott is concerned that these hungry people get broadband. Unca Joe Steele was a socialist, he loved them kulaks Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep Edited by boxley Sept. 15, 2010, 12:43:09 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #332,610 by Ashton 9/15/10 4:19:35 PM Reply	Considering that you are {unnaturally!} oft better-informed about the hysterical soap opera which Murican 'politics' always is: I doubt that you are surprised that our 'Social Security' ... ie. the very Idea that there should Be Such a Thing -- is currently under attack by various reactionary groupings (merely for having the concept 'social' anywhere around it.) And such fulminations are (see Russ Feingold matters) successfully beating-out re-electable long-time non-lunatic seat holders, in preparation for the verbal diarrhea to accompany {{shudder}} the little dances to be held in November. Now I know what you're thinking: IF'n 'They' replace living-breathing humans with such pod-people droids, aren't they Shooting-in-gonads -- the Party (they have devoured into irrelevance) -- to the benefit of the Opposition? Yeah, one might think so, but this be Murica 2010. (Let the shuddering commence early, so those muscles will be strong enough to bear the November Shudders in all sentient onlookers.) Carrion PS -- welcome back from the Void! I could almost see voting for Palin in 2012 on the grounds that this sorry ratfucking excuse for a republic, this savage, smirking, predatory empire deserves her. Bring on the Rapture, motherfuckers! -- via RC
Post #331,881 by drook 8/26/10 2:35:40 AM Reply	Let's see, part B The Telecommunications Act of 1996 specifically states that "advanced services" should be accessible to all Americans The reasoning in Brand X explicitly held that cable internet was an "information service" and not a "telecommunications service" because "advanced services" == "information services". So if cable is an "advanced service", that's exactly what the USF is supposed to be providing. -- Drew
Post #331,886 by beepster 8/26/10 7:46:02 AM Reply	So who will pay to run cable to the guy 100 miles up in the Rockies? And the USF used to be only about telephone. scope and tax creep. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #331,896 by boxley 8/26/10 10:49:50 AM Reply	you already did, part of the stimulus package Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #331,911 by beepster 8/26/10 4:30:19 PM Reply	But I also pay every month on my land line bill. Paid also when I had the second line on VOIP. Nothing to do with stimulus. Now they want to hit me again, apparently, every month on my internet bill. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,609 by Ashton 9/15/10 4:06:23 PM Reply	Poor beepster ... could your taxes be so onerous because your income is so high? Shed some of that pork and you too can be (almost) Tax-free. (Hey.. works for me.) :-0 I could almost see voting for Palin in 2012 on the grounds that this sorry ratfucking excuse for a republic, this savage, smirking, predatory empire deserves her. Bring on the Rapture, motherfuckers! -- via RC
Post #332,611 by beepster 9/15/10 4:23:01 PM Reply	bwah ha ha thats funny Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.

Welcome to IWETHEY!