Evariste obligations under Title II of the
Evariste SomeNetNeutrality RegulationWhat are the topreasons for net neutrality regulation? Why are we doing this? What are theproblems classifying “Broadband Internet Access Service” (BIAS) as a “telecommunicationservice”? Because there are enough problems, Commission wants to classify BIASas “information service”.
Therefore, what is the definition of informationservice, and how it maps to BIAS? Those are the questions we will attempt toprovide a reasonable point of view.The top reasons of net neutralityregulation are to:First, eliminatethe burdensome regulation that hamper “innovation and investment of BroadbandInternet Access Service”, offer a chance “to free and open Internet”, and toallow consumers to choose the BIAS that fits their needs (FCC, 2018, p. 2).
Second, in 2015Title II Order, “the Commission abandoned twenty years of precedent andreclassified BIAS as telecommunication service subject to several regulatoryobligations under Title II of the Communication Act of 1934. Such approach hasbeen reverse and the BIAS has been restored to its Title I information serviceclassification. The regulation has ended utility style regulation of theInternet in favor of the market based policies to preserve the future ofinternet freedom. The private mobile service classification of mobile BIAS, andthe Commission’s definition of interconnected service that existed prior 2015 havebeen reinstated. Such modification will promote investment and innovationbetter than applying costly and restrictive laws” (FCC, 2018, p. 2).
Third, “net neutrality regulation”required a transparency with ISP actors. That helps consumers to choose whatwork best for them. It belongs to consumers to decide what BIAS meets theirneeds. Regulation went back to the transparency rule the “Commission adopted in2014 with limited modifications” (FCC, 2018, p. 2). Fourth, the Commission’sconduct rules have been eliminated. These rules cost to innovation andinvestment, which outweigh any benefits that is generated.
No sources of legalauthority have proven the conduct rules governing Internet Service Providersadopted in the Title II order (FCC, 2018, p. 2). Additionally, transparencyrequirement ensures that consumer have means to take legal action if an ISPengages in behavior inconsistent with an open internet.Overall, the meanof all these actions is to promote broadband deployment in America, mostly inuncovered rural area, and infrastructure investment throughout the nation.
Suchperspectives will brighten the future of innovation both within networks andtheir edges.Why are we doing this?The intendedactions are to “promote competition and reduce regulation, to flourish computerservices to the benefit of all Americans”, to “promote the continuousdevelopment of the internet and other interactive computer services and otherinteractive media and to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market thatpresently exists for the internet and other interactive computer servicesunfettered by Federal or State regulation” (Pai, Carr, 2017). Because onlinetraffic is exploding, and “we consume exponentially more data over time, innovatorsand entrepreneurs must grow startups into global giants, and therefore makeAmerica’s Internet economy the envy of the world” (Pai, Carr, 2017). UnderTitlte II, investment in high-speed networks has deteriorated.
WirelessInternet Service Providers Association, representing fixed wireless “companiesthat typically operate in rural America”, surveyed its members and discoveredthat over 79% “incurred additional expense in complying with Title II rules,had delayed or reduced network expansion, had delayed or reduced services andhad allocated budget to comply with the rules. Nearly two dozen small providerssubmitted a letter saying the FCC’s heavy-handed rules “affect our ability tofind financing” (Pai, Carr, 2017). These are the types of companies that are tobe taken in consideration for providing more competitive market. With technologygrowth, consumers are imposing increasing demands on the network. Networks mustbe re-scaled to satisfy consumers demand soon or later.How is technologydriving problem for classifying BIAS? A strong understanding of technology roleis important.
“Broadband Internet Service Access” is defined to be aninformation service under the Act. Section 3 of the Act defines an “informationservice” as “the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing,transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing or making available informationvia telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing, but does notinclude any use of any such capability for the management, control, oroperation of a telecommunication system or the management of atelecommunications service”. Still, section 3 defines a “telecommunicationsservice as the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public,or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to thepublic, regardless of the facilities used.” Likewise, BIAS provide informationprocessing functionalities itself, such as DNS and caching, which satisfy thecapabilities set forth in the information service definition.
” It has beenproven that the BIAS as it is offered today most soundly, leads to theconclusion that it is an “information service” (FCC, 2018, p. 10).To solve the statutory ambiguity, itis proven that “information service” encompasses BIAS. Because BIAS has “thecapacity or potential ability to be used, to engage in the activities withinthe information service” – “generating, acquiring, storing, transforming,processing retrieving, utilizing or making available information viatelecommunication” – we conclude that it is best to have those “capabilities.”These are not “merely incidental” uses of BIAS, because it is not only “thecapacity to be used” for these particular purposes, but was designed andintended to do so, BIAS is best interpreted as providing customers with the”capability” for such action with third party providers (FCC, 2018, p. 13).BIAS is an “informationservice irrespective of whether it provides the entirety of any end userfunctionality or whether it provides end user functionality in tandem with edgeproviders” (FCC, 2018, p.
13).Net neutrality inits Tittle II had many ambiguities regarding information and telecommunicationservices. Many of us ignore or can not interpret the content of theCommunication Act. Therefore, it is not surprising to record resentments regardingnet neutrality regulation. Repealing Title II and reversing BIAS as aninformation service will bring faster, better, and cheaper Internet access toall Americans. Time is arrived to return to the bipartisan regulatory frameworkunder which the Internet flourished prior to 2015.References:FCC Federal Communications Commission17-166. (January 4, 2018).
“Restoring InternetFreedom.”Pai, Carr. (December 14, 2017). “Statements for Repealing Net Neutrality.”Retrieve from https://www.recode.net/2017/12/14/16777356/full-transcript-ajit-pai-brendan-carr-fcc- statements-net-neutrality-repeal
