Before We Start Regulating ISPs, Maybe It Would Be Good Idea To Define Them

from the forethought,-ignored dept

Thu, Dec 11th 2008 7:04am — Carlo Longino

Many people are expecting that the debate over net neutrality will kick up again in the new year. The senator behind previous attempts to enact it plans to reintroduce legislation for it, while the incoming presidential administration appears to be much more supportive of the idea than the outgoing one. Before jumping in with both feet, though, let's pause for a second (and read Tim Lee's paper), and take a moment to actually figure out just what constitutes an ISP these days, and who would be bound by any net-neutrality regulations.

An interesting piece at Network World raises the example of Amazon: since it supplies a network connection to Kindle owners, would net-neutrality regulation force it to somehow open up the internet access on the device and allow Kindle owners to connect to other e-book vendors? This is an important point to consider, given how mobile operators are all talking about their plans to "open" their networks and get wireless radios embedded in all sorts of consumer electronics. If, say, Netflix decided to sell a device for accessing its streaming-movie service over mobile networks, and used a similar model to Amazon, in which the wireless service was included, would Netflix be an ISP? Would net-neutrality regulations force it to let users access other movie services? The general trend seems to be that the number of companies that could conceivably be considered ISPs -- especially with some poorly worded legislation -- is set to grow significantly. But net-neutrality regulation could end up stifling business models, innovation and new devices and services if it's not carefully considered. Somehow, though, it's hard to imagine there will be careful consideration in the rush to score political brownie points.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: definitions, isp, kindle, net neutrality, regulations

10 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

hegemon13, 11 Dec 2008 @ 7:28am

Going too far
I think it would quite silly to regulate Amazon and Netflix as ISPs. They are providing a service across the internet. An ISP provides a connection to the internet. To take advantage of Netflix streaming, you would still have to have an internet connection on your mobile device. The mobile carrier would be the ISP. Same with the Kindle. You can connect to the Amazon service, but you still have to have a connection to the internet to start with.

The bigger question to me would be, do those providing wifi count as ISPs? They are providing an internet connection to the end-user, and some places even charge for it. Will restaurants no longer be allowed to block certain types of Web sites or protocols?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Arbiter, 11 Dec 2008 @ 7:54am
  
  Re: Going too far
  No, the restaraunts would still be able to block access, because they are the end-user of their internet agreement. They need to get the internet connection from somewhere, too. So the store (let's say Starbucks, for the sake of argument) has a WiFi connection in their cafe. They can legitimately put restrictions upon users of their WiFi connection because it is a public place, and not all of the public has legal access to all parts of the internet. I'm not saying it would happen, but would you stay in a place where people were surfing porn sites? It would be rather disgusting/awkward.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - hegemon13, 11 Dec 2008 @ 9:37am
    
    Re: Re: Going too far
    That makes no sense. Your ISP gets their connection from somewhere, too. The fact is, that the restaurant is purchasing a connection, then redistributing it by assigning multiple IP addresses to distinct end-users. If they charge, they are even re-selling it, which definitely makes them an ISP on a small scale.
    
    I agree that it would be awkward, and I am not saying they SHOULD be treated as ISPs. However, they certainly could be. I think there should be some specific guidelines set up based on the number of subscribers, permanency of subscribers, etc.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Monarch, 11 Dec 2008 @ 8:04am
  
  Re: Going too far
  Any device that provides another device a connection to the internet is essentially and ISP. Why you ask? Because MOST ISP's are not Internet Backbone providers, and are purchasing backbone connections from other ISP's and reselling the bandwidth they purchased.
  
  So.., say the local cable company purchased an OC192 from Level3, XO, AT&T or Qwest, then the cable company sells a business cable connection to the local coffee shop, the local coffee shop provides free WiFi to it's customers. What makes the local coffee shop any less of an ISP than the cable company as they are just reselling the same bandwidth purchased from a backbone provider?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Robb Topolski (profile), 11 Dec 2008 @ 4:47pm
    
    Re: Re: Going too far
    If that's true, then 60-70 million of us who think we have Internet access don't, and only a few dozen companies actually do.
    
    No, I don't think that's it.
    
    I have a public IP address, I can do host-host communication -- that's what I wanted when I subscribed, that's what I got. Like it or not, Comcast's network is part of the Internet. Same with Verizon DSL.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2008 @ 8:31am

I would be inclined to start the definition as giving out an IP Address or IP Addresses. If it doesn't give out an IP Address it is not an ISP. That isn't a concise definition, but it is a starting point. I would go on to note that if the IP Address is for a local network, and not for the Internet as a whole, it probably isn't an ISP. Those two things make a good check to see if something is an ISP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dave, 11 Dec 2008 @ 9:35am
  
  Re:
  I use NAT in my home network and have a DHCP server as part of my network router. By your definition I could be an ISP If I let my friend connect to my NAT'd network.
  
  I think it has to be those who charge only for bandwidth and not a specific service. Still a tricky definition but closer, IMHO.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - hegemon13, 11 Dec 2008 @ 9:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    Every ISP I know provides services along with the connection, such as email, small Web page hosting, etc. So, that definition wouldn't work. Would you say that AOL was not an ISP?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Xiera, 11 Dec 2008 @ 10:05am

A matter of wording
The term ISP (Internet Service Provider) will be too ambiguous for legislation to be limited to intended results. Is an ISP the provider of some service over the Internet? or is an ISP the provider of a service called the Internet? (For those who don't know, it's the latter, but, really, what are you doing reading this site if you don't know that?)

Clearly, Amazon is an Internet-based Service Provider while, say, Comcast is an Internet-Service Provider. I can see this going one of two ways: 1) this could be a pain in the arse for lawmakers, or 2) lawmakers not understanding the difference, not caring, and producing a potentially harmful law. (Knowing our lawmakers, which do YOU think it would be?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Him ThatIs, 11 Dec 2008 @ 4:43pm

define me
ISP = Internet Service Provider.

While I don't believe Amazon should worry too much, Mike makes a point. Someone, somewhere will no doubt(seriously none at all) in my mind make it an issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]