Before We Start Regulating ISPs, Maybe It Would Be Good Idea To Define Them
from the forethought,-ignored dept
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.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Going too far
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 thread ]
Re: Going too far
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Going too far
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Going too far
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 thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A matter of wording
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 thread ]
define me
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Going too far
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 thread ]