Speaker 1: Get in touch with technology with tex Stuff from com
Speaker 1: be there and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm Jonathan Strickland,
Speaker 1: and today I'm doing a solo episode because it's about
Speaker 1: some news that broke the day before I record this episode.
Speaker 1: I'm recording on February fifth, two thousand, fifth Team. And
Speaker 1: on February four, two fifteen, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler made
Speaker 1: a statement outlining the Federal Communication Commission's plan to f
Speaker 1: CC for reclassifying Internet service providers as common carriers here
Speaker 1: in the United States. But you might wonder what that
Speaker 1: actually means and why people are making a big deal
Speaker 1: out of it. So I thought I would explain what
Speaker 1: common carriers are in general, how have they applied to
Speaker 1: the Internet or don't apply up till now anyway, and
Speaker 1: how this might change things in the future, and also
Speaker 1: just to clear up some misconceptions about the whole thing.
Speaker 1: So first, in the United States, the term common carrier
Speaker 1: is a legal definition that means an individual, a company,
Speaker 1: or a public utility like municipal buses, which is in
Speaker 1: the regular business of transporting people and or freight. And
Speaker 1: that's distinguished from a private carrier, which only transports occasionally
Speaker 1: or as a one time only event, so it originally
Speaker 1: referred to a physical conveyance of carrying people or cargo
Speaker 1: from one place to another. In fact, in the United States,
Speaker 1: this was first put into law in the Inner State
Speaker 1: Commerce Act of eighteen seven, which regulated the railroads. Other
Speaker 1: countries have had similar policies dating back hundreds of years.
Speaker 1: Some of them are formally put down into law. Some
Speaker 1: are just simple traditions that have held over over the
Speaker 1: course of time. But over time, the definition here in
Speaker 1: the United States has expended to cover services that carry
Speaker 1: more than uh these physical things. They can verry intangible
Speaker 1: things like voice communication. Now, one of the most important
Speaker 1: facets of common carriers is that they are not allowed
Speaker 1: to discriminate against passengers or cargo. They're legally bound to
Speaker 1: carry all of them as long as there's enough capacity. UH.
Speaker 1: They also have to have the fee to carry the
Speaker 1: passenger or freight to be paid. I mean that that
Speaker 1: has to happen too, so they don't do it for free.
Speaker 1: UH and as long as there are no reasonable grounds
Speaker 1: to deny entry. So in other words, let's have an example.
Speaker 1: Let's say there's a city bus with plenty of seats available.
Speaker 1: That bus would not be allowed under common carriage laws
Speaker 1: to refuse service to a person who has bus fare
Speaker 1: unless the bus driver had reasonable grounds to deny entry.
Speaker 1: So let's say that the person who wants to get
Speaker 1: on the bus is waving around a huge club and
Speaker 1: singing Beach Boys songs at the top of his lungs.
Speaker 1: They probably wouldn't think that guy is safe to let
Speaker 1: onto your bus. You might be able to argue those
Speaker 1: are reasonable grounds to deny entry. However, assuming that that
Speaker 1: person waiting for the bus has shows no reason why
Speaker 1: you would deny him or her entry, you have to
Speaker 1: let that person on by the rules of common carriage.
Speaker 1: Another important element is that common carriers are expected to
Speaker 1: charge what is called a reasonable price, sometimes a just
Speaker 1: and reasonable price for their services. So this really means
Speaker 1: a common carrier can't charge one person more than another
Speaker 1: person for no good reason. Now, there aren't good reasons
Speaker 1: to charge different amounts in specific examples. So let's say
Speaker 1: you are a free company, for example, and you're hired
Speaker 1: to transport hazardous materials. That could justify a higher transportation
Speaker 1: fee for that particular job because it comes with greater
Speaker 1: risk than what it would normally be for you know,
Speaker 1: regular cargo. So there are exceptions, but otherwise you couldn't
Speaker 1: say I'm going to charge everyone in this town one
Speaker 1: price to ride on my train, but everyone in southern
Speaker 1: town has to pay this other price only because I
Speaker 1: hate that town, so that town has everyone there has
Speaker 1: to pay me more as I don't want them on
Speaker 1: my train. Otherwise that would not be allowed, so let's
Speaker 1: move ahead. In nineteen ten, that seven Act was modified
Speaker 1: so that it also covered telegraph and the burgeoning telephone companies.
Speaker 1: One of the issues customers faced in those early days
Speaker 1: was a lack of assurance that their telegraph messages would
Speaker 1: actually get through to their intended destinations. So some companies
Speaker 1: were charging extra fees to ensure that the message would
Speaker 1: be repeated all the way down to the end of
Speaker 1: the line. Now, courts decided that that was an unfair practice.
Speaker 1: That a customer has a reasonable expectation that a service
Speaker 1: provider will actually provide the service that was paid for,
Speaker 1: and should the customers shouldn't be charged extra just to
Speaker 1: be certain of it. Moreover, it should be on service
Speaker 1: providers to prove they are doing their job, rather than
Speaker 1: the burden being on customers to prove that the providers
Speaker 1: are falling short because the providers are privy to all
Speaker 1: the information, so they should be the ones who had
Speaker 1: the responsibility to prove that they're doing what they say
Speaker 1: they're doing. And another issue was the fact that the
Speaker 1: telephone system in the United States was effectively a monopoly.
Speaker 1: Bell Telephone, which became a T and T in eight five,
Speaker 1: got a headstart on other companies and laid on infrastructure
Speaker 1: that only worked with the phones made by Western Electric.
Speaker 1: So you had this partnership between Bell Telephone and Western Electric,
Speaker 1: which effectively meant they were the only players in town.
Speaker 1: If you were an independent uh telephone service company, your
Speaker 1: phones would not work on the Bell Telephone infrastructure, so
Speaker 1: that edged out competitors. And in nineteen thirteen Bell Telephone
Speaker 1: in the US Justice Department worked out a deal to
Speaker 1: limit Bell from scooping up independent competing companies and from
Speaker 1: preventing other competitors from using Bell's long distance lines. They
Speaker 1: were allowed to use Bells network. This was in response
Speaker 1: to an antitrust lawsuit that was being brought against Bell Telephone,
Speaker 1: and in order to head it off, Bell Telephone said,
Speaker 1: you know what, We're going to change these policies we've
Speaker 1: had so that you don't sue us, and it worked,
Speaker 1: and the value of the service was considered to be
Speaker 1: too important to allow unregulated control of it. So that's
Speaker 1: where we started seeing some regulation enter into the telephone industry. Now,
Speaker 1: there's a series of tech Stuff podcasts about the history
Speaker 1: of A T and T in which Lauren Voege, Obama
Speaker 1: and I explored how A T and T came about
Speaker 1: and how it was split up more than once due
Speaker 1: to concerns like these. So if you are interested in that,
Speaker 1: you should go check out those episodes. Now, getting back
Speaker 1: to the telephone industry as a whole, in Congress past
Speaker 1: the Communications Act, which created the Federal Communications Commission, which
Speaker 1: oversaw radio transmissions as well as telecommunications. So this is
Speaker 1: what established the Title two that the FCC refers to
Speaker 1: today when it comes to I s p s. They
Speaker 1: talked about reclassifying I s p s under Title two.
Speaker 1: This is the Act that classified telephone systems as common carriers.
Speaker 1: It's been amended several times over the following decades, including
Speaker 1: extensive alterations that were made during the Telecommunications Act of
Speaker 1: nine six. So let's move on to transmitting computer data.
Speaker 1: Over networks in nineteen seventies and nineteen eighties, before most
Speaker 1: people knew about a network of networks. You know, our
Speaker 1: bonnet was a thing. Internet was becoming a thing, but
Speaker 1: most people didn't know about it. The common way to
Speaker 1: connect to a computer was to use a modem for
Speaker 1: direct machine to machine connection over the telephone system. So
Speaker 1: you would have a dial up modem and you would
Speaker 1: use it to dial a phone number. The computer on
Speaker 1: the other end would essentially answer the phone, and then
Speaker 1: you would have computer to computer communication. But it wasn't
Speaker 1: an Internet, right, It wasn't a network of networks. It
Speaker 1: was the machine to machine communication. Regular computer data was
Speaker 1: considered a transmission service and fell under Title two, which
Speaker 1: meant that any any transmission service cannot be prioritized, it
Speaker 1: can't be discriminated against it, ow has to be treated equally.
Speaker 1: But there were specific services companies provided in which you
Speaker 1: could connect to a computer to get a get particular
Speaker 1: information like a weather report or stock information or sports scores,
Speaker 1: things like that. These were considered to be enhanced services,
Speaker 1: so this was classified under Title one of the Communications Act,
Speaker 1: which is unregulated. So the transmission was regulated, but these
Speaker 1: specific services were unregulated. The enhanced services didn't fall under
Speaker 1: common carriage terms. Companies could charge a fee for customers
Speaker 1: to use them. That would be on top of any
Speaker 1: phone bill for use of the transmission lines themselves. Okay,
Speaker 1: so let's say a phone company offers up its own
Speaker 1: enhanced service and some other company offers a competing enhanced service.
Speaker 1: The transmission of data falls under common carriage, which means
Speaker 1: that phone company could not prevent customers from accessing the
Speaker 1: competitors enhanced service. That would be unfair. So this is
Speaker 1: the beginning of the concept of net neutrality. The six
Speaker 1: Telecommunications Act redefined enhanced services as information services and also
Speaker 1: ratify the differences between transmission services information services, putting into
Speaker 1: policy what the FCC had sort of made up as
Speaker 1: it went along. So the transmission of services met the
Speaker 1: terms of common carriage. The telephone company treated all dial
Speaker 1: up services the same, all had equal access under the system.
Speaker 1: The actual services, the apps that people were accessing, those
Speaker 1: were enhanced or information services. That's not confusing enough. Let's
Speaker 1: move into the early era of broadband. This is when
Speaker 1: we start seeing dial up modems fade away and DSL
Speaker 1: began to arrive. Now the FCC continued to apply that
Speaker 1: distinctions made during the telephone era. The phone companies would
Speaker 1: have to carry DSL signals as common carriage, they couldn't
Speaker 1: discriminate against them. The apps are services running on the
Speaker 1: DSL connections were unregulated information services. And then we get
Speaker 1: to two thousand two. Now, this is when cable TV
Speaker 1: companies began offering transmission services of Internet data at high speeds,
Speaker 1: at least relative to dial up speeds at any rate.
Speaker 1: And this is where things get muddy. See the FCC
Speaker 1: classified cable broadband service under Title one, not titled two.
Speaker 1: That means both the transmission of data over cable and
Speaker 1: the information services provided would be unregulated. There will be
Speaker 1: no reason for regulation there because it's all under Title one.
Speaker 1: So why not treat cable transmission of data the same
Speaker 1: way as the telephone system? Largely comes down to politics.
Speaker 1: At this time, Republicans had a majority in government and
Speaker 1: they favored deregulation. And the reasons for favoring deregulation was
Speaker 1: that they thought it was going to promote risk taking
Speaker 1: and competition and innovation. The in reality that's not necessarily
Speaker 1: the case. I mean, if you look at the bell
Speaker 1: telephone system story that kind of shows what happens with deregulation,
Speaker 1: and it required the government to actually come in and
Speaker 1: intervene in order to avoid a monopoly that could completely
Speaker 1: take advantage of customers. On two thousand five, the FCC
Speaker 1: said that DSL would also be reclassified under Title one.
Speaker 1: So this makes the the whole situation even more complicated.
Speaker 1: Telephone systems are still titled too, but DSL and cable
Speaker 1: are now Title one and are unregulated. Now this meant
Speaker 1: that cable and DSL companies wouldn't have to ask permission
Speaker 1: to incorporate fast lanes for the Internet, so they could
Speaker 1: give preferential treatment to some customers over others for a fee.
Speaker 1: And because Title one is unregulated, there also no fear
Speaker 1: of the FCC butting in should a cable or DSL
Speaker 1: company block data they didn't want to carry, such as
Speaker 1: data from a competitor or from torrent sites. So, you know,
Speaker 1: we talked earlier about the common carriers. You know, one
Speaker 1: of the defining factors is that they cannot refuse service
Speaker 1: as long as a person is able to pay the fee.
Speaker 1: If it's a Title one, it's not a common carrier,
Speaker 1: and so it can deny service. So if you own
Speaker 1: the transmission lines and you have a content provider like YouTube,
Speaker 1: and you think I've got my own content provider program
Speaker 1: where people users can upload video, and I don't want
Speaker 1: to I don't want to compete against YouTube because YouTube
Speaker 1: is gonna is gonna make my tool obsolete. I'm just
Speaker 1: not gonna allow YouTube to go across my transmission lines. Technically,
Speaker 1: you could do that under Title one, because there's no
Speaker 1: you're not a common carrier. You're not You're not obligated
Speaker 1: to carry all legal information. Beyond that, there was no
Speaker 1: requirement for cable companies to provide services for a quote
Speaker 1: just and reasonable fee end quote. They could charge whatever
Speaker 1: they wanted. So in two thousand and eight things came
Speaker 1: to a head. The FCC find Comcast because Comcast had
Speaker 1: blocked peer to peer traffic through bit torrent. Now, first
Speaker 1: we have to keep in mind there's nothing inherently illegal
Speaker 1: or immoral or unethical about bit torrent. There's nothing wrong
Speaker 1: with the technology. It's a method of data transmission that
Speaker 1: works well for large files. Peer to peer is great
Speaker 1: if you're trying to move a huge amount of information
Speaker 1: in a relatively short amount of time. Now, some of
Speaker 1: those files were pired in material, they were illegal files,
Speaker 1: and there were plenty of huge files that were legal.
Speaker 1: They should have been able to transmit freely. But because
Speaker 1: bit torrent was being seen as the pirate tool, Comcast
Speaker 1: blocked it. So the FCC gets involved and the FEC
Speaker 1: says to Comcast, hey, you can't do that. You can't
Speaker 1: just block this stuff just because you don't like some
Speaker 1: of the activity that's going on over there, and Comcast
Speaker 1: responds with, sure we can. We're not common carriers were
Speaker 1: classified under Title one, not Title two, And the FCC
Speaker 1: says uh, and it goes to court and the courts
Speaker 1: end up agreeing ultimately with Comcast. The FCC doesn't have
Speaker 1: the authority to regulate cable companies because they're classified as
Speaker 1: Title one not Titled two. So that's why there's now
Speaker 1: this move to reclassify I s p s under Title
Speaker 1: two instead of Title one. So the argument for reclassification
Speaker 1: is that it will require I s p s to
Speaker 1: play fairly with content providers and with customers. The companies
Speaker 1: will have to adhere to the rules of Title two
Speaker 1: and will come under the regulation of the f c C.
Speaker 1: So a company like Comcast, which isn't just a transmission
Speaker 1: service provider but is also a content provider, can't favor
Speaker 1: its own services at the expense of others. However, even
Speaker 1: in this proposal, FCC chair Men Wheeler has suggested that
Speaker 1: the FCC would forbear or waive certain elements of Title
Speaker 1: too not directly associated with net neutrality, which includes the
Speaker 1: requirement to share networks and on rate regulations. So while
Speaker 1: cable companies wouldn't be able to block legal content or
Speaker 1: prioritize traffic for sites for a price, they could totally
Speaker 1: continue to charge customers whatever they like for their services.
Speaker 1: So some people object to reclassifying I s p s
Speaker 1: as titled too like the cable companies, They really object
Speaker 1: to it now. They say that if the cable companies
Speaker 1: are re or I s p s or reclassified as
Speaker 1: titled to the Internet will become heavily regulated uh and
Speaker 1: innovation will be stifled. But the flip side of this
Speaker 1: is that it will be a fair playing ground. So
Speaker 1: if we had access to lots of competitors in the
Speaker 1: I s P space for service, I wouldn't be really
Speaker 1: concerned about deregulation because we could always switch providers if
Speaker 1: we didn't like the service, if we felt they were
Speaker 1: being unfair, we could look to a competitor, and in fact,
Speaker 1: that competition could drive everyone to being as fair as
Speaker 1: possible so that they didn't run off their customers. But
Speaker 1: the truth of the matter is that many people, including myself,
Speaker 1: have very limited choices when it comes to I s
Speaker 1: p s. In some cases, there's no choice at all.
Speaker 1: You have one option. You either go with this company
Speaker 1: or you don't have internet. And that's a problem with
Speaker 1: dealing with an effective monopoly. The consumer loses out. And
Speaker 1: the keyble industry claims that this regulation is going to
Speaker 1: discourage those companies from investing in infrastructure because it will
Speaker 1: hurt revenue to have regulation. They said that if the
Speaker 1: government determines how much money we're able to make, then
Speaker 1: there's no reason for us to try and innovate and
Speaker 1: build out our infrastructures. On the other hand, it encourages
Speaker 1: new players in the space like Google. Fiber, which is
Speaker 1: investing huge amounts to bring broadbands leads two households in
Speaker 1: certain markets, So if the cable companies wish to keep
Speaker 1: their customers, they'll have to compete with the newcomers, which
Speaker 1: means that it does encourage investment in infrastructure, it just
Speaker 1: means lower profits. That's really what these big companies are
Speaker 1: afraid of. So they either continue to compete by building
Speaker 1: out this infrastructure, or they get out of the game entirely,
Speaker 1: which I don't think is a likely outcome. Now. As
Speaker 1: for excessive regulation, I don't anticipate that being a huge problem.
Speaker 1: I think we're more likely to see the FCC watching
Speaker 1: to make sure cable companies follow the rules under Title two,
Speaker 1: should that reclassification actually happen, which isn't a sure thing yet.
Speaker 1: I mean, we're gonna see a lot of resistance from
Speaker 1: those I s p S. But I'm curious to hear
Speaker 1: what you guys think of this issue. Do you agree
Speaker 1: with this? Do you think that this is going to
Speaker 1: lead to true net neutrality? Are you upset that the
Speaker 1: FCC is willing to forbear certain elements of Title too
Speaker 1: in order to play Kate I s p S. Do
Speaker 1: you think the whole thing should apply? Do you think
Speaker 1: the whole thing is outdated because it was originally meant
Speaker 1: for railroads and now we're applying it to the Internet.
Speaker 1: I want to know what you think I personally am
Speaker 1: really looking forward to seeing that neutrality become a codified
Speaker 1: thing in US law. I think it's well overdue, but
Speaker 1: I want to know what you think as well. Write
Speaker 1: me My address is tech stuff at how stuff works
Speaker 1: dot com, or drop me a line on Twitter, Facebook
Speaker 1: or Tumbler. The handle it all three is text le
Speaker 1: hs W and I'll talk to you again. Really for
Speaker 1: more on this and bathands of other topics. Because it
Speaker 1: has to works dot com