I'd lean into this. Instead of trying to defend Google as not being a utility we should be calling for utility regulation for both web services as well as residential access providers.

> we should be calling for utility regulation for both web services as well as residential access providers

I would prefer not to completely stagnate the internet just yet.

> I would prefer not to completely stagnate the internet just yet.

Isn't Internet infrastructure in a lot of the US kind of stagnant right now?

You're forgetting what a Common Carrier is, by definition:

"A common carrier in common law countries ... is a person or company that transports goods or people for any person or company and is responsible for any possible loss of the goods during transport..."

So, a _company_ can be a common carrier. An abstract notion describing interconnected physical entities and organizational entities related to them cannot be a common carrier (nor, in fact, any carrier).

Because bad faith arguments don't necessitate logical consistency.

The motivation here is they want to regulate Google for political purposes, not that they want to regulate utilities better.

If you have questions, Dave Yost's political donors are public information:

https://www6.ohiosos.gov/ords/f?p=CFDISCLOSURE:48:0::NO:RP:P...

Great point. I can't imagine paying for water, and then having the pipe company ban me, and having no recourse.

Not defending Google, but it's because the analogy does not hold. You can be hardly banned from receiving water, because the interaction with it is pretty limited and it does not allow you to directly interact with other individuals.

That doesn't hold up, because an ISP can ban you for any reason they want. It has nothing to do with interacting with other people.

> How can something on the internet be a common carrier when the internet itself is not a common carrier?

The internet isn't a thing. It's not a single entity (or even a single idea).

It was different in the days of Ma Bell, when there was one entity for the entire U.S. with phone service (could we define that in today's age? is VOIP phone service? mobile? Whatsapp?), and it was even different later, when the baby bells blanketed the U.S. without overlapping areas.

What makes this more challenging is that by regulating "ISPs" (if someone could please define that, or even what the Internet is, in a legal sense), we might then be strangling new and interesting startups that might not conform to the definition of an ISP from a decade prior.

when people talk about the "the internet" being a public utility, they mean internet access. which is "a thing", and is a single discrete idea.

public utility status for the internet means that every packet delivered over internet protocol (aka "IP", which again, is a thing) must be delivered by the carrier/ISP without discrimination.

Yes. If my service was declared a common carrier I'd experiment with creating my own ISP and banning people at the ISP level, which also happens to be the only ISP hosting my service.

This is why this doesn't make sense. Some internet companies can arbitrarily block you and others can't?

It doesn't make sense if your goal is to create a fair internet for everybody, or to build a consistent set of rules based on reasonable principles.

it makes perfect sense if you are a politician looking to hop on the anti-google bandwagon enough to make it look like you're doing something without actually doing anything.

You don't have to have internet access to have an internet presence.

> How can something on the internet be a common carrier when the internet itself is not a common carrier?

Because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it shouldn't happen.

Maybe Google is the last straw that leads to proper governance of utilities in the public's interest.

The problem is that the Republicans trying to declare tech companies "common carriers" pretty much lied through their teeth 4 years ago when they argued that ISPs are absolutely not common carriers, in opposition of overwhelming popular opinion to the contrary.

ISPs aren’t censoring people, Big Tech is, and BigTech were always exempt from all net neutrality laws.

So your comment is factually wrong.

Am I "censoring people" if I ask a customer to leave my restaurant and never return while he is in the middle of a loud racist rant?

Facebook and Twitter are not critical infrastructure. Nobody has to use them. They are private platforms their owners invited you to. I choose not to use these services, and anyone else who doesn't like them is free to do the same.

People do not have the choice to avoid using telephone or mail services, which is why they are regulated as common carriers. It is nearly impossible to function in modern society without access to mail and telephone service. The argument for net neutrality rests on the idea that general internet access is also a requirement in order to be a functional member of society.

Yes, the problem is Republicans. And yes, that problem has yet to be solved.

Republicans are a problem, but so are Democrats. We need more than two parties.

It’s kind of analogous to the way TCP can be a reliable service built on unreliable IP.

Yeah, that's bizarre.