Bert,
I give up with you. You are a broken record.
➢ Again, net (or telephone service) neutrality had nothing to do with how the
telcos charged for service. We had unlimited long distance, nationwide, for
many years before we had broadband service. The neutrality is a government
guarantee, and it has nothing to do with how the companies charge people.
Title II, SEC. 205. [47 U.S.C. 205] COMMISSION AUTHORIZED TO PRESCRIBE
JUST AND REASONABLE CHARGES.
(a) Whenever, after full opportunity for hearing, upon a complaint or under
an order for investigation and hearing made by the Commission on its own
initiative, the Commission shall be of opinion that any charge, classification,
regulation, or practice of any carrier or carriers is or will be in violation
of any of
the provisions of this Act, the Commission is authorized and empowered to
determine and prescribe what will be the just and reasonable charge or the
maximum or minimum, or maximum and minimum, charge or charges to be
thereafter observed, and what classification, regulation, or practice is or
will be
just, fair, and reasonable, to be thereafter followed, and to make an order
that the
carrier or carriers shall cease and desist from such violation to the extent
that the
Commission finds that the same does or will exist, and shall not thereafter
publish,
demand, or collect any charge other than the charge so prescribed, or in excess
of
the maximum or less than the minimum so prescribed, as the case may be, and
shall
adopt the classification and shall conform to and observe the regulation or
practice
so prescribed.
Clearly, in addition to the non-discrimination aspect of Title II that you (not
unfairly) continue to promote, Title II is also about how telcos charged for
services, INCLUDING THE MINIMUM THEY COULD CHARGE, and VoIP services such as
Magic Jack and Vonage (Woo-Hoo, Woo-Hoo-Hoo,) were undercutting the telco’s
pricing (and profit) schemes by NOT BEING REGULATED under Title II with regards
to their pricing for long distance service. If internet service were regulated
under Title II since 1934, then why weren’t their pricing schemes regulated by
the FCC?
And for the final time, and I refuse to reply on this subject again, I am not
against Net Neutrality. I am against a rogue FCC commission deciding
arbitrarily in 2015 that they had an authority that federal courts had
determined that the FCC did not have. I applaud the current FCC commission for
reversing that decision, not because I am against net Neutrality, but because I
am against government bureaucracies seizing powers that are not explicitly
granted to them by congress. Recognize the distinction between the two, Bert.
If you can make the distinction, it will be much better for your blood pressure.
If you want the FCC to regulate the internet under Title II, don’t bitch at
Ajit Pai for overturning Tom Wheeler’s illegal act, bitch to your
representative and senators to pass a Net Neutrality FCC authorization law.
When you do, I’ll be cheering you on.
Cheers,
John
From: Manfredi (US), Albert E
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2018 1:52 AM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] And VoIP
John wrote:
Remember paying by the minute for "long distance" phone calls? Thank
you, Title II.
VoIP (Magic Jack) killed that, but the telcos went kicking and screaming
to congress to reign in Magic Jack and their ilk for not charging per
minute for long distance service ...
The discussion here is government regulated industry innovation vs.
free market innovation.
