[opendtv] Re: How the FCC actually defines "telecom"
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 06:46:28 -0400
On Aug 17, 2017, at 11:03 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I wrote:
If the Open Internet Order under Title II stands, you can bet your last
dollar that the FCC will try to regulate these "Internet" services and
make them pay too.
Sorry, but that's another false premise. With telephone service, the line was
taxed, not the individual users. Facebook is a user of the "advanced telecom
service." It's not *the* advanced telecom service. If they are taxed, it
would be as any business is taxed, having nothing to do with Title II. You're
just being a drama queen.
I am not talking about Facebook - regulation of them, Google, Amazon and others
is being suggested because of the monopoly power they are starting to use. I
was SPECIFICALLY talking about regulation of VOIP services like Vonage and
MagicJack, which are IDENTICAL to the Cox VOIP service, connecting to the PSTN.
We are talking about adding the same $17/mo in TELCOM taxes and fees I was
paying to Cox.
When innovation is thwarted in favor of protecting the special interests
And this. Standard lunatic fringe paranoid formula-spouting. It makes no
sense. ]
It is fact Bert. Read The Political Spectrum
Imagine, for example, how the Internet would have evolved, had we only had
(monopolistic, walled in, not even slightly neutral) cable TV systems to
build the Internet on, and no Title II telephone lines. It never would have
gotten off the ground. Your scare mongering is nonsense.
We did. The cable industry was well down the road to building their own "walled
in" Internet. The Time Warner Full Service Network trial in Orlando in the mid
'90s did exactly what you claim. It failed because both consumers and the
companies Time Warner needed as advertisers and for services rejected that
approach in favor of the Internet.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
