Message-ID: <875f703ccc182685a089505b20eeac65.squirrel@kiwi.hallikainen.org>
Date: 21 Sep 2021 14:01:28 -0700
From: "Harold Hallikainen" <harold@hallikainen.org>
Subject: RE: FCC Commissioner proposes tax on Internet advertising
I guess the proposal to tax Internet advertising platforms for the
Universal Service Fund uses the same reasoning Willie Sutton used to
justify robbing banks: That's where the money is (
https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/willie-sutton). However, that is
probably not where the traffic is (Netflix provided 12.9% of American
downstream traffic in the first six months of 2019 but hosted no
advertising).
However, I think we should recognize that Internet transport IS
communications. It should be regulated in the same manner as other
telecommunications services.
Quoting from my comments in the Net Neutrality proceeding (
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1071735191329/FCC%2017-108%20Comments%20by%20Harold%20Hallikainen_170716.pdf):
10. NPRM:9. The NPRM cites letters from Congress at
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/2038710001.pdf as in indication that Congress
did not intend for ISPs to be regulated as telephone companies. The first
of the cited letters (from John D. Rockefeller IV) concerns ISP
contributions to the Universal Service Fund. His letter says “We
believe it is also imperative that the Commission revisit its decision
regarding the exemption of Internet service providers from universal
service contributions and access charges. New reports of offerings of
voice to voice telephony and fax services over the Internet -- the
providers of which do not pay either either access charges or
universal service contributions -- indicate that these providers are
are indeed now offering telecommunications services, and that they
should incur universal service obligations. Like long distance
carriers, these providers rely on the local phone network to receive
and deliver their services. They should not be allowed to continue to
burden without paying their fair share for its upkeep.” If
anything, this letter recognizes that Internet service providers are
telecommunications carriers and should be regulated as such.
11. NPRM:9. A second letter (the "Five Senators Letter") takes the
opposite stance (that quoted in the NPRM) that ISPs should not be
considered telecommunications carriers and be subject to universal
service contributions. While discouraging considering regulation of
ISPs as telecommunications carriers, the letter continues “In
arguing for the extension of direct universal service obligations to
ISPs, the development of “Internet telephony” services
is cited as the primary reason why ISPs should contribute directly
to universal service. While various types of Internet telephony now
are being tested, such services currently are not good substitutes for
traditional telephone service. Nevertheless, because the advent of
Internet telephony does raise some important policy issues we urge the
FCC to carefully monitor developments in this area. In short, while we
believe that it would be appropriate for the FCC to initiate an
inquiry to better understand the the emerging Internet telephony
marketplace and its potential impact on the public switched network,
given its early stage of development, such services should not become
an excuse for regulating information service providers.” Thus,
nearly 20 years ago, Internet telephony was not sufficiently
developed to consider regulation of ISPs in the same manner as
telephone companies. In the intervening 20 years, Internet telephony
as well as video conference, and various other communications
techniques are well established and ready for regulation in a manner
similar to POTS.
12. NPRM:9. In the third and final letter, [the late] Senator John McCain
makes a strong argument that Internet access is an information
service. However, in this 1998 letter, he states “Recent public
announcements about the advent of commercially available
‘Internet telephony’ services suggest a possible partial
convergence between information services and telecommunications. It
would be grossly premature, however, to attempt to address these
services today, given their early stage of development.” Now
that these services have matured, it is indeed time to address these
services with a fresh look.
Harold
Message-ID: <XnsADAAD357F6A0Ehueydlltampabayrrcom@46.165.242.75>
Date: 20 Sep 2021 00:46:36 -0000
From: "David LaRue" <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: Re: New Direction For the Telecom Digest
Hello Bill,
This is for you and only needs to be for the group if you want it there.
You have done a wonderful job as moderator and content creator. The daily
submisions are great, but we most want you to mend and recover as best you
can. I can always count on the content here being terrific and worth
reading.
I too slowed down recently and have had to adjust. Years ago my wife
turned to voice-to-text to help her. It takes a bit to get used to and
sometimes makes mistakes, but it can help over the long run.
I hope that everyone helps provide content that reads your calls for help.
This last year you have been so fast that I hear about things here just as
fast as in other places. I rarely find new content worthy of submitting
here.
As for my area, the 3G phase out is barely working at home and will soon
force a phone upgrade just to have a phone at home.
I hope you mend well and adjust as time goes on.
Thank you for your continued years of service,
David
