Message-ID: <3f006f2c-8d31-84bc-0b76-350e12eab428@ionary.com>
Date: 22 Sep 2021 11:01:08 -0400
From: "Fred Goldstein" <fQRMgoldstein@ionary.com>
Subject: Re: FCC Commissioner proposes tax on Internet advertising
On 9/21/2021 5:01 PM, Harold Hallikainen wrote:
> 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
> ):
[Moderator snip]
> Harold
Harold, you make some good points, but it may help to understand how we
got into this mess.
In the Telecom Act and in the Computer II rules that it sort of tried to
enshrine into law (unsuccessfully), the understanding at the time of its
passage was that there were two distinct layers. The "basic
service"/"telecommunications" layer passes raw audio or bits, often via
a monopoly carrier. The "enhanced service"/"information service" layer
is provided by computers that are attached to the telecommunications
facility. The whole point of the Computer Inquiries (1966-1987 or so)
was to ensure that the FCC regulated telecommunications without becoming
the Federal Computer Commission.
Set aside for the moment that both "net neutrality" and "overturn
Section 230 and regulate social media" are activities almost purely in
the computing realm.
The problem is that ISPs today are treated as vertically-integrated
players, wherein the telecommunications facililties are regulated as
information services even though they really aren't. This was affirmed
in the case of cable in the Brand X case, inasmuch as cable (ca. 2001)
was never a monopoly common carrier and had not offered
telecommunications services per se, and thus cable modems were just a
"self-provisioned ISP". There was no Computer II violation because they
weren't common carriers. But that gave the ILECs a sad so they got the
FCC to overturn Computer II in 2005 and vertically-integrate their
networks. Thus DSL and FTTH were removed from the USF contribution base.
You also have wireless ISPs who do not and generally cannot offer
raw-bit telecommunications services over purpose-built networks.
But if incumbent providers and holders of exclusive spectrum licenses
were required to pay USF contributions on the (properly identified, not
that trivial) share of their revenues that actually went for
telecommunications, vs. the part spent on computing, ISP customer
service ("how can I set up my email?"), etc., then the contribution base
would be expanded dramatically, while the pure computing function of
"pure" (not carrier) ISPs would still be outside of the contribution
base. This is what was expected when TA96 (which created USF) was
passed; it is just so far from current practice that it seems radical.
Fred
--
(Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly)
Message-ID: <20210922043246.BAEA229239B5@ary.qy>
Date: 22 Sep 2021 00:32:45 -0400
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
Subject: Re: Verizon iPhone 5 is being sold with an unlocked SIM
slot
It appears that Michael Trew <michael.trew@att.net> said:
>On 8/13/2021 2:14 PM, Moderator wrote:
>> Last week it was reported that the Verizon iPhone 5 is being sold with
>> an unlocked SIM slot, ...
All of the phones that Verizon sells are unlocked, due to an agreement they
made with
the FCC as part of a spectrum deal some years ago.
They used to be unlocked when you bought them. Since 2019 they've been
shipped locked and will unlock on request after 60 days. I gather that
is because they had probiems with phones being stolen from the stores.
I learned the hard way that this only applies to phones you get directly from
Verizon, not ones from Verizon MVNO's like Comcast.
R's,
John
Message-ID: <20210924054204.GA737771@telecomdigest.us>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 05:42:04 +0000
From: Bill Horne <malassimilaQRMtion@gmail.com>
Subject: Why is it so hard to do business over the phone?
I have been on my phone for more than five hours, trying to find
someone wh can help with housework during my convalescence.
I've never found anything so frustrating:
every.single.voicemail.system seems to be set up with the idea that my
time and energy should be contributed to some corporation's bottom
line.
All the systems I've had to interact with seem to be set up to make it
clear that their owners would rather I go to a website, or that I
shouldn't want to deal with that company in the first place.
Excuse me for venting, but there has got to be a better way.
Bill
