{"id":76087,"date":"2015-03-27T21:55:21","date_gmt":"2015-03-28T01:55:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rbachnet.wwwmi3-ss40.a2hosted.com\/index.php\/"},"modified":"2021-08-02T19:08:12","modified_gmt":"2021-08-02T23:08:12","slug":"att-already-profits-from-net-neutrality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rbach.net\/index.php\/att-already-profits-from-net-neutrality\/","title":{"rendered":"AT&T Already Profits from Net Neutrality"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"AT&T<\/a>In further proof that no matter what – the huge corporations always win,\u00a0AT&T<\/a> (T<\/a>), one of the most vocal opponents to net neutrality has already started to profit from it.\u00a0FierceTelecom<\/em><\/a> is reporting<\/a>\u00a0that AT&T’s new reclassification under Title II<\/a> of the Communications Act<\/a> as part of new net neutrality rules are working in the mega-Bell’s favor.<\/p>\n

\"the<\/a>The article says regulators cited Title II to justify a ruling for AT&T. The FCC<\/a> ruling said AT&T should be awarded damages for being overcharged by two Michigan-<\/a>based rural telcos for interstate access services. Now the FCC has to set how much money AT&T should receive from East Lansing-<\/a>based\u00a0Great Lakes Comnet<\/a>\u00a0(GLC) and\u00a0Westphalia\u00a0Telephone Company<\/a> (WTC). The FCC wrote in its order, “We agree with AT&T.<\/em>”<\/p>\n

Initially, AT&T asked for a $12 million refund and wants to avoid paying an extra $4.3 million that Westphalia and Great Lakes\u00a0claim the telco owes them. The author explains that the FCC argued that AT&T was billed unlawfully because of\u00a0Section 201(b)<\/a>\u00a0of the Communications Act. This is the part of Title II that says: “All charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with such communication service, shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is declared to be unlawful.<\/em>”<\/p>\n

\"VerizonIronically, during the run-up to the net neutrality decision, \u00a0AT&T, Verizon<\/a> (VZ<\/a>), Comcast<\/a> (CMCSA)<\/a>, and other telcos claimed that regulation would hurt their profits, which seems like misinformation BS. The FierceTelecom<\/em> article reports that\u00a0the FCC said that it won’t set specific price caps or tell service providers what they can charge for service, consumers can complain to the FCC if their provider is overcharging them for service.<\/p>\n

FierceTelecom <\/em>also points to an Ars Technica<\/em><\/a> report<\/a>, that Verizon<\/a> (VZ<\/a>), another outspoken critic of applying Title II to broadband services, ironically used its common carrier status for POTS services to build its FiOS fiber-to-the-home (FTTH)<\/a> network. Besides leveraging Title II to get access to utility poles and rights-of-way to string up fiber, Verizon raised consumer phone rates to fund the fiber build.<\/p>\n

rb-<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

This could be written-off as unintended consequences or is it? Is the goobermnet in bed with the Telco’s and all the net\u00a0neutrality\u00a0hub-bub\u00a0was just a show?<\/em><\/p>\n

Quoting\u00a0MLive<\/a>,\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

the leaders making our laws, writing our budgets, and setting the agenda are not widely seen as effective … there’s a serious and alarming lack of leadership …<\/em><\/p>\n

Related articles<\/h6>\n