[NewsPoster]

AT&T continues to use Title II regulation as a tool to escape lawsuits and fees, while publicly deriding the mandate. In a court ruling this week, the telecommunications giant utilized its Title II status with the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to escape fees from Great Lakes Comnet (GLC) and Westphalia Telephone Company (WTC) imposed for " interstate access services under an unlawful tariff."

The FCC agreed with AT&T claim. In its ruling favoring AT&T, the FCC ruled that "we find that GLC violated the Commission's Rules governing competitive local exchange carrier tariffs for interstate access services, and that the tariff therefore is unlawful. We also grant AT&T's claim in Count III that WTC unlawfully billed for services prior to May 2013 that GLC provided."

AT&T cited Section 201 of the Title II regulation, which claims that "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." This is the same clause that AT&T and other Internet Service Providers are railing against, claiming that it is illegal Federal rate regulation.

FCC ruling favoring AT&T versus small carrier billing

[dscottbuch]

Why does every article on this imply that this behavior is inconsistent? If I was subject to some rule or law that I felt was wrong or harmful I would certainly approach to two ways 1) make every effort to get it changed and 2) while being harmed by it take advantage of any side benefits it might give. This approach, at least, has the potential to mitigate some of the harm. There is nothing inconsistent in this behavior. It may be ironic that these type of laws have strange, unintended consequences, but it's not inconsistent, and the irony is i the law, not this behavior. In fact, this is a good example of why laws should be kept as simple as possible due to unintended consequences.

[elroth]

I wouldn't. But that's just me, I guess.

It's never wrong to point out hypocrisy. If AT&T gets the rule overturned in court, do you think they will go back and re-do this judgment in their favor?

These are things to remember when considering signing a contract with AT&T - you have no expectation that AT&T cares about anything other than taking your money.

[Flying Meat]

What it means is, AT&T is going to have a harder time showing how Title II harms them.
"Sauce for the goose..." if you will.