The paid prioritization ban in historical context: More regulated than the Bell Empire?

[Commentary] When it came to unreasonable discrimination, the Federal Communications Commission's paid prioritization ban was more restrictive than the obligations that Section 202 placed on the old Bell telephone monopoly. 

Section 202 prohibits “unreasonable discrimination” by telecommunications providers. Courts and the commission have applied a three-part test to such claims. To bring a complaint, a plaintiff must show that he or she received a service that was “like” a service provided to another customer and that the two customers were treated differently when receiving that service. If the plaintiff meets these two hurdles, the burden then shifts to the telecommunications provider to show that the difference in service was reasonable. But Section 202 prohibits only differential treatment in the provision of “like” services.