[IP] FCC Should Not Do Run-Around of Congress to Pass Bell-Friendly Cable-Franchise -- bad data, bad analysis, astroturf groups influence.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bruce Kushnick <bruce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: December 19, 2006 2:21:33 PM JST
To: news@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: FCC Should Not Do Run-Around of Congress to Pass Bell-
Friendly Cable-Franchise -- bad data, bad analysis, astroturf groups
influence.
TELETRUTH ALERT: December 19th, 2006
(Contact info below.)
The FCC Should Not Attempt a Run-Around of Congress to Pass Bell-
Friendly
Cable Franchise Plan.
Teletruth files
• Comments: FCC Proposed Cable Franchise Plan & Chairman Martin’s
Speech.
• http://www.teletruth.org/docs/fccfranchise.doc (filed 12/13/06,
23pages)
• Complaint 1: FCC 200K Broadband Definition Fails Telecom Act
Statutes for
Video.
• http://www.newnetworks.com/fcccomplaint200k.htm
• Complaint 2: FCC 1995 Video Competition Report Showed Millions of
Lines -
What Happened?
• http://www.newnetworks.com/fcc1995competition.htm
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS
(See full comments for details)
America is on the wrong broadband path and the FCC’s analysis of the
situation has been overshadowed by bad data, Bell-funded astroturf
groups
and a false reliance on Verizon, AT&T and the other Bell companies.
History
has proven that we should not trust the Bell companies with America’s
Digital Future.
And yet the FCC is now considering giving these companies new cable
franchise 'freedoms'. Instead, the FCC should immediately start an
investigation. Customers paid billions per state for fiber optic network
services they never received and the FCC’s data and analysis has covered
over a decade of wrongdoing.
America is 15th in broadband and yet Chairman Martin in a speech at the
Bell-funded Phoenix Center, claims that broadband deployment was and
is his
highest priority. We suggest he then get the facts straight.
Martin's Speech: http://www.teletruth.org/docs/Martinspeech.doc
What follows is a summary of the materials we filed.
Flawed Data and Analysis has Led to Bad Laws: Follow the Money.
The FCC has had a series of data problems that have led to bad laws.
The FCC
currently claims that video competition is America’s next step and
yet it
has been America’s next step since 1992. In fact, the definition of
broadband found state laws from 1992 was a 45 Mbps service in both
directions capable of high definition video.
More to the point, the FCC’s definition of broadband is 200 Kbps, 1/5
of 1
Mbps. This definition does not fulfill the Telecommunications Act of
1996
statutory requirements of high-quality video in both directions.
We have filed a separate complaint for the FCC to fix its broadband
definition.
http://www.newnetworks.com/fcccomplaint200k.htm
The FCC’s Advanced Network Reports Have Rewritten History.
The FCC’s Second Video Competition Report, 1995, outlines how each Bell
company filed with the FCC claiming that they would be rewiring cities,
states and even whole territories with fiber to the home --- starting in
1993. None of this information appears in the FCC’s advanced network
reports. Examples include:
•"NYNEX's March 1995 authorization for two VDT systems, one in Rhode
Island
that will pass 63,000 homes and one in eastern Massachusetts that
will pass
334,000 homes. NYNEX's applications, filed in July of 1994, proposed
completion of construction in 2010."
•"PacBell's August 1995 authorization for four VDT systems in
California,
which will pass 490,000 homes in San Francisco; 360,000 homes in Los
Angeles; 259,000 homes in San Diego; and 210,000 homes in Orange County,
California. PacBell's applications, originally filed in December 1993,
proposed an advanced, wire based video and telephone network that
would be
constructed sometime in 1996 at an expense of approximately $16
billion."
Based on this data, Teletruth has filed a second complaint:
http://www.newnetworks.com/fcc1995competition.htm
More to the point, it is documented that customers paid billions per-
state
---over $200 billion dollars nationwide in excess phone charges and tax
perks, and each state decision was driven by the phone companies’
filed FCC
documents. The FCC has never investigated the financial role of
customers,
even though the phone companies are still charging customers for
services
they never received.
Illegally charging customers today? It is now clear that Verizon and
AT&T
are illegally charging local phone customers for the roll out of
their new
products. AT&T’s Lightspeed and Verizon’s FiOS have been defined as
“Interstate Information Service”. This is cross-subsidization 101 as
local
phone capital expenditures, paid for by local phone customers, are
funding
an interstate, information product.
Customers Paid for Open, Ubiquitous Networks.
Ironically, customers paid for open networks that had “common carrier”
obligations, meaning they were open to all competitors. And customers
paid
for ubiquitous networks, guaranteeing any new networks would be
rolled out
covering the entire territories, rural, urban and suburban equally.
In short, the FCC is planning on granting exclusive rights to the phone
companies who have taken control of customer-funded-utilities,
removing all
of the customers’ rights, while charging the customer for the privilege.
The FCC Has Directly Harmed All Competition.
In a series of bad rulings, the FCC stopped the requirement that
competitors
could get wholesale rates, known as UNE-P, which put AT&T and MCI up for
sale. It closed down the right of Internet Service Providers to use
DSL and
the new upgraded networks, thus helping to kill off 6000 ISPs. And
the FCC
has essentially eliminated competition for stand-alone local service,
toll
call service or long distance service. In short, it has closed out
competitors from using the customer-funded “PSTN” – Public Switch
Telephone
Network.
And now the FCC wants to give these companies even more perks with
little,
if any obligations?
To read more about the FCC's role in the harm to competitors see our
Harvard
Nieman Watchdog article: "How the Baby Bells and the government
destroyed
competition for DSL, long distance and local phone service," April
13, 2006
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?
fuseaction=Ask_this.view&askthisid=1
96
You Can’t Trust these Guys. Hype for Hope.
While the FCC contemplates what should happen next, it is clear
America is
being over-hyped by the phone companies. The reality is that Verizon had
about 100,000 cable/IPTV customers, AT&T had 3,000 according to 3td Q
report---less than 1% of America.
Worse, these are inferior, expensive products as compared to what
Asia and
other countries already supply. AT&T’s service is 6MBPS upstream, 1 MBPS
downstream, while Verizon is charging `$179 for 30mbps, 5 upstream.
(Ironically, in most states, these services would not fulfill the state
definitions as they are not capable of high definition video in both
directions.)
To add insult to injury – even if these services show up, Korea and
Japan
are already selling 100Mbps services in both directions for $40.
America
will never be a techno-super-power but will become a 3rd world broadband
provider.
Other Issues: Raising Taxes, Bad Phone Bill Data, and FCC Plays with
Astroturf Groups:
First, the FCC’s plan raises the Franchise Fee to 5% which will be paid
directly by customers as yet another telephone/cable tax.
Next, while the FCC keeps claiming that prices for phone services keeps
dropping, Teletruth’s surveys of phone bills shows that the FCC’s
data is
totally flawed and doesn’t count most charges a customer pays. And
there’s
plenty of documentation that prices have been increasing for both
local and
long distance, as well as business services.
But the real kicker is that when Chairman Martin announced these new
franchise issues, he did it at an event sponsored by a Bell-funded
research
firm, the Phoenix Center, and keeps quoting their data – which was
paid for
by the phone companies. As we point out, the FCC’s even uses astroturf
groups as ‘sources’ of data and the FCC Consumer Advisory Committee is
riddled with both the industry as well as astroturf groups.
And the FCC even quotes other astroturf groups, including Consumers for
Cable Choice, funded by Verizon and AT&T, to support the claims that
local
franchises harm broadband deployments. Moreover, the FCC ignored the
fact
that the Michigan Municipal League had 600 communities waiting to
talk to
AT&T for a franchise or the fact that AT&T(Ameritech) had local
franchises
in over 100 municipalities in 1999, when they previously rolled out
fiber
based services. Franchises weren’t a problem then.
AT&T/Ameritech Ameritech Signs 100th Cable Television Franchise, 1999
http://www.newnetworks.com/100franchisesameritech.htm
In Conclusion: There are NO guarantees that AT&T and Verizon will ever
upgrade their networks as they state they will in 2006, regardless of
the
new franchise perks. History shows that they can’t be trusted and the
potential to harm the economy by failing to deploy competitive products
should be taken seriously and investigated.
Bruce Kushnick, Teletruth, bruce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tom Allibone, Teletruth, tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
The data for these filings has been excerpted from the ebook, "$200
Billion
Broadband Scandal http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/