Save Access

Long Story Short: The 2006 Rewrite of U.S. Communications Policy

By Lauren-Glenn Davitian,
Center for Media & Democracy (VT)
davitian@cctv.org

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a National Video Franchising bill on June 8th 2006. This bill, known as COPE—the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006 (H5252)—permits the telephone companies to get quickly into the cable TV business by sidestepping local government approval (franchises) in favor of national service approval from the FCC. The Senate will by Senator Ted Stevens – R/ Alaska, raises many of the same public interest concerns in COPE. By moving into the video business the phone companies will control both access to networks and content, much like the cable companies do today. If allowed to do so under the conditions proposed in these bills, there are serious questions about the future of open networks and prospects for real competition on the Internet (a/k/a net neutrality). Other areas of concern include: local management of the public rights of way, the redlining low income and rural communities and long term protections for public, educational and government access media.

from: Seattle Stranger

Net Loss
The Fight for "Net Neutrality" May Be Undone by Local Consultant

BY JOSH FEIT

The fate of the internet may very well be decided in Seattle. And it's not because of this city's renowned pool of high-tech talent. It's because two of the central players in a heated federal debate about the rules of engagement on the net—a debate that erupted on the floor of the U.S. House last week—hail from here.

from: New Networks Teletruth

Teletruth News Analysis: June 13, 2006
Verizon's FiOS, AT&T's Lightspeed - The Rise of the Crippled Networks.

Dear Senate: Investigate this:

America is 16th in broadband and basing our Nation's future on inferior products that may never show up will be bad for our economic growth and technological edge. More importantly - We already paid over $200 billion in excess fees? What happened to the money and our promised fiber optic future?.

from: American Prospect

It’s Alright, Ma Bell
What the NSA eavesdropping program might tell us about the Bush administration’s love for telecom monopolies.

By Alexander Dryer

Last week, as details emerged of the Justice Department’s plan to have Internet providers log customers’ Web clicks and e-mails, the method behind the Bush administration’s domestic surveillance finally became discernible. The new initiative follows the pattern set by the NSA call-tracking program: The government deputizes telecommunications companies to carry out its spying.

"Broadband Reports said users of its online forums learned that the basic bundle of 170-channel TV service plus 1.5-megabit-per-second Internet access would cost $85 a month. The top tier of more than 200 channels with 6-megabit-per-second access would cost $114 a month." One wonders if this is the $30-40 dollar savings Upton and other COPE supporters touted on the floor of the House when voting the Bill through.

from: Broadband Reports Please see the source for links to supporting documents. The recent AT&T lawsuits trace back to a history (since 2003) of SBC/AT&T fighting the city over their attempts to offer municipal broadband. Apparently this huge corporation hold nasty grudges.

Interview: Fighting AT&T
Peter Collins, IS Manager for Geneva, Illinois

from: SF Gate

David Lazarus

AT&T gets more for less
06/07/2006

If you're an AT&T long-distance customer and you don't make a lot of calls, there's a good chance your monthly bill will be going up as a result of new "minimum usage" fees.

AT&T says on its Web site that long-distance customers "enjoy great rates usually with a small or no monthly plan fee." It says it needs to charge (or in some cases increase) monthly minimum usage fees "in order to keep these rates low and still recover our costs of providing basic service."

Note: This is an dangerous development in the telco push for State Video Franchises. AT&T and Verizon attempted to make this artificial distinction in the House Bill (HR 5252), but even Congressional Representatives wouldn't buy it (though COPE Bill sponsor Rep. Barton did entertain it). In any event, one can only wonder if the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control is now a subsidiary of AT&T or just completely unaware of ongoing Federal legislation.

from: Center for Digital Democracy

Washington Watch

AT&T/Bell South to Public: We Don’t Have to Pay Attention to the Public Interest, Just the Corporate Bottom Line

7 June 2006

The required "Public Interest Statement" that AT&T and Bell South filed with the FCC 31 March 2006 in conjunction with their proposed merger was notable more for what it didn't say than for what it did. While the 133-page statement was replete with references to the "enhanced efficiency" and "substantial cost savings" that the new Behemoth Bell will bring to the marketplace, conspicuously absent was any mention of how the public will benefit from the proposed union.

from: The Hill

Telecom group spends big to raise industry profile

By Jim Snyder

The lobbying expenditures of the U.S. Telecom Association (USTA) have risen almost as fast as the TVs that soar through roofs in the group’s ubiquitous ad campaign.

Five years ago, USTA spent just over $2 million on lobbying. By last year that figure had risen to nearly $17 million, making the group the sixth biggest spender on K Street and a major contributor to a revival of telecom and high-tech lobbying.