A group of Democratic Congressional leaders sent a letter to their colleagues today announcing their intentions of introducing an anti-redlining amendment to the telecom reform bill, H.R. 5252, which is up for a floor vote this week (the National Journal’s Drew Clark reports that the bill will hit the House floor on Friday, unusual given that voting usually occurs Tuesday through Thursday.)
The bill as it stands today does not require new video service providers to build out the entire communities that they enter. Critics, which include cable operators and some civil rights groups, have contended that the telcos will bypass poor areas in favor of the most lucrative communities with their new video networks. Represneatives John Dingell (D-MI), Ed Markey (D-MA), Hilda Solis (D-CA), and Diane Watson (D-CA) said in their “Dear Colleague” letter:
The lack of a buildout requirement in H.R. 5252 may cause some consumers to lose cable service altogether because once cable companies switch to a national franchise they may choose not to continue serving all of the households they are currently required to serve. Even if service is not withdrawn, the bill allows operators to avoid maintaining or upgrading facilities in certain neighborhoods, which could result in differing levels of service depending on the demographics of a neighborhood. Also, cable operators may raise cable rates in non-competitive areas to compensate for lower rates in competitive areas.
The amendment, which has garnered the support of the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Communications Workers of America and the Consumers Union, among others, would require new video entrants under a national franchise to build out entire communities according to a phased-in approach, allowing them to hit the more lucrative markets first before moving on to the less profitable areas.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 4:16 PM | Print | Comments (0)
Not much of a surprise here, but FCC Chairman Kevin Martin isn’t in favor of net neutrality regulations. Marketwatch’s David Wilkerson has this write-up of comments made by Martin yesterday at Globalcomm.
Martin said that while it’s not OK for broadband providers to block Internet content or services, network operators should be able to offer differentiated services. However, Martin seemed to be talking about tiers of varying speeds of broadband service, which, I think, even the most ardent network neutrality proponents would agree are acceptable.
“Consumers need to be able to access all the content that’s available over the Internet without being impeded by the access provider,” Martin said. “But at the same time, we recognized that the people that are deploying these networks may offer differentiated speeds and differentiated products to the consumer.Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 4:07 PM | Print | Comments (0)
“And if you offer different tiers of speeds, a consumer chooses the lowest tier, and he wants to access content that would require higher speeds than he has purchased, he’s not being blocked from access. He just hasn’t purchased the speed that’s necessary.”
Today’s a day for foes of the AT&T-BellSouth merger to make their presence known. First, later this morning a coalition opposing the combination will hold a press briefing on their opposition to the deal (more later).
Secondly, the New York Times’ Ken Belson has this piece on a filing submitted by the ACLU to the FCC yesterday in which the group asks the Commission to withhold approval of the deal until it investigates the privacy claims raised in the NSA scandal.
Citing the 1996 Telecom Act, the ACLU says that the FCC should find out whether AT&T or BellSouth turned over consumer calling records to the NSA in violation of its customers’ privacy.
“The F.C.C. is in a position to determine whether the USA Today story is true and can bring the companies to the table and figure out whether they are providing customer information to the N.S.A. and what is the lawful authority for doing so,” said Barry Steinhardt, director of the technology and liberty project at the A.C.L.U.Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 8:38 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Blogs We Read
