Google and Verizon joint FCC filing on Net Neutrality
Google and Verizon have made a joint FCC filing on Net Neutrality:
Google and Verizon have made a joint FCC filing on Net Neutrality:
Today, the Federal Communications Commission launched Reboot.FCC.gov, the first-ever Web site dedicated to soliciting public input on ways to improve citizen interaction with the FCC. The launch also includes the first official FCC blog, which will feature posts from FCC employees and each of the five Commission members.
Reboot.FCC.gov highlights five key elements of FCC reform for public discussion and feedback:
The FCC has asked Congress for a four-week extension of the Feb. 17 deadline for delivering a national broadband plan.
“In order to ensure that there is sufficient time to more fully brief Commissioners and key members of Congress, to get additional input from stakeholders, and to fully digest the exhaustive record before the agency, the chairman has requested from Congressional leaders a short extension of 4 weeks in order to deliver the final plan,” said Colin Crowell, senior counselor to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski, in an e-mailed statement.
via FCC Asks Congress For Four-Week Extension Of Broadband Plan – BroadcastNewsroom.
Nate Anderson of ArsTechnica responds:
ISPs like France’s Free.fr already offer ADSL connections of up to 28Mbps that provide TV, Internet, and phone service for €29.99, showing just how much can really be done by the right kind of competition. Meanwhile, Americans can pay $35/month for 6Mbps Internet-only DSL connections with customer service like this.
The FCC’s point man for broadband, Blair Levin, has essentially ruled out line-sharing already, and he’s also right that just “thinking big” without having a plan to get there is ineffective. And yes, some of the high speeds advertised in other countries can’t be obtained in reality. But a look round the world shows that broadband can at least be done better, it can certainly be done cheaper, and success is often a function of the regulatory environment. That doesn’t mean government-run broadband; it just means that the ground rules truly encourage competition, the sort of competition that both the Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice don’t currently see in the market.
The Federal Communications Commission is delving into the future of communications with a request for comments on an all-IP telephone network. Last week, AT&T filed its comments. In a 32-page filing, Ma Bell asked the FCC to eliminate regulatory requirements that it support a landline network and to provide a deadline for phasing it out.
FCC Broadband Plan supremo Blair Levin was interviewed on CSPAN on Dec 21.
Interviewer Amy Schatz has written a summary in the Wall Street Journal.
What made my jaw drop in Levin’s remarks were that, while summarily ruling out structural/functional separation, he happily foresaw a future for most US citizens where the choice was between 50mpbs wireline as an offering of cable companies via DOCSIS3, and wireless 5mpbs via the phone companies. In his opinion it is quite possible that many will decide that 5mpbs is quite satisfactory.
Echoes of 640k enough for anybody?
In fact wireline just does not seem to be a big concern, seen more as a lifeline. I note his 2006 remarks to the Judiciary Committee:
“Given where we are, it is likely that the only way to drive more, bigger, cheaper, and ubiquitous broadband is through new, probably wireless, broadband facilities.”
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1937&wit_id=5421
It appears little has occurred at the FCC to change his mind.
[report and more details: here]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT RESEARCH
Washington, D.C.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
PARTICIPANTS:
Introduction of Workshop:
SCOTT WALLSTEN
OBI
Panel 2 – Citi Report: ‘Broadband in America: Where It Is and Where It is Going (According to Broadband Service Providers)’
ROBERT C. ATKINSON
Director of Policy Research, Columbia Institute for Tele-Information (CITI)
IVY SCHULTZ
Research Assistant Supervisor, Columbia Institute for Tele-Information (CITI)
Respondent:
LEE RAINIE
Director, Pew Internet & American Life Project
(More …)
[report and more details: here]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT RESEARCH
Washington, D.C.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
PARTICIPANTS:
Introduction of Workshop:
SCOTT WALLSTEN
OBI
Panel 1 – Berkman Report: ‘Next Generation Connectivity: A Review of Broadband Internet Transitions and Policy from Around the World’
YOCHAI BENKLER
Berkman Professor of Entrepreneurial Legal Studies, Harvard
Respondents:
HAROLD FELD
Legal Director, Public Knowledge
THOMAS HAZLETT
Professor of Law & Economics, Director of the Information Economy Project, George Mason University School of Law
December 16, 2009
Background: This morning the staff of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) presented the policy outlines for the Congressionally mandated broadband plan, which is to be presented to Congress in 63 days.
The following statement is attributed to Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge:
“We are disappointed at what the FCC staff said were the most critical elements of the Commission’s broadband plan. At a time when U.S. standing in the world is rapidly falling in broadband penetration and adoption, and when bold plans are called for, the Commission appears to be satisfied with taking incremental steps.”
“As the staff and Chairman Genachowski said, competition is the key to increasing our broadband capacities, yet nothing in the outline presented this morning would increase competition. Reforming universal service and supporting municipal networks are worthwhile goals, but they would do nothing to reverse the slide caused by eight years of misbegotten telecommunications policies that have crippled most meaningful broadband competition for consumers.”
“There was no discussion of opening telecommunications networks to competitors. There was no discussion of structural separations of carriers into wholesale and retail components. These are the factors that Harvard’s Berkman Center told the FCC in a study a mere two months ago were the reasons other countries have surpassed ours – they are using policies we discarded.”
via Public Knowledge Disappointed with FCC Broadband Plan | Public Knowledge.
FREE REPORT:
The History, Financial Commitments and Outcomes of Fiber Optic Broadband
Deployment in America: 1990-2004
The Wiring of Homes, Businesses, Schools, Libraries, Hospitals and
Government Agencies
READ THE REPORT: http://www.newnetworks.com/FCCCITIbroadband.pdf
The FCC tasked the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information (CITI) to do “an
analysis of the public statements of companies as to their future plans to
deploy and upgrade broadband networks as well as an historical evaluation of
the relationship between previous such announcements and actual deployment”.
The FCC adds that the focus is on data analysis of “investment plans and
deployment figures of upgraded broadband infrastructure in this century.”
CITI’s historical evaluation only goes back to 2004. After talking to CITI
we decided to create a separate report to cover fiber optic promises for
the period of 1990-2004 because, in many states, the changes in state laws
are still on the books for deployments and there have been current rate
increases based on the previous fiber optic based-broadband deregulation.
It is clear that billions of dollars have already been collected in most
states for broadband upgrades of the Public Switched Telephone Networks, the
utilities. If it didn’t go into the ground in the form of fiber, where did
it all go?
Besides the raising of local rates now being diverted to other lines of
business, from FIOS and U-Verse to even wireless, there are the various
taxes and surcharges, including the state and federal Universal Service
funding or state based funds, such as the California Advanced Services Fund.
None of these funds have been examined as a group, much less in specifics.
If customers are still paying through local rates and tax perks to upgrade
the essential facilities, shouldn’t the FCC be investigating ALL funding
sources and then determining whether the issues, such as cross-subsidization
of the ‘interstate information products’ or giving USF funding to companies
who do not ‘need’ the money to be profitable, be examined before the FCC
determines it needs to raise the Universal Service fund or give other
financial incentives to pay for broadband?
The FCC claims it wants a data-driven policy. We supplied the data — It’s
now the FCC’s turn.
Report filed with the FCC: Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137
Contact: Bruce Kushnick, bruce@newnetworks.com
As part of the FCC’s development of the National Broadband Plan, the Commission requested two independent studies, one from Harvard’s Berkman Center on the existing studies about broadband deployment throughout the world, and the other from CITI on projected deployment of new and upgraded broadband networks. The CITI report, “Broadband in America: Where It Is and Where It is Going,” is authored by Bob Atkinson, Director of Policy Research, and Ivy Schultz, Manager of Research.
On December 10, the FCC will hold a workshop in the Commission Meeting Room where the authors of the two studies will provide an overview of their findings. The review of the Berkman report will start at 1:00pm, and CITI’s report start at about 1:45pm.
More information and registration details can be found here.
Download here
Download: report | appendices
Wants input on how to make it happen…
The FCC has issued a public notice (pdf) requesting input on precisely what it would take to migrate the nation from its legacy circuit-switched phone systems to an all-IP voice network. “In identifying the appropriate areas of inquiry, we seek to understand which policies and regulatory structures may facilitate, and which may hinder, the efficient migration to an all IP world,” says the agency. The effort would probably make the FCC’s coordinated transition to digital television look like a cake walk — so the FCC is getting an early start ahead of more formal rule creating processes. Now if you’ll excuse us, we think our neighbor is finally off of the party line and we need to call grandma.
via – dslreports.com.
In the recent Natonal Broadband Plan report where the famous $350bn figure was bandied around, it was emphasized that it would be much more economic to to just move the whole system to IP asap than to continue to maintain a hybrid system. I guess the question is just how much of the post-Bell’s revenue is tied up in maintaining the old system causing them to throw wrenches in the works?
Reply