Re: from FCC re broadband plan

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Bruce Kushnick" <bruce () newnetworks com>
Date: August 22, 2009 3:56:59 AM EDT
To: <dave () farber net>
Subject: RE: [IP] from FCC  re  broadband plan

Blair wrote:
> We are just getting going but one of the things we have to nail down  
> is a
smarter definition of broadband.  We just put out a public >notice  
asking
comments on this issue.  I just wanted to make sure you (and the tech
community I know you are the central node in) >sees it as we  
particularly
want their help in thinking this through.

Here’s the current definition in New Jersey law for broadband --- that  
was
established in 1993. -- oh, and Verizon  is supposed to have 100%  
completed
by next year. http://www.newnetworks.com/nj45mbpspar1.htm

"Broadband Digital Service — Switching capabilities matched with
transmission capabilities supporting data rates up to 45,000,000 bits  
per
second  (45mps) and higher, which enables services, for example, that  
will
allow residential and business customers to receive high definition  
video
and to send and receive interactive (i.e., two way) video signals."

It is the same definition that was in other states, including Texas,  
and it
was even the definition in the bible of Telecom Harry Newton’s  Telecom
Dictionary, “Broadband” was defined as a service with a speed of 45  
Mbps as
late as 2001.---“Broadband — a transmission facility providing bandwidth
greater than 45 Mbps (T3). Broadband systems generally are fiber optic  
in
nature.”

According to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in 2003, the  
service
was bi-directional with the upstream and downstream paths being 45 Mbps.

"In view of Bell's commitment to providing 45 Mbps for digital video
transmission both upstream and downstream, we look forward to Bell's
providing this two-way digital video transmission at 45 Mbps."

And it was the speed in both CA as well as IL. --- and that was  
1992-1995.

My question is – what does it matter? It is doubtful that anyone is  
going to
confront, say AT&T who now controls 22 states to actually be compelled  
to
make any seriously fast bi-directional service available.

I also note – in every state I just mentioned, they already collected
billions of dollars per state --- to deploy these 45mbps services.  No  
one
has ever held them accountable for the speed of service, much less the  
money
they collected.

And, today, the funding is still coming in ---states have decided to  
raise
local rates to fund ‘fiber optics’ even higher. New York state has had  
a 90%
increase in local service since 2004, of which the state just said it  
was
to fund “fiber optics” -- which is FIOS>

“We are always concerned about the impacts on ratepayers of any rate
increase, especially in times of economic stress,” said Commission  
Chairman
Garry Brown. “Nevertheless, there are certain increases in Verizon’s  
costs
that have to be recognized. This is especially important given the  
magnitude
of the company's capital investment program, including its massive
deployment of fiber optics in New York. We encourage Verizon to make
appropriate investments in New York, and these minor rate increases will
allow those investments to continue.”
http://www3.dps.state.ny.us/pscweb/WebFileRoom.nsf/Web/B849A020314983A385257
5D900530827/$File/pr09054.pdf

(the "minor" increases as of course just fiction. Every charge on the  
bill
went up, and continuously since 2004.)

It would seem that the FCC can make any speed, any determination it  
wants as
it never examined what is already on the books, nor can it compel  
anyone to
do anything.

One other thing... These speeds are supposed to be for the Public  
Switched
Telephone Networks -- the existing plant was to be upgraded to fiber.  
It was
not to pay for an 'interstate information service' that has no telecom
obligations, consumer safeguards, etc.

So, if we talk about speeds and upgrades, will this be the same old  
story --
in the definition of broadband, does it include opening up FIOS for
competition as broadband should be 'open' as part of the definition  
and not
just 'fast'? And who's going to compel AT&T or Verizon to do anything?

Bruce Kushnick.

PS: we filed a request with the FCC to have a separate series of  
hearings on
the issue of utility funding vs 'interstate information service'  
controls.
http://www.newnetworks.com/fccbroadbandworkshops.htm

No word yet. If public funding is being used to upgrade the networks,
shouldn't the definition be "open", be "ubiquitous' besides just fast?









-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com