The Federal Communications Commission’s Notice of Inquiry, seeking public input on A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, is addressed to all stakeholders. I sincerely hope a very large number of individual stakeholders (i.e., citizens) respond to this call and send in their comments about internet access, speeds, technology, pricing, and providers.
The FCC didn’t name citizens as stakeholders; instead, it asked for input from American consumers. Why, in so many cases, are we consumers instead of citizens? Does the FCC define our interest solely on the basis of our monthly ISP bill and what’s included on it? Shouldn’t civic interests in a “national broadband plan” override consumer interests? Is this a semantic gesture to advocates of the free enterprise system? Here’s the last part of the call —
We seek comment in this Notice from all interested parties on the elements that should go into a national broadband plan. Our plan must reflect an understanding of the problem, clear goals for the future, a route to those goals, and benchmarks along the way. Our plan must also allow for modification as we learn from our experience. And our plan must reflect the input of all stakeholders—industry, American consumers; large and small businesses; federal, state, local, and tribal governments; nonprofits; and disabilities communities. With this Notice, we begin to make our plan.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is widely acknowledged to have been heavily influenced by the telecom industry. Further, as the Free Press notes in its May 2009 book Changing Media, those provisions of the 1996 act that were intended to keep markets open for competition and provide more choices to citizens were subsequently quashed by telecom companies who sought changes in definitions, appeals, and changes in how the law was applied.
This time around, citizens should insist on getting the best technology and the best service, along with a range of choices at reasonable prices. The telecom companies should not be allowed to shut out competition, to receive egregious subsidies, to set tiered pricing or other restricted access schemes, or to change definitions and applications, without citizens’ approval, once a plan is instituted.
Citizens: Check out the Notice of Inquiry, and send in your comments by June 8, 2009 (the end of the document has instructions for submitting comments).
This is a terrific article. The City of Pasadena should have this on their website but of course we know that they have a pro-industry position. Thanks to informed citizens like you the word is getting out.
All municipalities should have the FCC comment period published on their websites, newsletters, public service announcements, etc. Ideally any Telecom company offering Broadband should have this FCC notice of comment on their bills. The FCC should require this type of notification if they seriously want “Consumer” input.
The Wireless Industry is considered a public utilities but there is nothing public or transparent about the industry’s abuses of the laws that are set in place to promote “fair” competition.
Our household pays $179 a month to Charter Cable for Cable/Video and Internet. This is an expensive discretionary expense that is truly expendable. The “fair” competition should have created lower and more reasonable pricing for the consumers, but with deregulation also known as a competitive market, I have only found that my monthly bill only keeps going up for both cable and internet service that is usually unreliable and for repairs and customer service that I would prefer not to have to deal with on a regular basis. When I turn on my cable tv or computer I expect my cable to not work properly and to not be able to access the internet…..Is this supposed to be an acceptable industry standard?
At least I have a choice to be able to switch my internet service which we will be doing soon. Currently there is only one Cable company operating in Pasadena, so when AT&T starts their Cable service it might force Charter Cable to provide a reliable cable and internet service. At this point we are just a captive audience for Charter Cable.
On April 1, 2009 Charter Cable declared bankruptcy. In a recent Pasadena Star News article it stated that Charter Cable had not shown a profit for 10 years before it declared bankruptcy. After the Company declared bankruptcy both cable and internet service are worse. I certainly pay a lot to a company that can’t show a profit does not sound right to me.
I don’t use a cell phone enough to warrant having my neighbourhood blighted with twoers for a company I have no use for.
Pingback: Sending a Comment to the FCC on the National Broadband Plan | Sunroom Desk
Pingback: Glendale, California: A Wireless Hot Spot Cited in Two Federal Petitions | Sunroom Desk