There are options on other parts of the FCC website for attaching Word or PDF files, but the FCC system kept communicating to me that it didn’t recognize the document number I submitted (even though the FCC notice states this number must be used to submit a comment).

I sent this comment, in response to FCC numbered questions:

GN Docket No. 09-51
Response to Federal Communications Commission Notice of Inquiry, FCC 09-31, released April 8, 2009
Comments on items below:

43. … how can the Commission ensure that any measures to encourage wireless broadband service coincide with and complement other broadband platforms (and vice versa)?

In our neighborhood, we have two wireline providers of broadband service. Residents don’t need less efficient wireless broadband service. Federal law should not require municipalities to allow installations of wireless infrastructure where it is not needed for more phone line capacity and where wireline services provide faster broadband speeds.

Municipalities should be allowed to reasonably discriminate in favor of providers with less intrusive and more efficient technology.

48. … address the value of open networks, and specifically, the impact on investment, innovation and entrepreneurship, content, competition and affordability of broadband, among other things. … We ask … whether such a principle is necessary in light of the current state of competition and the four existing Internet policy principles….Should the underlying facilities over which service is provided have any impact on how open network policy should be applied to broadband providers?

Open networks are crucial to the free exchange and availability of information that is the promise of the internet. The Commission should adopt a fifth principle and find a way to codify the first four principles in law, and they should apply to all facilities over which service is provided.

50. Are there other policies or programs that the Commission should review as a part of its
analysis of effective and efficient mechanisms to achieve the goals of the Recovery Act? … to what extent do tower siting, pole attachments, backhaul costs, cable franchising and rights of way issues, as well as others, stand as impediments to further broadband deployments where such deployments would be made by market participants in the absence of any government-funded programs? We also note that the development of equipment and protocol standards is a key element in broadband deployment and seek comment on the appropriate role of the Commission in facilitating the development of such standards.

Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and California Public Utilities Code Section 7901 (with right-of-way privileges accorded to telecom providers) effectively prevent municipalities from denying permits for wireless broadband infrastructure, even if more efficient fiber optic, dsl, or cable service is already available. Our urban, developed neighborhood does not need more telecom infrastructure. These laws should be repealed, so wireless providers will focus their efforts in markets where broadband service is needed.

The commission should be crafting policies to encourage deployment of the fastest and highest-capacity technology, wireline fiber-optic cable, throughout the United States.

The FCC is asking for consumers’ input on the future of U.S. Broadband Policy; all comments must be submitted by June 8, 2009.

An unresolved but relevant issue for consumers citizens to keep in mind when considering such offers is detailed in a Canadian news story published this month. Excerpt:

An international group of scientists is calling on Canada and other countries to bring in tougher safety standards for cellphone use after a Swedish team found a fivefold elevated risk of malignant brain tumours in children who begin using mobile phones before the age of 20.

The plea — and the science underlying it — is published in the forthcoming edition of Pathophysiology, devoted to peer-reviewed research about the biological effects of the global explosion of wireless technologies and devices like cellphones, cordless phones, wireless Internet and cell towers.

The findings of 15 studies from health researchers in six different countries, looking at the effects of electromagnetic fields and radio frequency radiation on living cells and on the health of humans, should jolt government agencies into action as a precautionary measure, Dr. David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health & the Environment at the University at Albany, and one of the co-authors, said in an interview.

Gleaned from the conversation with the sales rep at my door, and follow-up calls to AT&T today:

AT&T has laid fiber optic wiring from its main locations to several neighborhood “nodes.” Eligible households (near the nodes) can upgrade their DSL service to “fiber optic” UVerse service for a one-time $145 fee, to pay for the technician connecting the household wiring at the node, and also rewiring some connections inside the home. This will provide a direct pipeline for internet service, not shared with other AT&T subscribers, dsl or otherwise.

The upgraded service is only available as a TV/Internet/Phone bundled service, with several integration “advantages” (all of absolutely no use to me, like programming a DVR from your cell phone, looking at a call list on your TV screen, etc.). Combination fiber optic/copper phone wiring could be strung to the house, but I wasn’t able to get complete clarification on that. The technician I spoke with, who wouldn’t tell me his physical location but of course wanted to know where I was calling from, said that it was cheaper for AT&T to offer this wiring than pure fiber optic wiring.

Customers who upgrade receive new 2Wire Residential Gateway modems connected to the node by Cat 5 cables. These modems emit a wireless signal for TV reception, as well as for internet connectivity and interior cell phone use. The salesperson I spoke with on the phone said that this 2Wire modem is configured specifically to work with fiber optic cable signals, as opposed to DSL.

When I asked about the greater range/signal strength of this modem I was referred to a technician, who really didn’t answer the question. After a long conversation which provided some of the information above, he did say that the modem was limited to inside-the-house use (because of password protection), but confirmed that it had a 500-yard range.

Is this AT&T’s marketing answer to neighborhoods that don’t want unsightly, microsite transmission antennae/vaults every few blocks, threatening local property values? Or is it a low-cost way to provide some sort of fiber optic service, in response to growing competition from FiOS (Fiber Optic Service) providers like Verizon, without actually restringing phone lines and rewiring individual homes so customers can have direct, wired connections for every device that needs one?

A new product, smarter than your phone, smaller than your PC: will today’s stressed and tapped-out consumers have to have it?

I hope not. Why does everyone need to be able to access the internet from anywhere, or see videos wherever they go? The last thing the streets of Glendale, California need is consumers citizens staring at their own little video screen. Too many people here now are ignoring state law and continue to hold a cell phone while driving. Why not teach some restraint? Have people wait until they get to their office or home and are safely seated to access the internet or watch a video or download a file.

Has anyone stopped to ask how all these bandwidth-hungry devices are going to function smoothly and quickly? My guess is that they will require many more cell towers than we have now. This is a technology, again, that is intermediate and could be outdated in just a few years.

Data transmission over fiber optic cable happens at the speed of light. I don’t have a technical background, so anyone who does is welcome to comment or correct me, but I believe capacity isn’t much of a problem with fiber optic technology. A long-term investment in fiber optic cable direct to homes and businesses would be more efficient in the long run than a plethora of small electronic portable devices. It would probably be safer as well.