Verizon

Jill Butterworth, Deputy Press Secretary,Office of Attorney General Martha Coakley
writes:

AG COAKLEY'S OFFICE URGES FCC TO ADOPT COMMON SENSE MEASURES TO ADDRESS WIRELESS PHONE "BILL SHOCK"

BOSTON - Attorney General Martha Coakley's Office has requested the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mandate greater transparency and real-time notification to alert wireless phone users of their voice and data usage prior to charging them excessive fees outside of pre-set use plans.

The Attorney General's comments were filed with the FCC in connection with an FCC inquiry aimed at looking into whether it should adopt measures that would alert wireless phone customers before they exceed their predetermined allocations of voice minutes, text message limits, or data usage.

"Rapidly changing technology, easy access to expensive wireless data services and complex billing practices regularly leave wireless phone customers with unexpected and extremely high bills," said AG Coakley. "Simple protections such as usage alerts and preset cut-off mechanisms that have long been standards in other industries should be adopted to better protect wireless customers from unexpected charges." READ MORE...

Check this out:
State Wide Franchising Not living Up to Lobbyist Promises
Oligarchy at work for the special interest the only winners here are the phne companies and the politicians that obviously get paid off.
It's a good thing Massachusetts hasn't bought into this nonsense.

Kelly M. Teal writes on exchange mag ( xchangemag.com) ,"Cablecos seeking customers in multidwelling units (MDUs) now will have to woo those potential users just like any other business trying to land a sale. In other words, the era of cable exclusivity in MDUs is extinct – that is, except for deals already in place. But for the most part, from here on out, operators will have to compete against telco and satellite for MDU tenants’ eyeballs, and property owners won’t be able to dictate who their occupants rely on for pay TV."

For more you can read how the Court Nixes Exclusive MDU Deals.

Another thing for muni's to consider while companies like Verizon lobby to give themselves more of what seems to be an unfair edge over cable providers. Anyway, this does seem like it could open the door to LESS local programming in the long run.

HERE IS WHY:
URGENT January 28, 2008

RE: Council Meeting Item: Reconsider against shortest term possible for the cable franchise renewal with Charter.

Please reconsider this request. There are many benefits to a local cable franchise authority including the asset of PEG channels that will be at risk in the balance.

Looming proposed legislation lobbied by major telecom companies threaten to eliminate municipal cable franchise authority. WCCA has presented extensive information on this subject on it's website
wccatv.com/save access

So fare with the help of a nation and state wide effort including support form various municipal groups and associations we were successful in holding such potentially damaging legislation at bay.

If the lobbyist are successful Cable Franchise licenses will be terminated either immediately or immediately upon the expiration of the current franchise. In such a case, is it worthwhile to let our frustrations and disappointment with a company such as Charter Communications, ruin the opportunity to sustain franchise assets currently benefiting our city and it's citizens?

We suggest a long term franchise written with strong language to enforce and ensure the needs of the city and it's community (including our PEG channels) and consumers are met on a timely basis.

SAVE ACCESS INFORMATION

Verizon Raises Rates Too
http://saveaccess.org/node/1877

What is in the balance:
http://www.wccatv.com/search/node/Save+Access

Mass Save Access news
http://saveaccess.org/taxonomy/term/26

Mass Access Highlights of the proposed bill sponsored by Verizon:

The bill transfers license approval from municipalities to the State, allowing the state 15 days for state level review and approval. (Section 4(D))

State review would be superficial at best with only 15 days to review a license application.
There is no provision in the bill for public hearings or public input.

The bill provides that if the cable license application is complete, it must be approved.
(Section 4(D))

The bill ties government's hands, as the State must approve the application if it is a complete application. Thus the bill provides NO mechanism for state or local negotiation of better terms regarding service area or provision of Institutional Network. Therefore a new company can pick and choose ("cherry pick") which neighborhoods it serves, and neither the state nor the municipality can negotiate better terms. There is no provision for negotiation of Institutional Networks or other community-specific benefits.

In a radical departure from decades of prior law, the bill does not provide for any state review of the qualifications of a new cable company. This would be very problematic with respect to new entrants that do not have proven qualifications. Unqualified, high risk, speculative companies could apply for and take over the last remaining pole and street space available for this important service.

Even the process of license transfer approval is eliminated so the cable licensee can transfer its system to any entity, without any public hearing or public input. (Section 4(G))

The bill provides that cable operators would pay the municipality a franchise fee not to exceed a total of 5% of "gross revenues" as defined by the bill, and as established by the municipality. (Section 7(B)). However, the bill is harsh on existing public access facilities, as follows. Although the new company would initially have to match the incumbent company's support for public, educational and governmental (PEG) access, the bill specifically provides that when the incumbent cable operator's franchise expires, then such PEG Access support shall not exceed 1% of the franchise holder's gross revenues. (See Section 8(C)). This could result in loss of funding to PEG Access facilities depending on how other franchise fees are allocated. In any event, because there is no requirement that Verizon negotiate or match other Comcast obligations, e.g., service area or INet obligations, Comcast would seek reductions of PEG obligations so that it would operate in "level playing field" conditions, as discussed below.

Existing Comcast licenses all provide that if Verizon (or any cable competitor) does not match what Comcast is providing, Comcast may seek relief and reduce what it is currently providing, going down to the competitor's level of local support. As the new bill would result in Verizon providing less than Comcast (in terms of service area construction and Institutional Network), the new bill (if adopted) could result in Comcast being able to seek relief to reduce its existing obligations to go down to the new lower level. The areas where Comcast would seek relief are PEG Access and/or INet support, because those are the main areas where Comcast can reduce monetary payments to redress level playing field inequalities.

Access Channels: The new bill requires only 2 access channels for new entrants in communities with populations under 50,000. Many communities with population under 50,000 now have 3 access channels, so the bill could result in a loss of access channels. Larger communities would have 3 access channels. (Section 8(B)). Another problem for municipalities: Under Section 8(B) the cable operator could reclaim community channels used for non-repeat programming less than 8 hours per day.

Interconnection of Incumbent and New Company Access Channels: The bill appears ambiguous about access channel interconnect, as it provides for reasonable efforts to negotiate interconnection, creating the risk of dispute concerning what constitutes reasonable effort. Section 8(H). Another problem for municipalities: the bill provides that the municipality shall be responsible for the operation and content of access channels. (Section 8(d)). The bill also makes the municipality responsible for access channel interconnections by providing, "The must municipality must ensure that all transmissions, content or programming to be transmitted over PEG access channel or facility…are provided in a manner or form that is capable of being accepted and transmitted by the franchise holder." (Section 8(E)). The foregoing shift responsibilities to the municipality that the municipality can now shift to third parties through a local franchise.

Term of License: Existing law (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 166A) provides for license of up to 10 years for renewals and up to 15 years for initial licenses. Expiration of license term has been of enormous benefit to towns and cities because at expiration, the parties have renewal negotiations to update terms and conditions. This is the practice in the overwhelming majority of states. Under the proposed new law, once a state license is approved, there is no expiration of license terms, eliminating critical renewal negotiation opportunities.

Emergency Alert System: Cable operator only to comply with FCC emergency communications standards, and FCC does not require local override capability. (Section 8(G))

Indemnification of municipality would only be for negligent acts or omissions of cable operator. Current law requires indemnification for injury caused by acts or omissions of cable operator based on causation, without requiring showing of negligence. (Section 5(E))

New bill says that in any community with 2 or more cable companies, locally mandated customer service standards would no longer apply. (Section 9(C))
Loss of renewal process (if the bill goes through). Existing cable operators like Comcast would have the option of seeking state authorization pursuant to the new legislation upon expiration of an existing franchise. (Section 2(B)) So Comcast could simply opt out of renewal if it did not like the local renewal process.

Comment: Massachusetts municipal officials made a strong and unprecedented outcry against adopting 90 day licensing (at the state DTE hearing), however, the new bill seeks to usher in a new regime of 15 day state licensing.

SAVE ACCESS INFORMATION
http://www.wccatv.com/taxonomy/term/65

Verizon Raises Rates Too
http://saveaccess.org/node/1877

What is in the balance:
http://www.wccatv.com/search/node/Save+Access

www.saveaccess.org

Mass Save Access news
http://saveaccess.org/taxonomy/term/26

In the balance
LET'S NOT REDUCED LOCAL TV COVERAGE TO 17 seconds per day:
http://saveaccess.org/node/2100

MIke from NY writes:
Note: According to our math, Verizon jacked their cable TV rates 7.5% last year and they now project another 11.5 rate increase this year. Apparently "Competition = Higher Prices". Hopefully the FCC and those folks in Congress
will take note . . .

You have to read more here

NOTE TO CITY COUNCIL be careful what you wish for.

FROM OUR FRIEND MIKE IN NY:

http://saveaccess.org/node/1653

Note: Another case of Telcos behaving badly - in this case to get out from under regulated price caps on business service. With all the talk of the need for faster and more widespread broadband build-out to facilitate struggling local economies - this should help immensely.

from: National Journal

FCC Agenda Includes 'Forbearance,' Access

By David Hatch

(Friday, September 21) Dominant telecommunications carriers are lining up to seek regulatory relief from the Republican-controlled FCC, moves that will test the agency's ability to deregulate while under the watchful eye of congressional Democrats.

AT&T, Embarq, Frontier and Qwest Communications International are seeking exemptions from price caps governing their provision of high-capacity, high-speed Internet access to businesses.

They filed "forbearance" requests after the FCC granted similar relief to Verizon Communications last year. But Verizon prevailed on a technicality after inaction due to a stalemate resulted in its proposal being granted. On Sept. 11, Qwest withdrew its petition because it lacked the votes for passage, but the company refiled it the next day.

"The Bells generally want to get rid of as much regulation as possible," said David Kaut, a telecom analyst at the investment firm Stifel Nicolaus. It views FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, a Republican, as the swing vote in these matters. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate, also Republicans, support deregulation, but Democratic Commissioners Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps oppose it.

The FCC must act on AT&T's petition by Oct. 11 but also might decide on other requests that day, sources said.

Meanwhile, in six markets, Verizon is seeking to remove federal regulations that grant competitors access to its networks at heavily discounted rates. The company says there is sufficient competition to justify the change, but carriers such as XO Communications that rely on discounted rates disagree.

On Wednesday, XO and its allies held a briefing to reiterate their concerns and urge the FCC to adopt a more transparent process for reviewing forbearance requests. In an interview, XO spokesman Jim Crawford accused Verizon of inflating data on XO's presence in Boston and New York, cities where Verizon seeks relief. "They're making up the numbers," he said.

Verizon spokesman David Fish said the criticism is "another attempt to deflect attention" from the fact that XO and other small carriers have failed to give the FCC comprehensive data about their market presence.

In 2005, the FCC eased similar regulations for Qwest in Omaha, Neb., but the move was not implemented until this spring due to court challenges. Smaller competitors say Qwest hiked its prices, but Qwest said its fees rose to market rates. It is seeking to expand the deregulation to four other metro areas.

A storm also is brewing over efforts by some wireless carriers and smaller phone providers to persuade the FCC to re-regulate markets it previously deregulated. At issue is "special access," the reduced rates that dominant firms offer competitors for telecom network capacity. Critics say rates are rising too fast where regulation was lifted.

AT&T, Embarq, Qwest, Verizon and their supporters counter that the FCC and independent analysts consider the special-access sector to be competitive. Brian Adkins, director of federal legislative affairs at Embarq, said his company would lose hundreds of millions of dollars if it is subject to re-regulation.

The FCC, under pressure from House Democrats to act, could issue a decision within weeks.

Bunnie Riedel writes:

Why is the story below important? This is something I've been hearing about
for two years. Verizon has been stripping copper wire out of houses where
it installs FiOS fiber. That means any land-line phone capability is being
stripped out.

Why are land-line phones important? When the power goes out, land-line
phones will still work. However, cable phone, verizon or at&t phone have a
limited back up battery (4 hours or so). This is a big deal for folks in FL
communities where hurricanes can knock out power and cell phone towers.
Additionally we are hearing that if a consumer wants to go back to a
land-line phone they are having to pay to reconnect the copper from the curb
to their house.

Verizon is primarily doing this so they don't have to lease their lines to
competiting phone or video service providers. The implications are huge if
you consider that it took about 100 years to build the telephony
infrastructure in this country, wiring coast to coast.

If you get Verizon service or your local equivalent insist that they not
pull out the copper wire. Also, I think it's time we get language into
franchise agreements that prevent Verizon and others from stripping out the
copper.

INTERNET/BROADBAND
VERIZON'S COPPER CUTOFF TRAPS CONSUMERS

[SOURCE: Associated Press, AUTHOR: Deborah Yao] Verizon's new
high-bandwidth, FiOS fiber lines are fully capable of carrying not only
telephone calls but also Internet data and television channels with room to
grow. But once the old copper line that once provided plain old telephone
service is pulled, it's difficult to switch back to the traditional phone
system or less expensive Digital Subscriber Line service.

And Verizon isn't required, in most instances, to lease fiber to rival phone
companies, as it is with the copper infrastructure. As it hooks up homes and
businesses to its fiber network, Verizon has been routinely disconnecting
the copper and, many subscribers say, not telling them upfront or giving
them a choice. More than 1 million customers have signed up for a FiOS
service, which is offered mainly in the suburban areas of 16 states. Verizon
spokesman Eric Rabe said customers should have been notified at least three
times - once by the sales representative when FiOS is ordered, by the
technician before copper is cut, and through paperwork given to the
customer. Some customers say that hasn't happened.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/08/ap3892179.html

* Cutting the Copper Means Less Competition for Verizon, Fewer Choices for
Consumers
http://www.consumersunion.org/blogs/hun/2007/07/cutting_the_copper_means_les
s.html

Riedel Communications
8775 Centre Park Drive #255
Columbia, MD 21045

410-992-4976
www.riedelcommunications.com

www.riedelcommunications.blogspot.com