I’m not a big morning person. Never have been. So when it came time for blogging, morning was out. For now, I’ll blog over lunch. But “Lunchtime Bites” may at some point turn into “Midnight Snacks.” We’ll see. This is my first entry.
With technology today, a person interested in producing a video is as easy as pulling out a smart phone and shooting video and uploading it to Facebook or YouTube or some other type of interactive social media network. Anyone with access to widely available video recording devices can produce and distribute video. Add a mac or pc to the mix and now you can produce a fully edited video clip for distribution. So with these capabilities in our hands, is there any reason to support Public, Educational and Governmental (“PEG”) television?
PEG Channels are cable channels that are typically operated by cities or counties. A “Public Access” channel is generally open to anyone who wants to put some type of video programming on the channel. It is the public soapbox in the cable television world. An “Education Access” channel is typically a channel that is programmed by the local school district or college/university and could contain classroom instruction or video of school board meetings and other school activities, like a school pep fest. A channel that shows local government meetings and other information on the local community is a “Government Access” channel. These PEG channels have been around for about 30 years now.
While there are new and inexpensive ways to produce video, PEG operations still allow people to produce video in a higher quality and shown to a local audience. While you can put a video out on YouTube, the chances of it being seen by significant numbers of people is still very small. There are still some financial obstacles to producing video. Although the technology to produce a decent quality video has decreased significantly over the years, there are still many people that simply do not have access to the cameras to shoot the video, the computers to edit the video, or the internet to upload the content. Many PEG operations also provide training to help new producers make quality video productions. Sometimes these productions are later shown on other channels, such as PBS. Volunteer producers go on to careers in video production.
The audience of the PEG channels should also not be underestimated. For example, folks who want to know what is going on with their local government need only tune into their local government access channel. They will likely see the council or board meetings that they are interested in, shows about current city/county/state projects, and perhaps bulletin board notices with important information. Viewers know where this information is and the amount of content exceeds what you can put on a social networking site.
Is PEG Television relevant in a social media world? Yes! Should local governments exclude the use of social media? No! Local governments can and should use social media to highlight good programming and information. Robust viewership is good for the future of the PEG channels and good for the cable operator providing the channels. Food for thought!
Monday, September 27, 2010
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
FCC Releases Database APIs
Last week the FCC announced [pdf] that it has released APIs for four of its databases: Consumer Broadband Speed Test, Census Block Search, FCC Registration Number (FRN) Conversion, and FCC License View.
This means that people with fundamental coding skills will be able to analyze and present FCC data in new and hopefully insightful ways. For instance, the FCC Licence database could lead to some very striking graphical portrayals of media ownership consolidation.
Some early users have reported gaps in the data and unexpected results in using this data, but the FCC hopes that citizen software developers will create "mash-ups and data calls" to "leverage government data in ways never imagined." While the FCC may be coming a bit late to this game, if its goal is to remake itself with "dot com" responsiveness, it's good to know it at least has its hands on the appropriate jargon. Kidding aside, this is a move in the direction of greater transparency and usability of fundamental information about our national telecommunications system.
Friday, September 3, 2010
What Deregulation Looks Like - Literally
The Economist's Science and Technology blog had a nice image from Vietnam, with the implication that totally unregulated telecommunications may be good for competition but bad for municipal curb appeal:
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Google Inc said users of Gmail will now be able to call telephones directly
from their e-mail, putting it in direct competition with Web calling service
Skype and more traditional operators such as AT&T Inc and Verizon
Communications.
http://ping.fm/F0n94
from their e-mail, putting it in direct competition with Web calling service
Skype and more traditional operators such as AT&T Inc and Verizon
Communications.
http://ping.fm/F0n94
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Two Snails Racing: Waiting for Congress or the FCC to Move on Net Neutrality
The Myth of Existing Net Neutrality
The debate over net neutrality is not about whether an open Internet is good or bad. In terms of free expression and our imagined “marketplace of ideas,” an equal-access network would be very nice. If there were enough bandwidth for every appetite and application, and if broadband service providers could decide on and disclose actual speeds and contractual limitations on bandwidth use, net neutrality just might work. But bandwidth is finite. And ISPs will lose subscribers if they are too upfront about their limited capabilities. So, the argument over feared worst-case scenarios continues.
Net neutrality in the United States does not exist today. There are reports of Comcast and other ISPs throttling BitTorrent users as early as 2005. That means the past five years (at least) of Internet growth have happened while ISPs have been doing exactly what we fear most: deciding for us what type of service we can access. On the other hand, ISPs and content providers have been filtering our Internet experience in ways that most users prefer: think spam blocking or Google’s “safe search.”
The problem with the current discussion is that it fails to address this balance. Most consumers want some traffic shaping, some of the time. Most ISPs have to limit some bandwidth hogs, sometimes, to sustain their business. Yet our government is tasked with protecting us from service providers’ unbridled greed and anticompetitive intent. This protection comes in the form of regulation, even if that regulation is simply to tell service providers to be “reasonable” or “fair.” Even such vague standards of public interest allow the government to impose some type of sanctions if service providers are wildly out of line.
The issue now is if and how the federal government will intervene, hopefully to dictate some reasonable balance.
Snails Racing for Reform
To end the now-ideological net neutrality debate, we’re left looking to two players who are generally slow and ineffective when it comes to dealing with immediate technology problems: Congress and the FCC. So far, Congress doesn’t seem to have a plan, though Google and Verizon have kindly provided a self-protecting regulatory framework in case lawmakers need a little help. The FCC has scrambled since April, when the D.C. Circuit delivered a no-nonsense administrative law smack-down that dialed back the FCC’s ability to stop network discrimination. A possible solution to the regulatory void created by the Comcast decision is FCC General Counsel Austin Schlick’s “Third Way” proposal [pdf], which, at its core, would reclassify broadband Internet as a telecommunications service rather than an information service, opening the content-cum-service providers to the specter of common carrier status, subject to heightened regulation by the FCC.
Without diving into an explanation of the Third Way and how it may or may not fly, the FCC might be on shaky legal ground if it reclassifies broadband by declaratory order rather than through rulemaking proceedings. As the CTIA points out in its comments to the FCC in opposition of regulation [pdf], reclassification of broadband from one regulatory regime to another is not the kind of mere statutory clarification for which the courts have approved declaratory action. Rather, the Administrative Procedure Act, and even a relatively generous interpretation of the Supreme Court's seminal administrative law Chevron opinion, would likely require notice and comment rulemaking proceedings (like it did for initial classification of wireline broadband), by which the FCC can explain its change of course.
Should Wireless Be Different?
Much hubbub arose from Google and Verizon’s agreement that any legislated net neutrality rules should not include regulation of wireless services. What seems to be lacking from the lay commentary on this issue is the fact that wireline and wireless services are fundamentally different, from the FCC’s perspective. Wireless services require licensed spectrum to operate, and those licenses aren’t exactly easy or cheap to obtain. Because consumers have started using wireless broadband service to do the same things they do over wireline service, it’s difficult in that sense to justify disparate regulation. But the rules are different, and Congress has demanded that the FCC try to “reduce the regulatory burden” on wireless service providers, while subjecting them to limited common carrier regulations. So no matter if it makes sense today, the FCC's starting point might have to be regulating wireless and wireline broadband differently.
What’s Next?
Some Democrats in Congress are calling for the FCC to go ahead with broadband reclassification so it can prevent ISPs from further limiting the Internet. Conservatives don’t want more regulation than already exists. Since this is a complex problem, it’s unfortunate for consumers and investors that we’re left waiting for the bureaucratic behemoths of Congress and the FCC to find the silver bullet, fearing the industry has hijacked the process. But what about a more moderate approach? One that doesn’t require codifying industry-tailored non-rules, but also doesn’t force the FCC into legal contortions it cannot sustain. Bob Sullivan suggests a moderate approach that could work through the lower echelons of the FCC while we’re waiting for the higher-ups to hash out a big-picture deal:
The debate over net neutrality is not about whether an open Internet is good or bad. In terms of free expression and our imagined “marketplace of ideas,” an equal-access network would be very nice. If there were enough bandwidth for every appetite and application, and if broadband service providers could decide on and disclose actual speeds and contractual limitations on bandwidth use, net neutrality just might work. But bandwidth is finite. And ISPs will lose subscribers if they are too upfront about their limited capabilities. So, the argument over feared worst-case scenarios continues.
Net neutrality in the United States does not exist today. There are reports of Comcast and other ISPs throttling BitTorrent users as early as 2005. That means the past five years (at least) of Internet growth have happened while ISPs have been doing exactly what we fear most: deciding for us what type of service we can access. On the other hand, ISPs and content providers have been filtering our Internet experience in ways that most users prefer: think spam blocking or Google’s “safe search.”
The problem with the current discussion is that it fails to address this balance. Most consumers want some traffic shaping, some of the time. Most ISPs have to limit some bandwidth hogs, sometimes, to sustain their business. Yet our government is tasked with protecting us from service providers’ unbridled greed and anticompetitive intent. This protection comes in the form of regulation, even if that regulation is simply to tell service providers to be “reasonable” or “fair.” Even such vague standards of public interest allow the government to impose some type of sanctions if service providers are wildly out of line.
The issue now is if and how the federal government will intervene, hopefully to dictate some reasonable balance.
Snails Racing for Reform
To end the now-ideological net neutrality debate, we’re left looking to two players who are generally slow and ineffective when it comes to dealing with immediate technology problems: Congress and the FCC. So far, Congress doesn’t seem to have a plan, though Google and Verizon have kindly provided a self-protecting regulatory framework in case lawmakers need a little help. The FCC has scrambled since April, when the D.C. Circuit delivered a no-nonsense administrative law smack-down that dialed back the FCC’s ability to stop network discrimination. A possible solution to the regulatory void created by the Comcast decision is FCC General Counsel Austin Schlick’s “Third Way” proposal [pdf], which, at its core, would reclassify broadband Internet as a telecommunications service rather than an information service, opening the content-cum-service providers to the specter of common carrier status, subject to heightened regulation by the FCC.
Without diving into an explanation of the Third Way and how it may or may not fly, the FCC might be on shaky legal ground if it reclassifies broadband by declaratory order rather than through rulemaking proceedings. As the CTIA points out in its comments to the FCC in opposition of regulation [pdf], reclassification of broadband from one regulatory regime to another is not the kind of mere statutory clarification for which the courts have approved declaratory action. Rather, the Administrative Procedure Act, and even a relatively generous interpretation of the Supreme Court's seminal administrative law Chevron opinion, would likely require notice and comment rulemaking proceedings (like it did for initial classification of wireline broadband), by which the FCC can explain its change of course.
Should Wireless Be Different?
Much hubbub arose from Google and Verizon’s agreement that any legislated net neutrality rules should not include regulation of wireless services. What seems to be lacking from the lay commentary on this issue is the fact that wireline and wireless services are fundamentally different, from the FCC’s perspective. Wireless services require licensed spectrum to operate, and those licenses aren’t exactly easy or cheap to obtain. Because consumers have started using wireless broadband service to do the same things they do over wireline service, it’s difficult in that sense to justify disparate regulation. But the rules are different, and Congress has demanded that the FCC try to “reduce the regulatory burden” on wireless service providers, while subjecting them to limited common carrier regulations. So no matter if it makes sense today, the FCC's starting point might have to be regulating wireless and wireline broadband differently.
What’s Next?
Some Democrats in Congress are calling for the FCC to go ahead with broadband reclassification so it can prevent ISPs from further limiting the Internet. Conservatives don’t want more regulation than already exists. Since this is a complex problem, it’s unfortunate for consumers and investors that we’re left waiting for the bureaucratic behemoths of Congress and the FCC to find the silver bullet, fearing the industry has hijacked the process. But what about a more moderate approach? One that doesn’t require codifying industry-tailored non-rules, but also doesn’t force the FCC into legal contortions it cannot sustain. Bob Sullivan suggests a moderate approach that could work through the lower echelons of the FCC while we’re waiting for the higher-ups to hash out a big-picture deal:
[Consumers can seek] guaranteed minimum service levels, and a real government resource for complaints…[The government] should quickly investigate and fine misbehavior by ISPs, such as … misleading consumers about available bandwidth.
The FCC has received over 110,000 comments on its “Open Internet” notice of proposed rulemaking that was posted in October 2009. There are clearly many difficult legal and social issues at stake. In the meantime, we can demand basic consumer protections and enforcement of existing rules.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
FCC Extends Comment Period Again in Comcast / NBCU Merger
Today the FCC extended [pdf] the time to file Replies to Responses/Oppositions (which were due July 21) to Petitions to Deny and Comments (which were due June 21) to the Comcast / NBCU merger, at the request of the American Cable Association (ACA). The deadline was August 5, but has been extended by two weeks to August 19. The ACA requested the extension because NBCU's 599-page Opposition to Petitions to Deny and Responses to Comments was not immediately available for review on July 21, 2010.
This extension reportedly does not change the original 180-day timeframe for the FCC's merger review.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
FCC 706 Report Lends Support to Universal Service Reform
The FCC today released its 143 page report on the status of advanced telecommunications deployment [pdf]. In the report, the FCC finds that 14 to 24 million Americans lack access to broadband service, with little hope for short-term improvement. In a separate statement [pdf], Chairman Genachowski emphasized the need to overhaul the Universal Service Fund in order to bankroll improved broadband infrastructure nationwide.
Additional analysis of the report, including comment in opposition to the FCC's stance on providing service to underserved areas can be found at Multichannel News and Broadcasting and Cable.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
FCC Rolls Over Additional $900 Million USF Funds for Schools/Libraries
This morning I saw this story on gobs of extra USF money and thought, "Wow! Nearly $1 trillion extra for schools and libraries: that goes a long way in making up the $1.75 billion shortfall!" But it looks like that "b" should have been an "m" and the real story is more along the lines of "FCC rolls over $900 million for schools and libraries, which should fund about 80% of Priority 2 E-rate requests, just like last year."
It took some digging online to find the real story [see p. 44 of the PDF] (note the suspicious lack of links in the BroadbandBreakfast story), but for a while I held out hope that the lack of news on the FCC USF page, the USAC news page, and other media outlets was based on the fact that no agency wanted to fess up to that scale of accounting sloppiness. In any case, $900 million in misjudged administrative costs is nothing to scoff at. At least it gives me hope that the money is there, somewhere, to continue to fix America's broadband problems with USF support.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Cablevision Takes Over Bresnan for $4,500 per Subscriber
Cablevision confirmed on June 14 that it is buying smaller Western-US operator Bresnan for $1.37 Billion. Cablevision the fifth-largest cable company in the country. Cablevision is a New York-based cable operator with more than 90% penetration in its home markets, so in order to expand it must enter new territories. Approximately 300,000 households subscribe to Bresnan's cable and HSD service, meaning Cablevision will pay over $4,500 per subscriber for the takeover.
Read more about Cablevision's takeover of Bresnan at Business Week and Telecompaper.
Read more about Cablevision's takeover of Bresnan at Business Week and Telecompaper.
Friday, June 11, 2010
NBC affiliates tell FCC to make sure Comcast keeps sports on NBC after merger | Company Town | Los Angeles Times
Given Comcast's ownership interests in regional and national sports channels, NBC affiliates are concerned of losing sports content and the local advertising that goes with it following the Comcast/NBCU merger.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
2010 Regional Communications Law Forum
On June 9, Bradley & Guzzetta attended the 2010 Regional Communications Law Forum at the Minnesota CLE Conference Center in Minneapolis. The day kicked off with an insightful and wryly humorous explanation of the United Kingdom's Competition Appeal Tribunal and European antitrust law in the telecommunications context from Tribunal Member Adam Scott.
Other presenters discussed Comcast's TV Everywhere, Google Voice, multi-jurisdictional practice, and the National Broadband Plan.
Julio Ojedo-Zapata, St. Paul's Pioneer Press consumer technology reporter, engaged the crowd with a fun and informative tech gadget rundown over lunch.
Our own Mike Bradley served on the planning committee for the event and Bradley & Guzzetta compiled a year-long summary of communications law, included in the CLE materials. If you would like a PDF copy of Bradley & Guzzetta's communications law summary for 2009-2010, please contact any of us.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Announcement - B&G's Jon Koebrick Graduates from Iowa
Jon Koebrick, Bradley & Guzzetta’s Telecommunications Consultant, Graduated Iowa Law in May 2010
Jon will take the Iowa Bar examination in July 2010 and will continue providing legal and telecommunications consulting services to corporate and municipal clients. Jon has over 16 years of experience in the cable television industry with Mediacom Communications, AT&T Broadband and Tele-Communications, Inc. prior to attending law school. Following successful completion of the Iowa Bar examination, Jon will be employed as an associate attorney with Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC and maintain an office in Marion, Iowa. | |
| Visit Bradley & Guzzetta's website for information about our firm. Contact Jon Koebrick directly at koebrick@bradleyguzzetta.com. Bradley & Guzzetta is on Facebook! | |
Comcast NBC Merger: Bad News for Hulu and MVPDs?
The deadline to file comments with the FCC on the proposed Comcast NBC Universal merger is June 21. The merger is being attacked on the usual anticompetition/antitrust grounds, based on the size and marketshare of the companies in cable and broadcast TV. However, some speculate the merger will mean the demise of Hulu, the popular free Internet video site, which competes on some levels with Comcast as a video provider. NBC currently owns about a third of Hulu. The concern is not only that Comcast would gain enough power to shut Hulu's doors, but also that the incentive would be greatly increased for limiting network traffic to such sites. ("Net Neutrality," the idea that ISPs should be barred from placing content- or provider-based limitations on their networks, is of course another hot topic at the FCC.)
The FCC has just announced it will be holding a public hearing on the Comcast/NBC merger in Chicago on July 13 [pdf].
Cities with Comcast as a cable operator are looking closely at Comcast's practices in light of this opportunity to comment on the merger. Find information about Bradley & Guzzetta's effort to oppose Comcast's new HD Technology Fee here [pdf].
Monday, May 24, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Busy Day at the FCC
FCC started action on a number of issues today.
NEWS RELEASES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FCC TAKES ACTION TO UNLEASH VIDEO INNOVATION AND CONSUMER CHOICE. News
Release. (Dkt No 00-67 10-91 97-80 ). Adopted: 04/21/2010. News Media
Contact: Janice Wise at (202) 418-8165, email: Janice.Wise@fcc.gov MB .
Contact Brendan Murray at (202-418-1573, email: Brendan.Murray@fcc.gov
or Alison Neplokh at (202) 418-1083, email: Alison.Neplokh@fcc.gov
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297665A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297665A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297665A1.txt
FCC COMMENCES INQUIRY ON SURVIVABILITY OF AMERICA'S BROADBAND
INFRASTRUCTURE. The FCC today launched an inquiry on the ability of
existing broadband networks to withstand damage or severe overload as a
result of natural disasters, terrorist attacks or other emergencies, as
recommended in the National Broadband Plan. News Release. (Dkt No 10-92
). Adopted: 04/21/2010. News Media Contact: Robert Kenny at (202)
418-2668, email: Robert.Kenny@fcc.gov PSHSB . Contact Jeff Goldthorp at
(202) 418-1096
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297663A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297663A2.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297663A3.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297663A4.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297663A5.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297663A6.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297663A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297663A2.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297663A3.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297663A4.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297663A5.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297663A6.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297663A1.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297663A2.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297663A3.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297663A4.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297663A5.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297663A6.txt
FCC LAUNCHES INQUIRY ON PROPOSED CYBER SECURITY CERTIFICATION PROGRAM
FOR COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS. The FCC today launched an
inquiry into a proposal to create a cyber security certification program
for communications services providers that will promote the use of best
practices to better protect the nation's networks against cyber
attacks.. News Release. (Dkt No 10-93 ). Adopted: 04/21/2010. News
Media Contact: Robert Kenny at (202) 418-2668, email:
Robert.Kenny@fcc.gov PSHSB . Contact Jeff Goldthorp at (202) 418-1096
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297666A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297666A2.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297666A3.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297666A4.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297666A5.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297666A6.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297666A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297666A2.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297666A3.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297666A4.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297666A5.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297666A6.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297666A1.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297666A2.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297666A3.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297666A4.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297666A5.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297666A6.txt
FCC KICKS OFF UNIVERSAL SERVICE REFORM. Reform Key to Making Broadband
Available for Millions of Americans Who Lack Access. News Release.
Adopted: 04/21/2010. News Media Contact: Mark Wigfield at (202)
418-0253, email: Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov WCB
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297662A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297662A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297662A1.txt
FCC TAKES STEPS TO PROMOTE NATIONWIDE MOBILE CONNECTIVITY. Issues
Order to Enhance Mobile Voice Service and Opens New Phase into
Data-Roaming Examination. News Release. (Dkt No 05-265 ). Adopted:
04/21/2010. News Media Contact: Matthew Nodine at (202) 418-1646, email:
Matthew.Nodine@fcc.gov WTB . Contact Nese Guendelsberger at (202)
418-0634, email: Nese.Guendelsberger@fcc.gov, Peter Trachtenberg at
(202) 418-7369, email: Peter.Trachtenberg@fcc.gov or Christina
Clearwater at (202) 418-1893, email: Christina.Clearwater@fcc.gov
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297661A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297661A2.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297661A3.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297661A4.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297661A5.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297661A6.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297661A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297661A2.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297661A3.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297661A4.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297661A5.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297661A6.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297661A1.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297661A2.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297661A3.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297661A4.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297661A5.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297661A6.txt
* * * * *
TEXTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
SKY ANGEL U.S., LLC. Denied Emergency Petition for Temporary
Standstill. Action by: Chief, Media Bureau. Adopted: 04/21/2010 by
ORDER. (DA No. 10-679). MB
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-679A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-679A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-679A1.txt
IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 304 OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996;
COMMERCIAL AVAILABILITY OF NAVIGATION DEVICES; AND COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN
CABLE SYSTEMS AND CONSUMER ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT. The Commission seeks
comment on proposed changes to the CableCARD rules for set-top boxes
used with cable services, to improve the operation of that framework
pending the development of a successor framework. (Dkt No. 00-67 97-80
). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 04/21/2010 by FNPRM. (FCC No.
10-61). MB
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-61A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-61A2.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-61A3.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-61A4.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-61A5.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-61A6.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-61A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-61A2.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-61A3.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-61A4.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-61A5.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-61A6.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-61A1.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-61A2.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-61A3.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-61A4.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-61A5.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-61A6.txt
VIDEO DEVICE COMPETITION; IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 304 OF THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996: COMMERCIAL AVAILABILITY OF NAVIGATION
DEVICES; COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN CABLE SYSTEMS AND CONSUMER ELECTRONICS
EQUIPMENT. The Commission seeks comment on the best approaches to
assure the retail availability of smart video devices and other
equipment used to access multichannel video programming services and
other video services. (Dkt No. 00-67 10-91 97-80 ). Action by: the
Commission. Adopted: 04/21/2010 by NOI. (FCC No. 10-60). MB
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-60A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-60A2.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-60A3.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-60A4.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-60A5.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-60A6.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-60A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-60A2.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-60A3.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-60A4.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-60A5.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-60A6.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-60A1.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-60A2.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-60A3.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-60A4.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-60A5.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-60A6.txt
CYBER SECURITY CERTIFICATION PROGRAM. The FCC adopted a Notice of
Inquiry that seeks public comment on the proposed creation of a new
voluntary cyber security certification program that would encourage
communications service providers to implement a full range of cyber
security best practices. Action by: the Commission. Adopted:
04/21/2010 by NOI. (FCC No. 10-63). PSHSB
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-63A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-63A2.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-63A3.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-63A4.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-63A5.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-63A6.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-63A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-63A2.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-63A3.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-63A4.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-63A5.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-63A6.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-63A1.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-63A2.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-63A3.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-63A4.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-63A5.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-63A6.txt
EFFECTS ON BROADBAND COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS OF DAMAGE TO OR FAILURE OF
NETWORK EQUIPMENT OR SEVERE OVERLOAD. The Federal Communications
Commission launched an inquiry on the ability of existing broadband
networks to withstand significant damage or severe overloads as a result
of natural disasters, terrorist attacks, pandemics or other major public
emergencies. Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 04/21/2010 by NOI.
(FCC No. 10-62). PSHSB
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-62A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-62A2.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-62A3.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-62A4.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-62A5.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-62A6.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-62A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-62A2.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-62A3.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-62A4.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-62A5.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-62A6.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-62A1.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-62A2.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-62A3.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-62A4.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-62A5.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-62A6.txt
CONNECT AMERICA FUND, A NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN FOR OUR FUTURE,
HIGH-COST UNIVERSAL SERVICE SUPPORT. FCC Kicks Off Universal Service
Reform, Reform Key to Making Broadband Available for Millions of
Americans Who Lack Access. by NOI. Action by: the Commission. Adopted:
04/21/2010 by NPRM. (FCC No. 10-58). WCB
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-58A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-58A2.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-58A3.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-58A4.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-58A5.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-58A6.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-58A2.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-58A3.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-58A4.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-58A5.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-58A6.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-58A1.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-58A2.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-58A3.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-58A4.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-58A5.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-58A6.txt
REEXAMINATION OF ROAMING OBLIGATIONS OF COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICE
PROVIDERS AND OTHER PROVIDERS OF MOBILE DATA SERVICES. The Commission
took an important step toward promoting nationwide mobile connectivity
for consumers and encouraging continued mobile innovation, investment
and deployment. By 2nd FNPRM. (Dkt No. 05-265 ). Action by: the
Commission. Adopted: 04/21/2010 by Order on Reconsideration. (FCC No.
10-59). WTB
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-59A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-59A2.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-59A3.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-59A4.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-59A5.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-59A6.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-59A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-59A2.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-59A3.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-59A4.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-59A5.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-59A6.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-59A1.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-59A2.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-59A3.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-59A4.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-59A5.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-59A6.txt
---
You are currently subscribed to digest@info.fcc.gov as:
bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-386630-49219.6f3d1557dc7fdf6f8ea0ca4a0cc502d5@info.fcc.gov
If you need assistance with your Daily Digest subscription, or if you
have a comment regarding the Daily Digest, please contact ssegal@fcc.gov
Friday, April 16, 2010
Telecom Informational Hearing 5/4
Subject: Telecom Informational Hearing 5/4
TUESDAY, May 4, 2010
9:00 AM
Room: 200 State Office Building
Chair: Rep. Sheldon Johnson
Agenda:
1) Discussion of intrastate access fees
2) Broadband Mapping update
THIS IS AN INFORMATIONAL HEARING ONLY. NO OFFICIAL ACTION WILL BE TAKEN.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Minnesota broadband plans aim higher as rules change
From today's Star Tribune
Minnesota broadband plans aim higher as rules change
By STEVE ALEXANDER, Star Tribune
Last update: April 11, 2010 - 3:29 PM
Apr 11, 2010
By STEVE ALEXANDER, Star Tribune
Last update: April 11, 2010 - 3:29 PM
Apr 11, 2010
Hoping to hit the jackpot, Minnesota counties, schools and telephone companies are dreaming big as they seek some of the billions the federal government will give out for high-speed Internet projects by September.
In Little Falls, Minn., public schools and two telephone companies want to build a fiber-optic network costing more than $50 million linking schools, hospitals, cities, counties and consumers over 1,600 square miles of north central Minnesota. The request exceeds the largest Minnesota broadband award in the first round of grants this spring, $43.5 million to expand service in the northeast part of the state. All other state awards were under $7 million each.
Ramsey County also is aiming high, proposing a $32.9 million fiber-optic network with government and public Internet cables buried in the ground side by side. While its scope is less than what some St. Paul leaders hoped -- a city committee recommended superfast fiber-to-the-home connections that are not part of the bid -- the project is nonetheless unusual. It would create two unconnected networks to prevent tampering with the government's system.
The money for these and other broadband projects around the nation would come from $7.2 billion in federal stimulus funds to promote broadband Internet service. About a third of that money remains available for the second round of proposals being submitted now.
Bigger seems to be better
Applicants like Little Falls and Ramsey County are asking for big grants in the second round of stimulus awards in the belief that federal rules are now in their favor. Absent this time are requirements that federal money be spent in areas with little or no high-speed service.
Instead, analysts and applicants say the government is giving priority to public-private partnerships that combine a government-run fiber "backbone" network with private Internet service for local businesses and consumers. The chief requirement is that the networks be open to all potential users.
"The government is looking for substantial projects that make a difference to the community as a whole," said James Farstad, president of the consulting firm Farstad.US.
Farstad, whose Minneapolis firm worked on the Little Falls and Ramsey County projects, said public-private partnerships offer "the biggest bang for the buck, both for the public and the taxpayers." As a result of the new rules, there are fewer broadband applicants in round two, but they are asking for more money per project, he said.
For the Little Falls group, it's all about persistence. Its project was turned down in the first round of broadband awards, and so its plan has been scaled back from $63 million. Kay Campbell, executive director of Mid-State Education District 6979 in Little Falls, said the project still would double the reach of the school district's network to 300 linear miles, enabling it to serve 140 institutions in five counties.
For consumers, the Little Falls plan promises Internet connections five to 20 times faster than are available now, at a cost of $30 to $60 a month, said Tony Gebhard, CEO of Sytek Communications of Upsala, Minn., which has teamed with Nextera Communications of Baxter, Minn., on the project. The schools and the companies are separately seeking stimulus money, totaling more than $50 million.
Ramsey County's side-by-side buried cables would add security at little extra cost, said Mary Mahoney, Ramsey County chief information officer. The total project cost is $32.9 million, with the county's private partner, Minnesota Fiber Exchange of Stillwater, contributing $9.9 million. Network speeds would vary from 1 to 10 gigabits per second.
St. Paul consumers would have to wait for the benefits, because initially Minnesota Fiber Exchange plans to offer high-speed Internet services only to businesses, said John Schultz, the president. Other Internet service providers are expected to buy service on the network later, and probably will offer residential customers wireless service instead of fast fiber-to-the-home, he said.
But Mahoney says St. Paul's fiber-to-the-home advocates shouldn't be disappointed.
"This is not as elaborate on the community side as the St. Paul city committee recommended," Mahoney said. "But I say this is a step toward getting that broader fiber network."
Other projects seek funds
Other unusual projects also are seeking federal broadband funds.
The Minneapolis public schools are seeking $14.4 million to provide 13,000 seventh- to 12th-grade students with school-owned, Wi-Fi-equipped laptops so they can get Internet access at home. The plan relies on a free website and discounted Internet access subscriptions from US Internet of Minnetonka, which operates the Minneapolis Wi-Fi network. The USI website has become a storehouse of student assignments, reference materials and student progress reports, and the laptops are designed to help students take advantage of it.
"Laptops for students initiatives always face funding issues," said Coleen Kosloski, executive director of technology for the Minneapolis Public Schools. "The broadband stimulus is a unique opportunity for us to go beyond supplying laptops to just one or two schools. And because we have a city Wi-Fi network, we can try to do broadband on a large scale."
Even Denver-based telephone company Qwest Communications, which serves 14 states including Minnesota, is seeking broadband stimulus funds. It applied for $350 million in stimulus funds for a $467 million project it says would bring broadband speeds of 12 million to 40 million bits per second to rural communities. About $54.5 million of that money would be spent in Minnesota, Qwest says.
While many organizations are seeking the federal stimulus funds, others are going it alone. Velocity Telephone of Golden Valley raised private funds to build a $750,000 fiber-optic network to serve a 1-square-mile industrial park in Eagan. If the return on investment is sufficient, Velocity plans to raise private funds to build a $20 million high-speed fiber-optic network in Eagan to serve businesses and consumers, said Jim Hickle, the president.
"I don't think we could have gotten any broadband stimulus money," Hickle said. "Why waste time on something that's never going to happen?"
Steve Alexander • 612-673-4553
Friday, April 9, 2010
FCC Announces Broadband Action Agenda
NEWS RELEASES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
FCC ANNOUNCES BROADBAND ACTION AGENDA. News Release. News Media
Contact: Jen Howard at (202) 418-0506, email: Jen.Howard@fcc.gov OCH
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297402A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297402A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297402A1.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
FCC Issues Order on High-Cost Universal Service Support
HIGH-COST UNIVERSAL SERVICE SUPPORT, JURISDICTIONAL SEPARATIONS,
COALITION FOR EQUITY IN SWITCHING SUPPORT PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
The Commission addresses an inequitable asymmetry in the Commission's
current rules governing the receipt of universal service high-cost local
switching by small incumbent local exchange carriers. by MO&O. (Dkt No.
80-286 05-337 ). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 03/17/2010 by
R&O. (FCC No. 10-44). WCB
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-44A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-44A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-44A1.txt
COALITION FOR EQUITY IN SWITCHING SUPPORT PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
The Commission addresses an inequitable asymmetry in the Commission's
current rules governing the receipt of universal service high-cost local
switching by small incumbent local exchange carriers. by MO&O. (Dkt No.
80-286 05-337 ). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 03/17/2010 by
R&O. (FCC No. 10-44). WCB
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-44A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-44A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-44A1.txt
FCC Seeks Comments on Retransmission Consent
Released: 03/19/2010. MEDIA BUREAU SEEKS COMMENT ON A PETITION FOR
RULEMAKING TO AMEND THE COMMISSION'S RULES GOVERNING RETRANSMISSION
CONSENT. (DA No. 10-474). (Dkt No 10-71 ). Comments Due: 04/19/2010.
Reply Comments Due: 05/04/2010. MB . Contact: Diana Sokolow at (202)
418-0588. News Media Contact: Janice Wise at (202) 418-8165
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-474A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-474A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-474A1.txt
RULEMAKING TO AMEND THE COMMISSION'S RULES GOVERNING RETRANSMISSION
CONSENT. (DA No. 10-474). (Dkt No 10-71 ). Comments Due: 04/19/2010.
Reply Comments Due: 05/04/2010. MB . Contact: Diana Sokolow at (202)
418-0588. News Media Contact: Janice Wise at (202) 418-8165
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-474A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-474A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-474A1.txt
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
National Broadband Plan Released
The FCC released its 376 page National Broadband Plan today. A link to
the Public Notice is below.
the Public Notice is below.
Here is the link to the entire document:
http://download.broadband.gov/plan/nationalbroadband-plan.pdf
FCC SENDS NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN TO CONGRESS. Plan Details Actions
for Connecting Consumers, Economy with 21st Century Networks. News
Release. News Media Contact: Jen Howard at (202) 418-0506, email:
Jen.Howard@fcc.gov or Mark Wigfield at (202) 418-0253, email:
Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov OCH
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296880A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296880A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296880A1.txt
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Rural Broadband Projects to Bring Economic Opportunity to Communities in 18 States and Territories
Rural Broadband Projects to Bring Economic Opportunity to Communities in 18 States and Territories
Congratulations to Halstad Telephone Company in Minnesota.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Lawsuit: Free chats cost Qwest a bundle
By STEVE ALEXANDER, Star Tribune
Last update: February 24, 2010 - 10:43 PM
Feb 24, 2010
Is a free chat room for singles a bargain for romance or a telecom
scheme to bilk Qwest?
Qwest Communications alleges in a new Minneapolis U.S. District Court
lawsuit that it's a scheme. Qwest, a 14-state regional telephone company
based in Denver, is suing Tekstar Communications of Perham, Minn., for
alleged unfair competition.
Tekstar, which provides local phone service in more than a dozen rural
northwestern Minnesota communities, said it has done nothing wrong.
Qwest's suit claims Tekstar drove up its volume of incoming
long-distance calls from around the world
By STEVE ALEXANDER, Star Tribune
Last update: February 24, 2010 - 10:43 PM
Feb 24, 2010
Is a free chat room for singles a bargain for romance or a telecom
scheme to bilk Qwest?
Qwest Communications alleges in a new Minneapolis U.S. District Court
lawsuit that it's a scheme. Qwest, a 14-state regional telephone company
based in Denver, is suing Tekstar Communications of Perham, Minn., for
alleged unfair competition.
Tekstar, which provides local phone service in more than a dozen rural
northwestern Minnesota communities, said it has done nothing wrong.
Qwest's suit claims Tekstar drove up its volume of incoming
long-distance calls from around the world
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
93 MILLION AMERICANS DISCONNECTED FROM BROADBAND OPPORTUNITIES. FCC
Survey Finds Cost and Digital Literacy Main Barriers to Broadband
Adoption. News Release. News Media Contact: Jen Howard at (202)
418-0506, email: Jen.Howard@fcc.gov OCH
http://ping.fm/xVkAy
http://ping.fm/DMPC9
http://ping.fm/IdRHl
The survey identifies three main barriers to adoption:
* Affordability: 36 percent of non-adopters, or 28 million adults, said
they do not have home
broadband because the monthly fee is too expensive (15 percent), they
cannot afford a computer,
the installation fee is too high (10 percent), or they do not want to
enter into a long-term service
contract (9 percent). According to survey respondents, their average
monthly broadband bill is
$41.
* Digital Literacy: 22 percent of non-adopters, or 17 million adults,
indicated that they do not have
home broadband because they lack the digital skills (12 percent) or they
are concerned about
potential hazards of online life, such as exposure to inappropriate
content or security of personal
information (10 percent).
* Relevance: 19 percent of non-adopters, or 15 million adults, said they
do not have broadband
because they say that the Internet is a waste of time, there is no
online content of interest to them
or, for dial-up users, they are content with their current service.
Survey Finds Cost and Digital Literacy Main Barriers to Broadband
Adoption. News Release. News Media Contact: Jen Howard at (202)
418-0506, email: Jen.Howard@fcc.gov OCH
http://ping.fm/xVkAy
http://ping.fm/DMPC9
http://ping.fm/IdRHl
The survey identifies three main barriers to adoption:
* Affordability: 36 percent of non-adopters, or 28 million adults, said
they do not have home
broadband because the monthly fee is too expensive (15 percent), they
cannot afford a computer,
the installation fee is too high (10 percent), or they do not want to
enter into a long-term service
contract (9 percent). According to survey respondents, their average
monthly broadband bill is
$41.
* Digital Literacy: 22 percent of non-adopters, or 17 million adults,
indicated that they do not have
home broadband because they lack the digital skills (12 percent) or they
are concerned about
potential hazards of online life, such as exposure to inappropriate
content or security of personal
information (10 percent).
* Relevance: 19 percent of non-adopters, or 15 million adults, said they
do not have broadband
because they say that the Internet is a waste of time, there is no
online content of interest to them
or, for dial-up users, they are content with their current service.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
http://ping.fm/ri0aq
6
Here is a link to SF 2535, which would amend the area served franchise
requirement in Minnesota Statutes 238.08.
6
Here is a link to SF 2535, which would amend the area served franchise
requirement in Minnesota Statutes 238.08.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
FRIDAY, February 12, 2010
8:30 AM
Room: 10 State Office Building
Chair: Rep. Sheldon Johnson
Agenda: Federal Broadband Stimulus update
HFXXXX/SF2254
(Johnson) High speed
broadband state goals*
*The House companion to SF2254
will be introduced on
Thursday
John Reich
Committee Administrator
Commerce and Labor Committee
Telecom Regulation & Infrastructure Division
578 State Office Building
100 Martin Luther King Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55155
651-296-7175
8:30 AM
Room: 10 State Office Building
Chair: Rep. Sheldon Johnson
Agenda: Federal Broadband Stimulus update
HFXXXX/SF2254
(Johnson) High speed
broadband state goals*
*The House companion to SF2254
will be introduced on
Thursday
John Reich
Committee Administrator
Commerce and Labor Committee
Telecom Regulation & Infrastructure Division
578 State Office Building
100 Martin Luther King Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55155
651-296-7175
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Friday, January 8, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Monday, January 4, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
