Monday, March 17, 2014

Firms that got tax money to extend rural broadband ask states to let them drop land lines

After spending 10 years collecting hundreds of billions of dollars through rate increases and surcharges in order to finance the National Broadband Plan to provide 100 million American households with high-speed cable by 2020, companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast are lobbying against having to add broadband connection to rural America, David Johnston reports for Newsweek

"They are persuading state legislatures and regulatory boards to quietly adopt new rules—rules written by the telecoms—to eliminate their legal obligations to provide broadband service nationwide and replace landlines with wireless," Johnston writes. "This abrupt change in plans will leave vast areas of the country with poor service, slow telecommunications and higher bills." The hottest battle right now may be in Kentucky.

The telecoms "have submitted proposed legislation and regulations that would end the requirements to serve all customers, to resolve customer complaints fairly, to make repairs promptly and to install service soon after it is ordered," Johnston reports. "While the bills and regulatory rules proposed differ in each state, all have common themes: less or no competition, no more investment in fiber-optic networks, no authority for regulators to help distressed small businesses and consumers."

The bills, if passed, "include shutting down the copper-wire telephone system, a system so reliable that wires installed in the late 19th century still work, and calls can be made during floods and other natural disasters," Johnston writes. "The newer technologies rely on the electric grid, and when it goes out they fail, though cell systems may work for a few hours because cell towers have backup batteries. Once the universal copper-wire system is gone—which may begin as early as 2017 under pending legislation in Michigan—customers would have to pay much more for wireless service or, where it is available, make calls over the Internet. In either case, the switch would mean much higher prices for consumers." (Read more)

No comments: