Benton RSS Feed

UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND CHANGES MULLED AMID EVOLVING TELECOM LANDSCAPE
[SOURCE: e-Commerce Times, AUTHOR: Keith Regan]
To many telecommunications customers, the Universal Service Fund, or USF, is one of several hidden costs of making long-distance phone calls. It is one of a handful of government fees that appear on each month's phone bill. Currently, customers pay a monthly USF charge based on how much they spend on long-distance charges. Now, however, the Federal Communications Commission is mulling a change to a flat-fee, numbers-based system that would charge everyone who owns a phone number a single monthly fee. Supporters say the change would continue to maintain the fund -- which is funneled to provide telecom access for poor and rural residents by setting up telecom and Internet access points in schools, libraries and other public locations -- while also simplifying the collection of the fee at a time when everything about telecommunications is becoming increasingly complex. The change enjoys widespread support and is seen being adopted in time. Some in the telecom industry say the FCC should proceed with caution, however, to avoid harming the very people the USF was established to help, urging exemptions for free phone services and cautioning that the exploding VoIP landscape complicates any discussion of telecom fees.
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/82BukDICU35uPX/Universal-Service-Fun...

* FCC considers fee to bolster flagging long-distance taxes
http://www.nj.com/business/ledger/index.ssf?/base/business-0/11490506672...

* FCC Weighs Internet Phone Charge
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114913071311968394.html?mod=todays_us_pa...

GOVERNORS PROTEST BARTON'S NATIONAL FRANCHISE
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
In a letter to the chairman and ranking member of the House Commerce Committee, the National Governors Association (NGA) wants the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement (COPE) Act (H.R. 5252) changed to give states the option to take control of the cable-franchising process from the Federal Communications Commission. Under H.R. 5252, the FCC would take control of cable franchising of new entrants, such as AT&T and Verizon Communications, across the country. Cable incumbents are eligible for national franchises in certain cases, including if new providers enter their video markets under FCC licensing. The bill would continue to allow any cable-service provider to rely on a local or state franchise in lieu of a national franchise. But NGA argues that COPE would interfere with efforts by states to adopt statewide cable franchising in order to promote cable competition in a manner that does not ignore local needs. Texas, Virginia and Indiana have enacted statewide franchising. COPE, NGA says, “eviscerates these efforts with a federal framework that does not reflect the priorities and prerogatives of states.” NGA also objects to provisions that would allow local governments to offer cable, information or telecommunications service without state authorization. It calls the provisions “an unwarranted federal intrusion into state affairs … which preempts states’ ability to manage broadband deployment in its political subdivisions.”
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6339554.html?display=Breaking+News

CONTENT PROVIDERS SQUARE OFF AGAINST PHONE, CABLE COMPANIES
[SOURCE: AdAge, AUTHOR: Ira Teinowitz ]
The potential winners if tiered Internet becomes a reality: the nation's big phone and cable companies, as well as the marketing partners who can afford the tolls for the access required to provide high-speed video and audio. The losers: consumers, who may have fewer choices and could see prices rise for Internet downloads; content providers that don't hook up with the phone or cable companies; content providers that compete with phone or cable companies; and the raft of small businesses and consumers who won't be able to compete, period. If a tiered Internet were put in place -- still an if, now that the House Judiciary Committee has sent its own legislation guaranteeing Net neutrality to the floor and the Senate Commerce Committee is considering an amendment imposing net neutrality -- the major content providers could afford to pay to play, but the ramifications would be felt by both consumers and marketers. It could change which sites consumers use to download music and videos, search the Web and even book travel reservations. It could force marketers and media companies to take telephone companies and cable providers as new partners. Finally, it could raise Internet ad prices either indirectly, as content providers look to lessen the impact of the new tolls, or directly, as marketers are required to pay to use the better pipes to deliver their advertising. It also could concentrate Web users (and therefore ad dollars) with those providers willing and able to pay the fees. Sound familiar? Glenn Reynolds, a law professor and a former communications lawyer, warned that tiered service would "likely result in an Internet that looks more like cable TV than the Internet." Oddly, while some big marketers are raising the alarm about Net neutrality, media companies have been silent. Disney/ABC, NBC and CBS all declined requests for comment on Net neutrality. "Things in Washington tend to get compartmentalized," said Art Brodsky, a spokesman for Public Knowledge, a group organizing for Net neutrality. "A lot of guys aren't focusing on this as an issue that could drastically affect their businesses."
http://adage.com/article?article_id=109555

CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY VOTES BILL EASING CABLE RULES
[SOURCE: Reuters]
California's Democratic-dominated Assembly passed a bill on Wednesday that could increase competition among cable television providers and make it easier for telephone companies to enter the market. The bill by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez would eliminate city-by-city franchises, which he said made it nearly impossible for rivals with new technologies to enter California's market for television entertainment services. It passed by a rare unanimous vote of 70-0 in the often-divided Legislature, with 10 members not present during the Wednesday night vote. "We need to set a framework that is technology neutral, and we don't have that currently," said bill co-sponsor Lloyd Levine.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&story...