![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
There has been a push recently by the big telephone companies to compete with the cable companies to provide video services. This push comes mainly from AT&T, Verizon, BellSouth (which is currently trying to merge with AT&T) and Sprint. While this may seem like a great and wonderful idea and beneficial to consumers, what with competition and all, there's something very troubling brewing just beyond the touchy-feely facade of consumer protection.
What's at stake? How about free speech not only through community access media but also on the Internet itself? How about poor people and people in rural neighborhoods having access to video services and the Internet? How about local governments maintaining their control over their own public rights of way?
Charles Bass, a six-term Republican Representative, represents New Hampshire on the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. He voted in favor of the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Efficiency Act of 2006 (COPE Act) without amendments. He has spoken in a meeting with members of the New Hampshire Coalition for Community Media as being in favor of statewide franchising and has now gone on record in support of nationwide franchising for cable operators (including telephone companies offering video services). But what does COPE mean without the amendments?
It means simply this:
* There is no Net Neutrality. What does that mean? Well, Net Neutrality is what the Internet, telephones and community access television are today. No one providing the service can tell you what you can and can't say while using the services to communicate. What is a good example of communications without Net Neutrality? Examples of this would be broadcast television and FM radio, where corporations pick and choose the messages we receive and the messages presented are allowed to the highest bidder that caters to the service providers' corporate sponsors. Without Net Neutrality protections in national franchising, the Internet and community access television suddenly become fair game for censorship and control of content at the whim of corporate control.
* There is no anti-discrimination clause and an amendment to add one was voted down. This means there's no protection built into national franchising that protects against discrimination of service based on race, religion, sex, or national origin.
* There is only a very weak provision for build-out requirements that prevent service providers from neglecting rural and poor communities from gaining access to services. This is an especially troubling issue for New Hampshire, where many communities are rural or poor and would have no hope of receiving competitive services under a national franchise. Without strong build-out requirements with a definite timetable, many of these communities will continue to be underserved indefinitely. AT&T has already taken a stance to selectively install Project Lightspeed in wealthier communities only.
* There are no detailed provisions to preserve community access television. In fact, the way COPE is currently written there is a very clear and present danger that many community access television centers in New Hampshire and around the country will no longer be able to afford to remain in operation, thus effectively stifling the free speech of many communities. COPE also sets out to restructure what constitutes the gross revenues from which a franchise fee is collected and significantly reducing the amount of funding a community can receive to use toward community access television.
As I stated above, Charles Bass supports the COPE Act. He has also stated in a public meeting that he supports statewide franchising. Yet during the discussion on COPE by the House Commerce Committee, Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) offered an amendment to allow states to protect consumers through legal action. Bass spoke against the amendment stating that state attorneys' enforcement powers were "non-germane to the bill."
I think it's important to see, as elections approach, just where Charles Bass is getting his money. Out of a total $156,350 in 2005-2006 PAC Contributions according to the FEC as of March 13, 2006, Representative Bass has received the following campaign contributions of particular interest to COPE followers:
National Cable & Telecommunications Association (criticized net neutrality) - $10,000
AT&T - $3,000
BellSouth Corp (merging with AT&T) - $1,000
MCI LLC (A Verizon subsidiary) - $2,000
US Telecom Association (praised a national franchise and opposed net neutrality) - $2,000
Verizon Communications - $4,000
Sprint Nextel - $1,500
Verizon Wireless - $1,000
Let's do the math: that's $24,500 of campaign contributions from telecommunications companies closely tied to the push behind COPE, constituting approximately 16% of Bass' campaign funding thus far in the 2005-2006 cycle. Perhaps I am simply cynical or paranoid, but I find it hard for me to trust Bass to vote in the best interest of New Hampshire citizens or the nation as a whole when such a significant portion of his campaign funding comes from the companies pushing this legislation. I am especially distrusting when I see him trying to act against fundamental concepts for which New Hampshire supposedly stands: protecting our freedoms and preserving local autonomy.
Sources:
* OpenSecrets.org
(http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/memberprofile.asp?cid=N00000423&Cycle=2006&expandAll=TRUE)
* Pike & Fischer Broadband Advisory Services
(http://www.broadbandadvisoryservices.com/showSingleDoc.asp?iName=broadbandDailyIndex&docid=20063577831§ion=1)
* California Public Utilities Commission
(http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/Static/telco/050623_factsheeta0504020.htm)
* Tech Law Journal
(http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2006/20060330a.asp)
* SaveAccess.org
(http://saveaccess.org)
* SaveAccess COPE Vote Scorecard
(http://saveaccess.org/copescorecard#NH)
* Stop the COPE Act
(http://www.storiesonvideo.com/cope.html)
* Public meeting with Rep. Charles Bass in his Concord, NH office: February 2006
What's at stake? How about free speech not only through community access media but also on the Internet itself? How about poor people and people in rural neighborhoods having access to video services and the Internet? How about local governments maintaining their control over their own public rights of way?
Charles Bass, a six-term Republican Representative, represents New Hampshire on the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. He voted in favor of the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Efficiency Act of 2006 (COPE Act) without amendments. He has spoken in a meeting with members of the New Hampshire Coalition for Community Media as being in favor of statewide franchising and has now gone on record in support of nationwide franchising for cable operators (including telephone companies offering video services). But what does COPE mean without the amendments?
It means simply this:
* There is no Net Neutrality. What does that mean? Well, Net Neutrality is what the Internet, telephones and community access television are today. No one providing the service can tell you what you can and can't say while using the services to communicate. What is a good example of communications without Net Neutrality? Examples of this would be broadcast television and FM radio, where corporations pick and choose the messages we receive and the messages presented are allowed to the highest bidder that caters to the service providers' corporate sponsors. Without Net Neutrality protections in national franchising, the Internet and community access television suddenly become fair game for censorship and control of content at the whim of corporate control.
* There is no anti-discrimination clause and an amendment to add one was voted down. This means there's no protection built into national franchising that protects against discrimination of service based on race, religion, sex, or national origin.
* There is only a very weak provision for build-out requirements that prevent service providers from neglecting rural and poor communities from gaining access to services. This is an especially troubling issue for New Hampshire, where many communities are rural or poor and would have no hope of receiving competitive services under a national franchise. Without strong build-out requirements with a definite timetable, many of these communities will continue to be underserved indefinitely. AT&T has already taken a stance to selectively install Project Lightspeed in wealthier communities only.
* There are no detailed provisions to preserve community access television. In fact, the way COPE is currently written there is a very clear and present danger that many community access television centers in New Hampshire and around the country will no longer be able to afford to remain in operation, thus effectively stifling the free speech of many communities. COPE also sets out to restructure what constitutes the gross revenues from which a franchise fee is collected and significantly reducing the amount of funding a community can receive to use toward community access television.
As I stated above, Charles Bass supports the COPE Act. He has also stated in a public meeting that he supports statewide franchising. Yet during the discussion on COPE by the House Commerce Committee, Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) offered an amendment to allow states to protect consumers through legal action. Bass spoke against the amendment stating that state attorneys' enforcement powers were "non-germane to the bill."
I think it's important to see, as elections approach, just where Charles Bass is getting his money. Out of a total $156,350 in 2005-2006 PAC Contributions according to the FEC as of March 13, 2006, Representative Bass has received the following campaign contributions of particular interest to COPE followers:
National Cable & Telecommunications Association (criticized net neutrality) - $10,000
AT&T - $3,000
BellSouth Corp (merging with AT&T) - $1,000
MCI LLC (A Verizon subsidiary) - $2,000
US Telecom Association (praised a national franchise and opposed net neutrality) - $2,000
Verizon Communications - $4,000
Sprint Nextel - $1,500
Verizon Wireless - $1,000
Let's do the math: that's $24,500 of campaign contributions from telecommunications companies closely tied to the push behind COPE, constituting approximately 16% of Bass' campaign funding thus far in the 2005-2006 cycle. Perhaps I am simply cynical or paranoid, but I find it hard for me to trust Bass to vote in the best interest of New Hampshire citizens or the nation as a whole when such a significant portion of his campaign funding comes from the companies pushing this legislation. I am especially distrusting when I see him trying to act against fundamental concepts for which New Hampshire supposedly stands: protecting our freedoms and preserving local autonomy.
Sources:
* OpenSecrets.org
(http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/memberprofile.asp?cid=N00000423&Cycle=2006&expandAll=TRUE)
* Pike & Fischer Broadband Advisory Services
(http://www.broadbandadvisoryservices.com/showSingleDoc.asp?iName=broadbandDailyIndex&docid=20063577831§ion=1)
* California Public Utilities Commission
(http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/Static/telco/050623_factsheeta0504020.htm)
* Tech Law Journal
(http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2006/20060330a.asp)
* SaveAccess.org
(http://saveaccess.org)
* SaveAccess COPE Vote Scorecard
(http://saveaccess.org/copescorecard#NH)
* Stop the COPE Act
(http://www.storiesonvideo.com/cope.html)
* Public meeting with Rep. Charles Bass in his Concord, NH office: February 2006
