HR 5252

I would like to ask each of you to contact your Representative in the Federal House and ask him or her to Vote NO on H.R. 5252, The Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006. On the surface, this bill might look good to you - after all, it is supposed "To promote the deployment of broadband networks and services". Yay for broadband, right? Well, in this case, no, not exactly.

One of the main points of the bill, and a point which I find terribly troubling, is the allowance of national franchises. What this means is that large telecom companies like AT&T, Verizon, etc. can establish a national franchise for their services instead of negotiating with each community. Of course, the telecom giants are for this because it makes their lives much easier. But this will be a huge loss for cities. Right now, each city has the right to negotiate a franchise with these companies. In doing so, the city charges a franchising fee and the city bargains for services, such as technology service to schools and government and community facilities. With national franchises, cities will lose the right to bargain for the services that best benefit their citizens and franchising fees will now go to the federal government instead of the local government. For the services that best benefit you and your fellow citizens, it is vital to have franchising controlled at the local level. You can read an example of a city's gains through the negotiation of a cable franchise on one of the Web sites I maintain.

Additionally, the bill does not call for universal service, which is a requirement that companies provide service to all people in an area, not just the ones they pick and choose (ie the people in the most revenue-generating areas). Instead the bill includes anti-discrimination language which the bill's supporters say will, in effect, lead to universal service. However, the bill only protects against intentional discrimination based on income, which is, of course, quite hard to prove. Universal access is necessary to make sure that all Americans have access to technology services and thus have a fair chance at making it in our ever more technology-dependent world. Telecom giants say that "market forces" will ensure universal service, but I question what market forces are in act in a low-income area where only a small percentage of the total population of that area will subscribe to services. Or what market forces are in act in a rural area where it could cost companies more to extend services to those areas than they would be able to generate back from that specific area.

Another contentious area is what is referred to as network neutrality. There is much back and forth on whether the bill will or should include any provisions about network neutrality. It's a very tricky area, and I encourage you to learn more about it. The choices aren't that great: proponents say it will keep the Internet "open". Opponents say it gives the government too much control. Theoretically, without network neutrality, telecom companies could create a "tiered" Internet, in which content delivery would not be controlled by the consumer so much as by the content provider. Theoretically, telecom companies could create relationships with providers who are willing to pay more to have their content transmitted at higher speeds. Thus certain material would flow over high bandwidth and certain over low bandwidth regardless of what service the consumer subscribes to. With network neutrality, the government would have some regulatory powers over the Internet. So I have to say that it's somewhat of a no-win situation. But I don't like the idea of a tiered Internet. Afterall, isn't the great thing about the Internet the free flow of information?

Anyhow, I hope you are still reading and that you will take the time to learn more about this. For work, I've been attending a lot of Congressional briefings on the issue lately, so I do have some knowledge on the topic. This bill will have an effect on everyone in some way or another, but it will especially affect those who are low-income and underserved, so please consider speaking out both on your behalf and theirs. I do hope that after some consideration you will contact your House member and ask them to vote NO on H.R. 5252 based on the reasons I supplied above, particularly federal franchises and the lack of universal service.