[Advisors] FW: [csisac-members] FW: Universal Telephone Access Rules - U.S.

[michael gurstein]

Tks Tamir,

And if we add to this the shift to digital only governmental services and
the withdrawal of funding for public access the "digital divide" begins to
become an unbridgeable chasm. http://wp.me/pJQl5-9n

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Tamir Israel [mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca] 
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 1:08 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: csisac-members@csisac.org
Subject: Re: [csisac-members] FW: Universal Telephone Access Rules - U.S.

Mike -- I agree that 'technical neutrality' is a real problem in this 
context. Telcos would love to put everything off to mobile (inclusive of 
voice, TCP/IP, etc.), since (at least for the time being) deployment is 
cheaper for them and if QoS takes a hit, oh well.

Digitization/moving to IP networks may be a great objective in the 
abstract, but it's being carried out in ways that, in my personal 
opinion, border on (but likely do not exceed : P) negligence with 
respect to their impact on those elements of the community that are 
going to be left behind. And while we're starting to see serious 
commitments to these efforts, there's minimal corresponding move to 
improve digital skills, etc.

In addition to the digital skills issue, I think focusing on mobile is a 
mistake that's simply going to exacerbate exclusion even more in the 
long term and leaves specific areas further and further behind as the 
rest of us eventually shift to fiber and comparable wired transmission.

On 6/23/2012 3:16 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
> *** If this message contains draft OECD documents, please do not 
> distribute/forward this email to non CSISAC members in line with 
> CSISAC's commitment to OECD procedural rules *** ===
>
>
> Universal Telephone Access Rules
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/landline-rules-frustrat
> e-tele
> coms/2012/04/12/gIQAG2XvDT_story.html
>
> Tiny URL: http://tinyurl.com/cutscfs
>
> Ohio Sen. Frank LaRose (R), who authored the bill in his state, said 
> phone companies should not be forced to spend money on landline 
> services when they could focus on providing high-speed Internet to 
> state residents.
>
> By Cecilia Kang, Published: April 12
>
> More than 130 years after the first residential phone line was 
> installed, telecom companies are pressing to be freed from the 
> obligation of providing low-cost fixed-line telephone service to 
> homes, a move critics say will leave Americans with less reliable or 
> more expensive options.
>
> Four states have passed laws that release the telephone companies from 
> this requirement, as consumers flock to mobile phone and Internet 
> devices. Several other state governments, facing vigorous lobbying by 
> phone companies, are considering similar measures.
>
> Landline use is down while wireless use is up.
>
> The push from the telecom industry is forcing policymakers to 
> re-examine what has long been a basic guarantee of the government - 
> that every American home should have access to a phone, along with 
> other utilities such as water or electricity.
>
> Industry executives and state lawmakers who support this effort want 
> to expand the definition of the phone utility beyond the century-old 
> icon of the American home to include Web-based devices or mobile 
> phones.
>
> They add that the companies are saddled with arcane rules that are on 
> the wrong side of a clear consumer trend: One-third of homes have 
> replaced their landlines with wireless phones.
>
> The question, critics say, is whether the effort will leave behind 
> rural residents, the elderly and others. They also worry whether the 
> nation's broadband networks could handle a massive emergency such as a 
> terrorist attack.
>
> "For many, landlines are their lifeline," said Coralette Hannon, a 
> senior legislative staffer at AARP, which has been fighting the 
> legislative proposals. "In rural areas, wireless service can be spotty 
> or expensive and not at all a real option."
>
> That was the concern in Kentucky, which ended its state legislative 
> session Thursday without lawmakers having approved a controversial 
> landline bill. Despite the efforts of dozens of lobbyists working on 
> behalf of AT&T, the bill stalled when the House speaker expressed his 
> opposition to the legislation.
>
> "We are the third-poorest state in the nation, a state with 
> significant rural areas," said Tom FitzGerald, director of the 
> Kentucky Resources Council, a nonprofit organization focused on 
> environmental, energy and utility matters, which opposed the bill. He 
> added that the state couldn't ensure essential services to residents 
> if landline service ended.
>
> The universal landline requirement has been repealed in Florida, North 
> Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. There, new homeowners have no 
> guarantee that they could order phone service at affordable rates, 
> consumer advocates say. Those with landline phones could lose their 
> service and have to get wireless phones or Internet-based services, 
> such as Skype or Vonage.
>
> Those aren't affordable options for Susan Shaw, a resident of Xenia, 
> Ohio. The 53-year-old grandmother could see her landline service from 
> AT&T end if the state passes a law that would free the phone giant 
> from its landline requirement.
>
> But she's not interested in paying for cellular service, which would 
> probably be costlier than the $12 a month she pays for her plain old 
> phone.
>
> Landline use is down while wireless use is up.
>
> "Those rules were put in place decades ago," LaRose said. "Forcing 
> companies to use finite infrastructure dollars on plain old telephone 
> doesn't make sense today."
>
> Ohio, along with Indiana, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and California 
> are considering bills that would absolve carriers such as Verizon and 
> AT&T from the landline obligation. The matter is expected to be raised 
> eventually in the District, Virginia and Maryland, which are served by 
> Verizon, industry officials and consumer advocates said.
>
> "What's happening is being driven by consumer choices," said David 
> Young, vice president of federal regulatory affairs at Verizon. "We 
> are already seeing a rapid drop of traditional wireline connections, 
> and that is only going to continue."
>
> Added Joel Lubin, vice president of public policy at AT&T: "The train 
> has left the station. Consumers are making their choices, and it's not 
> for plain, old telephones. Yet an outdated regulatory system still 
> applies."
>
> Although the decision to repeal the universal landline requirement is 
> in the hands of state governments, the Federal Communications 
> Commission is considering ways to allocate federal funds to offset 
> costs for some consumers, Lubin said. The agency has also passed rules 
> that require Internet voice and wireless providers to guarantee the 
> delivery of 911 calls.
>
> But for some, such as Wisconsin Sen. Kathleen Vinehout (D), wireless 
> and satellite services are unreliable at her home, a farm outside 
> Alma.
>
> Vinehout has to drive eight miles to get her Verizon Wireless 
> cellphone to work. Her satellite Internet service goes out with light 
> snow and wind. She is concerned that she won't be able to call 
> public-safety responders in an emergency.
>
> She plans to work to repeal the state law that takes effect Jan. 14, 
> which ends AT&T's obligation to serve her home and those in nine rural 
> counties.
>
> "This is a real public-safety problem, and what they offer as 
> alternatives don't reflect reality," Vinehout said.
>
>
> Staff writer Brady Dennis contributed to this report.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Csisac-members mailing list
> Csisac-members@csisac.org 
> http://eight.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/csisac-members