IRREGULATORS to FCC: We Want the Broadband Money Back and Investigations.

“We propose to abolish without replacement the long-term goal of 1,000/500 Mbps established in the 2024 Report. And thus, return to following the plain language of Section 706”. Quote from the FCC Meeting Agenda.

READ OUR COMPANION PIECE:

Our Plain English response to the FCC is — “We want the money back from the Providers, The FCC must halt all of the financial cross-subsidies between the subsidiaries of the Provider Holding Companies and end rate increase perks the FCC has granted to the providers that was supposed to be used for the upgrade to universal wireline infrastructure but didn’t actually happen. We want audits of the books, especially each state’s telecom utilities and cable franchise, and that’s just the start.

On August 7th, the FCC is having another open meeting, and this has 2 proceedings that should make everyone “proud” that America’s new communications plan is for slow, expensive, inferior wireless/satellite service that is government subsidized. The first of this Section 706 proceeding, is for the annual FCC report to Congress of whether broadband has been deployed in a timely fashion.

The second is about Special Access service where the goal is to have AT&T et al confiscate the customer funded utility networks — claiming that they are private property and let these data services be subsidized by the wired voice utility networks — or something like that. And note that these lines are also called BDS (Business Data Services) or backhaul service.

===== (This made up. there is not plain English to return to. This sentence needs to make sense)

11. As part of our return to following the plain language of section 706, we propose to abolish without replacement the long-term goal of 1,000/500 Mbps established in the 2024 Report.

Not only is a long-term goal not mentioned in section 706; but maintaining such a goal risks skewing the market by unnecessarily potentially picking technological winners and losers. It would also appear to violate our obligation to conduct our analysis in a technologically neutral manner. At present, it is impossible to predict long-term technological developments and the evolution of consumer preferences.

Further, assuming a long-term goal of 1,000/500 Mbps may be unreasonably prejudicial to technologies such as satellite and fixed wireless that presently do not support such speeds. We believe it is prudent to continue to monitor technological developments and consumer preferences and adapt our current benchmark, as well as relevant high-cost support programs, accordingly. Do commenters agree with our proposal and reasoning? Are there other reasons not to maintain the long-term goal?

• “Seek comment on whether to continue assessing mobile broadband services using multiple-speed metrics and, if so, whether to continue focusing the main analysis on 5G-(NR spell out what this means.) outdoor stationary coverage at 35/3 Mbps speeds, or instead on 5G-NR in-vehicle mobile coverage at speeds of at least 35/3 Mbps.
====

This FCC is not seeking comments — it is railroading America; this is the final corporate capture and is now at an all-time high. And this dismantling of the state telecom utilities and the illegal cross-subsidies of the other lines of business — -like wireless and BDS has all been documented by us and clearly shows that FCC has failed to examine basic material facts, and manipulated the data for anti-consumer actions. -