Refreshing the Record: 27 Years of FCC Filings and Complaints in the Section 706 Advanced Network and Related Proceedings by New Networks Institute, Teletruth and the IRREGULATORS.
Refreshing the Record
New Networks Institute, Teletruth and the IRREGULATORS are relaunching next month and this document presents the factual history of fiber optic broadband that we filed with the FCC since 1998. We participated in over 50 proceedings, and submitted over 5,100 pages, all focused on the Section 706 advanced network inquiries and related proceedings.
- Our Current Filing September 8th, 2025 -This post is part of our filing.
- FCC Section 706 Advanced network report This is the FCC’s document underway as of September 15th, 2025
- Read specific FCC Filings (Partial List) from the opening chart- CLICK HERE:
We also add the current, seriously problematic lobotomy of America’s broadband future:
What is Section 706? The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the FCC to publish a report for Congress that would tell Congress whether broadband was being delivered in a timely fashion, and if not, what should be done about doing the infrastructure upgrades.
This refreshing of the record gives the details, the underbelly you were not supposed to see.
Bottom Line: You are looking at the creation of the digital divide, which we warned would happen starting in 1998. And we are now looking at a situation that will put America in decline, both in terms of innovation and technology, but putting millions of customers at risk, especially with the movement to inferior wireless and satellite technologies, which is not building ‘infrastructure’, as mentioned in the original Section 706.
Since the first Section 706 Advanced Network Inquiry in 1998, New Networks Institute, joined later by Teletruth and the IRREGULATORS, have filed over the last 27 years in over 51 times with reports, comments, petitions and complaints, amounting to over 5,127 pages in just Section 706 and related dockets. (This does not include our Data Quality Act and Regulatory Flexibility Act complaints, our court challenge, IRREGULATORS vs FCC, or the missing filings in the FCC’s Electronic Filing System).
We file this collection to refresh the record and use it as a reference for our second comment.
Background: The Fiber Optic Future that We Paid for But Never Showed Up.
First and foremost, this is not just a discussion of the history of fiber optic broadband in America but is directly tied to everything in 2025 we discuss now as it exposes the failure of the FCC over the last 3 decades to examine the record we presented and the consequences that we must deal with. In fact, much of the record was already laid out previously when Chairman Carr was first FCC General Counsel in 2017 and then commissioner.
The Rewritten History of Fiber Optic Broadband in America.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The copper wires that are still in use in 2025 are part of state telecommunications public utilities that should have been replaced decades ago with a fiber optic wire.
In 1992, Vice President Al Gore announced a plan to upgrade America to a fiber optic future where the existing copper-based state public telecommunications utilities would have an upgrade, replacing these then aging wires to fiber optics. Known as the National Infrastructure Initiative, referred to as the Information Superhighway, every state telecom utility in every state created plans to do these upgrades.
States granted ‘alterative regulations’, known as ‘price caps’, which was a euphemism to charge local phone subscribers and wired customers extra to fund these ‘new networks’, By 2010, America should have had fiber optics to the home that would be capable of speeds of over 1Gbps. — 1000 Mbps.
By 2000, ½ of the US was supposed to have speeds of at least 45 Mbps in both directions. Also, since all subscribers were paying extra, rural areas would be served just like cities. Moreover, the Telecom Act of 1996 opened the networks for competition; there would be choices and there would be ISPs and competitive local phone companies (CLECs) to lower prices.
In 1992, New Networks Institute was created and the team had a front row seat to the deployment of these new proposed fiber plans, state-by state.
As we explain, in 2025, what we have is an appalling mess, where the chairman of the FCC has announced we don’t need 1Gbps speeds, where there is no recognition that the ‘shut-off-the-copper’ are actually the state utility wires that were never properly upgraded over a 30 year period, where the biased push to force customers onto inferior government subsidized wireless and satellite services is based on a new ‘bias’ that is based on helping the corporations that failed to properly upgrade and maintain the networks but are able to take advantage of captive clients.
And, the Chairman has presented deceptive analyses, left out primary material facts, and instead of dealing with the major issues like the addition of junk fees or answering why prices overseas are a fraction of what we pay, his new plan is to slow down America and make us a 4th-world nation.
But the true kicker is that in 2025, the rates for local services have had continuous increases, not down and unfortunately, instead of auditing the information supplied by the companies, the FCC is relying on defective information, including a misrepresentation of the number of actual customers still on the legacy copper wires, or that the billions of dollars per state were diverted to build out wireless and the company’s other lines of affiliated businesses.
During the spring and summer of 2025, there has been a monthly ‘open meeting’, announcing new proceedings to ‘delete’ whatever is moving. Unfortunately, every one of the current 20+ proceedings are a slice and dice of the public and there is no plan to “make America great”. And, as you will read, we are on record for the last almost 3 decades to have the FCC and the states do the right thing and investigate the companies that failed to properly upgrade and maintain their utilities — which are hiding in plain sight.
With the addition of Teletruth in 2001, and the addition of the IRREGULATORS in 2015, our record shows just how far we have fallen and will continue unless the policies of Chairman Brendan Carr are immediately halted and investigated.
Note: We have put up some of the documents, but left the filings intact, thus some of the links, emails, addresses, etc. are no longer correct.
Since 1998, the year Section 706 was implemented at the FCC, we have filed over 50 times with our lawyers, analysts and auditors, and this is over 5,100 pages.
===========================
Let’s start: This is a partial list.
NOTE: We filed in the first FCC Advanced Network report proceeding. Most of this was presented multiple times to the FCC, even with Brendan Carr as General Counsel, then Commissioner in 2017.
1) FCC Comments: FIRST 706 Proceeding, September 1998, Docket 98–146
“Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecom Act of 1996.”
NOTE: New Networks Institute, Teletruth and IRREGULATORS will be relaunched and the websites are being updated. Some links are in flux and will be active at that time. Second, some of the FCC links and filing system is missing a number of filings.
§ https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/215088/1
“NNI believes that the history of state-level incentive regulation plans shows that it would be unwise for the Commission to adopt any form of regulatory policy that gives the RBOCs regulatory benefits, such as relaxed regulation or lessened oversight, in exchange for the hope or promise that increased RBOC deployment of advanced network capabilities will be the result.”
2) FCC Comments — FIRST 706 proceeding, September 1998, Docket №98–147, FCC 98–188
Advanced Telecommunications Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
“The FCC Should Not Grant The Baby Bells Any New Financial Incentives And Should Investigate The Baby Bells Failure To Deliver On Promised Advanced Networks Despite Previous Incentives. — Our record is clear. The FCC’s is broken.”
3) White Paper — FIRST 706 proceeding, March 17, 1999, Docket №98–147, FCC 98–188,
Baby Bell Expose Refutes FCC Advanced Network Report and Calls for an Investigation of “Info-Scandal”.
“As we will demonstrate, the FCC’s Report is a whitewashing, attempting to show that the Telecom Act worked and has delivered on its promises to give Americans new services. Unfortunately, the Report is filled with numerous serious flaws.”
“However, there is an abundance of evidence the FCC has ignored or not considered — literally hundreds of documents that detail the failure of the Bells to deliver broadband to the public in a ‘timely and reasonable’ manner.”
2025 NOTES:
In 1998 we presented a litany of facts that what is now AT&T, Verizon and Lumen had not properly upgraded their state utilities, even though they all had states there they were paid for the upgrades.
§ Pacific Bell CA was to have 5.5 million lines of fiber to the home and spend $16 billion;
§ Ameritech was to have 6 million house’s in their mid-west territories that included Michigan and Ohio;
§ Verizon was to have 12 million households upgraded to fiber by 2000 and spend $11 billion
§ Lumen Communication, previously US West, previously CenturyLink was to have 500,000 lines installed a year starting in 1996.
Billions per state were at stake in these states, and customers had rate increases that were not going to what they had been charged for — a fiber optic wire to the home.
At the same time there was a ‘video dialtone’ proceeding where all of the companies claimed, on the federal level, that they would be upgraded to fiber.
And the kicker — The FCC claimed that the speed of broadband should be 200Kbps in 1 direction. — 1/5th of 1 Mbps.
However, as we pointed out, using a quote from the actual law, this is the speed of broadband as told by the NJ state laws for Verizon starting in 1993.
4) Petition to the FCC to Investigate The Bell’s Failed Broadband Deployment, FIRST 706 proceeding, December 9th, 1999, CC Docket №98–147, FCC 98–188,
PETITION REQUESTING A REVISION OF THE FCC’S 706 ADVANCED NETWORK REPORT FINDINGS, AND A REQUEST FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BELL OPERATING COMPANIES’ ADVANCED NETWORK DEPLOYMENT FAILURES
The Petition was Ignored.
5) FCC Comments — September 24, 2001, CC Docket 98–146
Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced, Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Questions Asked:
- Is America really going to have the inferior ADSL product over the 100-year-old-copper wire infrastructure as its broadband future?
- Did the American public pay more than $58 billion dollars for a fiber-optic network they will never receive? And are they still paying for it in the form of excessive phonerates? (Doesn’t include tax write-offs.)
- Why hasn’t the FCC investigated the issues of the Bells’ failed broadband deployment?
- Why hasn’t the FCC investigated and enforced the laws to protect competitors?
6) NTIA Comments — December 19h, 2001
Notice, Request for Comments on Deployment of Broadband Networks and Advanced Telecommunications Docket №011109273–1273–01] RIN 0660-XX13
“New Networks Institute believes that allowing the Bells into any new services or giving them any new incentives is tantamount to rewarding the Bell monopolies for fraudulent behavior. History clearly shows that the new incentives will in no way bring advanced networks sooner or cheaper….If the NTIA is really concerned about the future of American telecommunications, it must take a clear, fresh look at the data — and not use data supplied by the Bell companies, through it myriad of Bell funded reports, lobbying groups, and other spin doctors.”
7) Complaint Section706 — February 19th, 2003
Teletruth Files Complaint Against the FCC: The FCC’s Broadband Analyses are Seriously Flawed and Calls for a “Broadband True-Up”, Not a ‘Customer Takings’.“
How Much Money Did the Bell Companies Collect from Customers for Broadband Networks They Will Never Receive?
http://irregulators.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/PENNCOMPLAINTFIN.pdf
This Complaint outlines the fact that the FCC’s data on broadband is completely lacking ay information that was negotiated with the state telecom utility about the state deployment of fiber infrastructure.
What’s even more amazing is that:
- The FCC has failed to include any of the commitments made on the state level in their broadband (advanced network, Section 706) reports or any other analysis.
- The FCC has failed to analyze any of issues related to the customer funding of fiber-optic networks that were never delivered.
- The FCC has failed to examine the funding of DSL deployment and implementation by customers through higher phone rates.
- Some states, including Oregon and Louisiana, are allowing the phone companies to charge customers for the development of these services as part of their local phone charges — Even though DSL is defined as a non-regulated Interstate Information service.
- The FCC has failed to incorporate any of the state fiber-optic funding issues in regard to increased charges added to Competitor-based prices (TELRIC). — Some states now have “100% fiber-optic” upgrades as part of their current prices, even though the networks were never fully upgraded.
“The FCC has totally ignored any of the state broadband plans or the issue of customer-funding of these new networks. However, in the next few days the FCC may rule that competitors will be blocked from using customer-funded networks. If the FCC goes through with this, it will be “customer takings”, because the FCC will be giving a private company, the local Bell monopoly, sole rights to networks being funded through excess rates, where the Customer has been a defacto investor.”
8) Petition to FCC over ISP and Customer Broadband Issues, May 2003
“This Petition, filed with the Texas ISP Association, outlines multiple problems created by the Bell companies currently facing the Internet Service Providers in supplying broadband. This includes DSL predatory pricing, and sub-standard customer services, among other issues.
9–14) FCC Comments/Reply Comments over Broadband, 2002
Teletruth filed: The FCC’s Triennial Review is in violation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
Teletruth filed: The FCC’s Triennial Review is in violation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act’s mandate to include small businesses in the decision-making process. The Triennial Review helps to put Internet Providers out of business.
15) Proposed Congressional Bill — “The Broadband Bill of Rights”, -2001
In 2001, Teletruth worked with Congressmen Nadler to create a broadband bill to protect the rights of customers and small businesses who receive sub-standard customer services.
16) Reply Comments & Data Quality Act Complaint, FOURTH 706 REPORT, GN Docket №04–54, May 24th, 2004
http://teletruth.org/docs/706Dataqualityactreplycomments.pdf
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/5511337996/1 04–54
“This challenge under Federal Data Quality Act is based on TeleTruth’s conclusions that seriously flawed, unduly selective and biased statistical analysis has been presented to Congress, regulators, and the public. It has distorted ALL public policies in the United States toward broadband deployment, as well as harmed the entire financial health of the economy.
“In short, Teletruth believes that the FCC’s data and analysis fails the Federal Data Quality Act’s basic tenets of quality, transparency, utility, reliability, objectivity, integrity, reproducibility, among other problems.
“As we will demonstrate, the data and conclusions in the FCC’s Advanced Network Broadband reports starting in 1998 have continuously failed to include the state obligations made by the Bell companies to deploy fiber-based broadband services in exchange for massive financial incentives, tax write-offs and other perks. The FCC has continuously ignored and did not include thousands of documents, including the majority of state Alternate Regulation plans (including all data, testimony, orders, opinions, related media coverage, etc.) that were dedicated to broadband or the billions of dollars per state where customers have already been charged for fiber-optic networks that were never delivered. In fact, to suit its own political needs, the FCC even dummied down the definition of broadband to show that deployment was continuing at a “reasonable and timely” pace when it does not have the authority to support that claim.
“To make matters worse, the FCC’s broadband report has eliminated the role of the Internet Service Provider, ISP, in the story of broadband and has done nothing to focus on how the Bell companies have harmed the ISPs ability to offer DSL. To add insult to injury, the FCC has not sought to examine its own regulatory harm imposed on the obligation in Section 706 to “promote competition in the local telecommunications market.”
“Teletruth’s record on this data-failing of the FCC has been well documented with multiple filings, comments, complaints and petitions — all ignored by the FCC, even though we presented sound primary data from numerous sources”
17–20) National Broadband Plan, NOI GN Docket 09–51, 2009–2010
New Networks Institute & Teletruth filed multiple times in the National Broadband Plan
