The NYS Telecommunications Reform Act is the Best Thing Since Sliced Bread...

Thanks for posting this, pete. (0.00 / 0)

from what i understand, the bill contains some strong net neutrality language. can you describe that and what it means. also, CWA has often not been supportive of net neutrality in other instances. what makes this bill different?

TODAY is day one. It always is.

---

by: phillip anderson @ Thu May 03, 2007 at 17:49:07 PM UTC

In response to Lipris' question... (4.00 / 3)

Thanks for the props!  Actually, lipris, CWA doesn't support the net neutrality language in this bill either.  But we're big-tenters - and strongly support the bill as a whole.

Truth be told, I don't really know what people mean when they say "net neutrality" anyway.  People mean different things.  I'd recommend the wikipedia entry as a good primer on a topic that is pretty darn confusing.

The bill as a whole is a comprehensive reform that is a huge step forward.  The best part of it is that it both requires and stimulates the development of high-speed internet infrastructure. 

The requirement to build high-speed internet infrastructure in return for a statewide video franchise (aka the right for a company to deliver cable tv services) is roughly 85% of the state, which is a very big deal, especially for Upstate.  I know the video franchise term is jargon... tell me if I should explain what a "video franchise" is, 'cause that's a mega-important policy area for telecoms.

---

by: Pete Sikora @ Thu May 03, 2007 at 19:07:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

such a requirement to build out (4.00 / 2)

broadband, high speed infrastructure would seem to be a huge benefit to rural upstate communities. these communities are most often represented by republicans in the senate and assembly. why aren't they joining senator leibell, a downstate republican in sponsoring this bill? where are the republicans in the assembly? is it really as simple as choosing big business over the concerns of the people they represent or is there something else at play?

how can we bring those senators and reps whose constituents would benefit so greatly around to support this bill?

TODAY is day one. It always is.

---

by: phillip anderson @ Thu May 03, 2007 at 19:19:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Quick, to the activist phones! (4.00 / 2)

Until I've put back a few beers, I never speculate on the motives of individual elected officials ;)  But there's no doubt that this bill is very important for Upstate - and for rural communities.

It's the ol' digital divide - by geography.  Upstate and rural communities are going to get left behind... even more than right now.  That will damage the economy even more, affect educational achievement, civic participation etc.

To be fair to State Senators, the bill just got introduced in the Senate, so they've only had a couple days to jump on.  But jump on they should. 

The bill stimulates competition for internet and cable services, which would help lower rates - putting money in people's pockets. Anyone who isn't on this bill a. should be and b. should explain why they favor a cable monopoly for their constituents.  There's other ways to get people onto bills, of course, but calling them is a great start.

CWA members all over the State are calling State Senators to urge them to come onto the bill.  So far, we've had decidedly mixed success, but again, it's early.  As for the Assembly, we just added 2 more Democratic co-sponsors Z(the dems have a large majority of seats in the Assembly).  That's a total of 53 including Assemblymember Brodsky.

For anyone who is reading this, please pick up the phone right now and call your State Senator or Assemblymember and ask them to back the bill.  Then - if you want - come on back, and give us a little post on what they said.

---

by: Pete Sikora @ Thu May 03, 2007 at 20:04:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just so folks know (4.00 / 2)

The real battle will be in the Senate where it has been referred to the Corporations, Authorities and Commissions Committee. The Chairperson of that committee is Flanagan. The other Republican members are Hannon, Trunzo and Maziarz and the Democratic members are Perkins and Gonzalez.

Unless they get ordered to move it by Bruno, this thing won't move without two of those Republicans favoring it.  That's a good place to start for callers with limited time.

Albany phones:

Flanagan -518-455-2071 -Represents Smithtown area of Long Island
Hannon -518 455 2200 -Levitown area of Long Island
Trunzo-  518) 455-2111 --Patchogue area of Long Island
Maziarz -(518) 455-2024 -Mostly rural district from Niagara Falls to part of Rochester

Perkins-518) 455-2441 -upper Manhattan/Harlem
Gonzalez 518-455-3395 -Bronx

---

by: bankbane @ Fri May 04, 2007 at 00:28:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

excellent. (0.00 / 0)

thank you.

btw, isn't trunzo actually older than the telephone?

TODAY is day one. It always is.

---

by: phillip anderson @ Fri May 04, 2007 at 00:57:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Age is part of the problem... (4.00 / 2)

Our incumbent-protection system in Albany gives us a bumper crop of geezers, and, upstate, oldsters are the most reliable Republican voters.  Some days, I really think Bruno and pals and supporters are just trying to syphon as much wealth and favors-owed off of upstate before they ALL go to Florida, Arizona or Nevada. 

If upstate is going to have a future, it needs broadband development.  If you know any young people in these guys' districts, make sure they call.

And, point to remember: Brodsky is quietly doing what is needed yet again.  I really like this guy, although he is not flashy.

---

by: robinia @ Fri May 04, 2007 at 14:50:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

a bumper crop of geezers, (4.00 / 1)

There are many things worth commenting on in this post.  However, let me just say that "a bumper crop of geezers," is just too frickin' funny!

My sides!!!  They've split!
Bwaaahahahaha!

Watching from just above the water line. . . .

---

by: DragonFlyEye @ Fri May 04, 2007 at 18:02:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

References? (0.00 / 0)

Are there any online references as to why the CWA opposes Net Neutrality. I did a little searching and couldn't find much, and I'd really like to know.

---

by: Josh Koenig @ Fri May 04, 2007 at 07:06:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure that is true (0.00 / 0)

My understanding is that the big telecomunication companies vehemently oppose net neutrality. I thought the CWA was more neutral, but their big employers may have some sway over them.

Here's a thought; some one should ask them.

---

by: bankbane @ Sat May 05, 2007 at 00:33:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pete, while I figure out where to begin on neutrality... (4.00 / 2)

I'll ask a question. Can you explain the broadband mapping provisions? Sounds fascinating.

And I'd encourage you to at least sketch out the basics of video franchise and build-out. This is about access and a institutionalized commitment to big-tube Internet, which while perhaps not all that sexy, are incredibly important. Along those lines, has there been any resistance to the idea of statewide franchise from municipalities?

---

by: Nancy Scola @ Thu May 03, 2007 at 23:27:20 PM UTC

Broadband mapping (4.00 / 2)

There's no comprehensive mapping of broadband availability in NYS.  In other words, there's no way for the public - or policymakers - to know where higher speed internet is available... and where it's not.  Which is incredibly stupid.  So the bill fixes that.

BTW - we like a program called ConnectKentucky, which has maps here:
http://www.connectke...
At www.speedmatters.org we've got more on mapping.

---

by: Pete Sikora @ Fri May 04, 2007 at 10:52:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Statewide Video Franchise a.k.a. more cable competition (4.00 / 3)

Nancy, thanks for making me scratch that franchise itch... here goes:

The telecommunications industry is changing at warp speed.  Cable, telephone, and internet are converging rapidly.  Companies want to offer those services together to make more money.  A commonly tossed around phrase is the "triple play": cable, phone and internet all in one delicious service and marketing bundle. 

Side note: the "home run" of the triple play plus your cell phone is coming next.

Back on topic:
Companies get the right to offer cable TV at a local level... municipalities negotiate "video franchise" agreements with cable television providers one by one.  As part of that negotiation, the munis try to get money, infrastructure developed throughout their town, public access channels, and some free hook-ups to municipal buildings and network services. 

Here's the rub: the right to offer telephone service is granted at the state level.  As a result, the cable companies can offer telephone service... but the big telco here, Verizon, can't offer cable TV.  That creates what we talking point users call an "un-level playing field" - with cable companies able to offer the triple-play bundle everywhere. 

But Verizon - or anyone else - has to go town by town.  Right now, Verizon is basically picking where they will go with their mighty fiber optic network... and Upstate's getting left way behind.

A statewide video franchise, in contrast, can stimulate competition.  And a second cable provider in an area drops rates by about 25%.  Which is a lot of $.  People should want to break the cable monopoly in their area - and getting what you called "big-pipe" internet in your area is big too. 

The Telecommunications Reform Act (A.3980B/S.5124) has very important features that are a condition of a statewide franchise:
1. a massive build-out of internet infrastructure... about 85% of the state;
2. the maximum money that munis can get (5% of gross revenues);
3. more for public access channels (also known as Public, Educational or Governmental - PEG - channels); and
4. free connections to municipal buildings;
Plus the bill leaves control over "rights of way" - think construction permits here - to the munis.

As for munis, they generally don't like a statewide franchise, but a statewide franchise that gets them more than they've got right now ought to be another thing.  I'm not sure where individual munis in NYS or their association are on this bill, but I think it'd be a mistake for them not to support it.  I'm told there's a couple outright supporters of this bill.

Last thing: count me as someone who thinks its basically silly to have a natural monopoly like high speed internet infrastructure be delivered through reliance on a "free market".  Government really should do a lot more to make the internet accessible and affordable for everyone.  We're way behind the rest of the world already... we should get our act together.

Last other thing: telephone landline service quality is protected by Public Service Commission (PSC) regs.  We think both the regs and their enforcement should be stronger.  But there's little protection available to consumers for non-landline telephone service, like internet or cable phones - and cell phones.  That's another un-level playing field where protections ought to be leveled up for all service.  The bill does some good stuff on this issue too.

Sorry for the long post... this'll show you for asking about video franchising!  I'll try to check this thread later... later...

---

by: Pete Sikora @ Fri May 04, 2007 at 11:42:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Other provisions (4.00 / 2)

As important as the state video franchise portions of the bill  are, I think there are other parts of the bill that are also VERY important and really innovative.  I'm a telephone worker (AT&T) and a CWA Local President in NYC. Unfortunately, I now live in New Jersey and I hope this bill will become a model for my state also.

The keys to this bill as far as I am concerned are:

1)It creates a new Broadband Development Authority that would increase broadband penetration in underserved, un-served and economically distressed areas and promotes affordable broadband

2) The mapping provision which you already talked about.

3) It REQUIRES extensive build-out of high-speed internet AS A CONDITION of a statewide cable franchise.

4) It creates consumer and worker protections during telecommunications industry mergers to ensure that any merger does not negatively affect service quality, jobs and local economies.  As an AT&T worker who has seen our purchase by SBC lead to hundreds of layoffs despite promises to the contrary, this is VERY important to me.

5)It REQUIRES an examination of the sale of telecommunications networks for effects on consumers and workers.  Ditto above.

6) It REQUIRES a Telecommunications Service Quality Report that would mandate a detailed study of service quality by the Public Service Commission. Again, this is really important.  There are currently no consumer protections for high speed broadband.  They can tell you you're getting one speed and really you are much slower. A good way to check what you are getting now is the Speed Test at http://www.speedmatt....

7) Requires the PSC to propose rules and regulations as a result of its detailed study of service quality; and

8) Creates a Universal Service Fund to improve telecommunications services in underserved areas.

Tis bill provides the basis for so many different groups to unite. We have to make sure that people understand the whole bill and get the word out.

 

---

by: Laura Unger @ Fri May 04, 2007 at 13:05:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

re: 85 percent (4.00 / 1)

What percent currenty has broadband? Is the requirement anything as weak as FCC availability data

http://www.google.co...

Which says you must be connected if there's broadband ANYWHERE IN YOUR ZIP CODE? (pardon me for raising my voice)

Follow the money.

---

by: agoldnyc @ Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:09:18 AM UTC

Broadband availability (0.00 / 0)

Agoldnyc -
I actually don't know what % in NYS have broadband.  The FCC #s, as you point out, are indeed suspect.  They say an area has broadband if just one user in a zip code has it. 

Another problem is that the FCC's definition of broadband speed is too slow.  They have broadband as 200 kilobits/second.  Sloooooooooooooooooow.

CWA thinks the FCC should raise the regulatory definition of broadband to 1 megabit/second.  The fiber optic FiOS network that Verizon has - and our members are building - is blazing.  Top speeds there are 100 mps, which allows hi-def video.

Also, there's a difference between who has broadband because they buy the service and who has the infrastructure and wiring that can get them broadband.  A lot of rural areas only have landline telephone service - and they've got that only because the government has required it. 

Many rural areas never got cable, so they can't get broadband that way.  If the landline phone company hasn't put in DSL, they can't get broadband through a wire.  They can do dial-up, but dial-up... well, I bet there's plenty of people who go to this site who can tell you how frustrating that is today... never mind a couple years from now. 

It's a really serious issue for rural areas.  The days of the Rural Electrification Association are gone.  Sigh.
 

---

by: Pete Sikora @ Fri May 04, 2007 at 20:37:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for understanding, working on it (0.00 / 0)

I really appreciate the post, and the understanding of the problem.  As somebody who lives in and works with rural New York, I am fervently hoping that something works to trigger broadband development.  Am very interested in the mapping component, too.  I think that there is some very clear urban, as well as rural, redlining.  Maps make those things much more obvious.

---

by: robinia @ Sun May 06, 2007 at 01:30:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your State Senator/Assemblymember? (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for the kind words on the post... 

As for the bill, have you called your rep?  Or better yet, scheduled a meeting with them or their staff?  If so, what did they say?

If they're a dem in the Assembly or a repub in the Senate, they have real power to move bills.  Particularly if you live in a rural area, if their name isn't on this bill... well, it should be.

---

by: Pete Sikora @ Sun May 06, 2007 at 15:21:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

% of broadband subscribers... (0.00 / 0)

a rough percentage of broadband by the FCC's too slow definition: 30% in urban/suburban.  Rural is 17%.  Wee bit of a difference there.

---

by: Pete Sikora @ Fri May 04, 2007 at 20:58:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]