MCA on the social web
Act Now.
Enter your contact info.
If you would like to support us, please click below.
Contributions are not tax deductible.
Oklahoma state regulators are considering changes that could affect your phone bill
A few weeks ago, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC), the state agency tasked with regulating utilities across the state, began a process to study whether a statewide toll-free calling area would be a good idea.
After the process began, The Oklahoman ran an article about the proposal that looked at arguments both for and against the plan. The next day, the Tulsa World ran an editorial which pointed out that the OCC’s “toll-free” plan would not really be free – after all, someone would have to pay for it, right?
Soon after, The Oklahoman reported what the Tulsa World editorial writers had already guessed – that the plan would cost consumers roughly $2.00 per month per line in additional fees. This new fee would be for ALL phone lines, regardless of whether they are landlines, cellular lines, or Internet phone lines. The $2.00 figure was only an initial estimate from the OCC staff, which meant the additional monthly fees could end up being even higher.
Well, it didn’t take long for the Commission staff to revise their initial estimate. On February 22nd, Commission staff released a supplemental economic analysis which showed a new estimate of $3.19 per month per line, which was quickly reported by The Oklahoman.
Whatever the final plan looks like and whatever the final cost number is, the OCC has until April 1st to send their proposal to the state legislature. Until that time, policymakers will undoubtedly hear many different opinions about whether statewide toll-free calling makes sense for Oklahoma consumers.
Leading off the opinions was the Hughes County Times in Wetumka, (PDF file), and it wasn’t good news for the OCC’s plan.
On February 19th, Mid-American Communications Alliance filed an official comment with the Commission opposing the plan.
On February 24th, the Tulsa World published an editorial publicly opposing the Commission plan, calling the proposal a “waste of time” and “a bad deal for most telephone users in Oklahoma.”
On February 25th, the Oologah Lake Leader published an editorial in opposition of the OCC proposal, (PDF file) calling the plan “a child of Satan that should be strangled in its cradle before it can get any bigger and cause Oklahoma irreparable harm.”
On February 26th, The Oklahoman, the state’s largest newspaper, published an editorial opposing a statewide toll-free calling plan and urging the Commission to “hang up on this idea.”
This is the most up-to-date information. As more opinions roll-in, MCA will continue to keep you informed on this important issue.
Axe the Wireless Tax
Don't Let The Government LOCKDOWN The Internet
Just days before its October 22, 2009 meeting on new “net neutrality” regulations, the Federal Communications Commission was bombarded with messages from high-ranking elected officials telling the commissioners to tone it down.
The messages, from both Republicans and a surprisingly high number of Democrats, sought to persuade the FCC commissioners to slow down and take a deep breath before placing oppressive regulations on an Internet industry that has brought innovation and investment to communities across America.
As the Wall Street Journal reported:
At last count, there have been 11 letters from governors (a mix of Republicans and Democrats), 18 Republican Senators, House minority leadership and now, the 72 House Democrats, which includes 18 members of the Congressional Black Caucus, 31 Blue Dog Democrats and 10 members of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the FCC.
In the letter signed by 72 House Democrats, the lawmakers conclude, “In light of the growth and innovation in new applications that the current regime has enabled, as compared to the limited evidence demonstrating any tangible harm, we would urge you to avoid any tentative conclusions which favor government regulation.”
Of the 72 House Democrats signing the letter, six are from states where MCA operates:
Arkansas
Rep. Mike Ross
Kansas
Rep. Dennis Moore
Missouri
Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay
Rep. Russ Carnahan
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver
Oklahoma
Rep. Dan Boren
These six account for two-thirds of all House Democrat members from the MCA states.
And anytime 72 Democrat Members of the U.S. House of Representatives agree that increased regulation is bad, people should take notice. In this case, the people taking notice should be the FCC commissioners.
The big question is why are so many lawmakers from both sides of the aisle coming to the conclusion that “net neutrality” regulations would be harmful? Here are several reasons:
1. Competition and innovation are thriving without burdensome regulations
As MCA pointed out in this opinion piece, competition in the wireless market has benefitted millions of consumers by providing more choice, more innovation, and the lowest cost in the world for wireless service. Americans use their wireless devices more than the citizens of any other country because a light regulatory structure has allowed competition to thrive. There is no reason for the FCC to fix something that isn’t broken.
2. Network investment will suffer if “net neutrality” regulations are imposed by the FCC.
As House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, and House Republican whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., recently wrote in a letter to President Obama, “We believe that network neutrality regulations would actually thwart further broadband investment and availability, and that a well-reasoned broadband plan would confirm our view,” Boehner and Cantor concluded, “So to hastily begin the process of adopting network neutrality rules months before issuing such a plan implies that politics are driving the FCC’s decision-making process.”
3. The Internet must remain free to be an economic driver for the U.S. economy.
“As Americans wade through the current economic situation, a decision by the FCC to discourage broadband investment would be irresponsible,” Boehner and Cantor wrote. “The United States needs broadband providers to increase investment and create jobs. This will not occur if broadband providers are saddled with unnecessary, burdensome requirements that interfere with their ability to manage their networks and create innovative broadband products that maximize consumer choice and benefit.”
4. Proposed “net neutrality” regulations would hamper President Obama’s goal of universal broadband access and threaten minority communities.
In a recent letter to FCC commissioners, numerous minority groups including the NAACP, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and the National Disability Institute argued that imposing new rules on Internet traffic could impede Obama’s goal of 100% broadband access for America. The groups stated, “As organizations that serve communities that are among the most severely impacted by a lack of access to technology, we urge you to keep your number one focus on the need to get everyone connected. We are concerned that some of the proposed regulations on the Internet could, as applied, inhibit the goal of universal access and leave disenfranchised communities further behind. We are also concerned that some proposed regulations could inhibit investments being made by companies employing hundreds of thousands of workers and connecting millions to the opportunities that broadband technology affords to those in our community – from telemedicine to distance learning to applying for jobs online.”
But if the flood of bipartisan objections to the their proposed “net neutrality” rules weren’t enough for the FCC commissioners, now members of the general public can voice their opposition to the proposed regulations as well.
If you agree with these bipartisan groups and numerous Republican and Democrat lawmakers that “net neutrality” regulations would be bad for America, MCA urges you to click this link to sign our NO Net Neutrality petition and let the FCC know how you feel.
Also, feel free to leave a comment here in our blog!
Additional Information on Net Neutrality
Press release from the Institute for Policy Innovation opposing net neutrality regulations
Is the FCC neutralizing innovation?
Network neutrality? How about FCC neutrality?
FCC Votes to Move Net Neutrality Rules Forward
In a 3-2 vote along party lines, the Federal Communications Commission began moving forward with open-Internet regulations.
The FCC proceeding to consider net neutrality rules is the culmination of contentious lobbying by the telecom industry and an intense exchange of letters from members of Congress.
With Thursday’s vote, the five-member panel began the process to move forward with open-Internet regulations announced last month by the agency’s chairman, Juilus Genachowski. His proposal would formally codify the FCC’s four principles intended to prevent Internet service providers from giving preferential treatment to certain content and services and therefore deciding which applications consumers have access to. He also proposed two additional principles, one to ensure providers do not discriminate between applications and another to require Internet companies to disclose their network management practices to consumers.
Genachowski had the full support of Democratic Commissioners Micheal Copps and Mignon Clyburn, as expected. Republican Commissioners Robert McDowell and Meredith Atwell Baker dissented on the idea that government regulation is needed to keep the Internet open, but supported the beginning of a fact-finding process to learn more about the technical and legal questions surrounding net neutrality.
UCLA Study: Elderly Can Benefit from Internet Usage
Adults with little Internet experience show changes in their brain activity after just one week online, a new study finds.
The results suggest Internet training can stimulate neural activation patterns and could potentially enhance brain function and cognition in older adults.
As the brain ages, a number of structural and functional changes occur, including atrophy, or decay, reductions in cell activity and increases in complex things like deposits of amyloid plaques and tau tangles, which can impact cognitive function.
Research has shown that mental stimulation similar to the stimulation that occurs in individuals who frequently use the Internet may affect the efficiency of cognitive processing and alter the way the brain encodes new information.
Just days before its possible October 22 vote on new “net neutrality” regulations, the Federal Communications Commission is being bombarded with messages from high-ranking elected officials telling the commissioners to tone it down.
The messages, from both Republicans and a surprisingly high number of Democrats, seek to persuade the FCC commissioners to slow down and take a deep breath before placing oppressive regulations on an Internet industry that has brought innovation and investment to communities across America.
As the Wall Street Journal reported:
At last count, there have been 11 letters from governors (a mix of Republicans and Democrats), 18 Republican Senators, House minority leadership and now, the 72 House Democrats, which includes 18 members of the Congressional Black Caucus, 31 Blue Dog Democrats and 10 members of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the FCC.
In the letter signed by 72 House Democrats, the lawmakers conclude, “In light of the growth and innovation in new applications that the current regime has enabled, as compared to the limited evidence demonstrating any tangible harm, we would urge you to avoid any tentative conclusions which favor government regulation.”
Of the 72 House Democrats signing the letter, six are from states where MCA operates:
Arkansas
Rep. Mike Ross
Kansas
Rep. Dennis Moore
Missouri
Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay
Rep. Russ Carnahan
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver
Oklahoma
Rep. Dan Boren
These six account for two-thirds of all House Democrat members from the MCA states.
And anytime 72 Democrat Members of the U.S. House of Representatives agree that increased regulation is bad, people should take notice. In this case, the people taking notice should be the FCC commissioners.
The big question is why are so many lawmakers from both sides of the aisle coming to the conclusion that “net neutrality” regulations would be harmful? Here are several reasons:
1. Competition and innovation are thriving without burdensome regulations
As MCA pointed out in this opinion piece, competition in the wireless market has benefitted millions of consumers by providing more choice, more innovation, and the lowest cost in the world for wireless service. Americans use their wireless devices more than the citizens of any other country because a light regulatory structure has allowed competition to thrive. There is no reason for the FCC to fix something that isn’t broken.
2. Network investment will suffer if “net neutrality” regulations are imposed by the FCC.
As House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, and House Republican whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., recently wrote in a letter to President Obama, “We believe that network neutrality regulations would actually thwart further broadband investment and availability, and that a well-reasoned broadband plan would confirm our view,” Boehner and Cantor concluded, “So to hastily begin the process of adopting network neutrality rules months before issuing such a plan implies that politics are driving the FCC’s decision-making process.”
3. The Internet must remain free to be an economic driver for the U.S. economy.
“As Americans wade through the current economic situation, a decision by the FCC to discourage broadband investment would be irresponsible,” Boehner and Cantor wrote. “The United States needs broadband providers to increase investment and create jobs. This will not occur if broadband providers are saddled with unnecessary, burdensome requirements that interfere with their ability to manage their networks and create innovative broadband products that maximize consumer choice and benefit.”
4. Proposed “net neutrality” regulations would hamper President Obama’s goal of universal broadband access and threaten minority communities.
In a recent letter to FCC commissioners, numerous minority groups including the NAACP, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and the National Disability Institute argued that imposing new rules on Internet traffic could impede Obama’s goal of 100% broadband access for America. The groups stated, “As organizations that serve communities that are among the most severely impacted by a lack of access to technology, we urge you to keep your number one focus on the need to get everyone connected. We are concerned that some of the proposed regulations on the Internet could, as applied, inhibit the goal of universal access and leave disenfranchised communities further behind. We are also concerned that some proposed regulations could inhibit investments being made by companies employing hundreds of thousands of workers and connecting millions to the opportunities that broadband technology affords to those in our community – from telemedicine to distance learning to applying for jobs online.”
But if the flood of bipartisan objections to the their proposed “net neutrality” rules isn’t enough for the FCC commissioners, now members of the general public can voice their opposition to the proposed regulations as well.
If you agree with these bipartisan groups and numerous Republican and Democrat lawmakers that “net neutrality” regulations would be bad for America, MCA urges you to click this link to post on the FCC’s blog and let them know how you feel.
Also, feel free to leave a comment here in our blog!
Union Tells FCC ‘Net Neutrality’ Rule May Squelch Investment
The Communications Workers of America, a union with workers at AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc., urged U.S. regulators to protect investment and job creation as they craft rules on Internet competition.
“We depend on private capital” to invest in networks, Larry Cohen, president of the union, said in a letter today to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski. The union distributed the letter by e-mail.
The Communications Workers joins AT&T, Verizon and Comcast Corp. in expressing concern after Genachowski said last month that he wanted “net neutrality” rules to prevent companies from favoring some content providers over others. The companies have said the rules aren’t necessary and may hinder their ability to manage their networks.
Debate rages about whether government-based Internet regulations would benefit consumers
On September 21st, Julius Genachowski, the newly appointed chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, gave a speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. that outlined his reasoning for pursuing new “net neutrality” regulations. Since Genachowski’s speech, a heated debate has taken place throughout the country regarding whether or not possible new regulations are necessary and would ultimately benefit consumers.
On one side, net neutrality proponents argue that government regulation of the Internet is needed to keep networks open and unrestricted. On the other hand, opponents of net neutrality regulations argue that government intervention is unnecessary and will significantly diminish future innovation and private network investment.
How this issue is ultimately decided will most certainly have a profound impact on how the Internet continues to evolve over time. Over the next several months, MCA will offer its take on possible net neutrality regulations, but initially we want to provide our supporters with the arguments on both sides of the issue. Below are several takes on net neutrality that serve as a primer for what should be a contentious debate for some time to come.
Text of Chairman Genachowski’s speech at Brookings
Press release from the Institute for Policy Innovation opposing net neutrality regulations
FCC ‘Net Neutrality’ Rules Are a Win for Consumers
Wireless Experts Predict FCC’s ‘Net Neutrality’ Rule’s Impact on Mobile Operators
Is the FCC neutralizing innovation?
Network neutrality? How about FCC neutrality?
New Report on Mobile Broadband Access among Hispanics
The U.S. Hispanic population now tops 48 million. And while Hispanics as a group lag other populations in terms of overall Internet access, they are near the top in mobile broadband usage.
A new report by Mobile Future and The Hispanic Institute offers a look into Hispanic broadband access and details how a national broadband strategy could most benefit Hispanics in the U.S.
Click here to read a brief overview of the report. PDF versions of the full report are available via that link in both English and Spanish.
Missouri Telephone Access Fees Need Reform!
Over the past three years, the Mid-American Communications Alliance’s advocacy efforts have helped bring innovative new services, lower prices, and more choices to Missouri consumers. MCA also strives to provide consumers with the latest information regarding communications services and technology. In keeping with that mission, we wanted to inform you that during the upcoming 2010 session of the Missouri General Assembly, state lawmakers will debate legislation to reform the way rural phone service is funded in Missouri. Take a moment to watch this short, two-minute video about why the current system of unbalanced switched access fees needs to be reformed.
