Comments for blogband - Broadband.gov blog

Comment on Denying Bill Shock by Distorting the Facts by Leslie Grisham-Ousdahl

2010-08-30T11:44:00Z

Can someone please provide any information about the "surcharges" on these wireless communication bills? On my Sprint bill, and I've learned this statement is on all wireless bills, with each company charging back to the consumer, whatever part of these fees they believe they can collect from you and me is the following statement:

Sprint Surcharges
Sprint Surcharges are rates we choose to collect from you to help defray costs imposed on us. Surcharges are not taxes on you or amounts we are required to collect from you by law. Surcharges may include: Federal USF, regulatory charges, administrative charges, gross receipts charges, and other charges incurred to recover costs associated with governmental programs, and certain taxes imposed on Sprint. The amounts, and the components used to calculate Surcharge amounts are subject to change.

_________________________________________________________________________

Ok, so these charges are NOT taxes --- they are NOT required by law to collect these charges ----- but they are charges THEY CHOSE to collect?

Do they NOT COLLECT enough in other fees? What is going on here? Are these companies ALLOWED to collect these amounts from consumers? Can someone please give me direction because I've searched the FCC website and can not seem to find anything or much of anything about whether this is allowed --- or whether they have the authority just to collect whatever it is they want, whenever they CHOSE to do so.

Thanks for anyone who is listening or who responds to my concern.

Comment on What kind of user are you? Or: things my mom taught me about broadband. by Georgian

2010-08-30T02:32:44Z

To whom it may concern:

I'm really in support of the tremendous effort the FCC has undertaken to curb and control service providers to what is fair to consumers. For example, not to long ago, the FCC inquired cell phone companies to explain each of their contract early termination fees, and how each company calculates them for different equipment subsidies. I believe this is the first step to keep cell phone companies fair and honest. On the other hand, I believe the FCC should get deeply involved with internet service providers and their anti-competitive and monopolistic ways.... Let me explain.

How is it possible that I am being charged by AT&T $47.95 for internet service, "up to 6.0 Mbps download speed", when after performing broadband speed tests on the internet, even a speed test on this site, I am averaging 1.5 Mbps? I believe this is not fair to us, the consumers, who expect the service advertised, and are willing to pay for it. Internet service providers are using the term "up to" from their advertised download speeds to loosely. This is not just an AT&T issue, this is also an issue with Comcast, Charter, and the like. If this is the speed I will have available with AT&T, my bill should reflect an adjustment for this. I propose that internet service providers be required to keep logs of actual speed at every service location through out a billing cycle, and adjust their monthly bill accordingly. For example, if under my current rate plan, I have a download speed of 6.0Mbps through out the whole month available for my use, I will more than gladly pay my full rate of $47.95. But in the case of AT&T's current service, where their customer service actually claim my reduced download speed is in fact a direct result of AT&T's U-verse service roll-out in the Atlanta area, and not being physically prepared to deal with all of the new download heavy customers they now have, I should be able to pay less than the full rate. I believe my monthly bill should reflect the current service speeds provided. If their monthly service rate for 1.5 Mbps is actually $19.95, and the average speed for the complete billing cycle is 1.5Mbps, I should be billed $19.95 for this month, and any subsequent months I have received this actual measured speed. Or may be have monthly bills adjusted based on average speed recorded through out the month, based on every half an hour samples of speed tests to each service location (bill modified by $0.50 per every 0.5Mbps difference from the service the customer is signed up to). This method will actually help to regulate the industry, have companies provide good, quality service and continue to further make companies more competitive. Obviously, the current way internet service providers are doing business is not the most optimal way for customers, where a simple "up to XXMbps download speed" my be used to falsely advertise a service, leaving customers without having any legal recourse for claims.

FCC and congress, please take a look at this issue, and include this on your current agenda of inquiries and efforts for net neutrality, which I loudly applaud, and continue to protect the interests of American citizens regarding communications.

Thanks,

Rafa.

raffunrod@hotmail.com

Comment on Successfully Piloting Telehealth In California by Curtis J Neeley Jr

2010-08-26T22:20:07Z

Third way? Ha How about beginning to apply the law passed June 19, 1934. On Page 8 in paragraph (51) WIRE COMMUNICATIONS was required to be regulated just like other communications.
I have attempted to have the Supreme Court order the FCC to regulate COMMUNICATIONS BY WIRE that are being called \Internet\ or \IP Services\ simply for a disguise. The United States' \Open Internet\ has been illegal due to trafficking in pornography since created. The Comcast Dilemma? A Third Way? I demanded that the FCC call the Internet WIRE COMMUNICATIONS as explicitly defined on page 8 in paragraph (51) of the Communications Act of 1934. The way has been there but ignored by horny guys hoping to protect their abilities to masturbate while surfing for PORN anywhere in the world.

Comment on Successfully Piloting Telehealth In California by Guest

2010-08-26T20:29:10Z

Excellent question! Is someone going to answer?

Comment on USF Reform: We’re All In This Together by One of the 3%

2010-08-23T14:56:25Z

You point to several worthy projects and goals regarding the use of broadband technology. The USF funds have been targeted towards network investment and deployment in high cost areas of the country. Many of the projects mentioned in your article are outside of infrastructure build-out cost and support which USF has been targeted.

One issue mentioned is education such as educating customers on the Internet and its uses. Doesn't this ideal fall under the edcuation community, schools, community colleges and universities? Aren't there funding mechanisms in place to fund these programs today. Why would USF funds be directed to this function which should be met through current educational funding?

Healthcare is also a worthy cause, and leveraging physician knowledge through technology to remote rural areas is also an excellent goal, but redirecting USF infrustructure funding to build separate dedicated fiber networks is short sited to the reality of the true cost of operating and maintaining those networks.

Economic Development is ultimately driven by private investment. Redirecting USF funds to government owned networks, be it for edcuation or healthcare will not result in long term economic development.

Government competition with private industry will result in a lower quality of service, rising costs to consumers who remain on the private networks and a true cost that is ultimately paid for by all tax payers in rising taxes and governemtn fees.

Redirecting the purpose of the USF funds away from infrastructure investment to fund programs in other government sectors will not increase broadband deployment, but will slow it.

Comment on Successfully Piloting Telehealth In California by Guest

2010-08-23T13:06:19Z

I assume there are no private companies in any of the areas where these 50 health care facilities (soon to be 800). Because if there were private companies offering services to these health care facilities the health care facility would have already purchased large broadband pipes to save lives, time and money. What makes funding from the FCC and the California Emerging Technology Fund more feasible than purchasing services from an already existing broadband provider?

Comment on USF Reform: We’re All In This Together by Guest

2010-08-23T00:00:29Z

Wasnt the National Broadband Plan supposed to have proposals for USF reform? The Chairman and Levin promised a specific plan. and yet, you say you are now (still) working on a plan. When will there be any action on this or any other topic? This is incredible.

Comment on A New Way to Measure Broadband in America by Guest

2010-08-22T12:55:20Z

Hi to the posters above I am a volunteer for samknows internet testing in the UK I don't know the technical details of how it works but they send you a router which you plug one lead from your router connected to the internet into its internet port. This leaves you with four ethernet connections in the samkows router to use for your network the sam knows router is passive and when it detects you are not using the internet sends and receives packets of data to test the connection available at random times throughout the day. It then sends this information about the quality of the internet connection to Samknows servers to give a comprehensive set of readings about quality and speed of this particular line and isp. The isp has no idea when the readings are taken or by whom. So he can't '"game'" the results in his favour as someone suggested. We are annonymous customers spying on the isp's ability to deliver advertised services. See how they like the tables turned lol.

Comment on What kind of user are you? Or: things my mom taught me about broadband. by Mary

2010-08-21T13:21:05Z

Quote - "So, the Commission is proposing to tax everyone's phone and broadband service in America so that people who live in the middle of nowhere can get 4Mbps and.....WATCH streamed sports on their computers?

Is this some type of joke?"

Excuse me, some of us don't want broadband JUST to watch streamed sports on our computers. I happen to be a student at a technical school, and a lot of my classes require work from home. Next semester I have a course that has me doing online virtualization, not something that takes up a tiny bit of bandwidth.

But on the same token as your comment, why shouldn't we have the same access to things like that as everyone else? It's not our fault the internet in "the middle of nowhere" is spotty and overpriced.

The only thing I can get here and afford it Hughesnet satellite. The latency is terrible, and the speed for price ratio is atrocious. $80 a month for 1.5 Mbps. That's it. I could move into town and pay $45 for 25mbps, does that sound very fair to you?

Just because you live in an area where it's easy to setup an internet infrastructure doesn't mean you have the right to yell about what the rest of us might do if we had access to it.

BTW - You're already being taxed for it, just under another name. When you pay your cell phone bill, the Universal Service Tax? It was formerly to provide phone service to low income individuals. Guess what tax is being used for the broadband movement now? Yup.

Comment on Keeping Tabs on Broadband Availability by Dale Dukes

2010-08-19T22:53:54Z

Thank God you all are trying to pressure them to expand. Like most i have been waiting for over 5 years for even DSL. The city i live closest to has had it since like 2003 and i really hate that i wil have to move to get the internet for school.