Now Hear This Electronic Newsletter, January 17, 2008 Posted by Bob at 01/16/08 01:38 PM

There have been some encouraging signs in recent days that the Federal Communications Commission might be starting to take its consumer protection duties a bit more seriously.

On Monday the agency announced it was launching formal investigations of charges that communications giants Comcast and Verizon have been blocking content and applications on their Internet networks.

Late last year the Associated Press published an article revealing that Comcast, the nation’s largest cable company and second-largest Internet service provider, was actively interfering with its customers ability to access legal content. The company was found to be cutting off legal peer-to-peer file-sharing networks such as BitTorrent and Gnutella, as well as business applications such as Lotus Notes. Comcast claimed its actions were nothing more than “reasonable network management.”

The FCC says it will be looking into whether Comcast has engaged in activities that go beyond what the agency considers "reasonable network management."

The Verizon investigation involves the company's refusal last year to allow NARAL Pro-Choice America to send text messages to its own members over the Verizon wireless network. Verizon quickly backed down after it's refusal to allow the text messages was written about by media outlets including the New York Times.

Just how the investigations will proceed and what actions the FCC might take against Comcast and Verizon -- if any -- remain unclear.

The investigations could very well lead to nothing more than an affirmation from the FCC that the companies have done nothing illegal. In fact, the current FCC regulations are sufficiently vague to allow communication giants such as Comcast and Verizon to engage in all manner of consumer-unfriendly activities without violating the agency's rules.

But the mere fact that the agency is choosing to conduct a formal probes of issue as complicated and thorny as content blocking is heartening, given the FCC's serial avoidance of such controversial topics in recent years.

Given the FCC's woeful record on all manner of consumer protection issues in recent years, we remain skeptical of whether these investigations will lead to any truly positive changes. Consumers need to watch the situation closely and hold the FCC's feet to the fire if it appears the agency is not conducting the investigations aggressively and in the best interest of the public.

Want to see some other viewpoints on this issue?

Martin Gets the Ball Rolling On “Blocking” Investigation: What Does It Mean And What Happens Next?

FCC Must Protect Free Speech Everywhere

____________________________________________________________________________________

Media Crackdown in Kenya, Cell Phones in Remote Africa

We want to refer you to some very interesting articles involving media and communications issues in other parts of the world.

The first is an on-the-ground report about the crackdown on media outlets and communications networks in Kenya in the wake of that country's highly disputed presidential election last month. This timely report was written by Wilson Ugangu, a Kenyan journalist who was a Consumers Union media fellow last year.

You can read Wilson's troubling report by clicking here.

We came across this article in the Christian Science Monitor, which tells the fascinating tale of the burgeoning local cell phone industry in one of the remotest parts of Africa.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Courts Block Comcast's Public Access Channel Shift, Cable in a Small Town

A little closer to home, we were buoyed by reports that courts in Michigan are ordering Comcast to delay controversial plans by the cable giant to move public, educational and local government channels from analog to digital.

Comcast wants to move those channels from analog to digital in order to free up bandwidth for other uses, such as high-definition programming and video on demand. Had the courts not stepped in, analog-only cable customers would have had to obtain digital set-top boxes in order to obtain the channels.

Comcast was offering to provide subscribers with a free converter box for one year, but after that customers would have to pay around $4 a month to rent the boxes.

The Detroit Free Press has a good article on the situation, which you can read by clicking here.

In issuing a temporary restraining order against Comcast, U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts said the public interest was better served to keep the channels available to all subscribers.

We couldn't have said it better ourselves.

And as long as we are talking about cable and local governments, we came across a great, in-the-trenches article about how officials in Medford have been trying -- unsuccessfully -- to bring in some competition for Comcast, which enjoys a monopoly in the small New England town.

Comcast raised cable television rates in Medford by 4 percent at the beginning of the year, which is similar to the annual rate hikes implemented by Comcast and other cable companies in communities all across the country in recent years.

comments (2)

1 Posted by Wayne Ware at 01/17/08 12:16 PM

As soon as all of us consumers realize that todays world is all about money, then we can band together, make our voices heard and do something about it. All big businesses want is your money. they don't give a damn about you.

2 Posted by Jeff Hayes at 01/17/08 09:11 PM

Comcast and Verizon have NOTHING on Charter Communications, which is my carrier here in Spartanburg, SC...

They were already my carrier for cable service and high-speed modem, but in February of 2006, they sent a notice saying that my rates were about to go up unless I choose some newer, better package, so we got a bigger package, which was supposedly a better deal, and it WAS, for a while (of course the "fees and taxes" always added A LOT to the quoted price... some of which I think are PADDING)... Well, that was a 6-month deal, and in in August of 2006, just about the time I first got a small HD TV and added that service, they informed me that my rate was going up CONSIDERABLY, and the only way to avoid THAT was to ALSO bundle in their telephone service, which we agreed to do, since it would be the same or less than BellSouth (now AT&T, since the sale)...

We had 2 lines here at the house... one for my folks, and one for me... As an adult on disability, I live here but have had my own line for many years, and the other line was always in my DAD'S name -- the cable bill, however, was in my MOM'S name, so WITHOUT ASKING, after they installed the new service, BOTH NUMBERS showed up in the phone book in HER NAME... not even initials -- something most women DON'T WANT for safety reasons, and something that GREATLY IRRITATED ME, as one of those numbers had been in MY NAME since 1990!

Furthermore, the half-wit, redneck, subcontractor they sent out to hook up the phone service (who came out in HIS OWN TRUCK, without even a CHARTER LOGO on it), CROSSWIRED our security service hookup when he switched our phone box on the outside of the house from BellSouth to Charter, and afterwards, when I asked him to check if the security still worked with the new phone service, he REFUSED, said he didn't have time before his next service call, and left... Well, when I DID check it later, sure enough, it DIDN'T WORK... We called their service department about it SEVERAL TIMES, and they FINALLY sent out a service rep, but he was one for TOTAL CABLE FAILURE and said he knew NOTHING about the phone service -- gave us the number for his SUPERVISOR, for whom we left SEVERAL messages, which never got returned -- FINALLY, about three weeks later, we had to pay the SECURITY COMPANY $75 for a service call to come out and fix CHARTER'S MISTAKE!

Long story short, the "new bill," after adding phone service, took us from about $110 a month to, supposedly, $143 a month, BUT after taxes and fees and so forth, it was more like $173 per month... Then, when the 1-year promotion ran out this past August, the monthly bill BALLOONED TO MORE THAN $228 per month!!!

We were preparing for an extended trip at the time, so I elected to wait to confront them about all this, and since returning, I just don't have the emotional energy to call them... and I don't know what to do. The service is good, such as it is, but the price is RIDICULOUS... and they recently sent us a letter that prices for some services are going up even MORE in February!

Just WHO do these people think they are?!? We don't even get all the channels at this price! We have two sets with digital high definition boxes, get HBO & Cinemax, and they throw in Starz, don't even get (or care to get) the Sports or Spanish language channels... Just the other regular and digital channels, plus HD, ONE cable modem, two phone lines, but only ONE with long distance or any features such as voice mail...

SHOULD JUST THAT COST MORE THAN $228 PER MONTH?!?!?

The only thing is, there's no other cable company in this metro area of maybe 100,000 (about 40,000 in the city limits, but lots of suburbs), and I HATE AT&T -- When we had BellSouth, I would NEVER let AT&T be my long distance carrier once choice became an option because they're so greedy and tricky -- PLUS, if you go with AT&T, you might get the same phone service and similar modem service, but you HAVE TO choose either Dish or Direct TV for Television, which requires a receiver box for every TV, and I do most of my TV recording for time-shifting purposes on my computer, using Windows Media Center, which I'm not sure would work well like that (having a basic cable hookup to it works well, and it can choose the channels itself).

So what am I to do?

If there was cable competition here, I KNOW what I'd do!

I'm just SOOOOO fed up!!!
Jeff Hayes
Spartanburg, SC