Pic: Flickr/Oslo in the Summertime

On Monday, Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski announced changes that would modernize the agency’s Lifeline program to give greater broadband Internet access to low-income Americans.

Lifeline has traditionally provided “discounts on one basic monthly telephone service (wireline or wireless) for qualified subscribers.” While announcing a series of Lifeline reforms, Genachowski said, “Which brings us to the final but perhaps most important reform: beginning the process of modernizing Lifeline from telephone service to broadband. Broadband has gone from being a luxury to a necessity in the 21st century.”

He added that “broadband Internet — wired and wireless — is the most transformative new technology since electricity. It’s changing almost every aspect of our economy and our lives.”

Connect Florida data from a 2011 survey estimates “that approximately 4.1 million adults statewide do not have home broadband service, and adoption varies significantly across socioeconomic lines.”

The survey shows that overall 72 percent of Florida adults have broadband access at home, a number that drops to 56 percent for disabled adults, 61 percent for Hispanics, 60 percent for African-Americans, 41 percent for low-income Floridians, 56 percent for low-income adults with children and 37 percent for low-income minorities with children.

The survey also shows that in Florida 54 percent of those who live in rural areas have broadband access, while 57 percent of the state’s seniors have broadband access.

The Leadership Conference, a civil and human rights coalition, said Monday:

We are gratified to hear the Chairman clearly state that the Lifeline program is poised to support high-speed internet broadband services. The Chairman’s plan to modernize Lifeline to include broadband is an important first step toward achieving this goal, but we are concerned that it puts the program years away from having a notable impact on narrowing the digital divide. The pilot programs the Chairman intends to launch later in the year won’t help the millions of Americans struggling right now to get a leg up in today’s economy.

Colorlines, a media outlet that provides “reporting, analysis, and solutions to today’s racial justice issues,” wrote in December that the FCC’s 2010 National Broadband Plan indicates that “half of all Latinos in the U.S. don’t have access to broadband Internet at home, while over 40 percent of African Americans are without high-speed Internet in their homes.”

The National Broadband Plan ”provides an array of recommendations to accelerate universal broadband access and adoption” for “rural America; low-income Americans; schools and libraries; hospitals, clinics, doctors, and patients; Americans with disabilities; and Native Americans” to “advance national purposes such as education, health care, and energy efficiency.”

The resolution to disapprove the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality rules was defeated in the U.S. Senate today.

The resolution would have repealed the net neutrality rules issued last year by the FCC that go into effect this month. Net neutrality is the idea that consumers should have access to all Internet content and services, not limited by Internet service providers “that want to treat them differently so they can charge you more depending on what you use.”

Marco Rubio, R-Fla. voted for repeal while Bill Nelson, D-Fla., voted against it. The overall vote went along party lines, with 46 Repubican senators voting yes and all 52 Democrats voting not to support the resolution.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, sponsored the resolution of disapproval in the Senate. The House version of this resolution was approved in April.

Democrat John Rockefeller — chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation — issued the following statement after the Senate vote:

I am pleased that the Senate voted down this misguided resolution. By keeping the Open Internet rules in place, we can protect consumers, inspire innovation, and foster investment in the broadband economy. These rules are the product of hard work, consensus, and compromise. During this process, the agency received written input from more than 100,000 commenters, 90 percent of which supported adoption of the Open Internet rules. So at the end of the day, the FCC’s light-touch approach to network neutrality prevailed, and that is a good thing.

An e-mail from Sen. Tom Udall’s (D-N.M.) staff sent to the New Mexico Independent read, “The big picture here is that this never would have happened without Sen. Udall’s advocacy on behalf on consumers on this issue.

“And an agreement between the FCC and the wireless companies is extremely encouraging news.”

The Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), the main trade group representing wireless and data companies, collaborated with the FCC ahead of yesterday’s announcement. CTIA sent a memo to its members yesterday on how to comply.

The e-mail from Sen. Udall’s staff followed an article NMI wrote on the ruling yesterday. More news coverage of the decision from others news outlets came out today

Wireless service companies are being asked by the FCC to warn customers when they will begin incurring extra costs for going over their allotments for data and phone minutes.

The request is voluntary and stops short of legislation proposed last year by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) that would have made data and wireless phone companies legally responsible for warning customers of incoming fees.

A recent FCC report noted 30 million Americans suffer “bill shock” — defined by the federal body as a “sudden and unexpected increase in a mobile wireless user’s monthly bill that is not caused by a change in service plans.”

At a Brookings Institution event yesterday FCC chairperson Julius Genachowski said he encountered consumers who endured $34,000 and $18,000 in single monthly bills without prior warning from their cell phone companies.

In some cases, the bills are much higher, but data companies are willing to compromise.

Daniel Watson, a spokesperson for the senator, said given the intransigence of Congress, representative government is still possible through other avenues. “A lot of people have been impacted by bill shock, and Sen. Udall’s bill helped bring that to national attention with a straightforward solution for wireless companies.”

Asked by NMI whether Sen. Udall’s bill would reach the president’s desk, Watson said, “It would take a crystal ball to determine which bills will make it to the President in the current congressional climate.”

The FCC has five members who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate for five-year terms. The current chairperson, Genachowski, was appointed by President Obama after a career in the tech space. He also clerked for liberal Supreme Court justices Justice David Souter and Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.

The FCC currently has four sitting members, with two appointed by the previous Republican administration.

The effort, led by public-interest group Public Knowledge and joined by the Media Action Grassroots Network and the Center for Media Justice, doesn’t call for tech-savvy protesters, just those with access to a phone. Net-neutrality supporters across the country have been asked to call their representatives and encourage a “no” vote to the proposed Repeal Act, that not only would kill the FCC’s regulations, but prevent the agency from ever ruling on this issue again.

For neutral-net supporters, the FCC’s regulations are modest: They don’t protect wireless users and allow various corporate loopholes for Internet companies.

But opponents argued at Wednesday’s hearing before the House Communications and Internet subcommittee on the FCC’s regulations, that the rulings would hurt business and competition.

As the Washington Post reported, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and his colleagues (the regulations passed in December, 3 to 2) defended the regulations against tough questions by Republican opponents, while Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) claimed the FCC’s rule would lead to even more regulations.

“If left unchallenged, this claim of authority would allow the FCC to regulate any matter it discussed in the national broadband plan,” Walden said. “Recall that the FCC concluded that consumers’ concerns over privacy are deterring broadband. Does that mean the FCC can regulate Internet privacy?”

Debates on net neutrality have been ongoing for years, but the finality of the Repeal Act has incited net-neutral supporters, who will be on the phones all day Thursday.

Center for Media Justice Executive Director Malkia A. Cyril wrote a column at the Huffington Post today:

On the heels of the Internet shut down in Egypt, it is more critical than ever that democratic governments limit the authority of private interests to determine what we have access to on the web in order to make more while giving us less. Right now, wireless users aren’t protected by the FCC’s net neutrality rules- providing us with immediate examples of what happens when a vulnerable community is abandoned to private interests.

MetroPCS, termed “Ghettro PCS” by many low-income black and latino subscribers, is a cell phone company that specifically targets its low-cost plans at low-income consumers. On its face, that sounds great. As a black working class wireless user, I want low cost service. But here’s the catch — while MetroPCS claims to offer unlimited service — it’s cheapest packages block phone users from access to the full Internet- allowing them to only use a few sites like Facebook and YouTube. Some say limited access is better than no access at all. But the real question is why can’t low-income phone users get great service at low cost without blocking their access to the whole Internet?

Figures released by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies have revealed that Comcast’s altruistic offer will provide 2.5 million low-income households with broadband, with the price tag set as $10 a month.

Approximately 63.5 percent of U.S. homes currently have access to the internet — under Comcast’s new provision that figure will rise to 65.9 percent, a 2.4 percent increase. Within the low-income camp, the increase is a slightly more notable 7 percent.

Increased access to the internet is increasingly accepted by demographic analysts as an indication of socio-economic advancement, and an essential tool to full participate in today’s economy and society. Joint research by National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Economics and Statistics Administration revealed strong socio-economic patterns in broadband distribution: 94 percent of homes with an income over $100,000 have access to broadband, compared with only 36 percent of homes earning less than $25,000. Education levels also influence the distribution of broadband with 84 percent of household with at least one college graduate having access to broadband, whereas only 28 percent of homes with no high school graduates are online.

But Comcast’s offer to increase access to the internet for America’s low-income population remains an overwhelmingly tiny step within an acquisition that confirms, and guarantees, Camcast’s position as the nation’s largest internet and cable provider.

Comcast’s initially voluntary promise to serve low-income Americans was made a compulsory part of the deal by the FCC — whose role is to protect the public’s interest and play arbitrator between media conglomerates in such deals. FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps remained outspokenly against the deal and warning that the merging of the two media giants put “new media on a road traditional media should never have taken- [further eroding] diversity, localism and competition.”

Comcast and GE, NBC Universal’s parent company, made voluntary commitments that the commission adopted as a condition for the final deal. They included expanding Spanish language programming, offering subsidized broadband internet to low income homes and expanding high speed internet services to schools, libraries and other underserved communities.

Despite these silver linings to the deal, FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps, the capitol’s loudest preacher on the ills of media consolidation, firmly stood against the deal, sardonically observing; “simply blessing business deals is not the FCC’s statutorily-mandated job”.

Copps’ opposition to large-scale media consolidation is predicated on concerns about the considerable market power that Comcast will now wield over programming content and the means of distribution. Copps argues that this deal erodes diversity, localism and competition in the media arena –- the three essential pillars of the public interest standard mandated by law.

However, Comcast has promised to increase the American public’s access to the internet, providing monthly access for low-income housing pegged at $10 per month. As well as being a game-changer in modern communications, according to ICT Development Index (IDI), access to the internet leads to better educational performance and socio-economic advancement.

A recent survey by the Pew Research Group found that 63 percent of American adults currently have access to the internet. But, internet adoption in U.S. households has slowed in recent years. The Comcast provision will possibly re-catalyze the spread of internet access nation-wide.

As of yet, Comcast has not offered any details on how the reduced rate internet will work or who will be eligible. But at the time of writing, Comcast responded to The American Independent’s questions about the provision, and promised to gather the relevant information and figures.

Net neutrality is the concept that internet service providers should not be allowed to filter the web so that certain content loads faster or costs more for user. Advocates fear that without a policy instituting net neutrality, service providers will form partnerships with corporations that make their web content operate faster, thereby shutting out smaller websites and content producers.

In the editorial, titled “The Most Important Free Speech Issue of Our Time,” Franken lays out the reasons why it is necessary for the government to intervene in the operations of how consumers are delivered internet access.

As a source of innovation, an engine of our economy, and a forum for our political discourse, the Internet can only work if it’s a truly level playing field. Small businesses should have the same ability to reach customers as powerful corporations. A blogger should have the same ability to find an audience as a media conglomerate.

Franken goes on to note that the likely FCC regulations would be particularly harmful for rural populations. Separated from the heavily wired urban areas, much of the country will depend on mobile internet access in order to gain access to new technologies. But under the FCC’s plans, mobile companies would be allowed to block users from accessing specific content.

Franken writes:

Mobile networks like AT&T and Verizon Wireless would be able to shut off your access to content or applications for any reason. For instance, Verizon could prevent you from accessing Google Maps on your phone, forcing you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator, even if it costs money to use and isn’t nearly as good. Or a mobile provider with a political agenda could prevent you from downloading an app that connects you with the Obama campaign (or, for that matter, a Tea Party group in your area).

Stressing the importance for net neutrality is not a new issue for Franken. In August he spoke in advance of a FCC meeting in Minneapolis. “Ultimately what I’m afraid of,” said Franken, “is that the internet service providers will be made up of about five companies.”

Cablevision Systems Corp. and Comcast Corp. had challenged the FCC’s decision to keep the rule in place, arguing that the prohibition wasn’t necessary to preserve competition in the paid-TV market.The U.S. Court Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected that challenge in a 2-1 ruling.

The ban was initially passed in by Congress in 1992 and will now remain in effect through 2012. After that, if the ban doesn’t remain in place, Comcast will be able to keep Cablevision and other competitors from broadcasting MSNBC, Bravo, SyFy and USA, among other channels. They are currently arguing that “competition” will keep them from doing so — but competition in non-monopoly cable markets is actually the only reason Comcast would be interested in removing the exclusivity ban in the first place.

I am not a Czar appointed by President Obama. I am not at the FCC to restore the Fairness Doctrine through the front door or the back door, or to carry out a secret plot funded by George Soros to get rid of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or any other conservative talk show host. I am not at the FCC to remove anybody, whatever their color, from power. I am not a supporter of Hugo Chavez. The right wing smear campaign has been, in a word – incredible, generating hate mail and death threats. It is the price we pay for freedom of speech. And I do support free speech.

If so, you’ve probably wondered if there was anything you could do about it. As it turns out, there is — as long as you happen to be married to a powerful senator who sits on the the Senate Commerce Committee.

In June of this year, Verizon Wireless delivered, free of charge, a portable cell phone tower to the 15-acre estate near Sedona, Ariz., owned by Sen. John McCain and his wife, Cindy, according to The Washington Post. In July, AT&T provided another portable tower. One year earlier, Cindy McCain had put in a request on Verizon’s Website to improve cell phone service at her residence.

Over the course of the past year, Cindy McCain had offered land for a permanent cell tower and Verizon embarked on an expensive process to meet her needs, hiring contractors and seeking county land-use permits even though few people other than the McCains would benefit from the tower…

On Sept. 18, 2007, a Mesa, Ariz., contractor working for Verizon surveyed the McCain property. Another contractor drafted blueprints (see document) calling for moving a utility shed and installing a 40-foot tower with two antennas and a microwave dish, surrounded by a six-foot wooden fence.

Construction costs would be $22,000, records show. Industry specialists said the figure probably only covers the tower and fence because the antennas, the dish and power source would run the cost into the six figures.

Why would Verizon and AT&T undertake such expenses on behalf of a very small number of customers? There is at least one possible explanation.

Ethics lawyers said Cindy McCain’s dealings with the wireless companies stand out because Sen. John McCain is a senior member of the Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees the Federal Communications Commission and the telecommunications industry. He has been a leading advocate for industry-backed legislation, fighting regulations and taxes on telecommunications services.

McCain and his campaign have close ties to Verizon and AT&T. Five campaign officials, including campaign manager Rick Davis, have worked as lobbyists for Verizon. Former McCain staffer Robert Fisher is an in-house lobbyist for Verizon and is volunteering for the campaign. Fisher, Verizon chief executive Ivan Seidenberg and company lobbyists have raised more than $1.3 million for McCain’s presidential campaign and Verizon employees are among the top 20 corporate donors over McCain’s political career, giving more than $155,000 to his campaigns.

McCain’s Senate chief of staff Mark Buse, senior strategist Charles R. Black Jr., and several other campaign staffers have registered as AT&T lobbyists in the past. AT&T Executive Vice President Timothy McKone and AT&T lobbyists have raised more than $2.3 million for McCain. AT&T employees have donated more than $325,000 to McCain campaigns, putting the company in the No. 3 spot for career donations to McCain, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

“It raises the aura of special consideration for somebody because he is a member of the Senate,” said Stanley Brand, a former House counsel for Democrats and an ethics attorney who represents politicians of both parties. “Here is a guy who is campaigning as Mr. Maverick and Mr. Reformer and he keeps skirting the edge.”

Some may note that, because McCain is the Republican presidential nominee, his security detail provided by the U.S. Secret Service may require solid coverage to perform its duties. According to the post, the service could have made do with the existing coverage, because it relies on multiple layers of communications, including radio. However, the plans for the permanent tower on the property were well underway by the time the Secret Service contacted Verizon and asked to speed up the process after Memorial Day. The portable towers then arrived promptly.

The Post reports that plans for the permanent tower were killed soon after the newspaper put in a records request, Verizon killed the project, saying “it doesn’t make business sense.”

Not surprisingly, the McCain campaign denies McCain’s position or connections to the telecommunications industry’s lobbyists played any role in the extraordinary attention the Arizona senator received.

And maybe they didn’t. But next time you find yourself living somewhere with sub-par cell phone service, just for fun, why not give Verizon or AT&T a call and request your own personal cell-phone tower and see how quickly they spring into action.