Consolidated Communications says that while it's still very early days with its 1 Gbps fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) service rollout in Kansas City, the service is resonating with eligible users and it expects to see take rates continue to ramp throughout the rest of the year. Bob Udell, CEO and president of Consolidated Communications, said the debut of the 1 Gbps service is having the side effect of driving interest in higher speed broadband overall. "With respect to take rates on 1-Gigabit or the benefit that it brought us, it's really early, we're really about the quarter and a half, maybe four months into that and it's getting traction nicely, and let me tell you what is really the benefit: It's caused other conversations with our customers," Udell said. "And so while the Gig is of interest, few people really need that kind of speed and we're seeing that uptick and our 100-Meg or 50-Meg or 20-Meg products, and so the conversation with the customer has really been the initial best benefit from the launch but I'm sure that we'll see take rates on the Gig pick up too in the short term future." Udell added that the penetration rate of the 1 Gbps service is around 5 percent, something that will grow as it brings it into additional markets in its service footprint. It has not revealed where and what markets will be the next to get the 1 Gbps service yet.
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
House Commerce Committee
Friday, May 15, 2015
9:15 AM
http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/fcc-reauthorization-improving-co...
The Subcommittee on Communications and Technology will examine additional bills to improve transparency and process at the FCC. Members will also review a number of additional draft proposals offered by Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) and the Democratic members of the subcommittee.
Discussion Drafts
Hundreds of outside parties will not get access to programming contracts and work products submitted to the Federal Communications Commission as part of its review of the AT&T/DirecTV merger. A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has unamimously upheld programmers' challenge to the FCC's decision to do so. "We find the Commission’s action both substantively and procedurally flawed," the court said in vacating the order. "[B]y failing to explain why Video Programing Contract Information (VCPI) is a 'necessary link in a chain of evidence that will resolve an issue before the Commission,' the Commission has failed to overcome its -- and Congress’s -- presumption against disclosure of confidential information.” The court said the issue boiled down to: "May the Commission disclose petitioners’ confidential information to third parties and may it do so on a timeline so swift as to effectively preclude judicial review?" The court concluded that the FCC had not justified why this confidential information needed to be disclosed, and was troubled by the FCC's race to judgment. "We share petitioners’ apprehension about a process that puts tremendous pressure on the Commission, the parties, and this court to get their ducks in a row in a short time."
Regarding the decision, Public Knowledge stated, "It's unfortunate that this decision could put hurdles in the way of outside parties who are trying to make the case against the AT&T/DirecTV or any other merger. In the short term, however, the effect on the AT&T/DirecTV merger is likely to be limited, as the Commission is still fully able to review all relevant programming contracts. The confidential programming information in question, while relevant to the AT&T/DirecTV transaction, was more central to the Comcast/Time Warner Cable transaction, which has been resolved.However, we are worried that this decision contains language that could be interpreted to limit the ability of the public and outside parties to participate meaningfully in the merger review process. It could make it more difficult for outside parties to show that particular confidential information is a 'necessary link in a chain of evidence' before gaining access to it. It is, of course, challenging to make that showing with respect to information one has not yet reviewed, and the FCC's usual practice has reflected that."
The USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 (HR 2048) would make several amendments to the investigative and surveillance authorities of the United States government, and would specify the conditions under which the federal government may conduct certain types of surveillance. The Congressional Budget Office does not provide estimates for the cost of classified programs; therefore, this estimate addresses only the unclassified aspects of the bill. Under that limitation, CBO estimates that implementing HR 2048 would cost $15 million over the 2016-2020 period, subject to the appropriation of the necessary amounts. Enacting the USA FREEDOM Act also could affect direct spending and revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply.
The bill could result in the collection of additional criminal penalties because it would extend the authority of the government to conduct surveillance in certain instances for four years and would establish new crimes relating to certain acts of terrorism. Such penalties are recorded as revenues, deposited int he Crime Victims Fund, and later spent. CBO anticipates that any additional amounts collected under the bill would be minimal and the net impact on the deficit of any additional collections and spending would be insignificant.
[Commentary] I’ve previously written about what I call the “Problem At the Heart of the Privacy Profession” -- chiefly that we don’t have anything close to agreement on the definition of the very thing, (Personally identifiable information), which is at the foundation of all that we do. And given the fact that we’re on a shaky foundation, it should probably come as little surprise that it becomes even harder to pin down the beams on higher floors. I posit that there are two fundamental reasons why we see this disparity more in privacy than in other fields and why we face significant hurdles in developing consensus. The first reason is that most people simply don’t have sufficient understanding of the technologies underpinning the majority of these terms to have a well-formed basis from which to converse. It’s a potentially harsh statement, but it is unfortunately truer than ever. The second reason is simpler. Good old-fashioned motivated reasoning. Unlike defining obscenity, the problem with many of these privacy terms is that we don’t see a normal continuum with less disagreement at the ends but rather a polarized bimodal distribution.
At the risk of being glass half-empty, I don’t see a fix to this problem happening anytime soon. I fear that, for the foreseeable future, we may be stuck either continuing to use terms with no consensus definition or creating definitions that hide both our lack of understanding and our bias through sufficiently fuzzy language or amorphous exceptions. So let me end by apologizing that I, in fact, don’t have a suggested fix other than to say that the first step in fixing any problem is acknowledging its existence, and it is time to acknowledge that, all too often, I don’t think it means what [we] think it means.
[Commentary] Many in Congress would no doubt like to stick it to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler for some of his bold moves. Now they have a chance. Four Senators have introduced a bill that would grandfather existing joint sales agreements. Passage would give a nice boost to broadcasters who do nothing but provide a superior news and entertainment TV service to the American public free of charge. And it would show that Congress still has some say in FCC affairs. Addendum: The NAB is going to ask the FCC to give broadcasters more time to move their channels during the incentive auction repack. The FCC should grant it because it just can't be done in 39 months.
The Federal Communications Commission appears serious about changing the rules of the Universal Service/ Connect America Fund to allow rural carriers to collect funding to support lines that are used only to deliver broadband service, rather than requiring voice to also be part of the offering. Stand-alone broadband and other USF reforms were the focus of an address made by FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly at the spring meeting of WTA – Advocates for Rural Broadband.
WTA was originally known as the Western Telecommunications Alliance but now represents 280 smaller rural telecom providers nationwide, as well as some manufacturers. “It is absolutely critical to complete the Connect America Fund reforms,” said Commissioner O’Rielly in prepared remarks for his WTA address. He also noted that “you have my firm commitment . . . that I will work as hard as possible to deliver the remaining pieces of USF reform, especially as it pertains to CAF for rate-of-return carriers.”
C-SPAN is teaming with the major news networks to share personnel and other costs while covering even more events in real time along the campaign trail. Ted Johnson, a political reporter for Variety, walked up the steps of the iconic bright red C-SPAN school bus parked on the floor of the national cable TV convention. He just wanted to say hi. And why not? After all, if you’re a political journalist, the same just-the-facts network that’s long inspired “Saturday Night Live” skits is very much a key part of your reporting arsenal. Now, financial necessity appears to be the mother of C-SPAN-bred invention, all probably to the enhanced benefit of reporters and politics junkies gearing up for the 2016 presidential campaign. And it may be particularly true for the large number of reporters whose outlets can’t afford to have them on the road for appreciable, if even any, time due to budget cuts. The new approach is C-SPAN’s way of staying atop most every upcoming twist and turn in a long campaign.
Seven of 10 US seniors surveyed by ORC International for Keeping Americans Connected to Opportunity (KACO) believe they “should continue to have access to wireless Lifeline and other benefits that have been promised to them.” Surveying Americans 60 and over, ORC and KACO found:
“This is just a question of fundamental fairness. A large number of older Americans on fixed incomes benefit from the wireless Lifeline program,” said Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans. “It is their connection to health care, part-time work, needed community services, and law enforcement help. These are exactly the kind of people that wireless Lifeline was set up to serve and they should not be subject to either losing access or having to pay a fee or tax in in order to participate.”
How do we define “in the public interest” in the Digital Age? Here’s unique perspectives on communications policy debates. We invite you to comment on these original posts; <a href="https://www.benton.org/user">start by registering</a> for a benton.org account. Interested in sharing your own article? Contact our Executive Editor, Kevin Taglang at headlines@benton.org
© 1994-2025 Benton Institute for Broadband & Society. All Rights Reserved.
