With the death of the last year's video franchising-Net neutrality bill, Democrats have now firmly taken the reins on telecommunications policy in Congress. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii., has legislation designed to map out the availability of broadband, or high-speed Internet connections, in the United States, and it passed out of committee on July 19. Now, this week, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., announced an online effort to write national broadband strategy legislation. He will joined by several telecommunications and Internet experts in open-comment blogging sessions for four nights from July 24 - 27 at OpenLeft.com. Durbin says he will be crafting legislation based on the input he gets during those sessions. He will then post drafts of that legislation online for more feedback before filing it as a bill.

The Well Connected Project at the Center for Public Integrity has been engaged in a joint effort with Congresspedia — we call it Well Connected on SourceWatch — to "map out" knowledge about the policy aspects of telecom, media and intellectual property at this portal. We "seeded" the portal with a variety of key articles, including broadband availability, digital copyright and spectrum policy. But anyone can read, edit and adapt these articles, and we welcome everyone's collaboration!

Linking up these efforts is Conor Kenny, Managing Editor at Congresspedia, in this recent post:

Any good piece of legislation is built on a solid understanding of the available research and data. Sen. Durbin has enlisted several knowledgeable experts to help him in this project and there's been some great discussion in the comments on OpenLeft. But comment threads can only go so long before the, well, threads get tangled.

So, to fully enable collaboration between all the Internet wonks, policy geeks and regular Joes and Janes out there who have some relevant information (or can find some), we've created an open knowledge base on the Congresspedia wiki for Sen. Durbin's project.

While this project is new, it allows us to build on the many articles on telecom, media and intellectual property policy we've already built with the expert reporters at the Center for Public Integrity's "Well Connected" reporting project, like those on spectrum, digital copyright, broadband penetration data and network neutrality.

We've also got experts like the Center for Public Integrity's Drew Clark and Brendan McGarry, Free Press' Tim Karr and Public Knowledge's Art Brodsky making contributions, but in order to really pull this off we're going to need a lot of you guys to get enough eyeballs to make this bug shallow.

Sen. Durbin's staff has let us know they'll be watching to see what we come up with. Hopefully the information we collect will be useful not only in drafting the bill, but also in evaluating the draft when it is posted online.

So come on in, the water's fine.

Today, the Well Connected Project of the Center for Public Integrity is excited to launch an issue portal jointly with Congresspedia. This issue portal is a wiki, like Wikipedia, creating a collection of articles on telecom, media and technology policy, in a single location. Anyone can read, write and edit these articles.

This issue portal builds on the great telecom and technology reporting done by the members of the Well Connected Project staff. This venture into collaborative journalism is a first for our project. It adds a new element to our investigative journalism endeavor. First of all, we have the Media Tracker, a free database of more than five million records that tells you who owns the media where you live by typing in you ZIP code. If we win our lawsuit against the FCC, we'll also include company-specific broadband information in the Media Tracker.

Second, our blog features dozens of quick-turnaround stories on the hottest topics in telecom and media policy. Recent stories have broken news on the battle over 700 Megahertz, on the lobbying over the proposed XM-Sirius satellite radio merger, and also over copyright controls on electronic devices. We also do investigative reports – like this one about Sam Zell, the new owner of Tribune Co. – that build on the data that is freely available in Media Tracker.

Now, with the addition of this Congresspedia wiki, our project aims to incorporate citizen-journalism on key public policy issues near and dear to the blogosphere. These are issues like Broadband availability, Digital copyright, Digital television, Regulating media content, and Spectrum are at the core of what techies care about in Washington. We hope you will add others articles, too. In fact, I've already started my own wish list: articles about Patent overhaul legislation, Media ownership, the Universal Service Fund, and Video franchising. Our reporters can summarize these issues and debates, but so can you.

Take a crack at them!

Just as exciting is the next phase of the project. Congresspedia plans to install live feeds into the Wiki from the Center's Media Tracker. Center reporters also will use citizen journalists to enhance coverage of more than 300 corporations in the information industries currently profiled in the Media Tracker.

Because of its higher standards of sourcing and accountability than other wikis, Congresspedia is well suited to this citizen-journalism endeavor. Congresspedia and SourceWatch have been maintaining this politics- and policy-related wiki for four years, and we're eager to contribute to this mix.

Finally, Congresspedia articles are posted under the GNU Free Documentation License, which is kind of a copyright-free license – similar to Creative Commons licenses. We've been doing something similar with the datasets in our Media Tracker. We hope our Media Tracker policy license can serve as a model for other database providers that want to encourage more public policy-related usage of the data they collect.

Please see Well Connected on SourceWatch for our list of featured articles, as well as the history of the collaboration with Congresspedia. And while you are there, don't forget to check in at the WikiProject page. We'll be itemizing the tasks that we'd most like you, citizen-journalists and citizen-editors, to engage in. And if you want to leave feedback, please drop a note on the WikiProject's talk page.

-Drew Clark

By Brendan McGarry

WASHINGTON, July 12, 2007 –Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., held up a shiny new iPhone during a hearing Wednesday on Capitol Hill to illustrate the dilemma facing millions of American consumers: the device only works on AT&T's cellular network.

Apple customers have had to shell out $500 to $600 for the sleek-looking phone – which doubles as a digital music player and Web browser – and sign a two-year service agreement with the phone giant that is estimated to cost $2,300 over the life of the contract. In addition, existing wireless customers will likely cancel their current contracts, paying a penalty of up to $175.

"This highlights problems with the current marketplace structure, where devices are provided by carriers, portability of devices to other carriers is limited or non-existent, and many consumers feel trapped having bought an expensive device or having been locked into a long-term contract with significant penalties for switching," Markey said.

Markey chaired Wednesday's House Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee hearing on wireless innovation and consumer protection. While he commended Verizon Wireless for recently deciding to pro-rate early termination fees, he said the top cellular companies still exert far too much control over consumers, device-makers and entrepreneurs who want to deliver new products and services over their nationwide networks.

Panelists debated the merits of putting wholesale and so-called "open access" provisions on a slice of spectrum the Federal Communications Commission is planning to auction in coming months. The provisions are designed to weaken incumbents' control over the kinds of devices and applications that are used on their networks.

Unlike in Europe and Asia, for example, in the United States the vast majority of cell phones are "locked" onto a network owned by one of nation's top carriers – AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile, which together control roughly 85 percent of the U.S. cellular market. The companies act as retailers, in addition to service providers.

"I'm an entrepreneur, and I'm mad as hell that I'm restricted to innovate," said panelist Jason Devitt, a Silicon Valley inventor who develops wireless products and services for consumer and small businesses.

The concept of open access is embraced by Web-dependent companies like Google and Skype, as well as consumer advocacy groups – but not by the incumbent phone and cable companies. They say they want control over the quality and service of their broadband and wireless networks.

According to reports published this week, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has drafted rules for the upcoming auction that would put some form of open access requirements on more than two-thirds of the spectrum on the auction block. The new frequencies are being made available as broadcasters transition to digital television. The news of the open access rules met instant criticism from the wireless industry. Steve Largent, president of wireless association CTIA called the proposal "Silicon Valley welfare." The FCC is expected to release the spectrum rules in July or August.

Verizon attorney Steven Zipperstein testified that open access rules are unnecessary. He said that market forces would respond to customer demand. He pointed to the popularity of Motorola's RAZR phone, which debuted in the United States on the former Cingular's network (now AT&T) in November 2004 for $500. The price dropped to the point where carriers now give it away for free with a service plans. "We didn't need government to tell us to do that," he said.

Zipperstein said Verizon receives thousands of calls, e-mails and letters a day from customers with complaints and service suggestions – but not requests to attach other devices to its network. Nevertheless, he said his company has responded to the market by offering the Blackberry 8830, a CDMA device capable of roaming on the GSM network.

Markey said and other lawmakers asked the panelists whether policymakers should extend to wireless networks a 1960s-era FCC decision mandating the ability to use competing devices on the wire-based telephone network. Dubbed Carterphone after the name of the device, the decision effectively broke Ma Bell's monopoly control over its rotary phones and network. The historic decision paved the way for the development of electronic phones, fax machines and computer modems over wires.

Professor Timothy Wu, a copyright and telecommunications professor at Columbia Law School, said regulators should adopt rules that encourage device portability. He noted the uniqueness of American carriers' grip over cellular devices, and argued instead that cell phones are supposed to be the rightful property of the owner. "Imagine if you put this model on TV," he said, and your television monitor suddenly stopped working because you decided to switch cable providers.

Rep. Chip Pickering, R-Miss., pointed out the differences between open access and net neutrality – the concept of barring Internet service providers from offering expedited service to favored businesses. Pickering said the federal government has created successful wholesale markets in other industries, including energy. He described a wholesale business model as "the best way to ensure a non-regulatory solution."

But other Republicans scoffed at such provisions and underscored the success of the cellular market, which they described as one of the most competitive in the country.

Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said the number of cellular subscribers has leaped from 25 million in the early 1990s to 225 million today, while carriers' revenue per minute has dropped from nine cents per minute in 2004 to seven cents per minute in 2005. "The industry is incredibly competitive," he said.

By Brendan McGarry

WASHINGTON, July 3, 2007 – AT&T Senior Vice President Robert Quinn, Jr., on Monday told the Federal Communications Commission that the agency should reject encumbrances on radio frequencies that the agency is scheduled to put up for auction.

In a letter filed with the Federal Communications Commission and made public on Tuesday, Quinn said that Frontline Wireless was "overreaching" when it claimed that "lots of bidders" would be attracted to the restricted-use spectrum.

The spectrum at issue is within the 700 Megahertz (MHz) band of frequencies to be made available after broadcasters switch to digital television.

The AT&T letter is the latest shot in a lobbying squabble since the Center for Public Integrity's "Well Connected" Project reported that AT&T was considering a bid for the restricted-use spectrum – even if the telephone giant had to share those airwaves with competitors and public safety agencies.

"It's a different business model for us, but one that we'd be looking at," Quinn said in the interview. "If, in the end, that spectrum is attached to public safety, and for example there's a wholesale requirement, we'll take a look at it."

AT&T has not disputed the accuracy of the quotation.

In its latest filing, AT&T repeated its position "that, like any other potential bidder in the 700 MHz auction, AT&T would examine the Commission's final service rules" before deciding whether to made a bid.

The article reporting Quinn's statement soon became lobbying fodder for Frontline, a startup company attempting to build a nationwide broadband wireless network to be used by both first responders and consumers.

Frontline's plan calls for the FCC to award 10 MHz, of the 60 MHz that are scheduled to be auctioned by January 2008, to a licensee that would operate a wireless network on a wholesale, open access basis.

With the transition to digital television, police and firefighters are scheduled to receive 24 MHz of adjacent spectrum to allow interoperable radio communications by first responders.

In a June 27 letter to the FCC, Frontline used the Center's report to bolster its case for putting restrictions the so-called "E Block," or the 10 MHz at issue.

Frontline is a politically connected company led in part by Clinton Administration FCC Chairman Reed Hundt. They want to pair the E Block frequencies with 12 MHz of spectrum set aside for public safety to build a new nationwide broadband wireless network that could be used by both first responders and consumers. The plan calls for the winning licensee to operate the network on a wholesale, open access basis.

Frontline included the Center's article in a June 27 letter to the FCC, arguing the story "confirms" that the company's proposal will attract lots of bidders; that wholesale, open access operation of the spectrum is a workable business model; and that such conditions aren't a "poison pill," the term used to describe provisions designed to discourage incumbent carriers from participating in the auction.

The "Well Connected" Project's June 25 story also reported that AT&T was awaiting "final service rules before deciding whether or not to place a bid." It also quoted from previous AT&T filings rejecting open access.

In its July 2 filing, Quinn claimed that the previous story "completely mischaracterized the conversation" and "attempt[ed] to turn a non-position into a newsworthy" article about AT&T's interest in bidding on the restricted-use spectrum. Quinn didn't return a call seeking clarification on Tuesday.

"Our filings clearly indicate our position," AT&T spokesman Michael Balmoris said Tuesday. "We are against mandated open access requirements."

"Mandated wholesale requirements or 'open access' conditions placed on the upper 700 MHz E Block or any other licenses in the 700 MHz band should be rejected by the commission, as should the 'poison pill' laden proposal put forth by Frontline," Quinn said in his July 2 letter.

"The commission should continue to allow market forces, and not regulatory fiat, to shape the development of telecommunications services," the letter continued. "The Frontline proposal is inconsistent with this principle and forces public safety agencies to rely on an untested business plan."

AT&T wants the commission to designate three commercial blocks of spectrum in the upper 700 MHz band – two 11 MHz blocks and one 10 MHz block – to encourage greater auction participation, according to the filing. "Retaining a single large 20 MHz (or 22 MHz) block in the upper 700 MHz band (along with a possible 10 MHz block for a public-private partnership) will discourage participation in the upcoming auction and inhibit the development of new competition in this band," it states.

Also on Tuesday, Frontline responded to a group of lawmakers who, in a June 29 letter, urged FCC Chairman Kevin Martin to reject the company's proposal. The 16 legislators, including Reps. Joe Barton, R-Texas, and Fred Upton, R-Mich., criticized Frontline for attempting "to get valuable spectrum on the cheap."

In their Tuesday response, Frontline said: "Unfortunately, you have been given incorrect information about the Frontline Plan and about the auction. This misinformation goes to the heart of the positions taken in your letter."

By Drew Clark

WASHINGTON, July 3, 2007 – The Federal Trade Commission intends to monitor the information that telecom and cable companies provide about high-speed Internet service in the service plans they offer to customers, according to a report issued last week by the agency.

The FTC asserts in the report, released on June 27, that since it has jurisdiction over matters involving consumer protection, it "will continue to enforce the consumer protection laws in the area of broadband access."

The 165-page report has been greeted as inadequate by groups seeking network neutrality requirements, or rules barring broadband companies from offering expedited service to favored businesses.

Net neutrality was much debated last year, when Congress considered a major overhaul of telecommunications law. The bill foundered when the Senate failed to pass an amendment imposing Net neutrality rules.

Telecommunications carriers in turn praised the FTC report for its cautionary language against new neutrality rules.

The FTC report includes a recitation of varying views for and against Net neutrality expressed at an FTC workshop in February 2007. Most of the report focuses on the antitrust implications of broadband competition.

The sections on consumer protection promise a more active role by the FTC. The FTC appears to be carving out a niche in monitoring behavior by companies that offer broadband service.

The FTC embraces and resurrects a policy statement on Net neutrality made by former Federal Communications Commissioner Chairman Michael Powell.

That statement – concerning the "freedom to obtain service plan information" from broadband carriers – has since been dropped by the FCC.

The consumer protection sections of the FTC report raise this question: are broadband providers engaging in a deceptive practice when they advertise a connection speed of, for example, "up to" 768 kilobits per second (kbps) – and yet actual speeds are considerably lower?

There are lingering "questions involving the clear and conspicuous disclosure of material terms of broadband Internet access," including these advertised service speeds, the report notes.

If the commission determines that claims about Internet connection speeds are "material" to the contracts that providers make with consumers, it could enforce such a breach. Alternatively, the report raises the prospect that the FTC might develop "guidance to industry regarding the critical information that broadband providers should disclose to their customers and potential customers."

"Such enforcement will remain crucial to fostering competition in the broadband area – with or without the enactment of some form of network neutrality legislation," the report concluded.

"I agree that we have the authority that we need to do consumer protection in this arena," FTC Commissioner Jon Leibowitz, a Democrat, said in a Tuesday interview.

"When then-FCC Chairman Michael Powell spoke about what he called the four 'Internet Freedoms' in 2004, one of his principal concerns was with protecting consumers from having to choose Internet service plans without sufficient information about those plans from broadband providers," Leibowitz wrote in a concurrent statement released along with the FTC report.

Powell's four freedoms also included consumers' freedom to access content, consumers' freedom to use Internet applications, and consumers' freedom to attach personal devices to the Internet in their homes.

With minor variations, those three principles are included in the FTC's August 2005 policy statement on Net neutrality. But the statement about the availability of service plan information was replaced by the principle that there should be "competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers."

Powell left the agency and was succeeded by Kevin Martin as chairman in March 2005.

"Powell thought [service plan information] was so important that it should be included as a basic freedom, something that consumers should absolutely have access to, just like we can look at a label and know what the ingredients are in any given food," said David Isenberg, a telecom consultant critical of the Bell companies and supportive of Net neutrality.

"As to why it disappeared under the Martin FCC, I can only assume that it was because the industry didn't want to divulge that," Isenberg said.

An FCC official said that the issue of issue of broadband service plans had never been adopted as agency policy, and was not being considered in the current Net neutrality inquiry.

However, the question of whether companies should "categorize broadband connection by the download and upload speeds experienced by actual customers rather than the theoretical maximum that a given network can support" has been raised in a separate ongoing FCC proceeding on broadband data.

The FTC report, and Leibowitz in particular, emphasize the FTC's role in enforcing advertised claims about speed and service availability.

"That Freedom is particularly important to us at the FTC," Leibowitz declared in his statement. "It implicates some of the most important issues regarding consumer rights on the Internet – transparency and disclosure. Will carriers slow down or interfere with applications or services? If so, will consumers be told about this before they sign up? How fast will a consumer's Internet connection actually be? Will they get adequate information about it? To my mind, failure to disclose such material terms could be considered 'unfair or deceptive' in violation of the FTC Act. I have no doubt that the FTC will move aggressively to protect consumers using our existing authority."

In the Tuesday interview, Leibowitz said he issued his concurring statement because he wanted to underscore the fact that actions by broadband carriers may "be anticompetitive even if they don't rise to the level of an antitrust violation."

The FTC splits jurisdiction of antitrust matters with the Justice Department, although the FTC has specific authority over "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce."

According to Maureen Ohlhausen, director of the FTC's Office of Planning and the chair of the Internet Access Task Force, the goal of the report was "not try to define any relevant antitrust market" because it "did not seem appropriate or necessary."

The FTC lacked data about specific practices in the competition arena, and did not undertake one because it would be "expensive and [take] a long time complete," said Ohlhausen. She did not comment on further investigation into broadband provider's potentially deceptive marketing practices regarding Internet speeds.

Reporter Andrew MacRae contributed to this report.