![]() |
Home About Blog on this site! Contact LLFCC History 10B History 110F Join the LLFCC listserv Login/Register Search |
Fri, May 16, 1:06am
|
FCC MIA on Call Home Act proceeding?
by Matthew Lasar Jan 10 2008 - 6:39pm Broadband
"We intend to issue shortly a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to propose and seek comment on additional steps the Commission might take to further implement the Call Home Act and thus further reduce the cost to military personnel of calling home." So the Federal Communications Commission declared on January 18th of last year. As the first anniversary of that promise approaches, LLFCC can find no sign that it will be kept. A spokesperson for the FCC contacted by this blog declined to comment on when such a proceeding might begin. To recap: Congress passed the Call Home Act in December of 2006: "A bill to direct the Federal Communications Commission to make efforts to reduce telephone rates for Armed Forces personnel deployed overseas." The FCC initially followed through on the mandate by permitting phone companies not to charge Universal Service Fund (USF) and Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) tolls on Armed Forces personnel collect calls, or those made with pre- and post-paid calling cards. The USF funds telephone service for low income families; TRS finances and regulates telecommunications services for the deaf and hard-of-hearing. "Exempting calls made by Armed Forces personnel stationed and deployed abroad from current USF and TRS contribution obligations will provide clear benefits to our dedicated Armed Forces personnel, which far outweigh any potential costs," the FCC declared in its January 2006 Order implementing Call Home. "And to ensure that Armed Forces personnel benefit from our actions, we emphasize that providers of such calls should flow through any cost savings in the form of lower prices." The Commission also set up an e-mail address for soldiers and their families to use to tell the FCC how much they pay for cell phone and broadband services in Iraq and elsewhere: . As LLFCC reported in September, the agency got an earful from the wives of servicemen. They complained about exorbitant calling card costs (mostly AT&T cards) and sporadic service. "When the Internet is down, we spend ALOT of money on phone cards," an Iraq based serviceman's wife disclosed. "One week it cost 350 dollars. We couldn't keep up at that rate. Currently we can't afford to talk to one another on the phone, so his mother buys us minutes every now and then. . . . I think his Internet costs 75 a month, however it is down a lot. Phone communication is best for our insanity, but we buy like 1200 minutes on the card for 100 dollars but it is really only like 200 or 300 minutes (which doesn't last long!). It would be awesome if the minutes were more affordable." In addition, several telecom specialists complained that the USF exemption was unworkable. "You provided no lead time for planning how to configure billing systems to exclude military calls from the USF/TRS base," one commenter observed. "Specifically, how would you recommend that carriers identify these calls? For example, how will the billing system be able to differentiate a collect call from a U.S. military person from any other collect call that would not be exempt." Since the FCC posted those comments on its docket database last summer, LLFCC has neither seen or heard of any further activity on this important issue. At around the same time that Call Home was enacted, Internet guru and all-purpose futurist Jeff Pulver noted that the Von Coalition, representing Voice Over Internet Protocol services, chimed in on the matter, suggesting that VoIP could provide solutions. "In some cases, incumbent telephone carriers who also control the broadband network have unilaterally blocked users from communicating with VoIP over their broadband network," a Von rep wrote to the Office of United States Trade in December of 2006.
Some serious questions being raised here. But until the FCC starts a Notice on this issue, it can't come up with solutions—the Von Coalition's or anyone else's. In addition, the Commission has posted no further military service family comments on its docket, none since the summer. What's the FCC waiting for? Doubtless more than a few military families hope to hear from the agency on this issue soon. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
add new comment printer friendly version
Call Home Act
sherry gendelman Jan 14 2008 - 4:26am
Does LLFCC have an opinion of what political reason underly the FCC's inaction? Are there any members of Congress who are responding to this?
reply
Call Home Act dilemma
Matthew Lasar Jan 14 2008 - 10:16am
I am speculating here, but this issue appears to have gotten lost in the cross fire of partisanship and that labyrinth of causes generally classified as "media reform." In a general sense, the Call Home Act is closely related to the war in Iraq, which means that everyone wants to talk about it and nobody wants to deal with it. For the Right, "support the troops" means keeping them in Iraq, claiming that The Surge was a big success, and ignoring everything else. As for the anti-war Left, it is somewhat confused about the war at this point. A lot of activists who opposed the war initially aren't sure what to do now. And the while the anti-war movement's principals have avoided the Vietnam mistake—flinging shame on returning veterans—they have no framework for dealing with problems like the inflated cost of calling home for the soldiers. As for the media reform movement, there's probably some interest given that AT&T dominates the military calling card market in Iraq (see the first comment on this thread). But I suspect that because all roads to this problem lead to Baghdad, the usual non-profits will steer clear of it. I hope to be proven wrong. And as for the FCC, it may be that because much of this dilemma sits at AT&T's door, Commission Chair Kevin Martin will keep a lid on it. But it also may be that the sheer volume of issues confronting the Commission right now—media ownership, the Comcast wars, forbearance, indecency, translators, XM/Sirius, just to name a few—have by default shunted the question of how to enforce the Call Home Act to the B list, if not the C or D list. LLFCC did contact staff for Senators John McCain and Barbara Boxer on this issue. A McCain official offered a polite but non-committal response. It doesn't speak well about any of us that this matter has been so ignored. In the end, the injured constituency is not commuting satellite radio listeners who want Sirius to survive, or Competitive Local Exchange Carriers who support net neutrality, or the middle class communities that run public access TV stations or use BitTorrent. The aggrieved here are the mothers and wives of the predominantly working class grunts doing time in Iraq; they hoping to make it back home alive, and hurting to keep in touch with their families and friends. These people have neither the time, the money, or the clout to make their voices heard on this issue, and that's the bottom line.
reply
NSA Wiretaps. The Gift that Keeps On Giving.
bj (not verified) Jan 11 2008 - 2:09pm
Martin, the FCC chair, and a first-degree Dubya A$$kisser, will not shut off the Iraq Telecom Money Spigot that drains into the AT&T coffers as long as AT&T is helping this corrupt administration wiretap US citizens. There's also been some buzz that AT&T is traffic shaping against voip calls from their network in Iraq so that our soldiers have no choice but to pay for a landline call. And who do you think controls the landlines at exhorbitant prices? It's time to bring some strong sunlight into the FCC and other agencies (DOJ, DOI, FDA, USDA, etc) and stop special interests from buying regulatory largesse. Does anyone wanna guess that Martin has a cushy job waiting for him at AT&T when he's out of the FCC???
reply
|
|
LLFCC (Lasar's Letter on the FCC); copyright 2005, 2006, 2007.
Please feel free to post these articles on your site or whatever because you'll do it anyway. Don't forget to credit the author and link to the site. Ideally you will post part of the article and add a link to the rest. |