20 Years of FCC Section 706 Comments and Complaints

This is a partial list, starting in 1998 with the first Section 706 report; we filed over 20 times from 1998-2010 pertaining to Section 706 and broadband, and have just filed in the 13th Section 706 Report.

  •  Comment1 Comment 2  Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, Section 706 Inquiry GN 17-199

Regardless of Democrat or Republican, the FCC has been captured by the phone and cable companies. And regardless of the hype and “good intentions”, we present a full record of the corruption of the 706 Reports to Congress and the Public—over a 19 year period.

Simply put, the FCC rewrote the history of broadband in America – and it has made harmful public policies that, going forward, will get a great deal worse unless confronted – finally, with legal actions.

While a loosely-based consortium of experts, auditors and lawyers, now called the IRREGULATORS, has emerged, and in some of the last 19 years we had hoped that the FCC would ‘do the right thing’, we have no illusions about this FCC.

This is a sample, focusing on the Section 706 proceedings. And this is not a history lesson. From the FCC’s failure to examine the current financial cross subsidies that have been caused by the FCC’s own cost accounting rules that makes local wired phone customers defacto investors of the current and future wireless networks, to abandoning rural customers

Note: We have put up some of the documents, but left the filings intact, thus some of the links, emails, addresses, etc. are no longer correct.

COMMENT 1: New Networks Institute Comments, 1998

“Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecom Act of 1996.”

“NNI believes that the history of state-level incentive regulation plans shows that it would be unwise for the Commission to adopt any form of regulatory policy that gives the RBOCs regulatory benefits, such as relaxed regulation or lessened oversight, in exchange for the hope or promise that increased RBOC deployment of advanced network capabilities will be the result.”

Comment 2: Advanced Telecommunications Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

“The FCC Should Not Grant The Bells Any New Financial Incentives And Should Investigate The Bells Failure To Deliver On Promised Advanced Networks Despite Previous Incentives. — Our record is clear. The FCC’s is broken.”

Comment 3: The FCC’s Report was a total white-washing and never detailed any state-based commitments and lowered America’s broadband standard.

“Baby Bell Expose Refutes FCC Advanced Network Report and Calls for an Investigation of “Info-Scandal”.

“As we will demonstrate, the FCC’s Report is a white-washing, attempting to show that the Telecom Act worked and has delivered on its promises to give Americans new services. Unfortunately, the Report is filled with numerous serious flaws.”

“However, there is an abundance of evidence the FCC has ignored or not considered —literally hundreds of documents that detail the failure of the Bells to deliver broadband to the public in a ‘timely and reasonable’ manner.”

Comment 4: Petition to Fix Section 706 Reports


Comments 5: New Networks, 2001

Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced, Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecom Act of 1996.

Questions Asked:

  • Is America really going to have the inferior ADSL product over the 100 year-old-copper wire as its broadband future?
  • Did the American public pay in excess of $58 billion dollars for a fiber-optic network they will never receive? And are they still paying for it in the form of excessive phonerates?
  • Why hasn’t the FCC investigated the issues of the Bells’ failed broadband deployment?
  • Why hasn’t the FCC investigated and enforced the laws to protect
  • competitors?

Comments 6: NTIA FILING

Notice, Request for Comments on Deployment of Broadband Networks and Advanced Telecommunications Docket No. 011109273-1273-01] RIN 0660-XX13

“New Networks Institute believes that allowing the Bells into any new services or giving them any new incentives is tantamount to rewarding the Bell monopolies for fraudulent behavior.  History clearly shows that the new incentives will in no way bring advanced networks sooner or cheaper….If the NTIA is really concerned about the future of American telecommunications, it must take a clear, fresh look at the data — and not use data supplied by the Bell companies, through it myriad of Bell funded reports, lobbying groups, and other spin doctors.”

Comment 7: COMPLAINT: How Much Money Did the Bell Companies Collect from Customers for BroadbandNetworks They Will Never Receive?, 2003

Teletruth Files Complaint Against the FCC: The FCC’s Broadband Analyses are Seriously Flawed and Calls for a “Broadband True-Up”, Not a ‘Customer Takings’.“

This Complaint outlines the fact that the FCC data on broadband is completely lacking all information about the state deployments.

What’s even more amazing is that:

  • The FCC has failed to include any of the commitments made on the state level in their broadband
  • The FCC has failed to analyze any of issues related to the customer funding of fiber-optic networks that were never delivered
  • The FCC has failed to examine the funding of DSL deployment and implementation by customers through higher phonerates
  • Some states, including Oregon and Louisiana are allowing the phone companies to charge customers for the development of these  services as part of their local phone charges —Even though  DSL is defined as a nonregulated Interstate Information service.
  •  The FCC has failed to incorporate any of the state fiber-optic funding issues in regards to increased charges added to Competitor-based prices

“The FCC has totally ignored any of the state broadband plans or the issue of customer-funding of these new networks. However, in the next few days the FCC may rule that competitors will be blocked from using customer-funded networks. If the FCC goes through with this, it will be “customer takings”, because the FCC will be giving a private company, the local Bell monopoly, sole rights to networks being funded through excess rates, where the Customer has been a defacto investor.” Adds Kushnick.

Comments 8: Petition with the Texas ISP Association

  • http://irregulators.org/petitionisp/

This Petition, filed with the Texas ISP Association, outlines multiple problems created by the Bell companies currently facing the Internet Service Providers in supplying broadband. This includes DSL predatory pricing, and sub-standard customer services, among other issues.

Comments 9-14: Teletruth & New Networks file Regulatory Flexability Act Challenge in Triennial Review and Mutliple comments

Teletruth filed: The FCC’s Triennial Review is in violation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act’s mandate to include small businesses in the decision making process. The Triennial Review helps to put Internet Providers out of business.

15) Proposed Congressional Bill: Broadband Bill of Rights

In 2001, Teletruth worked with Congressmen Nadler to create a broadband bill to protect the rights of customers and small businesses who receive sub-standard customer services.

16) Reply Comments and & Data Quality Complaint, Section 706 4th inquiry

“Teletruth petitions the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to redo sections of every broadband report presented to the public since. 1998 in relationship to Section 706 of the Telecom Act, and to correct flaws in both the data and the analysis of broadband deployment in …

“This challenge under Federal Data Quality Act is based on TeleTruth’s conclusions that seriously flawed, unduly selective and biased statistical analysis has been presented to Congress, regulators, and the public. It has distorted ALL public policies in the United States toward broadband deployment, as well as harmed the entire financial health of the economy.

“In short, Teletruth believes that the FCC’s data and analysis fails the Federal Data Quality Act’s basic tenets of quality, transparency, utility, reliability, objectivity, integrity, reproducibility, among other problems.

“As we will demonstrate, the data and conclusions in the FCC’s Advanced Network Broadband reports starting in 1998 have continuously failed to include the state obligations made by the Bell companies to deploy fiber-based broadband services in exchange for massive financial incentives, tax write-offs and other perks. The FCC has continuously ignored and did not include thousands of documents, including the majority of state Alternate Regulation plans.”

“To make matters worse, the FCC’s broadband report has completely eliminated the role of the Internet Service Provider, ISP, in the story of broadband and has done nothing to focus on how the Bell companies have harmed the ISPs ability to offer DSL. To add insult to injury, the FCC has not sought to examine its own regulatory harm imposed on the obligation in Section 706 to “promote competition in the local telecommunications market.”

“Teletruth’s record on this data-failing of the FCC has been well documented with multiple filings, comments, complaints and petitions –all ignored by the FCC, even though we presented sound primary data from numerous sources”

Comments 17-20:  New Networks Institute & Teletruth filed multiple times in the National Broadband Plan


We decided this was worth repeating, though we have a collection of letters that supply the same sentiment.

FCC’s Response the Data Quality Act Complaints, December, 17, 2010