I understand the importance of quick and affordable broadband service to Georgia’s small businesses, homes, and schools that will enable us to share information in a global market, enhance our lives through technology, and communicate more effectively in an ever changing world. As you know, the internet is a critical communications tool for millions of Americans.

The COPE Act has been introduced before the House of Representatives to promote the deployment of broadband networks and services. There is currently no Senate version of this bill. Be assured that I will continue to support fair market competition, the protection of consumers, and lower prices in any legislation regarding broadband that comes before the Senate.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. If you would like to receive timely email alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up
via my web site at: http://www.chambliss.senate.gov. Please do not
hesitate to be in touch if I may ever be of assistance to you.

Sincerely,

Saxby Chambliss
United States Senate

Paragraph (a) is vague but says the state, state agencies or state-owned services may not prohibit certain public communications services. For example in the case of telecom towers, counties and municipalities may regulate the placement of those towers through zoning - for example no towers in residentially zoned areas. Zoning may also regulate the use of large satellite dishes. However in my state that zoning authority is granted by the state legislature. Therefore it could be construed to mean that counties and municipalities cannot regulate the placement of telecom towers through zoning and the state has no authority to regulate the placement of such towers. That effectively means they can be placed anywhere.

Paragraph (b) is also vague but deals with municipality or counties which might operate a wireless service or over-the-air broadcast, or which might have a municipal franchise agreement with a cable company. Essentially it says they cannot use their ordinances, rules, public rights-of-way, permitting, performance bonding, and reporting to discriminate against certain communication and information providers. Potential examples are:

1. Cable franchise agreements for example may not discriminate against any communication or information provider by giving one cable provider exclusive access. However typically counties and municipalities sell exclusive cable rights in return for an annual franchise fee and specify the cable company must provide coverage to the entire county or municipality. This “network neutrality” provision may effectively gut cable franchise agreements, something Verizon desperately wants.

2. a municipality which offers a wireless service for for a fee, or even for free, may not discriminate against another communication or information provider who wants to provide the same service. I believe there was a case where a city operated an exclusive wireless service in their area and refused to let Verizon provide the same service. In effective “network neutrality” say they may have to open the service to bidding.

3. Municipal or county contracts to a community television or radio station to broadcast over the air certain municipal functions may also have to be opened to bidding. For example my town contracts with our non-profit community television station to televise certain town meetings. The funding from the town is 50% of the community TV stations budget and widely supported by voters. However possibly now my town will have to open that process to bidding.

Both (a) and (b) seem designed to provide major benefits to communication and information providers at the expense of states, counties and municipalities. Nothing is provided to the states, counties and municipalities in return.

Imagine me trying to talk to my sceptical neighbor or congress person. I would say “there’s a bill that is going to be voted on that is going to do away with net neutrality”. If they listen to me long enough to actually want me to back up what I’m saying, what would I tell them?

Switch the scenario to your black helicopter paranoid right wing neighbor telling you there’s a bill that is going to make it illegal to own a Bible. There is no way I would listen any further if they said they didn’t know what text in the bill says that, or if the text amounted to “some commission is giong to have it’s authority limited”.

I realize the text is not easy for the average person to understand, since I don’t feel like I can understand it. The promotion of this issue should involve quoting the text of the bill, togehter with an explanation, so you can show exactly how it’s saying what this site claims it says.

The net neutrality language is in Title II (the bill calls it “enforcement of broadband policy statement.”) But instead of giving the FCC any enforcement power, the bill would actual limit the Commission’s authority to write rules protecting net neutrality. The specific language appears on page 43 of the bill:

…the Commission’s authority to enforce the broadband policy statement and the principles incorporated therein does not include authorization for the Commission to adopt or implement rules or regulations regarding enforcement of the broadband policy statement and the principles incorporated therein, with the sole exception of the authority to adopt procedures for the adjudication of complaints, as provided in paragraph (3).

Does that answer your question?

AT & T will be a big receipent of our money if this abomination passes. AT & T was also one of the tele-comm giants that let the NSA set up shop in its telephone switch buildings, effectively allowing the feds to spy on US citizens in the US.

Does this bill represent a “quid pro quo”? That is, is the government returning the favor to the tele-comm giants for letting it unlawfully spy on American citizens?

Greg Bacon
Ava, MO

Consider this: If someone with an opposing political view were to tell me assertions about what some “liberal” legislation was going to do, and all they had to tell me was “go look at liberals want to kill you .org” I would not believe them and want them to show me where in the bill the offending text is. It might be a good idea to present this issue in that way, not assertions but pointing out the text in the bill that is offensive.