FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel Promised on 10/25/17:
I set up this account [firstname.lastname@example.org] to take in the public’s stories and ideas. And I will share everything that comes in with the Chairman and with my colleagues, because I think it’s time to turn every one of those ‘broadband fails’ into something better – broadband success.
On 11/28/17, Lauren Allred wrote to FCC Commissioner Jessic Rosenworcel at email@example.com
November 28, 2017
Dear Honorable Commissioner Rosenworcel,
I am writing today regarding your desire to hear about the broadband failures from the American public. From the early-1990’s to the present, landline telephone customers already paid billions of dollars to their Title-II-regulated Telecom Utilities to upgrade their Title-II-regulated copper Wireline network to a Title-II-regulated Fiber-Optic Wireline network, but these customers never received the benefits of this promised upgrade in many states across America.
I am sharing this extremely relevant fiber optic Wireline information in the hopes that you will demand that the public contracts for this Broadband service upgrade be enforced because the money for this upgrade was already charged and collected from these customers. These customers deserve to receive the benefits of these paid-for-but-never-provided-Wireline-upgrades with no additional financial benefits given to the dishonest Telecom companies who perpetrated this scheme.
Fiber optic broadband service to every home and business, sometimes called Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) is far superior to any form of Wireless broadband for many good reasons: including superior speed and value (1000 Mbps downlads for $40 a month, as offered by Sonic (http://sonic.com) in Califoria, for example, with much better reliability, security and energy efficiency when compared to Wireless Offerings.
A brief history of California Broadband
In 1993 the "California First" plan was based on spending $16 billion to rewire the state with fiber optics cable ". . . replacing the old, in use, copper wiring".
The cost to bring fiber optics to residential phone customers/ratepayers was estimated at that time to be about $1,000 per household. Is was stated that this money would be ". . . covered by telephone rates" paid by the customers. These telephone rates increased 138% from 2008 to 2016, with ancillary services, such as caller ID and Call Waiting increasing 60% to 525%!
The promise in 1993 was to provide broadband services to more than 1.5 million homes by the end of 1996 and 5 million homes by the end of the decade." This was to facilitate television, telemedicine, multimedia, learning and education. Sound familiar?
The promise was also made to provide fiber-optic broadband (45 Mbps upload and download speeds) to schools, community colleges and libraries. The Telecoms promised by the year 2000 every classroom would be wired with fiber-optic so these educational institutions could handle voice, data and video telecommunications.
Please review the Huffington Post article of August 23, 2017, titled "Californians Paid Billions Extra: The State Assembly Should Investigate AT&T’s Cross-Subsidies" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/599d26bee4b0b87d38cbe637). In addition, the following Huffington Post article has an important link, explaining California Broadband History. http://irregulators.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/californiabroadband2006.pdf
The Huffington Post article states that in 1993, "the new plan . . . is to just shut off the copper wires and force-march customers onto wireless, where, conveniently, the same company controls the wires that are used for the wireless networks, which were built, in large part, by money paid by these customers" for the Wireline upgrade.The article concludes that what is really needed are investigations and audits of AT&T’s financial books, NOW.
An investigation of Verizon New York by the NY State Public Service Commission corroborates the Huffington Post findings that there are massive, illegal, financial cross-subsidies between the Title-II-regulated Verizon Wireline State Utility entity and all of the other unregulated Wireless Verizon affiliates. AT&T California appears to be perpetrating the same dishonest financial scheme.
Another article written by the Huffington Post is titled "Expose: AT&T California Fiber Optic Scandal: Billions Charged for Broadband that Never Showed Up." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/expose-att-california-fiber-optic-scandalbillions_us_59a4ce47e4b0b234aecad1c7). This article states that "virtually no one knows the history of fiber optic broadband in America, much less what happened in their state, even though they were charged thousands of dollars per household. Instead, in 2017, we get embarrassing proposed laws, such as SB-649 in California, which claims that if the State just frees the companies from regulations, they will deliver new, ‘fabulous’, broadband wireless services.
SB.649 was vetoed by Governor Brown, but current FCC proceedings to ‘shut off the copper’ and replace it with Wireless essentially shoves down the throats of local communities the same ALEC-written agenda, attempted by SB.649 in California. It is time for investigations, not new gifts to AT&T et al."
Public Safety and Security
Californians and all other Americans have inalienable rights to safety and privacy that are guaranteed by the Federal constitution and many state constitutions. I ask that you, as an FCC Commissioner, please do everything possible to ensure that FCC policies do not violate these inalienable rights. Americans deserve safe, secure, reliable, extremely high speed, high-capacity, low-latency, reliable and energy efficient Internet. Fiber optic broadband delivers all these benefits and Americans have already paid for it. It’s time to make the Telecom firms deliver it as Title-II regulated entities.
Wireline Fiber optic broadband is much more secure than Wireless – which should not be trusted with proprietary or confidential information because it broadcasts it everywhere and is very easy to hack https://youtu.be/CgldhZiA7jc?t=9m8s
What is WPS (Wi-Fi Protected Setup) and how does it work?
WPS was designed by the Wi-Fi Alliance and introduced to the market in 2006, with the goal of allowing home users who don’t want to fiddle with long wireless network passwords and security settings to quickly connect new wireless devices to their networks.Wi-Fi Alliance is a global non-profit association that promotes Wi-Fi technology and certifies Wi-Fi products.
The Wi-Fi Alliance more than 600 members, and it includes many famous companies including Microsoft, Apple, Samsung, Intel, Broadcom, and others. All the relevant providers of networking equipment are also part of this organization.
Among other things, this organization owns the Wi-Fi trademark. When you see a device with the Wi-Fi logo on it, it means that it has been certified by the Wi-Fi Alliance.
The WPS-standard, however, is a security disaster because any knowledgeable entity (governments as well as independent rogue hackers) can crack the WPS-provided default password in less that 11,000 tries, which is a piece of cake and will take about 5 minutes of brute force. Now anyone can have access to your home network, install key-logging software and steal your passwords as you type them (before the stream gets encrypted).
WPS uses an eight-digit PIN. All routers with WPS enabled have a PIN code that’s automatically generated and it cannot be changed by users. It is often printed on the bottom of the router. The problem is that the WPS PIN is insecure and easy to hack.
- The eight-digit PIN is stored by routers in two blocks of four digits each.
- The router checks the first four digits separately from the last four digits.
- A hacker can brute-force the first block of four digits and move on to the second block.
- Once this PIN is brute forced, the hackers can get complete access to your network.
Other security researchers have revealed different programming and design flaws that make WPS rather insecure. You can read what they have to say, here:
As stated here: https://youtu.be/CgldhZiA7jc?t=10m7s
"For basic safety of children, a Wired network is what you want."
Insecure hacking conditions like this are not conducive for economic development, as we have seen in the severe breach of personal Equifax credit information harming 140+ million people. No one should use Wireless for confidential communications with a professional, as your health care provider, probate and estate lawyer, financial transactions, or online banking to name a few.
Safe, secure, and reliable fiber optic Broadband is conducive for economic development because the fiber optic broadband data transmissions are contained within a fiber optic cable, making hacking a much more difficult process.
The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) is now doling out money to these same Telecommunication Corporations to offer Wireless broadband calling the plan "Connect America Fund (CAF)", currently at Phase II.
I respectfully request that answers to the following Huffington Post questions be provided by the FCC Commissioners and all government public officers that hold a position of authority or service involving responsibility to the public.
Questions the FCC Commissioners Need to Answer
How much money did customers pay AT&T and Verizon for the upgrades of the wired networks to fiber optics, that never happened?
How much money did customers pay so that AT&T and Verizon could cross-subsidize the wired utility budgets to build the cell sites for the wireless company?
If there is competition today, why did basic local service have continuous increases of 138% in basic rates from 2008 to 2016?
Why has the Federal and state legislators and regulators (including the FCC Commissioners) not investigated
- The cross-subsidies: using Title-II regulated funds to construct unregulated Wireless networks
- The Telecoms’ failures to deliver promised Fiber-to-the-Premises broadband
- The unjustified rate increases for the Wireline state utility copper-based wired services?
Why has the FCC not stepped in to clean up this mess?
Is Local Service profitable when the expenses that are being incurred to offer the service properly allocated?
Have customers been overcharged fees that are built into rates for ‘incentives’ to build out network upgrades?
Were there any refunds, penalties or lowering of rates when the networks were not upgraded?
How much of the 5G deployments will be indirectly charged to the Wireline networks and local phone customers?
Please consider this information in an immediate FCC investigation enforcement and action and start providing policies that encourage the speeds Americans need (nothing less than the already promised 45 Mbps). Thank you for your attention in these extremely time-sensitive matters.