Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Reply Comments of MAG-Net et al re: Mobile Wireless

Reply Comments of MAG-Net et al re: Mobile Wireless

Ratings: (0)|Views: 13|Likes:
Published by MAG-Net
Reply Comments of MAG-Net et al re: In the Matter of re: Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Mobile Wireless including Commercial Mobile Services, WT Docket No. 09-66

Reply Comments of MAG-Net et al re: In the Matter of re: Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Mobile Wireless including Commercial Mobile Services, WT Docket No. 09-66

More info:

Categories:Types, Legal forms
Published by: MAG-Net on Apr 22, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/07/2012

pdf

 
 Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONWashington, DC 20554
In the Matter of))Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the )Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993)WT Docket No. 09-66)Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive)Market Conditions With Respect to Mobile)Wireless including Commercial Mobile)Services)
REPLY COMMENTS OFCENTER FOR MEDIA JUSTICE, CENTER FOR RURAL STRATEGIES,MAIN STREET PROJECT, MEDIA ACTION GRASSROOTS NETWORK,MINNESOTA DIGITAL JUSTICE COALITION,PEOPLE’S PRODUCTION HOUSE, AND RURAL BROADBAND POLICY GROUP
Respectfully submitted,Parul P. DesaiAndrew Jay SchwartzmanMedia Access ProjectSuite 10001625 K Street, NWWashington, DC 20006(202) 232-4300
Counsel for Rural/Urban Commenters
October 22, 2009
 
-ii-
SUMMARY
Media Access Project, on behalf of Center for Media Justice,
et al
. (collectively “Rural/UrbanCommenters”), submits these Reply Comments to provide the Commission with additional informationregarding consumer expectations and behavior in low-income, immigrant, and minority communities,as well as rural and urban communities. While some of the wireless carriers try to paint a competitivepicture that is benefitting consumers, the reality is not so encouraging. The reality is that theconstituents of Rural/Urban Commenters are not benefitting from competition which should beresulting in more affordable, open, and accessible services and devices. Moreover, their constituentsare feeling constrained by what they are able to do with their service and their devices.Mobile devices are increasingly playing a role in the lives of consumers as a way to speak toeach other, as well as a way to share, create, and access knowledge and valuable information. Inaddition to traditional voice activities, consumers are increasingly using their mobile devices fornon-voice activities such as texting and sending emails. For consumers who have the ability (eitherbecause of availability or affordability) to purchase smart phones, mobile devices also provide a meansfor consumers to access the Internet. Thus, in assessing whether the wireless marketplace is effectivelycompetitive, the Commission must also assess the impact on consumers and their ability to fully takeadvantage of a mobile device and service.In fact, the Supreme Court has unanimously embraced a robust view of the affirmative dutyof government to facilitate speech, pointing to the public’s “collective right to have the medium func-tion consistently with the ends and purposes of the First Amendment.”
 Red Lion Broadcasting Co.v. FCC,
395 U.S. 367, 390 (1969). The Court emphasized that it “is the purpose of the FirstAmendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail,
 
-iii-rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself ora private licensee.”
 Id.
The Court went on to further say that it “is the right of the public to receivesuitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucialhere.”
 Id.
 Further, while Rural/Urban Commenters do not consider access to the Internet through amobile device as a solution to solving the digital divide, the mobile ecosystem is a critical first stepin helping to close the digital divide as well as providing a means for communication. This is especiallycritical because essential to the value of the Internet is the ability of citizens to speak to one another,to be publishers and speakers as well as readers and listeners. As the Supreme Court has observed,the content of the Internet is “as diverse as human thought.”
 Reno v. ACLU 
, 521 U.S. 844, 870(1997). The Internet is an open and interactive medium, facilitating communication by anyone to andfrom everyone.
 Id.
it is a medium that supports and enhances the free expression of citizens andserves as a vehicle for democratic governance and economic activities.Thus, there is a long and unbroken line of authority that the Commission can and must takeinto account regarding the wireless market place and its impact on the ability of the consumer tocommunicate. As Rural/Urban Commenters demonstrate below, the benefits of competition are notbeing felt by their constituents. While the use of mobile devices is increasing among low-income,minority, and immigrant communities, in both rural and urban areas, their constituents feel constrainedwith what they are able to do with their service and their devices, and instead would benefit from amore affordable, open, and nondiscriminatory marketplace. Moreover, Rural/Urban Commenterssuggest the Commission examine competition in local markets by collecting granular data, rather thanadopting a broad and generic urban versus rural distinction. Finally, Rural/Urban Commenters urge

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->