|
 |
 |
|
Stearns questions conflicts of interest in broadband plan
-
03/12/10 04:33 PM ET
Just days before the FCC unveils its much-awaited National Broadband Plan, a senior Republican sent a letter to Chairman with pointed questions about the process.
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), ranking member of the House Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, said he hopes the national plan will not be "littered with hidden agendas" to pave the way for net neutrality, Title II reclassification and spectrum auction conditions.
"Whether described in clear language or cloaked in veiled references, mandates such as these will only exacerbate the uncertainty and hinder investment...." he said in the letter. "The presence of such mandates would also indicate that the national broadband plan has become a political document, not the honest, fact-based inquiry that I know you and I have both hoped the plan would be."
Stearns ended the letter with sharply worded questions about the resources used to create the National Broadband Plan--a document that, he says, will "reiterate what existing evidence already showed and many of us have known for so long."
A few of the questions:
--Why, specifically, was it necessary to delay the release of the plan to March 17 from the statutorily required deadline of Feb. 17?
--How much money have you spent in preparing the plan? Please provide a total figure as well as a breakdown, including figures for categories such as...amount spent on studies and reports, amount spent on travel, amount spent on workshops, and amount spent on printing and production.
--How many staff people were hired specifically to work on the plan? From where were they typically hired?
--How did the FCC review potential conflicts of interest among employees hired from the private sector?
--What is your personal opinion on whether broadband services should be classified under Title II?
It's an interesting letter that seems to be coming quite late in the game. Many of these questions could have been addressed closer to the beginning of the 8-month process expected to come to conclude Tuesday.
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), ranking member of the House Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, said he hopes the national plan will not be "littered with hidden agendas" to pave the way for net neutrality, Title II reclassification and spectrum auction conditions.
"Whether described in clear language or cloaked in veiled references, mandates such as these will only exacerbate the uncertainty and hinder investment...." he said in the letter. "The presence of such mandates would also indicate that the national broadband plan has become a political document, not the honest, fact-based inquiry that I know you and I have both hoped the plan would be."
Stearns ended the letter with sharply worded questions about the resources used to create the National Broadband Plan--a document that, he says, will "reiterate what existing evidence already showed and many of us have known for so long."
A few of the questions:
--Why, specifically, was it necessary to delay the release of the plan to March 17 from the statutorily required deadline of Feb. 17?
--How much money have you spent in preparing the plan? Please provide a total figure as well as a breakdown, including figures for categories such as...amount spent on studies and reports, amount spent on travel, amount spent on workshops, and amount spent on printing and production.
--How many staff people were hired specifically to work on the plan? From where were they typically hired?
--How did the FCC review potential conflicts of interest among employees hired from the private sector?
--What is your personal opinion on whether broadband services should be classified under Title II?
It's an interesting letter that seems to be coming quite late in the game. Many of these questions could have been addressed closer to the beginning of the 8-month process expected to come to conclude Tuesday.
Most Viewed RSS Feed »
