Next month, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is scheduled to present its National Broadband Plan to Congress and the stakes could not be higher. Broadband opens doors that allow for extraordinary opportunity — opportunity that should be available to all Americans at an affordable price.

As we anxiously await the details, our society prepares to undergo tremendous structural changes in how vital government services are delivered. These services are a lifeline, particularly for our underclass. America’s low-income communities cannot afford to be further disadvantaged as a result of a lack of the benefits that the digital future promises (education, entertainment, healthcare) due to the rising price of Broadband.

I share the FCC’s commitment to equal rights for Internet users, but I am genuinely concerned about the unintended consequences that well-intentioned net neutrality policies could have on America’s underclass. For many families, the brutal recession that we continue to battle has already pushed the dream of high-speed Internet access out of reach. Implementing new network neutrality regulations that may not allocate costs in a fair or equitable manner, particularly in these times of economic uncertainty, is of serious concern.

Assuming that we all agree with President Obama on the importance of universal broadband in our society, the required cost to achieve such must be considered. There are many technologies available to wire the country: cable, fiber optic, wireless, satellite, but without the necessary infrastructure in place, we can’t get wire to everyone. From the desperately poor in our inner cities (places like South Central or Detroit) to the isolated poor and rural locations like the Ozarks, hundreds of billions of dollars in new investment are needed to change the status of our un-served and underserved Americans.

More than $100 billion has already been spent to deploy high-speed systems across America. But the FCC has estimated that $350 billion is necessary to achieve universal broadband access. As such, the focus of the FCC should be on speeding this process, either through federal programs or by incentivizing the investment of private companies.

Throughout this process, we must also strive to ensure that access remains affordable. To achieve this, I see one logical solution — to have the build-out in these communities financed in part by agreements between the companies paying to lay the wires and the companies that will use those links to sell services.

Largely missing the point, proposals for new “neutrality” rules do nothing to help us realize these important goals. Instead, it is widely thought that new net neutrality regulations will reduce much needed investment in infrastructure, thus causing broadband to become less affordable and accessible to underserved and un-served populations.

Others who have come to the same conclusion include Democratic Governors Beverly Perdue of North Carolina and Mike Beebe of Arkansas. Beebe, whose state includes large numbers of desperately poor in both rural and urban areas, wrote to the FCC last October to express concern that Net neutrality rules would hurt his efforts to expand high-speed service in Arkansas.

When Oklahoma’s Democratic Governor Brad Henry spoke out on this issue he encouraged the FCC to look at what he’s done as Governor. As he put it, the best way to wire Oklahoma is through its model of “light or no regulation for landline, broadband and wireless services.”

Additionally, certain members of the Congressional Black Caucus recently called on the FCC to reiterate, not repudiate, its historic commitment to the principles that have fostered an Internet open to all: competition, private investment and a restrained regulatory approach.

As the FCC considers President Obama’s charge to create universal broadband access, it is important to remember that deploying the access is only part of the solution. Making this access affordable is equally important.

For all Americans, the stakes are high. For our minority and low-income communities, the stakes are even higher. If federal policy remains focused on encouraging broadband roll-out and allowing financing arrangements that make access more affordable, the possibilities will be limitless. That’s a dream we all share.

Follow Julius H. Hollis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/digitalequality

The race to get quality content directly to your HDTV has been building for a few years. TiVo now includes podcast aggregation ability, AppleTV includes the ability to watch movies, independent films are distributed via iTunes directly to your TV, and Boxee now aggregates and scrapes the social web for online video that your social network is watching and allows you to broadcast directly to your home theater.

Consumer electronic devices have gone from component HDTV connections to HDMI and optical inputs for quality HDTV viewing.

Hollywood would like to break your TV and revert your viewing experience back a few years. Never mind the evolution of media distribution created by an open market. The large corporate trade associates want to control distribution abilities directly by breaking your TV.

The MPAA (Motion Pictures Association of America) has been trying to increase movie distribution while maintaining full control of their content. Throughout the years they have joined forces with the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) to take on media related websites, bit torrent technology, and various file sharing programs in an effort to crack down on illegal piracy.

Enter Selectable Output Control (aka The Cable Kill Swith).

“Selectable Output Control” (”SOC”) is the remote signaling of home devices by content providers or distributors, to turn off consumer home interfaces on a program-by-program basis. The interface in question would simply not operate for the particular program. It would mean that a consumer who has purchased an HDTV display, and pays for a set-top box or other device with an HDTV output, still might not receive all of the HDTV programs he or she has paid for — because the interface between the set-top box and the HDTV display has been turned off by remote control. In the long term, imposition of SOC could have the effect of driving from the market any home interface that supports home recording. HRRC has opposed imposition of SOC by law or in any context subject to regulation.

SOC is activated by data “triggers” that ride along with program information when it is sent to the home. FCC Encoding Rules currently ban SOC use, but the FCC has left the door open to its use in the future.  – Home Recording Rights Coalition

Here is a video about this technology:

For years the FCC has limited the SOC option from content creators or distribution providers (cable companies.) However on November 23rd the MPAA sent a letter to the FCC defending their original request to wave the FCC’s previous deicsion to block access to the SOC technology.

Public Knowledge, Home Recording Rights Coalition, the Consumer Electronics Association, and various other organizations took a strong public stance against the original request (the letter available here:: http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/soc-genachowski-letter-20091104.pdf.) In additional they responded to the newest letter in several strong blog posts stating:

“it utterly fails to demonstrate that anybody steals content through the analog hole or that giving the MPAA the ability to shut off both analog and protected digital outputs would have any impact at all on piracy.” (original link: http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2783)

Further:

“We use the word, ‘breaking,’ deliberately, here and in previous filings and videos, because that is exactly what would happen if the industry has its way and the FCC grants the ill-conceived waiver to allow the industry control over consumer devices. Because of existing FCC rules, a consumer with a stand alone digital video recorder (DVR) or Slingbox knows that it will work for all video-on-demand (VoD) services, and that compatibility is a key factor when consumers spend their hard-earned money on consumer electronics. It would be a rude shock if, at the industry whim, some of those devices did not perform as expected. (original link here: http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2782)

As the debate continues between Hollywood studios, consumer electronics manufactures, and home recording rights advocates, there are many more that have yet to weight in on this debate or be mobalized that will be severly impacted.

Given the current economy, job creation is critical. Direct-to-home movie releases will eliminate thousands of movie theatre jobs and hurt movie theatre owners. The National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) has yet to publish a statement on this issue and the impact it will have on the job market.

How will this impact independent distributors and 3rd party content distributors such as Apple iTunes, Boxee, TiVo, etc?

Will blocking their signals be next?

Greg Tarr from TWICE says it best:

“There is also no readily available consumer friendly way to make copies of HDTV programming over the so-called unprotected analog component-video outputs. So why do producers require the ability to shut down such ports? Why must thousands of consumers who have purchased expensive HDTVs five or more years ago lose the ability to watch some programs in HDTV now that it is finally available? Just to prevent a handful of pirates from possibly using expensive professional recording equipment with complex analog-to-digital encoders from illegally reproducing the content for sale?

The solution to that problem lies with law enforcement, not by discriminating against the people who helped to make the digital TV transition happen.”

In the coming weeks we will put this issue on the forefront. New Media content producers, movie theatre owners, workers, and consumers have yet to weigh in.

This issue will not just be an FCC issue. We expect Net Neutrality related issues to surface in Congress around this matter. We will be talking to these groups in the coming weeks and begin to organize a consumer led public awareness campaign.

For now, your thoughts on this issue is important.

What are your concerns?

Will this affect you? If so, in what way?

For many, broadband may be as familiar a technology as cable television. Others may not be aware of the advantages high-speed Internet service offers. It can place adults in a virtual classroom and allow them to get a college or graduate degree — from their own homes. It gives physicians and hospitals instant access to medical records and enables remote diagnostic medicine, which can help enhance healthcare delivery in rural areas. It can allow a rancher in West Texas to sell every head of cattle in an online auction, expanding the reach of his business and raising his earning potential without the need to leave his ranch.  (Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, via TheHill.com – Bringing broadband to rural America.)

Such policies allow small business growth in rural America, but also increased use of social media solutions.