Jeannine Kenney Quotations

Network operators have always functioned as neutral transmitters, meaning they don't control who you call, when you call, et cetera. So until this point, consumers were led to believe that they would not monitor communication on their networks absent a warrant.

If you are forcing consumers to adopt new technology -- whether or not they are ready -- you ought to provide full compensation for everyone.

Part of the problem is how far behind we are in broadband development. We still don't have a national broadband policy in this country to make it available to Americans at affordable prices.

Today's action kick-starts the national effort to give consumers' wallets a break and allow them more control over their television programming choices and cable bills.

What it means is you've got two players, two big market players ? cable and telephone companies ? controlling right now the primary two types of broadband service into the home.

We think this is unfair, unworkable and unacceptable. It virtually ensures that on Feb. 18, 2009, tens of millions of televisions go black.

We look forward to working with Senator McCain, other members of Congress, and the FCC on policies and legislation that will lower cable prices and bring greater cable channel choice to consumers.

We don't think that's fair if the government doesn't compensate them for the cost of keeping those sets working.

Consumers weren't adopting a technology that the government thought they should be adopting quickly, so government stepped in and said, you're going to adopt, and we're going to force you to adopt by basically making your television sets go blank if you don't either buy a digital TV or buy a converter box.

Rather than provide for meaningful protections to ensure that large cable and telecommunications companies don't use their network ownership to impede competition, the bill strips the Federal Communications Commission of its authority to establish meaningful rules to protect consumers from these discriminatory practices.

On top of that, they're making the coupons available at the beginning of 2008, a year before the transition even occurs, and they're only making them available for three months.

A second question is, will consumers be likely, even if there is education about what the government is conducting, will they even be likely to know what's coming and that they're eligible for this voucher? The answer is probably not.

This is a bad idea from the consumer standpoint. If vendors now feel they have to pay a fee, that cost will ultimately be passed on to the consumer.

There needs to be an explicit prohibition on discriminatory pricing.

It's just not like the transition from VCRs to DVD players, where consumers could slowly adopt the technology over time as the prices came down and the values improved. That's not happening here.

Consumers should praise FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and Senator John McCain for striking at the heart of the cable industry's flawed pricing scheme which forces consumers to buy packages of television channels they don't want and shouldn't have to pay for. Today's action kick starts the national effort to give consumers' wallets a break and allow them more control over their television programming choices and cable bills.

Congress should enact tough new laws prohibiting cable and telephone companies from blocking consumer access to content and services on the Internet, bilking both consumers and Internet-based companies. If they don't, these big companies will use their market power to line their pockets by discriminating against competitors in favor of their own content and service offerings.

That's one issue that people haven't really recognized. This isn't about helping people upgrade technology. It's just about keeping what you have working when it stops working not through any fault of the electronics or the consumer, but through a government action.

Anytime you're talking about bundles of services, you're really talking about making it harder for consumers to jump to other providers.

If you're a consumer who can afford to spend $200 or $250 a month on communications services, then maybe your total costs have come down. The reality is now that competition is all about the bundle of services, and each company has a vested interest in maximizing sales of bundled services within their own territory.

In 2004, the FCC issued a staff report based on erroneous assumptions that kept this costly bundling charade going. Today's FCC report shreds the foundation of this industry-sponsored deceit.

The consumer compensation program established in this program is unworkable, unfair and unacceptable to consumers. It provides only a fraction of the funds needed to compensate consumers for the costs of a digital transition they never asked for. And by requiring consumers to jump through restrictive hoops to request vouchers, those who most need compensation will be the least likely to receive it.