Home » History » Recent Articles:

Broadband Challenges: Vermont’s E-State Initiative Faces Intransigent Providers and a Difficult Economy

Milton, Vermont

Jesse and his nearby neighbors on the west side of Milton are frustrated.  They live just 20 minutes away from Burlington, the largest city in the state of Vermont.  Despite the proximity to a city with nearly 40,000 residents, there is no cell phone coverage in western Milton, no cable television service, and no DSL service from FairPoint Communications.  For this part of Milton, it’s living living in 1990, where dial-up service was one’s gateway to the Internet.

Jesse and his immediate neighbors haven’t given up searching for broadband service options, but they face a united front of intransigent operators who refuse to make the investment to extend service down his well-populated street.

“After many calls to Comcast, they eventually sent us an estimate for over $17,000 to bring service to us, despite being less than a mile from their nearest station,” Jesse tells Vermont Public Radio.  “They also made it very clear that there was no plan at any point in the future, 2010 or beyond, to come here unless we paid them the money.”

Jesse and his neighbors want to give Comcast money, but not $17,000.

For at least 15 percent of Vermonters, Jesse’s story is their story.  Broadband simply remains elusive and out of reach.

Three years ago, Vermont’s Republican governor Jim Douglas announced the state would achieve 100 percent broadband coverage by 2010, making Vermont the nation’s first “e-State.”

Vermont Public Radio reviewed the progress Vermont is making towards becoming America’s first e-State. (January 20, 2010) (30 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Gov. Douglas

In June 2007 the state passed Act 79, legislation that established the Vermont Telecommunications Authority to facilitate the establishment and delivery of mobile phone and Internet access infrastructure and services for residents and businesses throughout Vermont.

The VTA, under the early leadership of Bill Shuttleworth, a former Verizon Communications senior manager, launched a modest broadband grant program to incrementally expand broadband access, often through existing service providers who agreed to use the money to extend service to unserved neighborhoods.

The Authority also acts as a clearinghouse for coordinating information about broadband projects across the state, although it doesn’t have any authority over those projects.  Lately, the VTA has been backing Google’s “Think Big With a Gig” Initiative, except it promotes the state as a great choice for fiber, not just one or two communities within Vermont.

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Google Fiber Vermont 3-22-10.mp4

Vermont used this video to promote their bid to become a Google Fiber state.  (2 minutes)

Some of the most dramatic expansion plans come from the East Central Vermont Community Fiber Network.  ECFiber, a group of 22 local municipalities, in partnership with ValleyNet, a Vermont non-profit organization, is planning to implement a high-capacity fiber-optic network capable of serving 100% of homes and businesses in participating towns with Internet, telephone and cable television service.  In 2008, the group coalesced around a proposal to construct a major fiber-to-the-home project to extend broadband across areas that often don’t even have slower speed DSL.

The ECFiber project brought communities together to provide the kind of broadband service private companies refused to provide. Vermont Public Radio explores the project and the enthusiasm of residents hopeful they will finally be able to get broadband service. (March 8, 2008) (24 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

ECFiber's Partner Communities

The Vermont towns, which together number roughly 55,000 residents, decided to build their own network after FairPoint Communications and local cable companies refused to extend the reach of their services.  Providers claim expanding service is not financially viable.  For residents like sheep farmer Marian White, interviewed by The Wall Street Journal, that means another year of paying $60 a month for satellite fraudband, the speed and consumption-limited satellite Internet service.

White calls the satellite service unreliable, especially in winter when snow accumulates on the dish.  Unlike many broadband users who vegetate for hours browsing the web, White actually gets an exercise routine while trying to get her satellite service to work.

“I open a window and I take a pan of water and, a cup at a time, I launch warm water at the satellite dish until I have melted all the snow off the dish,” Ms. White says. “It works.”

Other residents treat accessing the Internet the same way rural Americans plan a trip into town to buy supplies.

Kathi Terami from Tunbridge makes a list of things to do online and then, once a week, travels into town to visit the local public library which has a high speed connection.  Terami downloads Sesame Street podcasts for her children, watches YouTube links sent by her sister, and tries to download whatever she thinks she might want to see or use over the coming week.

A fiber to the home network like ECFiber would change everything for small town Vermonters.  The implications are enormous according to project manager Tim Nulty.

“People are truly afraid their communities are going to die if they aren’t on the communications medium that drives the country culturally and economically,” he says. “It’s one of the most intensely felt political issues in Vermont after health care.”

Despite the plan’s good intentions, one obstacle after another has prevented ECFiber from making much headway:

  • The VTA rejected the proposal in 2008, calling it unfeasible;
  • Plans over the summer and fall of 2008 to approach big national investment banks ran head-on into the sub-prime mortgage collapse, which caused banks to stop lending;
  • An alternative plan to build the network with public debt financing, using smaller investors, collapsed along with Lehman Brothers on September 14, 2008;
  • An attempt by Senator Pat Leahy (D-Vermont) to insert federal loan guarantees into the stimulus bill in February 2009 was thwarted by partisan wrangling;
  • Attempts to secure federal broadband grant stimulus funding has been rejected by the Commerce Department;
  • Opposition to the plan and objections over its funding come from incumbent providers like FairPoint, who claim the project is unnecessary because they will provide service in those areas… eventually.

For the indefinite future, it appears Ms. White will continue to throw warm cups of water out the window on cold winter mornings.

Vermont Edition takes a comprehensive look at where the state stands in broadband and wireless deployment. (April 8, 2009) (46 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

For every Tunbridge resident with a story about life without broadband, there are many more across Vermont living with hit or miss Internet access.

Take Marie from Middlesex.

Most residents in more rural areas of Vermont get service where they can from FairPoint Communications

“I am in Middlesex, about a half-mile off Route 2, and five minutes from the Capitol Building. Yet up until just recently, we had no sign of high-speed Internet. I understand that my neighbors just received DSL a few weeks ago, but when I call FairPoint, they tell me it’s still not available at my house, which is a few hundred yards up the hill. Hopefully, they’re wrong and I’ll see DSL soon,” she says.

Marie is pining for yesterday’s broadband technology — FairPoint’s 1.5Mbps basic DSL service, now considered below the proposed minimum speeds to qualify for “broadband” in the National Broadband Plan.  For Marie, it’s better than nothing.

Geryll in Goshen also lacks DSL and probably wouldn’t want it from FairPoint anyway.

“We have barely reliable landline service. A tech is at my house at least three times per year. I was told the lines are so old they are decaying. Using dial-up is impossible. I use satellite which is very expensive and is in my opinion only one step up from dial-up. I am limited to downloads and penalized if I reach my daily limit,” he says.

Many Vermonters acknowledge Douglas’ planned 100-percent-broadband-coverage-by-2010 won’t come close to achievement and many are highly skeptical they will ever see the day where every resident who wants broadband service can get it.

Chip in Cabot is among them, jaded after six years of arguments with FairPoint Communications and its predecessor Verizon about obtaining access to DSL.  It took a cooperative FairPoint engineer outside of the business office to finally get Chip service.  His neighbors were not so lucky, most emphatically rejected for DSL service from an intransigent FairPoint:

“I laughed when Governor Douglas announced his e-State goal “by 2010″ three years ago. Now I’m thinking I should have made some bets on this claim. It took years of legal battles and a zoning variance to obtain partial cell coverage here in Cabot. Large parts of the town still do not have any cell coverage. Governor Douglas can perhaps be forgiven – he has no technical knowledge, and as a politician would be expected to be wildly optimistic about such “e-State” claims. The Vermont Telecommunications Authority and the Department of Public Service should know better however. We’re talking about rural areas where there is no financial incentive to provide either DSL or cell service. It will take a huge amount of money to provide service to those remaining parts of the state. I’m not optimistic.”

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Wall Street Journal Vermont Broadband Problems 03-02-09.flv

The Wall Street Journal chronicled the challenges Vermonters face when broadband is unavailable to them.  ECFiber may solve these problems.  Some of the stories in our article are reflected in this well-done video.  (3/2/2009 — 4 Minutes)

Share

1st Anniversary of Time Warner Cable Internet Overcharging Experiment for Texas, North Carolina, New York

Today marks the first anniversary of news that Time Warner Cable planned to expand an Internet Overcharging scheme being tested in one Texas city to four additional cities within its service area.

Residents of Rochester, New York, the Triad Region surrounding Greensboro, North Carolina, as well as Austin and San Antonio, Texas first learned of the planned expansion of so-called “metered broadband” from a Business Week article dated March 31st, which has since accumulated more than 450 comments to date:

Web users, the meter is running. In a strategy that’s likely to rankle consumers but be copied by competitors, Time Warner Cable is pressing ahead with a plan to charge Internet customers based on how much Web data they consume. Starting next month, the company will introduce tiered pricing in several markets.

In April, Time Warner Cable will begin collecting information on its customers’ Internet use in the Texas cities of Austin and San Antonio and in Rochester, N.Y. Consumption billing will begin in those cities later this summer. In Greensboro, N.C., the billing changes will begin sooner. Spun off from Time Warner this month, Time Warner Cable had been testing a plan to meter Internet usage in Beaumont, Tex., since last year.

Proposed pricing models created by Time Warner Cable would have tripled broadband bills to an unprecedented $150 a month for consumers seeking the same level of broadband service they enjoyed a month earlier.  For a cable industry that was used to pushing through rate increases well above the annual rate of inflation, such an enormous rate increase was unprecedented, even for them.

For consumers willing to ration their broadband use, the news was slightly better — you’d still pay more for less service, and be exposed to overlimit fees and penalties should you exceed your monthly allowance, which was as low as a 1 GB per month for one proposed plan.

While residents of Beaumont, Texas had to endure these prices for several months prior to the announced expansion of experimental Overcharging, once news hit tech-savvy cities in Texas, New York, and North Carolina, an all-out consumer rebellion began.  Residents in Austin met with city officials to discuss alternatives to a cable company that threatened Austin’s high tech status.  For residents in Rochester, already coping with a 5 GB usage allowance for Frontier Communication’s DSL service, it was a clear-cut case of monopolistic greed.  In North Carolina, working to transition its way towards a digital economic future, an Internet rationing plan would hurt the economy of the entire Triad region.  San Antonio residents were equally unimpressed with the cable operator as well, demanding alternative providers.

Former Congressman Eric Massa (D-NY)

Consumers banded together on Stop the Cap! and other consumer-oriented websites to coordinate the pushback effort.  Protests were held, the media was engaged, and at least in New York, the politicians were not going to sit back in Time Warner Cable’s favor.  Former Rep. Eric Massa expressed outrage at the company for its new pricing plan and Senator Chuck Schumer personally called Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt.

A few lapdogs in the trade press and “dollar a holler” astroturf groups praised Time Warner Cable’s price gouging plans.  One even went as far as to suggest Time Warner Cable “took one for the team” — referring to a cable industry just waiting to test some Internet Overcharging of their own.

Time Warner Cable dispatched some of their social media minions to try and explain away the outrageous price increases, offering to “listen” to consumers with suggestions about how to “improve the plan.”  One, like TWCAlex offered “proof” consumers wanted this kind of pricing.  The disingenuousness of the effort rivaled Lord Haw Haw’s Germany Calling propaganda broadcasts on the Reichssender Hamburg.  Company officials ignored the overwhelming consensus that consumers didn’t want metered or capped service and then weeks later those who did submit comments were notified they were “deleted without being read.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Massa’s office began drafting legislation to ban the unprecedented pricing schemes, culminating in a bill introduced in 2009 to ban unjustified usage caps and metered billing.

On April 9th, Landel Hobbs, Chief Operating Officer of Time Warner Cable, issued a recitation of the reasons why Time Warner Cable felt justified in exposing customers to up to 150 percent rate hikes — reasons we’ve managed to debunk over the past year’s coverage:

With the ever-increasing flood of content on the Internet, bandwidth consumption is growing exponentially. That’s a good thing; however, there are costs associated with this increased Internet usage. Here at Time Warner Cable, consumption among our high-speed Internet subscribers is increasing by about 40% a year. As a facilities based provider, we’ve built a network that must be maintained and upgraded. We have increasing variable costs and we have to continue to invest in the network itself.

As we’ve since proven, Hobbs statements to the public obscure the facts in his own company’s financial reports which are remarkably consistent quarter after quarter: revenues for broadband service are increasing while the costs to provide it are falling.  In fact, broadband is rapidly becoming the most important element of the cable industry’s quest for fat profits.  Time Warner Cable, as well as others, have plenty of financial resources from the billions in profits they earn from broadband every year to provide cost-effective upgrades that benefit them as well as consumers at today’s flat rate prices.

Just a few weeks ago, Hobbs told investors consumers are so devoted to their broadband service, the company could raise broadband prices anytime they like.  Funny how “increasing costs” never came into the discussion there.

This is a common problem that all network providers are experiencing and must address. Several other providers have instituted consumption based billing, including all major network providers in Canada and others in the U.K., New Zealand and elsewhere. In the U.S., AT&T has begun two consumption based billing trials and other providers including Comcast, Charter and Cox are using varying methods of monitoring and managing bandwidth consumption.

As Stop the Cap! has illustrated repeatedly, such consumption billing schemes are despised by consumers -and- most countries see them as hampering their digital economy.  Australia and New Zealand have government initiatives to improve broadband service to the point where consumption billing and usage caps are a distant memory.  Canada’s usage based billing schemes come from market concentration, particularly from Bell which is by far the largest wholesale supplier of bandwidth in the country.  Their quest for profits, along with a compliant regulatory body (the CRTC) has made such ripoff pricing commonplace.  The result on Canada’s broadband rankings are clear as the country continues to fall further behind other OECD nations.  Canadians do not want such pricing, but when a duopoly is allowed to exist unfettered by appropriate oversight, the end result is always the same – higher prices for poorer service.  In the United Kingdom, several flat rate plans are available, with more on the way as the UK embarks on its own Digital Economy plan.

There are other reasons why such consumption billing schemes are in place in other countries – namely insufficient international capacity to move traffic back and forth outside of the region.  That too is being addressed.

That other cable operators are overcharging consumers or limiting their usage is hardly a surprise considering insufficient competition in the marketplace makes that possible.  However, Comcast’s 250 GB limit is far more generous than anything Time Warner Cable proposed, Cox rarely enforces their limits, and Charter recently announced it had abandoned theirs.

For good reason. Internet demand is rising at a rate that could outpace capacity within a few years. According to industry analysts, the infrastructure may not be able to accommodate the explosion of online content by 2012. This could result in Internet brownouts. It will take a lot of money to fix the problem. Rather than raising prices on all customers or limiting usage, we think the fairest approach is to move to a tiered model in which users pay more if they use more.

Hobbs’ reliance on the “exaflood” or the “zettabyte” theory of Internet brownouts comes courtesy of the prostituting, industry-backed Discovery Institute — the people who will cough up bought and paid for “research studies” that say anything the buyer wants them to say and Cisco, which makes a handsome buck off selling broadband network equipment to providers they panic with stories of Internet data tsunamis and brownouts.

Hobbs

Two weeks after the Business Week article, Senator Schumer flew to Rochester and joined a few of our local Stop the Cap! members and myself to announce the end of the nightmare — no more Internet Overcharging consumers in any of the three states. Even Beaumont was soon freed from the ripoff pricing experiment.

But Time Warner Cable promised that one day, they could be back with the same schemes, after “educating their customers.”  Stop the Cap! has spent the last year assembling an extensive record of just how unjustified these pricing schemes really are, and we’ve been educating consumers about how an duopolistic broadband industry is seeking to monetize and control as many aspects of America’s online experience as possible.

We’ve exposed dozens of astroturf and other industry-backed groups trying to peddle the broadband industry agenda, often trying to hide who is paying the bills.  Whether it’s scare stories about broadband brownouts, fear that oversight and regulation will drive away investment and reduce service, or the need to stop Net Neutrality — it’s all designed to protect provider profits, not help consumers.

There is nothing fair about Internet Overcharging schemes.  There has never been a true consumption billing scheme that charged consumers nothing if they didn’t use the service, and the prices being charged for consumption above one’s allowance are often several thousand percent above actual cost.  Indeed the CEO of Crown Fibre Holdings CEO Graham Mitchell, admitted the truth about such pricing schemes when he told Techday that where ISP’s engage in such pricing schemes, they don’t make their money in providing access to broadband; they make it out of data caps.

We have no illusion providers won’t be back for a second bite at your wallets, which is why the education effort continues.  Over the last year, we’ve expanded our coverage to promote better broadband, and to expose bad actors among the broadband cable, telephone, wireless, and satellite industry.  We’ll continue to expose lobbying efforts to legislate away oversight, consumer protection, and limit potential competition.  Stop the Cap! also continues to fight for improved rural broadband that moves beyond today’s satellite fraudband that delivers woefully slow, heavily limited and expensive service.  We’ll also coordinate efforts to push back whenever Internet Overcharging schemes appear on the horizon, and we won’t let go until such language is banished from customer agreements and Acceptable Use Policies, whether they are formally enforced or not.

One year later, America’s broadband users are safer from such schemes, but not yet safe.  Thanks to all of our readers for staying engaged.

Share

Broadband: The 21st Century Equivalent of Electricity — Part 3 – FDR & The New Deal

Phillip Dampier March 19, 2010 History Comments Off
Roosevelt as NY's governor

Franklin D. Roosevelt, seen here during his years as New York's governor

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Watching the debate raging through the 1920s was one Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was elected governor of New York in 1928 on a reformist agenda.  Like many other states, New Yorkers had a problem with their electric companies.  They charged too much, didn’t provide sufficient capacity, and ignored rural areas.

Roosevelt started his political life following in the philosophical (and political) footsteps of his fifth cousin Theodore, the 26th president of the United States.  FDR believed in individualist progressive ideals — improving privately held utilities but steering clear of advocating public ownership.

Roosevelt’s immediate predecessor, Al Smith, spent the 1920s in Albany arguing with the Republican state legislature over who would develop New York’s hydro power resources, which could deliver substantially lower-priced electricity from Buffalo to Long Island.  The legislature wanted the state’s private power companies to develop the resource, with a public service commission reviewing and, where necessary, regulating rates.  Smith wanted the state to build the plants as public utilities, arguing endless lawsuits by private power companies had made rate regulation meaningless.

Early into his term as governor, Roosevelt picked up where Smith left off, advocating first for the construction of a hydroelectric dam on the St. Lawrence River in upstate New York.  The legislature promptly said no.  Roosevelt refused to let go and expanded his proposal to also include the possibility of municipally-owned local power companies, delivering needed power without a profit incentive.

In upstate and western New York, firmly Republican territory, local newspapers blasted Roosevelt’s proposal, occasionally calling him a socialist conniver, an enemy of free enterprise, and dragging big state government into the lives of ordinary citizens.

Electric companies across the state joined the chorus of upstate opposition, but also quietly made preparations to counter Roosevelt’s proposal, just in case it began to catch on.

Roosevelt’s initial efforts to argue his position did not make much headway upstate, because he had to rely on newspapers to deliver his message — the same newspapers that rebutted him at every turn.  Direct mailing letters to voters was expensive and took a long time to create and distribute.  Roosevelt instead turned to the new medium of radio, speaking to residents statewide about issues like electrification.  Radio directly reached listeners and bypassed the newspaper filter, and it allowed the governor to deliver a populist message in terms every consumer could understand — high rates.

Roosevelt lit a fire for reform when he compared what state residents were paying for electricity compared to those on the other side of Lake Ontario, in Canada.  Canada had provincial power, owned and operated by the government.

Roosevelt told listeners that in a “modernized house” (one served by higher voltage lines capable of supporting large electric appliances), residents of Ontario paid just $3.40 a month in electric bills.  But in Westchester County, the same service cost $25.63.  It was $19.95 in New York City and $13.50 in Rochester.

Double-crossing Roosevelt With the Help of ‘The House of Morgan’

The electric companies soon saw the results of those price comparisons as voters demanded better prices.  Republicans began shifting toward Roosevelt’s plan.  For the power companies, it was time for “Plan B.”  Quietly meeting with J.P. Morgan Bank in the summer of 1929, three major upstate New York power companies planned to merge into one giant company: Mohawk Hudson Power Corporation.

The modern day Mohawk Hudson Power Company was Niagara-Mohawk, which has since been purchased by National Grid.

Mohawk Hudson Power Corporation incorporated:

  • Buffalo, Niagara & Eastern Power Corp.: Served 500 cities and towns including Buffalo.  Niagara Falls supplied most of its power;
  • Northeastern Power Corp.: Served communities along Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence;
  • Mohawk Hudson Power Corp.: Served Albany, Schenectady, Utica, Syracuse, and many other communities.

With such a merger, Roosevelt’s original plan to let upstate power companies compete to offer the best possible rates for hydro power were dashed.  In fact, the power companies loved Roosevelt’s plan because as a combined entity, they’d profit handsomely from state taxpayers paying to construct hydro generating stations, saving them the trouble.  Then as a monopoly cartel, they’d set rates artificially high, pocketing the proceeds. J.P. Morgan Bank would also get paid handsomely for helping make it all possible.

To add insult to injury, just two months later, Mohawk Hudson acquired another state giant — Frontier Power Corporation, which in the words of Time magazine, “set Roosevelt agog.”

Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt of New York (Democrat) declared that the fact that 80% of New York State is now served by one hydro-electric corporation made it necessary for him once again to urge the Legislature (Republican) to create a body of public trustees to develop St. Lawrence water power for the people.

Roosevelt’s experience with the House of Morgan and the power utility trusts would be a lesson he would never forgive or forget.  In fact, it culminated in his broadened vision to consider power an integral part of economic redevelopment after the start of the Great Depression later that year.

Roosevelt’s New Deal

Americans only came to terms with the impact of the Great Depression in 1930, months after the stock market crashed.  What initially hurt Wall Street soon spread across the country in waves of bank failures, massive unemployment, a credit crunch, and rampant homelessness, poverty, and despair.  What was bad in the city could be much worse in rural America.

Services for rural Americans were few and far between, and electric power was absolutely not one of them.  The economic benefits of the boom years usually never made it to rural communities in the first place.  Banks did manage to turn an excellent business convincing rural farmers to mortgage their farms in return for ready cash to acquire farm equipment, pay transportation costs to bring crops to market, and obtain other necessities.  When the bust years arrived, more than a few farmers found themselves foreclosed and evicted from their own farms, seized by lenders to recoup their loans.

After witnessing thousands of farmers and other rural Americans displaced from their homes, Roosevelt embarked on wide-ranging reforms for rural America.  One of the most important was rural electrification, designed to guarantee electricity to any rural American that wanted it.  Through the New Deal, rural Americans would experience the benefits of modernization first-hand — bolstering farm production and development, increasing economic development, improving health and safety, and most importantly, make rural living economically self-sustainable.

After learning from his years as governor of New York, Roosevelt established some core principles for his rural-focused New Deal electrification program:

  • Full electrical modernization of households defined the standard for quality of life, no matter where the households resided.
  • Electrical modernization of farm productive processes, within the framework of planned production and marketing, would lower farm costs and return farms to prosperity.
  • Electricity must be affordable to all households in quantities required for electrical modernization. Publicly owned and private utilities, lightened of their false capitalization by public regulation and the breakup of holding companies, would provide inexpensive electricity.
  • Cheap electricity would make the redistribution of population and industry possible, because it could be transmitted long distances and sold at near cost to rural consumers.

President Roosevelt speaks to residents in Tupelo, Mississippi, the first city to benefit from the Tennessee Valley Authority

The mostly rural and poor Tennessee Valley region, covering 80,000 square miles in the southeastern United States, including almost all of Tennessee and parts of Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia was an obvious first choice for rural electrification.  Tupelo, Mississippi was the first community to sign onto Roosevelt’s ambitious Tennessee Valley Authority plan to bring cheap power to a deprived region.

The results of electrification at reasonable prices were… electric.  Widespread poverty wasn’t solved overnight, but evidence of social transformation was at hand.  Americans from coast to coast were modernizing their homes, bringing in new electric appliances which fueled pre-war manufacturing, retail sales, and helped bring down unemployment.  Many businesses were thrilled to participate in New Deal programs, which included stimulus spending to help Americans improve their homes.

The impact of New Deal programs for electricity development exist in every American home.  The refrigerator replaced an ice-block powered icebox.  Hand scrubbed laundry in a sink now agitated in a washing machine.  The radio was made commonplace where electricity to power it was available.  Mixers, blenders, toasters, and other small appliances made their entrance with the advent of widespread electric power.  But the impacts go even further.  Technology as Freedom, by Ronald Tobey, notes:

The New Deal in domestic electrical modernization worked an invisible revolution. The New Deal shifted the majority of American families to an asset strategy for economic security through state-enframed home ownership of electrically modern dwellings. Geographic mobility declined. Unrestrained domination of local politics by a locally resident real estate elite ended. Material accumulation based in the owner-occupied home created unprecedented material affluence. The dwellings modernized their occupants, as households rebuilt their social and labor relations around new technologies. Minority groups previously locked out of affluence gained the keys to their future. The New Deal created the 1950s.

Is ubiquitous broadband the electrification challenge of our age?  Naysayers claim fast broadband is only useful for downloading entertainment products, often illegally.  They suggest economic development doesn’t require fast broadband — any version of broadband is good enough.  Worse yet, government involvement in it is suspect, according to these critics.

But after weeks of witnessing countless communities compete for Google’s Think Big With a Gig broadband project, it’s clear the clamor for affordable, fast broadband service is far more important than the naysayers would suggest.

Share

Broadband: The 21st Century Equivalent of Electricity — Part 2 – The Progressive Movement

Phillip Dampier March 18, 2010 History Comments Off

William Randolph Hearst

The Progressive Movement of the 1900s-1920s

After the reform-driven progressive movement of the early 20th century was finished taking on the railroads, they turned their attention to so-called “utility services.”  These were telephone, energy, and water providers.

The progressive movement of the early 1900s split into at least two camps:

  • Individualist Progressives — Most people in this camp belonged to Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive Party, also known as the Bull Moose Party.  The Progressive party was made up mostly of disaffected centrists who left the Republican Party after Roosevelt failed to secure the 1912 Republican nomination for president.  A rift had developed between Roosevelt and then-president Taft over how much energy should be devoted to breaking up corrupt big business and corrupt politicians.  The Progressive Party believed the Republicans had developed an unholy alliance with big business, monopoly trusts, and corrupt politicians on the state and federal level.  These individualist progressives believed in a well-regulated capitalist system, and with respect to energy companies, they demanded honoring the services and pricing promised consumers.  Once those conditions were met, government should stay out of it.  These progressives opposed abusive trusts and monopolies and supported competition.  The Progressive Party had support in states like New York, Illinois, California, Michigan, and Pennsylvania — all states with a heavy manufacturing business base that suffered from monopoly abuses.
  • Reformist Progressives — Reformist progressives believed essential services should be in the hands of public trusts or municipalities, operated as non-profit “utilities” answering to the communities they served.  They were major advocates for municipal utility projects, and believed it was immoral for important services to be left in the hands of for-profit businesses, much less trusts and monopolies.  Many reformist progressives rallied behind the newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst, who loudly advocated radical reform in his newspapers.  Hearst even formed the Municipal Ownership League, a local party in New York City, whose primary goal was to force for-profit utilities out of the marketplace — turning services over to municipalities to run for “the public good.”  Reformist progressives often applied moral values to private enterprise, suggesting an improved capitalist model required companies to also consider the social good of operating in the public interest.

Where individualist progressives had control, rate regulation and oversight was the usual model when dealing with electric companies.  California and Wisconsin, fed up with the railroad abuses, saw many similarities in  electric monopolies.  In the end, they applied the same rate regulation philosophy used with the railways for all utility services.  Both states regulated rates charged based on their perception of fair pricing.  Beyond that, they tended to leave private providers alone.  New York’s governor Charles Evans Hughes was an individualist progressive who advocated regulatory crackdowns on monopolies who abused the terms and conditions under which they offered service.  Once they met that obligation, Hughes believed the free market would manage to sort out the rest.

That was all fine and well for communities already served by electric companies, but what about vast numbers of smaller communities bypassed for electric service?

Defenders of the free market, and the companies themselves argued that only through deregulation would providers get sufficient investment to expand their service areas into previously unserved communities.  Apply rate regulation and other government interference and investors will look elsewhere.

Reformist progressives disputed this assertion, believing hunger for quick profit was responsible for the disinterest in serving rural communities, where construction costs were higher and rapid return on investment was unlikely.  Besides, they argued, since most of these companies provided monopoly service, it wasn’t as if they faced imminent price-cutting competition.

Reformers advocated bypassed communities should form their own municipally-run electric companies or cooperatives, managed by local government and answerable to local ratepayers.  This solution was attractive to many communities, especially the growing number of planned new communities that came during the boom years of the 1920s.

As municipal power attracted attention, some in the private power sector balked.  Not only were these companies delivering good service to customers, they were often doing it at far lower prices.  Many large utility companies and their allies made municipal power a political issue, attacking the concept as anti-American.  Their argument: Public money should never be spent to construct services traditionally provided by private companies, even when those companies had yet to wire those communities for service.

Charles Evans Hughes

As political lobbying for bans on municipal power projects grew more intense, newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst declared all-out war on the electric monopolies.  Hearst advocated that electricity be a delivered only through not-for-profit municipally-run utility companies.

Hearst even went as far to seek the governor of New York’s office several times in the early 1900s, to implement his progressive reforms.  Hearst’s platform included advocacy of public power delivered for the social good. That meant companies would extend service to outlying areas as soon as practical instead of when it was grossly profitable.  Power companies would charge a fair price for good service.  Companies would also advocate for customer safety and work with government to define safety regulations instead of reflexively opposing them at every turn.

In one of several runs for office, his opponent was the aforementioned then-current governor Charles Evans Hughes, who promptly went on the attack.

Hughes had one word for Hearst’s reform views: Socialism

Governor Hughes told the Republican Club of New York in 1908, “Our government is based upon the principles of individualism and not upon those of socialism…. It was founded to attain the aims of liberty, of liberty under law, but wherein each individual for the development and the exercise of his individual powers might have the freest [sic ] opportunity consistent with the equal rights of others.”

Hearst lost the governor’s race each time he ran, and was outmaneuvered by the private industries he sought to reform.  In fact, the industry managed to outwit regulatory advocates at every turn.

For example, since states were permitted only to regulate commerce within its borders, giant national electricity holding companies, also known as “trusts,” typically escaped such regulation by opening headquarters out of state, which allowed them to ignore local and state regulations.  In Riverside, California, Southern Sierras Power Company was able to ignore California state regulations because its head offices were in Denver, Colorado.  That kept pesky state officials out of Sierras’ books to verify whether the rates it charged were fair.

When regulators sought to construct a formula for fair regulated pricing, creative bookkeeping and debt structuring made even confiscatory rates permissible.  Companies learned to use business regulations against the regulators.  For instance, when a regulator believed rates could be lowered, power companies increased their debt obligations, at least on paper.  They paid outrageous administrative fees to the holding companies they themselves often quietly controlled.  Or they used creative accounting tricks to make it appear free cash was obligated to satisfy investors who held company debt and had to be repaid under government rules within a limited time frame.  Companies were able to “prove” to regulators their current rates were fair, and there was no leeway to reduce them.

Only after municipal power companies began providing service at dramatically lower, and sustainable prices did suspicion reach a fever pitch that regulators were being played.

Tomorrow: A “New Deal” for Americans

Share

Broadband: The 21st Century Equivalent of Electricity — Part 1 – The Early Years

Phillip Dampier March 17, 2010 History 4 Comments

New York City streets in 1890. Besides telegraph lines, multiple electric lines were required for each class of device requiring different voltages.

Broadband as a vehicle for social transformation.

What a concept.  At the heart of the public policy debate for broadband improvement are the implications of universal broadband service in every American home.  What such transformation brings to ordinary consumers, entrepreneurs, employers and employees — even the digital economy as a whole, is open for debate.  At the heart of it is an argument over who is best suited to deliver that transformation – private industry or government, or perhaps both.  It’s an argument at the heart of various public policy debates these days, be they on health care, the environment, energy, housing, or telecommunications.

It’s also a discussion Americans have had for well over 100 years.

Back in the 1880s, the topic was electrification and the debate was over who should provide it, who pays and how much, and how or if it should be regulated.

On one side were the electric companies which demanded free, unfettered access to customers with a minimum of government red tape.  On the other were social engineers who saw electricity’s potential to create a dramatic social transformation in America, redefining how Americans live, work, and play — if they could access dependable electricity at a reasonable price.  In the middle were consumers, who wanted the service but didn’t want to get stuck with a gouging bill at the end of the month.

The parallels between electricity and broadband deployment and improvement are obvious as the story unfolds.  The implications go much further than you might realize, especially when one considers much of what we take for granted in our lives today came from yesterday’s debate over electricity.  It’s why today’s National Broadband Plan may bring about social and cultural changes far more profound than worrying about who is next in line to get 100Mbps service.

The 1880s — Electricity Arrives in Big Cities

As American business moved full speed into the modern industrial era, electricity supply moved along with it.  In earlier decades, most businesses located adjacent to natural resources that would power machinery — water being one common choice, coal another.  Water powered mills could grind wheat into flour, and many American cities grew up next to major waterways and the businesses that relied on them. Coal could be used to generate steam-power and fire furnaces capable of making wrought iron and steel, and today’s “rust belt” cities were yesterday’s economic powerhouses.  Gas powered lighting provided streets and homes with light long before electricity arrived, with all of the inherent dangers from open-flame-based lighting.

Electricity service was offered primarily for commercial use in the early days.  That’s because the costs of power generation and wiring were very expensive.  Only commercial customers could pay the rates demanded by power companies for service.  Electricity companies argued that given unfettered access in the market, with limited regulation and increased private investment, they could set about expanding service to residential homes.  From the 1890s forward, service did expand into urban neighborhoods.  Remember, this was long before the concept of “suburbs.”  Most Americans lived and worked within city boundaries.

Line capacity to homes during this era was much more limited than what homeowners find today. When the first well-to-do homeowners signed up for electrical service, they were looking primarily for home illumination.  There were few electric-powered appliances around at the time, so demand for high capacity lines simply didn’t exist for residential customers, and they were rarely offered anyway.

For reasons of price, demand and availability, the majority of revenue from electricity would come from its commercial use.

The 1910s — Great Industry Consolidation

By the advent of World War I, the days of hundreds of independently operated electricity companies were over.  Industry consolidation was rampant in the decade before the Great Depression, as locally-owned companies became part of ever-growing consolidated holding companies, or trusts.  Much like the consolidation of railroad lines, the results were not good news for consumers, unless they happened to own a lot of stock in those companies.  Rates skyrocketed, especially for residential customers.  Only businesses, threatened with higher rates, convinced electric companies they would switch to in-house power generation.  That threat kept their rates stable and relatively low in comparison.

When electric customers began complaining about ever-increasing rates and limited service areas, government began to take an interest.  Government authorities found great similarities between electric companies and the railroad monopolies.  Industry consolidation and too little competition brought ever increasing prices for consumers.  It also reduced expansion of service into new areas, because no other providers were competing to get there first.

The 1920s — Profit Motive & Public Response

During the boom years of the 1920s, electricity service was widely available in most urban areas, but few provided much more than low capacity lines suitable for lighting and small electric appliances.

Those who believed electricity would deliver social transformation to average Americans were stymied by power companies that wouldn’t deliver enough capacity to make the latest big appliances work.  Blenders, mixers, toasters and other small electrical appliances could work, assuming you didn’t have too many lights turned on at the same time, but washers, refrigerators and electric ovens were out of the question.

When consumers inquired about upgrading their service, they were refused by most electric companies.  After all, most power company executives believed “illumination-grade” service was more than sufficient for virtually every American.  In all, they consistently refused to upgrade facilities to at least four-fifths of their customers, telling them they could make do with what they had.

The electrical industry defended this position for years, and even paid for studies to defend it.  A willing trade press printed numerous articles claiming the vast majority of Americans would never require higher voltage service, and it was too expensive to provide anyway.  A select minority of customers, typically the super-wealthy, were the exception.  In fact, marketing campaigns specifically targeted the richest neighborhoods, offering “complete service,” because the industry believed it would quickly recoup that investment.  That, in their minds, wasn’t true for middle class and low income households.  In fact, low income neighborhoods of families making between $2,000 and $3,000 were often bypassed by electric companies completely.

When asked why it was fair for companies to bypass some neighborhoods, while offering enhanced service to others, the industry said it was just a matter of good business sense.

A review of 1928 revenues for 57 electric companies led Electrical World to conclude that only 10 to 20 percent of utility customers were “prospects for complete electric service at indicated competitive rates.”

But the magazine also found when full service was offered at reasonable prices, demand for appliances increased, along with the electrical usage to power them.  Despite the potential for increased revenue, the overwhelming majority of power companies kept the same high priced, low capacity service.

After regulators finished dealing with the railroad robber barons, many turned to the electricity monopolies. Towards the end of the 1920s, power companies were primarily expanding service only to those customers that guaranteed major profits.  That largely meant commercial customers.  Between 1923 and 1929, the percentage of total electricity distributed in the United States taken by manufacturers rose from 48.2 to 52.9 percent.

If you lived in an urban neighborhood, you probably had electricity, but you grumbled about the bill and the frequent brownouts from inadequate voltage.  If you lived outside of the immediate area, you didn’t have electricity and the prospects for obtaining it from a private company were bleak.  The costs to deliver it at a rate of return that would satisfy investors was simply too high.

Share

Taken for a Ride on the Free Market Railroad — The Robber Baron Era of Broadband

An article from McClure magazine, circa 1906, has a lot to say about today's broadband regulatory battles. We've been here before.

Yesterday, while browsing through some of the sources I review for story ideas, I encountered yet another one of those tired “free market solves everything” pieces from Randolph May, filled with the usual memes about keeping government regulation and oversight out of broadband.  May, like his pro-business friends, always believes that markets are self-correcting, and that providing checks and balances for the de facto duopoly most Americans have for broadband service would ultimately harm them.  Besides, if a provider gets out of hand, its competitor will pounce on the opportunity.  Sometimes that happens, but often it does not.  For investors, there is more money to be made going along to get along avoiding price and service wars.  Indeed, when competition gets too hot and heavy, Wall Street brays that “consolidation” is required to deal with all of the revenue-losing-harm healthy competition causes.  Just today, those calls are heard in the prepaid wireless market as analysts continue their relentless pounding that Leap Wireless’ Cricket must merge with MetroPCS to create cost savings, and stop price erosion (your savings).

I want to focus on May’s unintended, but disastrous comparison of American telecommunications regulation with that of the railroad industry of the 1800s:

“This form of regulation was first adopted at the federal level in the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887, which created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate the railroads. In 1910, the ICC was given authority to regulate newly-emerging telephone companies as common carriers, and this authority was transferred to the FCC when it was created in 1934.

By the 1980s, the railroads were largely deregulated and the ICC was abolished in 1995. And towards the end of the last century, with the emergence of competitive choices, the FCC began to relax even the regulation of POTS, or plain old telephone service, provided by formerly monopolistic telephone companies. So it was no surprise when the FCC decided to reject public utility-style regulation for the then new broadband Internet service providers.”

May is obviously no student of history, and the introduction of railroads into this argument gives me my “free market” ability to pounce on his out of hand rhetoric.  The irony is that this debate takes place over the open and free Internet that May and his friends are willing to entrust to a handful of corporate providers who provide most of the connectivity in this country.  They wouldn’t interfere with traffic if it meant making a pile of extra profits selling “preferred partnerships,” would they?

There are obvious metaphors between the railway industry of the 1800s and the broadband industry of 2010s.  Many of the challenges are remarkably similar, especially if one considers broadband a sort of digital railroad that is becoming increasingly important to the economy and job growth.

May is lucky that nobody but those who love studying history are likely to notice he completely ignored the rationale for the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887.  Railroad robber barons had by this time put such a stranglehold on the industry, entire cities prospered or withered based on what a railroad executive decided was the appropriate price for service on a schedule good enough for that community.  If you lived in a city with a strong railroad system with fast lines, competition, and a healthy choice of destinations, your city generally enjoyed economic success. If you lived in an uncompetitive city deemed a railroad backwater by a provider, you paid extortionist pricing to move your goods on a limited schedule that sometimes was followed, other times not.

By the time America had caught on to these abusive practices, railroad barons were secretly charging lower prices and quietly providing rebates to their preferred partners, mostly big businesses, and overcharging everyone else.  They even charged completely different rates for different products.  If you transported tobacco you paid more than transporting flour.  Farmers paid one price to transport crops, lumber suppliers paid something entirely different to move wood.  If you were a friend of the railroad industry, and important to their lobbying efforts, you got a pass to travel fare-free.

It took years for Americans to finally achieve the railroad equivalent of Net Neutrality.  That’s because the railroads were politically savvy, and maintained their own version of astroturfing — an army of business leaders and supporters provided favors and money to parrot railway talking points in the media and before Congress, all while claiming they were ordinary Joe’s.  Railroads supplied generous campaign contributions to members of Congress, and so much money was spread around, it eventually turned into railroad industry graft with the Crédit Mobilier scandal of 1872.

An entire class of “ordinary citizens” and business leaders pleaded in the printed press not to regulate the railway system.  It would create “unintentional consequences,” would “hurt jobs,” “ruin the economy,” and would be contrary to the laissez-faire policies of the time, which allowed a completely unregulated railway system to “prosper.”  Besides, railroads had “transformed the transportation infrastructure” of America and created economic benefits, all from “millions railways invested to improve railway lines.”  Regulation would “discourage that investment.”

Americans might have believed that had the record of abuse by the railway industry not grown into a bulging dossier of unfair pricing and anticompetitive activities. Rural communities were charged high prices for slow, erratic railway service because they rarely had a second choice.  Businesses refused to locate in communities where a monopolistic railway charged high prices and provided poor service.

But even legislative reform in 1887, designed to stop railway abuses and charge fair pricing, left enough loopholes in place for the railroad industry to continue its ways for years to follow.  Court findings of wrongdoing were ignored by the industry, at least until they could successfully appeal them to federal district courts, which tended to favor business points of view in their rulings.

Sound familiar?

Ray Stannard Baker

But one need not take my word for it.  In 1906, McClure’s magazine published the story of Danville, Virginia and its railroads by Ray Stannard Baker, a popular investigative reporter (known then as a ‘muckraker’) for the magazine.  While you may be unfamiliar with Danville, located in south-central Virginia, history dealt it several interesting cards in the 1800s.  Its Richmond and Danville Railroad was immortalized in the song “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down,” telling the story of how the Confederate army’s hopes of defending Richmond in the waning days of the Civil War were dashed when the Union cavalry destroyed the railroad tracks.  General Lee’s army retreated to Danville — the last declared capital city of the Confederate States of America.

As the era of Reconstruction began, Danville threatened to become as well known as Richmond to the east and Lynchburg to the north.  All three communities enjoyed the benefits of competitive railways — providing stable, affordable, and plentiful service between all three cities and points beyond.  With excellent railways, an economic boom followed, and the communities prospered from manufacturing, cotton, and tobacco products, all transported on the railway system to eager buyers.  What was once a city of 5,000 rapidly grew to 20,000.  Danville because a world leader in tobacco production and distribution and built what was once one of the world’s largest textile mills — Dan River Industries, which survived until 2008 when the company declared bankruptcy.

Yet Danville remains completely unknown to most, a forgotten city whose early boom ended when a railway monopoly arrived and strangled the community to a former shadow of itself, perhaps never to completely recover.  The effects were long-lasting.  Today, Danville is a challenged city of 44,000 and declining.  Lynchburg, in contrast, prospered through the manufacturing era, often called the “Pittsburgh of the South,” and has successfully transitioned into one of America’s “top 10 digital cities,” supporting its population of 73,000.  Richmond towers over both, with 200,000 city residents in a community well-known nationwide.  Both of those cities enjoyed competition from railways and built a substantial economic base from that that paid dividends in the decades that followed.

Of course, in 1906, the final chapter of America’s annoyance with railroad robber barons had yet to be written.  Fights over pricing and service continued for years, as communities depended on railroads for their economic well-being.  Ultimately, the Eisenhower Administration’s decision to undertake a national highway system, built by and supported with public funds, was symbolically the end of an era that allowed a handful of corporate executives and railroad trusts to determine the fate of entire communities, all based on the kind of railroad service they would enjoy.  The highway system gave rise to the trucking industry, with air service from municipally-backed airports picking up some of the more urgent business.  Railroads had to compete like they never had before.

The article, lengthy yet surprisingly accessible for contemporary audiences, is provided below in a slightly condensed form.  The more you read, the more you realize those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  Folks like Randolph May are counting on America’s ignorance of the challenges faced by our great-great grandparents, who would find familiar themes in today’s competitive and regulatory broadband battles, and who ultimately wins control of the lines and the traffic that crosses them.

The railroad industry asked people to trust them, and said notions of discriminatory pricing and access were nonsense, because they didn’t make economic sense.  But they very much did, especially when alternatives were limited, if they existed at all.

At Danville, Virginia, the railroad has ceased to be a nebulous public problem, important but distant, and has become the vital concern of every citizen.

Last spring two different delegations of citizens appeared before the Interstate Commerce Committee of the Senate to explain what was the matter with the town. The first asserted with earnestness, and showed by statistics, that everything was wrong in Danville, that the railroads had ruined the town, and that stringent new laws were necessary to control them; the second with equal ardor asserted that the town was all right, that the railroad “had done a great deal for Danville,” and that legislation giving the Interstate Commerce Commission the power to change rates would be injurious, if not disastrous. These two radically opposing views were typical of the positions taken by delegations from every part of the United States: one side fighting the railroads, the other supporting them. And the impression left upon the ordinary listener was usually one of doubt and confusion as to what, after all, had been the real effect of the railroads upon the town or the industry represented.

It was with the keenest curiosity, then, that I visited Danville to discern, if I could, what really lay behind the arguments of the opposing delegations, and what, after all, had been the influence of railroads, good or bad, upon the town. If we can understand a city like Danville, which differs from other American towns only in the variety and extent of its railroad experiences, we shall go far toward understanding, broadly, the meaning of the railroad problem in this country.

Notable Signs of Decay and Growth

I feel sure that no city could give a first impression more suggestive, or convey outwardly a clearer intimation of its inward conditions. Here were evidences of both decay and growth. On many streets of the town loom with hulking relics of multiple stories built of brick, scores of them, many now vacant and out of repair; some in total ruin, burned and never rebuilt; some used part of the year for storage. Huge and grim, they present a curious picture of decay. On the other hand, almost side by side with them, bright new tobacco houses have arisen, much fewer in number but equally as large as the old — for Danville is, and has been for years, the greatest leaf tobacco market in the world.

Decay is also evident in vacant or partly vacant stores in the business part of the town, and in the lack of such prosperous jobbing houses as one ordinarily expects to find in a city of twenty thousand people. A number of wholesale merchants continue to survive but few of them are successful. On the other hand, nothing could exhale a more vaunting air of well-being than the cotton mills along the Dan River — all bright and new, prosperity beaming from every one of their thousands of windows. Within a few years Danville has come to be one of the most important cotton-milling centers in the South. Other manufacturing concerns, flour mills, a busy furniture factory, a knitgoods enterprise, also give an impression of growth and welfare.

Two Parties In Danville

A further acquaintance soon reveals the fact that the people of the town are divided into two opposing parties. The first includes a very large portion of the population — ninety-five per cent at least — and is led by the city government, the Business Men’s Association, and by prominent citizens like Judge A. M. Aiken of the corporation court, and Eugene Withers, a lawyer and former member of the legislature. This party is anti-railroad and anti-trust. It asserts that the Southern Railway has injured the growth and checked the prosperity of Danville.

The other party is small in numbers, but it represents much of the wealth of the town. It is headed by James I. Pritchett, a wealthy miller, doing a business of $900,000 a year; by R. A. Schoolfield, the president and controlling spirit of the cotton mills; by W. P. Boatwright, a prosperous furniture manufacturer; and by James R. Kopling, president of the First National Bank. This party of wealth and power stands with the railroad.

Now, it is common enough in every town to find a few rich men and many not so rich, but it is uncommon for the two interests to be so clearly conscious of their relative positions and to discuss so frankly the causes which they believe have operated in producing such remarkable contrasts of decline and prosperity. In many communities the visitor discovers an unrest which sometimes relieves itself with unreasoning attacks upon what is vaguely known as the “trust evil” or the “money power;” but in few towns will he find the people, as in Danville, calculating with exact figures, facts, even maps and diagrams, the causes which lie behind their business failures and successes. And that is what makes the conditions there so interesting.

Few sections of the South recovered from the prostration of the Civil War more rapidly than southern Virginia, for the reason, chiefly, that its principal crop — tobacco — was abundant and brought ready cash. Danville, Lynchburg, and to some extent Richmond, were the energetic centers of the industry. Danville, especially, owing to its excellent location, attracted able men, and gave promise of becoming a large city. The town then had two railroads, one reaching to Richmond, where the water shipping facilities of the James River connected it with the outside world, and the other, built during the war by the Confederate government, running into North Carolina. Its nearest and only threatening rival was Lynchburg, sixty-six miles to the northwest. Both towns had good water powers, both had tobacco markets, and both did a thriving business upon practically even terms.

How Danville Helped Build Railroads

Shrewd men in Danville, as everywhere else, recognized transportation facilities as the key of industry and the chief cause of city growth. In every part of the country during the 187o’s and 188o’s the people were mortgaging their cities and counties to help private railroad builders. When the Virginia Midland Railroad was projected to run from Washington City to Danville, the citizens, eager for this new outlet into Northern markets, contributed no less than $400,000 in cash ($100,000 by the city, $300,000 by Pittsylvania County), to the projectors of the enterprise. When the railroad was completed in 1874, Danville immediately felt its vivifying effects. The town grew rapidly both in population and in wealth.

If such was the effect of railroads, said Danville, why not have more of them? The reasoning seemed good, and when the Danville & Western was projected in the 188o’s to run to the coal-fields, (where it never arrived) the city cheerfully presented the private builders with $110,000 in cash. In these years of free competition the town outstripped its rival to the north and became a thriving commercial center.

By this time the country was reaching the era of combinations, consolidations, and trusts. Short railroad lines were being connected under single ownerships. Great trunk lines took form. And one day in 1886, Danville awakened to the discovery that its two competing railroads — its only outlet to the markets of the world — had been swallowed up in the system afterwards known as the Southern Railway, which now spreads a network of lines from Washington to the Gulf of Mexico and the Mississippi River.

Danville thus found itself in 1887 at the mercy of a railroad monoply ; the competition which had been the life of its trade had wholly disappeared.

In the Grasp of Monopoly

What was the remedy? Danville did just what scores of other monopolized cities were doing at the same time. It reached out eagerly in search of new competing lines. Promoters suggested a railroad to Norfolk on the sea and Danville was so anxious to have it built that another contribution of $150,000 was raised by the town — more than enough to build outright the part of the new railroad which ran through Pittsylvania County.

The private promoters, having got all the money they could out of the people, finally completed the line — as bad a job of railroad building as they dared to do — and in the early 188o’s it was opened for business. But this new competition was not long to be enjoyed. When the Atlantic and Danville began to be a real competitor of the Southern, J. Pierpont Morgan and his associates acquired the company under a long term lease, and it became, and is now, a part of the Southern system. Since that time every railroad facility of Danville has been absolutely controlled by the Southern Railway.

When monopoly closed down upon them again, the first instinct of the people of Danville was to encourage new railroads. Their experience in the past had been bitter. They had contributed (with the county) over $700,000 in past efforts to build competing lines. The railroad companies in each case had given stock to cover the amount of money raised, and then they had failed, or reorganized — as they intended to do beforehand — and not one cent of the money voted by Danville, or by Pittsylvania County has ever been returned, or ever will be. And Danville is still paying interest on $290,000 of the money borrowed to encourage railroad competition which it does not now have. Nearly a quarter of the entire debt under which the city today struggles, is made up of these old railroad loans. “We are paying for our dead dog,” is the way one of the citizens put it to me.

These facts may seem extraordinary and unusual, but they are not. Such has been the common experience of cities and counties in every part of the United States. The people of the United States have indeed contributed enough in cash, in bonuses, and in lands (by millions of acres), to build a large proportion of the railroads of the United States. All this money and land has been given to private individuals — the owners of the railroads — and these private individuals now not only regard the railroads as their private property but deny the right of the people to a voice in the control of the vast systems thus built up.

But hope springs eternal! Danville, in spite of its former bitter experiences, was willing in 1901, by popular vote of the people, to promise $250,000 more in cash to help build another competing railroad — a project called the Mount Rogers & Eastern Railroad, which, however, from causes unknown, died before it was born.

Results of Railroad Domination

Let us examine now what railroad monopoly has done in producing the curious contrasts of decline and prosperity in Danville. Fortunately we have all the facts fully set out in hearings and court cases.

A brief study of Danville rates shows two remarkable things:

  1. Rates on practically all goods shipped into Danville have either remained flat or increased since the Southern Railway began its monopoly service.
  2. Rates on practically all goods shipped out of Danville, with one significant exception, have been greatly reduced by the same railway.

The reasons for this apparent greediness with reference to one sort of freight, and this apparent generosity regarding another sort, when explained, will make clear many of the fundamental whys and wherefores of the railroad problem.

A shoe merchant in Danville buys stock in New York. It is shipped by sea to Norfolk and by rail to Danville. He pays 66 cents per hundred pounds. In the same car maybe an exactly similar shipment for a Lynchburg merchant. The railroad company hauls the car 66 miles further, and then charges the Lynchburg man only 54 cents per hundred pounds, or 12 cents less for 66 miles more.

Why? Lynchburg has railroad competition, while Danville has not.  Danville is at the sole mercy of the Southern Railway, while Lynchburg enjoys service from Southern, as well as Norfolk & Western and the Chesapeake & Ohio, any of which could have transported those shoes.

Even more remarkable examples of rate disparity exist.

Take sugar from New Orleans for example.  Shipped by Southern, sugar destined for Lynchburg goes through Danville, but Danville must pay 43 cents per hundred pounds, while Lynchburg 66 miles further only pays 32 cents.

Pork shipped from Chicago to Lynchburg, a trip of 1,000 miles, costs even less!  It’s just 27 cents per hundred pounds.  But Danville shipments cost 40 cents.  If a Danville merchant first shipped his pork order to Lynchburg, hoping to realize some savings, he’d still have to book a shipment from Lynchburg to Danville, at a price of 13 cents per hundred pounds, nearly half the price Southern charges to ship goods from Chicago some thousand miles distant, than it charges to ship between two cities only 66 miles away.

In short, railroad rates from every direction to Danville, and on almost every sort of merchandise — the only exception I could find among thousands of commodities being barreled apples — are from thirty-three per cent to one hundred per cent higher than they are to Lynchburg, and that in spite of the fact that many, if not most of the shipments for Lynchburg pass through Danville.

Curiously, Southern charges different rates for different goods, which would seem illogical for freight charged by the weight.

Story of Two Kitchen Stoves

W. R. Guerrant, a hardware merchant, showed me freight bills on two steel kitchen stoves weighing eight hundred pounds. The rate from Cincinnati to Lynchburg, five hundred miles was $1.76 while from Lynchburg to Danville, sixty-six miles, the rate was $1.84. In other words the Lynchburg merchant would have paid only $1.76 on his two stoves while the Danville merchant paid $3.60. How much chance would a Danville merchant have in competing for trade with a Lynchburg merchant?

Horses shipped from the West by the Southern can be shipped to Richmond, 141 miles further than Danville, at much less freight. There have been instances in which Danville dealers actually had their shipments billed to Richmond, and when the horses reached Danville, they took them off — secretly of course — and let the cars go on empty to Richmond.

Of course Danville has also experienced many of the lesser impositions of monopoly. Shippers have had trouble in getting cars when ordered, they have had long delays in receiving freight, and they have also suffered exasperating passenger train arrangements and poor service in other ways. With no danger of any competitor getting the business the railroad could do as it liked.

As a result of high and discriminating freight rates the wholesale business of Danville, once thriving and prosperous, has been injured and the retail business has also suffered. Jobbers in other Virginia cities have taken away practically all of Danville’s trade, even selling to merchants in smaller villages almost in the environs of Danville. Every commodity in Danville is higher in cost than in other cities, therefore no farmer or any one else trades in Danville if he can avoid it. And every citizen pays the tax of monopoly upon every pound of sugar, loaf of bread, ton of coal, every hat, every foot of lumber, all shipped by Southern Railway.

After a careful investigation the Interstate Commerce Commission said in its report:

Danville began twenty years ago with a population of 3,ooo people, and rapidly developed to substantially its present size; but in recent years and at the present time it finds further development seriously impaired, if not absolutely checked by this rate discrimination. Its wholesale merchants are deprived of most of their profitable territory by competition with Lynchburg and Richmond. Every new industry which considers the advisability of locating there is confronted with the fact that it must pay in freight rates a sum from Danville over and above what must be paid from Lynchburg large enough to afford a handsome profit upon many enterprises. Every inhabitant and every property owner of Danville is to an extent injured by this discrimination.

All this accounts for the vacant or partially vacant stores, it also accounts for the rise of the anti-railroad party among the people, and the fact that the city government, the Business Men’s Association, and many prominent citizens are waging a hard fight for new laws to control railroad rates.

Where the Railroads Smiled

While the railroads extract a high price for goods shipped into Danville, the reverse is true for many goods heading out of town.

In Danville, most freight consists of cotton goods, furniture, flour, and tobacco.

A railroad seeks to build up industries on its own line.  It also favors the big shipper who can assure so many carloads every year.

Cotton mills, for example, would not be built at Danville unless the railroad first gave favorable rates. And we find that Mr. Schoolfield has built up huge mills because he can ship his cotton at rates which permit him to compete with other cotton mills in the South.

Mr. Pritchett is given a milling-in-transit rate on wheat — in other words, he is allowed to stop wheat in Danville, grind it in his mill, and send the flour on at the remainder of the rate. If he had not that rate he couldn’t thrive - but he is highly prosperous.

Both of these gentlemen chiefly use water from the Dan River for their power, not the coal which bears such high freight rates.  The railroad does not have a monopoly on water.

Mr. Boatwright gets good rates on his furniture, so he is prosperous. Here is a curious fact: furniture can be shipped from Mr, Boatwright’s factory at Danville, to Northern cities, much cheaper than it can be shipped from the North to the retail merchants at Danville. In other words, by the favor of the railroad, Mr. Boatwright is enabled to get his furniture out of Danville at a low rate so that he can compete with other manufacturers; but furniture shipped in and bought by the people of Danville (who can’t escape) must pay the high rates.

The one exception to this rule in tobacco, which costs the same high price to ship into town as it costs to export it.  That’s because the local farmers that grow it often live on subsistence wages, ill-equipped to follow Mssrs. Boatright, Pritchett, and Schoolfield out of town in a snit over railway rates.

Many a dollar can be made off the plight of farmers, who often must borrow money to advance to the railways, hopefully recouped upon sale of their goods in distant cities.  Bankers provide the loans, and support for the current railway arrangements that provide them a profitable side business.

It is plain, now, why the rich men of Danville — the manufacturers and to some extent the bankers — stand with the railroads. It is purely selfish: They get favoring rates and they stand by the monopoly. If they did not, a very little change in a rate might destroy their business. And the friendlier they are, the more favors they are likely to get.

Mr. Pritchett said to the Senate Committee :

“In my past experience of twenty odd years in business I have found the officials of Southern Railway always willing to listen to our troubles and in a great many instances to take care of us.”

Mr. Pritchett not only gets favorable rates, but he is a director of one branch of the Southern Railway.

Thus the two contrasting groups went to Washington last spring. The committee of citizens went at its own expense, to complain of the oppression of the monopoly. The committee of rich manufacturers and bankers was called together by a director of one of the branches of the Southern Railway, and the members traveled on free passes.

The Costs Go Beyond the Railroads

The citizens of Danville show by accurate figures that while Lynchburg has grown rapidly the population of Danville (not counting suburbs admitted), has increased comparatively little since the railroad monopoly fastened upon the town. Another barometer of prosperity is the valuation of real estate: up to 1887 — the year of monopoly — the increase in value was rapid. In 1885 it was $5,511,097. In 1890 it had decreased to $5,170,928. In 1900 it had increased to $6,828,760, but this was caused largely by the addition of over $1,000,000 of cotton-mill property which had been exempt for ten years from any taxation whatever. In 1904 the taxable values had decreased again to $6,521,005.

At the same time that values decreased the tax rate has gone up steadily — for the city must still, in addition to many other expenses, pay interest on its contributions toward the building of the various branches of what is now the Southern Railway.

“We hear the argument of the railroads,” says Eugene Withers, one of the spokesmen of the citizens’ committee, “that governmental rate regulation will confiscate railroad property, but we don’t hear anything at all about how the railroads now confiscate the people’s property.”

Who Are Really Prosperous in Danville?

It will thus be seen that every moneyed interest concerned in the Danville situation — the railroad owners, the tobacco trust, and the favored manufacturers — have been highly prosperous, while the producer and the consumer — in other words the people who do the actual work — have had to bear heavy burdens of excessive freight rates and of prices manipulated by the trusts, to say nothing of constantly increasing taxation.

The manufacturers at Danville assert that the enterprises of Danville are larger than ever before, that more money is invested there, that the profits are greater, that more freight-is being shipped every year, and that the banks do a more extensive business. This is probably true to the last word. The same view was presented by the manufacturers at Washington last spring, and to one unfamiliar with actual conditions it looks like a rosy picture.  But that isn’t true with the common man in Danville.

I was greatly struck with the words of Judge Aiken upon this very point. Perhaps no man in Pittsylvania county has a wider acquaintance with conditions and men.

” The long continuance of this condition has affected our citizenship,” he said. ”I have been on the bench for twenty years, and I can perceive it in the selection of juries.”

We may now begin to see why the great proportion of people in Danville, led by the city government, are anti-railroad and antitrust, and why they sent a committee to Washington to protest and demand laws to control railroad monopoly. On the other hand we can see why the few rich men, who are growing richer every year, went to Washington and supported the railroad monopoly, and declared that Danville was more prosperous than ever before. And it is more prosperous — for six, or twenty, or perhaps even one hundred men, but for the remainder of the population it is far less prosperous.

When the news came to Danville that six manufacturers and bankers had gone to Washington to support the railroads, the people were so much stirred that they called a great mass-meeting at the court-house — one of the most remarkable gatherings in the history of the town. So bitter was the feeling aroused, that it was only the council of cooler heads that prevented severe denunciations of abuse. Here was the town trying to escape from the burden of railroad monopoly; and here were six citizens of the town, who, because they received favoring rates, and were personally prosperous, were willing to prevent their neighbors from obtaining any relief. One of the speakers at the meeting, Mr. Withers, thus expressed it:

“It is not a question between the two committees. If certain businesses are satisfied with the rates given them by the Southern Railway, why should they interfere with those who are not satisfied with the rates?”

One of the first things  a visitor at Danville is prompted to ask is, “Why don’t you complain to the Interstate Commerce Commission? Why don’t you carry your grievances into the courts?”

That is exactly what Danville has done: few other American cities have conducted a longer or a more persistent fight. No part of the Danville story, indeed, is more important or significant than this.  Twice the city achieved legal victory before the Commission, and twice the railroads ignored the ruling.

Indeed, through changes in classification about that time, rates were actually increased on many commodities. The Southern Railway paid no attention whatever to the Interstate Commerce Commission, and Danville continued to pay the high freight rates. The next year, 1901, the Commission went into the courts to enforce its order. A railroad is perfectly at home in the courts; it has trained, high-grade legal talent and plenty of money, and the more delay the better, because in a few months time a town like Danville would pay in extortionate rates more than enough to cover any amount of litigation. The case dragged, therefore, until August, 1902, when the federal court decided in favor of the Southern Railway and overturned the decision of the Commission. The case was then carried to the Circuit Court of Appeals where nearly a year more of time was consumed, and the railroad again won the case. At this point the Interstate Commerce Commission stopped fighting and the rates are unchanged today at Danville.

What Is the Railroad Position?

Now, I do not wish to infer that the Southern Railway has adjusted the Danville rates out of spite. The Southern Railway is on its part and in its way a victim of competitory conditions, and it was the setting forth of these conditions which won the case in the federal courts. Rates at Lynchburg are forced down by competition and are therefore beyond the control of the Southern Railway, acting alone. In order to make up for low rates at towns where competition exists the Southern Railway exacts high rates at towns where it has a monopoly. In other words, Danville must be made to help pay Lynchburg’s freight. Considering only the dividends of the railroad this sort of an adjustment may be necessary, and the courts may sustain it; but does that make it right or just either to Lynchburg or to Danville? Are towns created for the profit of highway owners, or are highways built to serve the towns? The railroad asserts that it is powerless to adjust present conditions so as to do justice between such towns as Danville and Lynchburg, but when it is proposed to create a government tribunal with power to secure that justice, the railroad fights the proposition, as it is fighting it now in Congress.

What Of Our Elected Leaders?

The time is coming when the people will insist upon knowing, not only the personal qualities of its governors and congressmen, and especially its United States Senators, but it will also find out definitely and exactly who these men propose to represent — the railroads and the trusts, or the people. If Senator Martin, of Virginia, for example, is not right upon the railroad questions from the point of view of Danville, isn’t it largely the fault of Danville? Until the people in each state follow up their senators and find out what they stand for, and then hold them to their positions, they will get little progressive legislation in Congress. When Minnesota elected Senator Clapp — who had for years been a railroad attorney — they not only asked him what he stood for, but got his promise in writing that he would support a rate regulation law.

Of course the railroad has great influence within Danville, as in other towns. Several of the branch lines of the Southern Railway still maintain a corporate existence. They must have Virginia directors — merely nominal officers, of course, without power. Eight or ten of these directorships are scattered among the citizens of Danville, presumably where they will do the most good. Each director gets an annual free railroad pass. Here, at the start, is a nucleus of a railroad party in Danville. The head of the cotton mill company is one of these directors, the head of the flour mill company is another; both were members of the committee which went to Washington to tell the Senate that railroad conditions in Danville were all right, and that no more legislation was needed.

Conclusions From the Danville Case

I have thus endeavored to give a clear idea of what conditions are in Danville. A few points in conclusion, should be emphasized.

Is it right that the Southern Railway, having a monopoly, should charge high rates at Danville to make up for the low competitive rates at Lynchburg? Should Danville help to pay Lynchburg’s freight rates? The Southern Railway admits making a profit on its Lynchburg business, even at the low competitive rates: why, then, should Danville be required to pay from thirty to one hundred percent more profit?

Is it right that the very life of a town in Virginia should be in the hands of private individuals in New York city or elsewhere, who have no sympathy with Danville, and are working, not for justice, but for private profit?

Railroads are public highways which all people have a right to use upon equal terms. Is it right for the Southern Railway, upon any excuse whatever, to deny the people of Danville this equality upon the public highway?

Is it right that the Southern Railway, having deprived Danville of competition, should now plead its own wrong in defense of high rates at Danville and low rates at Lynchburg? If the beggar on the streets has no right to steal money because he is a beggar, has the Southern Railway a right to do a wrong merely because it needs revenue?

Is it right that a railroad which objects so strongly to the confiscation of its property, should be allowed to depreciate the value of property in towns where it has a monopoly?

The railroad says that such adjustments as those between Lynchburg and Danville are fixed by competitory conditions beyond its control. If the railroad cannot itself cure such injustice, why should not the governmental commission be empowered to do it?

Is it right, finally, that there should be no power in this country strong enough to prevent railroad injustice and railroad discriminations like those existing in Danville?

If you would like to read the article in its entirety, as well as read other articles from McClure’s in 1906, you can download this PDF copy (32 MB) of the magazine, which includes several issues.  The article regarding the railroad industry begins on page 131.

Share

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

  • Scott: You're partly correct about a new access point or router helping them. The problem with consumer or lower quality wireless access points is they do...
  • txpatriot: I was just yanking your chain (and being an @$$)....
  • Phillip Dampier: I take your point, but honestly have not considered Panera Bread's Wi-Fi problems as part of the fight against broadband caps....
  • txpatriot: "You should not read into every story written here as an effort to prove some point." Of course not -- that's why the website is titled "Stop the C...
  • James R Curry: Hey Phillip, It's a thorny subject. There are a lot of coffee shops that set themselves up as places for people to come and meet and work and stud...
  • Phillip Dampier: I don't have any position to take regarding Panera. It's a free Wi-Fi service. If I go into Panera Bread, I am honestly there to buy their food, not t...
  • Alex Perrier: Another option is speed caps. i've experienced speeds of anywhere from 1 Mbit/s to 6 Mbit/s at Bell Wi-Fi hotspots. i think this is reasonable. Tho...
  • George Douglas: Cisco had nothing to do with this. Verizon Network Integration is the vendor. Gianato was told five days prior to the contract being signed that these...
  • Smith6612: True. All of the above works fine. Even then though, I don't think they need to spend money replacing their current gear with something from Meraki fo...
  • Tk: Perhaps Phillip is blaming the wireless phone company caps for this situation at Panera. "The problem has gotten even worse since wireless phone co...
  • txpatriot: Interesting situation. The commenters providing suggested solutions are even more interesting, but what I find MOST interesting is that, provided...
  • AP: No surprise here. Traditional TV has NOTHING on except for stupid reality shows and unfunny sitcoms. I do most of my TV watching online but for sports...

Your Account: