Mehlman

A telecom industry front group acknowledged today American broadband in the last decade has not won any awards for speed or price, but if you just give the industry ten more years of deregulation, there will be more competition than ever to change that.

For the Internet Innovation Alliance’s Bruce Mehlman, the cable and phone companies have done a fine job bringing broadband to Americans, especially considering the industry is only ten years old.  If you leave things the way they are today, the next decade will bring even more competition from phone and cable companies, he promises.

But consumer groups wonder exactly how a duopoly will ever deliver world class service in the next ten years when it has spent the last ten hiking prices on slow speed broadband and now wants to limit or throttle usage.

This afternoon, National Public Radio’s All Things Considered tried to referee the broadband debate, pondering whether America is a world leader in broadband or has just fallen behind Estonia.  Reporter Joel Rose was perplexed to find two widely diverging attitudes about broadband, each with their set of numbers to prove their case.

On one side, consumers and public interest groups like Consumers Union and Free Press who believe deregulation and industry consolidation has created a stagnant broadband duopoly that only innovates how it can get away with charging even higher prices.

On the other, the phone and cable companies, the groups they finance, and their friends on Capitol Hill who believe there isn’t a broadband problem in the United States to begin with and government oversight would ruin a good thing.

Compared with other nations, the United States has continued to see its standing fall in broadband rankings measuring speed, price, adoption rates, and quality.  When East European countries and former Soviet Republics now routinely deliver better broadband service than America’s cable and telephone companies, that story writes itself. Embarrassed industry defenders prefer to confine discussion of America’s broadband success story inside the U.S. borders, discounting comparisons with other countries around the world.

For Rep. Joe “I Apologize to BP” Barton (R-Texas), it’s even more simple than that.  Even questioning the free market is downright silly.

“As everybody knows, if it’s not broke, don’t fix it,” Barton said at a March congressional hearing to discuss broadband matters. “And y’all are trying to fix something that in most cases isn’t broke. Ninety-five percent of America has broadband.”

Industry-financed astroturf and sock puppet groups readily agree, and dismiss industry critics.

Bruce Mehlman, co-chair of the industry-supported Internet Innovation Alliance, which opposes more regulation, acknowledges that the story of broadband in the U.S. is a classic glass-half-full, glass-half-empty predicament. Still, he says he thinks broadband adoption in the U.S. is going pretty well considering broadband has only been available for 10 years.

“For the optimist, you’d say within a decade we’ve seen greater broadband deployment than you saw for cell phones, than for cable TV, than for personal computers,” Mehlman says. “It’s one of the great technology success stories in history.”

Mehlman says Americans don’t need more government intervention to make broadband faster and cheaper. “We haven’t yet and that’s in the first decade,” he says. “In the second decade, the marketplace is only going to be that much more competitive.”

Kelsey

The problems go further than that, however.

Derek Turner, research director for the public interest group Free Press, told NPR broadband rankings tell an important story. “For the providers to try to say that there’s no problem, it’s merely just a smoke screen,” he says.

Providers would prefer to measure their performance against each other instead of comparing themselves with foreign providers now routinely providing better, faster, and cheaper service than what American consumers can find.  They have to, if only because of those pesky international rankings illustrating a wired United States in decline.

Joel Kelsey at Consumers Union tells NPR there is an even bigger question here — what role broadband plays in our lives.

Because 96 percent of Americans can only get broadband from a duopoly — the phone or cable company, the only people truly singing the praises of today’s broadband marketplace are the providers themselves and their shareholders.  Consumers see a bigger problem — high prices, and particularly for rural consumers, slow speeds.

“If you talk to [the] industry,” Kelsey says, “they think of broadband as a private commercial service akin to pay TV or cable TV.”

On the other hand, Kelsey says, “There’s a lot of folks who think it is an essential input into this nation’s economy — an essential infrastructure question.”

National Public Radio reporter Joel Rose dived into the battle over broadband numbers between consumer groups and industry representatives. Is America’s broadband glass half-full or half-empty? (June 28, 2010) (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Telstra is Australia's largest telecommunications company. (Photo: Telstra)

It’s not as if the Australian government didn’t warn private broadband providers, notably Telstra.  For the past several years, Australians have endured expensive, slow, heavily usage-limited broadband service that has put the country well behind many other Commonwealth nations.  Australian Communications Minister Stephen Conroy finally warned the nation’s largest telecommunications provider if it didn’t move forward on upgrades and improved service, the government would be forced to step in to protect the national interest.

Instead of improving service, Telstra spent years stonewalling the government and the Australian public, while banking high profits for broadband service.  That’s a familiar story for North Americans, stuck with companies like Bell, Rogers, AT&T, Comcast and Verizon — all of whom seek ultimate control over what kind of service you receive, what you pay for it, and what websites you can and, perhaps down the road, cannot visit without paying a surcharge.

Australia is closing the chapter on this story with a happier outcome for its 22 million citizens.  Perhaps the United States and Canada could learn a thing or two from the folks down under.

Bringing U.S. Oligopoly-Style Management to Australian Broadband: The Sol Trujillo Years — 2005 to 2009

Telstra, a former government monopoly comparable to the American Bell System, was privatized in the late 1990s.  Telstra looked to the United States for a chief executive that had experience navigating that transition.  They found Sol Trujillo working his way up the management ladder at AT&T, finally culminating in chairmanship of former Baby Bell Qwest Communications.  Would Trujillo like to take on the challenge of managing Australia’s largest phone company? Trujillo signed on with as Telstra’s CEO in 2005 promising to modernize the business and to bring American-style innovation to the South Pacific.

Instead, Trujillo established an American-style rapacious oligopoly.

Channel Nine in Australia reported on Telstra’s sudden interest in union-busting after Sol Trujillo arrived in 2005.  (1 minute)

Sol Trujillo

In his first year at the company, Trujillo started an all-out war to get rid of Telstra’s organized labor, slashing 10,000 jobs to “save the company money” all while boosting his own salary.  What started as $3 million in compensation in 2005 would rise to more than $11 million dollars just four years later, even as the value of Telstra declined by more than $25 billion on his watch.

Trujillo alienated his employees and officials in the Australian government.  Then-Prime Minister John Howard attacked Trujillo’s salary boost as abusive.

“I’m not complaining about the salary I get but I do think the average Australian, who gets paid a lot less than I do … regards that sort of salary as being absolutely unreasonable,” Mr Howard said on Southern Cross radio. “And it doesn’t help the capitalist system, which I believe in very passionately, that some people appear to abuse it.”

Trujillo’s salary was 38 times greater than the highest official in Australia’s government.

The average Australian retiree gets by on $219AUS a week.

Trujillo had to make due with more than $211,000 a week.

Channel Nine ran this report on the controversy over Sol Trujillo’s compensation package.  That old meme about having to pay high salaries to attract quality talent would have been more convincing had Trujillo’s policies not caused a $25 billion reduction in Telstra’s value.   (2 minutes)

Customers weren’t exactly endeared to spending more of their money on Telstra products and services.  Telstra had already embarked on cost controls for network upgrades, leveraged its monopoly power in many parts of the country with high rates for usage-restricted service, and bungled a critical application to participate in Australia’s National Broadband Network.

Australia’s National Broadband Plan, a roadmap for broadband improvements, set pre-conditions to involve small and medium-sized businesses in network construction.  Trujillo balked, demanding that Telstra — and only Telstra — should have the right to determine what kind of network should be built in the country.  More importantly, unless they exclusively ran it, the company would do everything in its power to block or destroy it.

Internet Overcharging schemes limit enjoyment of broadband usage across Australia. Telstra provides a usage meter estimator that includes all of the useless measurements for e-mail, images, and web browsing. But throw in some movie watching and the gas gauge really starts to spike.

The Sydney Morning Herald business reporter Ian Verrender was stunned:

Telstra has employed a three-step strategy to muscle out any competition.

It can be neatly condensed into three words: Bluster, Belligerence and Obfuscation.  We [just] saw it again in spades.

Telstra has been excluded from one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects announced by a Federal Government in decades: the construction of a national broadband network.

Could it really be that Telstra’s board and management were so incompetent that they could not get past stage one in a tender process of this magnitude?

After all, there were only four main criteria that had to be met. The first was the proposal had to be lodged in English. The second and third had equally low hurdles. Metric measurements – not the old inches, feet and miles – were required and the bid had to be signed. Nothing too difficult there.

But the fourth criterion appeared to stump Telstra. It didn’t include any plan for the inclusion of small business. And so the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, was obliged to exclude Telstra, an announcement that shook 12 per cent from the value of the country’s biggest telecommunications company.

This was no accident on Telstra’s part. It knew it was lodging a non-conforming proposal. Why, you ask?

The answer is simple. Telstra does not want a national broadband network, particularly one that involves anyone else. That includes taxpayers.

And if one has to be built, Telstra will do everything in its power to delay or kill the process. Yesterday marked stage one in a protracted war, ultimately designed to defeat one of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s key election promises.

Trujillo claimed yesterday that Telstra had been unfairly excluded from the process on a technicality. That’s just rubbish.

In recent months, the company, its chairman, Don McGauchie, and Trujillo repeatedly threatened to walk away from the tender process, and lodged the proposal only a few hours before the deadline.

Trujillo’s rhetoric yesterday was laced with the usual mixture of bravado and threats. He compared Australia to North Korea or Cuba. He declared only Telstra was capable of building the type of network required by the Government.

But two lines stand out. First this: “Customers make the choice of who they do business with; regulators and governments and others do not.” And then: “We reserve our rights regarding future action.”

The message is clear. Telstra will launch legal action at every opportunity – and even when there aren’t opportunities.

That time-honored American practice of simply suing your way through any legislative or regulatory roadblocks threatened to come to Australia.

The exclusion of Telstra from such a revolutionary broadband project didn’t sit well with the board or shareholders, and directly led to Trujillo’s ouster in 2009.  By then, he had alienated customers, the government, and just about everyone else.  Perhaps the government would allow a second look at a Telstra broadband application if it was submitted by someone other than Sol Trujillo?  It couldn’t hurt to find out.

Channel Nine covers the ousting of Sol Trujillo, wondering what sort of golden parachute he’d receive on the way out the door.  (3 minutes)

Just weeks after leaving, Trujillo decided to settle scores with Australia, telling reporters that he thought the country was backwards and racist.

Payback time.  Trujillo threw a hissyfit in a BBC interview calling Australia’s lack of laissez-faire regulatory policies backwards, and treatment towards him racist.  (Channel Nine – 1 minute)

The Post-Trujillo Era: More Arrogance and Ruthlessness, But a Communications Minister Outmaneuvers the Telecom Giant — 2009 to Present Day

Telstra spent the summer of 2009 attempting to heal the Trujillo-caused wounds with conciliatory statements in the Australian media.  Telstra’s new chief executive, David Thodey, admitted the company’s customer service record needed improvement.  He distanced himself from some of the more caustic comments from the former CEO, and claimed the company was on-track to be a major participant in improving Australia’s broadband experience.

Conroy

But as the months progressed, Australia’s Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy ultimately concluded he was getting the lip service treatment that Telstra had delivered Australians for years.  Conroy, already suspicious of the company’s control-minded tendencies, quietly began bending the ear of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.  Conroy had watched Telstra’s steadfast refusal to work constructively towards a National Broadband Network (NBN).  By last summer, the company was making proposals for underwhelming broadband expansion.  Fiber optic broadband was unnecessary and expensive, they said.  Besides, the service Telstra was providing was already good enough.

Australians didn’t agree.  Part of the platform that brought the Rudd government to power was the promise of better broadband service in Australia.  Waiting for Telstra to provide it was a futile exercise.

Conroy told Rudd the government should not be setting its broadband policy agenda based on what worked most conveniently for private providers.  If they won’t move, then let’s get them out of the way, Conroy suggested.  Rudd, working for the interests of the Australian people — not just a handful of telecom companies seeking riches with substandard service at monopoly prices, agreed.

After reviewing the proposals submitted to design and construct 21st century broadband service for Australia, Rudd dismissed them all, calling them inadequate.  The government, he announced, would go it alone and build the network itself — delivering a fiber to the home network for 90 percent of Australians on an open network available to any provider that wanted to rent access at wholesale rates.

More importantly, Conroy was not going to allow Telstra to continually block progress on the NBN.  Conroy was not some supine minister willing to compromise away the goal of super-fast affordable broadband.  His critics called him Machiavellian, slashing and burning anything that stood in his way.  But Conroy was steadfast — corporations would never be allowed to dictate broadband terms to the government.  He warned Telstra to cooperate or face the consequences.

Telstra continued to stall and stonewall, and last September, the Rudd government delivered what it promised — a forced break-up of Telstra.  The company was given a choice — either sell back its copper wire landline network to the government or divest itself of satellite TV service Foxtel and lose access to any additional wireless mobile frequencies for Telstra’s cellular service.

The equivalent in the United States would be to declare fiber to the home to be in the national interest, and if AT&T and Verizon didn’t deliver it to nearly every home in their service areas, the government would move in and do it themselves, taking back ownership of the AT&T and Verizon’s infrastructure along the way.

Network Ten covered the announced break up of Telstra by the federal government.  (2 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Nine Network Telstra Breakup 9-15-09.flv

Channel Nine ran several reports on the announced breakup of Telstra, including an interview with the opposition.  (6 minutes)

Australia Declares Broadband a Utility Service that Private Providers Cannot Control

Monday marked a day in history for Telstra, agreeing to sell back its copper wire landline business (for which it will receive $11 billion in compensation).  In return, Telstra is assured wholesale access to the new fiber broadband network, and can market products and services on it.  It cannot, however, serve as a gatekeeper to keep competitors out nor maintain virtual monopoly service, especially for less suburban and rural customers.

Some telecom analysts believe the deal is actually good news for Telstra, if they’d see beyond their control tendencies.  After all, they say, Telstra gets to rid itself of a legacy copper-wire landline network that is expensive to maintain and serves a dwindling number of consumers, many who have switched to wireless.  They also get to develop and market new high bandwidth applications on a network they are no longer responsible for financing.

It’s a win for the government as well who gets a single, national fiber network built in the public interest, which makes it far easier to recoup the billions in costs to build it.  They’ll even likely make a profit suitable to defray the costs of subsidizing wireless broadband service for Australia’s rural residents, to be served with at least 12Mbps connections.  No cost-recovery fees on customer bills, no usage limitations that restrict innovation, and broadband that serves everyone, not just a handful of corporations that seek to monetize every aspect of it.

Conroy wouldn’t think much of America’s National Broadband Plan, which relies near-exclusively on private providers voluntarily doing the right thing. Conroy stopped putting blind faith in Australia’s large telecommunications companies.  The Obama Administration hasn’t.

We’ve seen millions spent lobbying to permit a handful of providers to control broadband service on their terms.  Few will provide fiber to the home service and many are content leaving rural Americans with dial-up service.  With dreams of Internet Overcharging schemes to manipulate usage to maximize profits even higher, things could get much worse.  What’s right for AT&T isn’t right for us.

For Australia, who has lived under such monopolistic broadband regimes for over a decade, a National Broadband Network without arbitrary usage limits and available to all — rural and urban — is the promised land.  It will leapfrog Australia well ahead of the United States and Canada, with far faster speeds and better prices, all because a government stood up to a corporate provider that preferred to overpay its executives instead of getting the job done right.

Australia had a reality check — broadband is a utility service necessary for every citizen who wants it.  Just as electrification and universal phone service became ubiquitous in the last century, broadband will also join those services in the years ahead as commonplace in nearly every home.

If only the strength and conviction that is fueling Australia’s broadband future could also be found in the United States, where too often what is urgently needed today gets frittered away into “maybe we can have it someday” compromises with big telecom and their lobbyists.  That isn’t good enough.

ABC National Radio interviewed telecom analysts about the implications of today’s deal with Telstra to retire Australia’s copper wire phone network (June 21, 2010) (4 minutes, 17 seconds)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Senator Queen worked hard to try and strip the one year moratorium out of Senator Hoyle's anti-consumer bill

With the League of Municipalities essentially cutting a deal to sit on a municipal broadband study group that includes no actual consumers, voting for big telecom’s favorite bill of the year became a no-brainer.  It was a real shame to see the voting results on S.1209, despite pleas from consumers and some of North Carolina’s most rural representatives demanding to keep the municipal broadband option open.  They understand reality — while a handful of politicians in Raleigh cash big corporate contribution checks from the cable and phone companies, those out in the rural real world live with the results — no broadband.

We don’t need a one year moratorium on municipal broadband.  If the state government wants to study the issue, so be it, but a one year suspension on municipal broadband is a stall technique that big telecom providers are celebrating across the state.

Residents across North Carolina owe Sen. Joe Sam Queen a special thank-you for leading the charge for better broadband for rural residents.  He offered an amendment that would let the study go forward, but stripped out the anti-consumer moratorium.

Mark Binker of the Greensboro News & Record explained what happened next:

During the debate Monday night, Sen. Joe Sam Queen, a Waynesville Democrat, offered an amendment to allow the study to go forward but remove the moratorium.

Sen. David Hoyle, a Dallas Democrat and the Rules Committee chairman, offered a substitute amendment that essentially altered the bill’s language a bit but kept the moratorium around. Hoyle is one of the bill’s primary architects.

“We do not need a moratorium on the expansion of broadband across North Carolina,” Queen said. “This will only pour cold water on a very innovative sector.”

Now for a word on substitute amendment: When a substitute amendment is offered and accepted, it has the effect of wiping out the first amendment, which then can’t be offered again during the debate. It’s a way of doing away with things that the majority really doesn’t want to vote on.

During the past five years, I’ve mostly seen it used in the Senate my Democratic leaders to do away with Republican amendments they view as noxious – typically politically charged measures that could be awkward votes for rank and file members. I can’t recall the last time I saw a Dem on Dem substitute amendment.

I don’t know what, if any, conclusion can be drawn other than Hoyle was going to make darned sure his bill went through as is. Vote for the final measure was 41-7.

When big telecom pays the way, Senator Hoyle knows their needs must be met at all costs, no matter that his transparent shilling for the industry steamrolls over his fellow Democrats.  Besides, with his retirement looming (we’ll be watching to see where he lands next), who cares if his constituents are upset?  Certainly not Hoyle.

Fifteen Senate members stood against Hoyle’s ridiculous moratorium and deserve some recognition as well:

Senator(s): Allran, Atwater, Boseman, Dickson, Dorsett, Foriest, Goss, Jones, Kinnaird, McKissick, Purcell, Queen, Shaw, Snow, and Vaughan

Courtesy of Mark Turner, here is the audio from the Senate floor debate over S.1209 and the arguments for and against a municipal broadband moratorium. (June 7, 2010) (30 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Tomorrow, the fight in the House begins with a call to action to start flooding members of the House Ways and Means/Broadband Connectivity Committee with calls and e-mails.  In the short House session, there are plenty of opportunities for us to derail this anti-consumer gift to the state’s cable and phone companies.  I’ll have a contact list up tomorrow.

Senator Hoyle turns his back on consumers and reads from his industry-provided talking points to stop municipal broadband

[Phillip Dampier co-authored this piece.]

North Carolina communities seeking to provide Internet access to their residents would have to wait a year while legislators argue over their terms of entry under a revised bill that swept through the Senate Finance Committee yesterday on a voice vote.

S1209, originally a poison pill bill that would effectively kill municipal broadband projects, was revised into a demand for further study, accompanied by a one-year moratorium for any city contemplating its own broadband project.

That concerns officials in several cities across the state, especially Greensboro, who wants to preserve the option of municipal broadband should Time Warner Cable revisit an Internet Overcharging experiment attempted in 2009 which would have drastically limited broadband usage for its customers.

The bill’s passage with a calling of the “yeas and nays” made it impossible for members of the public to know who voted for and who voted against the compromise measure.  But an accidentally open microphone allowed many to get a real sense of how much one member of the Committee disliked consumers fighting back against telecom special interests pulling all the strings.

Senator Daniel Clodfelter (D-Mecklenburg) nearly raised a toast to his fellow members during the session praising them for doing the “grown-up” thing and agreeing to his manufactured compromise that phone and cable companies are celebrating as a victory today:

“This is not, I would say to you, a peace treaty.  It is an armistice. And what the bill does is provide an armistice so that the shooting war stops and a conversation will occur among those people who’ve been meeting with each other in those conference rooms for the past week,” Clodfelter said. “Thank you all, because you did the grown-up thing, and I really appreciate it.”

Clodfelter’s seemingly-sincere comments might have gone off better had the audience not heard Clodfelter’s private remarks to Senator Dan Blue (D-Wake) a few minutes earlier, inadvertently captured by a live microphone:

“The — what I call the crazies that circulate around this issue are not gonna like this,” Clodfelter told Blue.

Observed WUNC reporter Laura Leslie: “I’m sure Clodfelter isn’t the first lawmaker to think so, but most of them cover the microphone before they say it out loud.”

The bill’s author, Senator David Hoyle (D-Gaston), who spent the day mangling the words “fiber optic,” condescendingly lectured his colleagues and communities about their opposition to his bill.  Mistakenly called a Republican in the pages of the Greensboro News-Record, Hoyle complained cities don’t belong in the broadband business.  He doesn’t want government competing with private industry, which might explain why the newspaper switched his party affiliation.  But considering the amount of telecom special interest money that has flowed into the retiring senator’s campaign coffers, there may be much more to this than a philosophical debate.

Hoyle has gone all out in the North Carolina media on behalf of his telecom industry benefactors.

Money makes legislators do strange things... like disrespect their constituents with obvious industry-backed protectionist legislation

Delivering a series of eyebrow-raising one-liners, Hoyle is hardly ingratiating himself with cities and towns across the state.  He inferred most city and town leaders were naive, telling ENC Today he expects all of the attention on municipal broadband will only cause more municipalities to get into the business.

“There are a whole lot of cities that can’t wait to jump on the bandwagon — monkey see, monkey do,” Hoyle said, using language that some have since called inappropriate.

Hoyle argues these systems are destined to fail.  Once again he called out the cities of Davidson and Mooresville completing required upgrades to an old Adelphia cable system the community acquired nearly three years ago.

“There’s a couple of cities in this business that they should sure wish the heck they were not into, and that’s Davidson and Mooresville,” Hoyle said.

That came as news to MI-Connection, the municipal provider providing service to the two communities, whose revenues for the quarter that ended March 31st were up 9.4 percent from a year earlier.

Davidson resident and MI-Connection board member John Venzon told the Davidson News he’s worried that the legislation could “unlevel the playing field” for MI-Connection and make it harder to compete.

MI-Connection General Manager Alan Hall also told the News the entire board has concerns about these kinds of bills.

Hoyle and his telecommunications industry friends may wish the communities weren’t in the business, but MI-Connection believes otherwise.

As Stop the Cap! has reported on several occasions, MI-Connection’s challenges have hardly been unique to Davidson and Mooresville.  Time Warner Cable ditched over 125 Adelphia systems it purchased, and the company is still coping with legacy equipment left in place at the former Adelphia system it now runs in Calabasas, California.  The cost of upgrades for the old Adelphia systems kept by both Time Warner Cable and Comcast ran well into the millions.

Another messy misstep for the state senator has been what one could charitably call “stretching the truth.”

Mayor Susan Kluttz, representing the people of Salisbury, N.C., was called a "gentleman" and "he" by an out of touch David Hoyle

“I got a call from a gentleman yesterday, Mayor Kluttz from Salisbury, and I mean he laid me out.  He called me dumb.  I had no idea,” Hoyle complained to other members on the Senate Finance Committee.

One person who was not amused by that story was Salisbury Mayor Susan Kluttz, who was seated directly in front of Hoyle.  She had no idea what Hoyle was talking about.  I later spoke with a representative of the city who told me no one from their staff called Hoyle.  With a mistake like that, maybe that phantom caller was onto something after all.  Listening to Hoyle, the self-appointed expert on municipal fiber projects, refer to them as “fiber opticals,” “fiber opt,” “fiber install and do all the things they’re going to do,” and “totally fiber project any city,” did not inspire confidence.

At the heart of Hoyle’s opposition is the idea that local municipalities should not be involved in the private sector… ever.  In his mind, broadband service is a luxury, and the private marketplace is best equipped to decide who gets it, and who does not.  Hoyle brings no answers to the table for communities bypassed by the duopoly of providers who are increasingly focusing their time, attention, and resources on larger cities where average revenue per customer can be higher than in rural areas.  If the local cable or phone company doesn’t provide the service, that’s just too bad.

Mirroring the attitude of the state’s telecommunications companies, Hoyle believes municipalities or even private providers that seek broadband stimulus money represent unfair competition, even in cases where existing providers refuse to offer service.

That is the ultimate dilemma.  If you believe broadband is not becoming an essential component of most American lives and is simply a nice thing to have, it’s not insane to agree with Hoyle.  But hundreds of thousands of North Carolina residents don’t believe that.  Parents of children in broadband-disadvantaged schools quickly learn their kids fall behind their peers in larger, wired communities.  Businesses will not locate in areas where inadequate broadband exists.  Digital economy entrepreneurs cannot start new businesses without good broadband either.  Even senior citizens, who are among the most resistant to broadband adoption, often complain about the inherent inequity of being forced to rely on dial-up service.

Senator Purcell

Some of the same arguments about disparity of access went on during the early 1900s in rural North Carolina, deprived of electricity and telephone service by private providers.  Once President Roosevelt effectively declared these types of services as essential utilities, where private providers didn’t go, municipalities and co-ops did.  In North Carolina, keeping the brakes on an expansion-minded state government came even before Roosevelt was president, with the passage of the 1929 Umstead Act — a law that prohibits the state from directly competing with private enterprise.

The Umstead Act has been seized on by the telecommunications industry, arguing municipal broadband violates the spirit of the law, even though it never applied to local municipalities.  Besides, the law has been amended since 1929 because, free market theory notwithstanding, free enterprise doesn’t have every answer and cannot meet every need.  Just ask BP.

Only Ayn Rand could appreciate that Hoyle and his allies support an entrenched duopoly that embraces its profitable urban customers while they fight for restraining orders like S1209, blocking efforts by others to deliver service the duopoly won’t provide.  We call that corporate welfare and protectionism.  But some in the state legislature can’t see that because of the blizzard of cash being dropped in front of them by that duopoly, just to leave things entirely in their hands.

Hoyle noted nobody, including himself, liked the final bill.  In Hoyle’s eyes, that adds up to a “good bill.”

Other members on the Committee had different views to share.

Senator William Purcell (D-Anson, Richmond, Scotland, Stanly) is the former mayor of Laurinburg — the same city from the 2005 court victory in BellSouth/AT&T v. Laurinburg, which paved the way for municipal broadband in the state.  He asked pointedly, “What assurances do we have that the private companies are going to provide [service] to smaller areas?”

Senator Queen

Hoyle answered by pulling out his talking points generously provided by the cable and phone companies and delivered a non-answer, finally stating, “we are not going to get broadband to everyone in the state.”  Perhaps Hoyle is foreshadowing his next job after he retires from the Senate — working for the same telecom companies he seems to represent now.

Senator Joe Sam Queen (D-Avery, Haywood, Madison, McDowell, Mitchell, Yancey) delivered the most passionate presentation of the day on behalf of his constituents, among the least likely to have broadband service available to them.  As Hoyle disrespectfully rolled his eyes and winked at the cable industry lobbyists in the audience, Queen blasted the industry’s record of performance in his district, which covers the High Country — the rural Appalachian mountain counties in the western half of the state.

“We don’t have last mile access in the mountains,” Queen told the Committee.  “[My constituents are] frustrated that it’s not getting done by the cable companies, the network companies, whoever’s doing it. They’re just cherry-picking and leaving off so many of our citizens, and that’s just unacceptable.”

Queen noted the private industry that refuses to serve many of his areas also refuses to allow others to provide that service.

“The private sector is not getting it done fast enough,” he added. “We have electricity to everybody, we have water to everybody. We should have Internet to everybody in the 21st century.  In my counties, we are still struggling to make that happen.  Our children don’t have the virtual broadband educational opportunities that they have in the urban areas. Our business owners don’t have the access to markets that our urban citizens have.”

Senator McKissick

One senator had a question about the year-long moratorium.  Senator Floyd B. McKissick, Jr. (D-Durham) asked if no action was taken by the end of the 2011 session, would the moratorium expire automatically?  Although provisions in S1209 do provide for a firm sunset date, Paul Myer from the North Carolina League of Municipalities told me nothing precludes the Senate from quietly extending the moratorium, or removing the sunset provision altogether, effectively making the ban permanent.

Meanwhile, communities contemplating such projects would have to give 15-days written notice to every private provider potentially impacted, providing more than two weeks for a fear-based opposition propaganda campaign.  And we know where they’ll get the money to pay for it, too.

The only good news out of all this:

• Cities already providing or constructing broadband projects may continue;
• A Google Fiber city in North Carolina gets a pass;
• Federal broadband grant recipients may proceed, although many of those grants are going to existing providers anyway;
• The bill is headed next to the House, where we have a new opportunity to derail it.

Recognizing the spirit of this entire proceeding which left consumer interests out in the cold, no public comments were heard and no recorded vote was taken.

Needless to say, the revised S1209 is only slightly less loathsome than the original, and must be opposed.  But more on that coming shortly.

We couldn’t close this piece without recognizing that when all the talk was over and vote was taken, it was rest and relaxation time for selected senators, brought to you by Electricities who picked up the tab for a fabulous spread of food and drink.  WUNC reporter Laura Leslie wrote about what she called an Irony Supplement.

The S1209 compromise also won the grudging support of Senator David “Business-Friendly” Hoyle (D-Gaston).

After telling Senate Finance that “Somebody, maybe a lot of bodies, needs to stand up for our free enterprise system,” Hoyle went on to knock the state’s biggest public utility co-op:  “If anybody thinks that the experiment with Electricities was a resounding success, I’d like for you to raise your hand.”

No one did.

But after session today, quite a few of the Hons found their way across the street for free food and drinks provided by – wait for it – Electricities.

As one House Republican told me tonight, “If you can’t bash them and then eat their hors d’oeurves, you’re in the wrong business.”

No, sir, I’m not.  But I’m thinking you might be.

Senate Finance Committee deliberations on a revised S1209, a bill to establish a one year moratorium on municipal broadband projects. (June 2, 2010) (34 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

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.

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.”

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)

AT&T had to pay considerably more in taxes last year than Verizon did

One of the most common talking points among pro-business tax cutting advocates is the claim that companies in the United States face the highest corporate tax rate in the world.  But that assumes corporations actually pay taxes at that rate, which few do.  In fact, this week Forbes discovered that many of the country’s biggest, most profitable corporations enjoy a far lower tax rate than you do–that is, if they pay taxes at all.

While the biggest tax savings were grabbed by the bailed-out banks, the nation’s two largest telecommunications companies — AT&T and Verizon didn’t do too badly for themselves.

Of the two, AT&T had the higher tax bill, paying an effective tax rate of 32.4 percent.  But AT&T is still prone to  avoid paying corporate taxes wherever it can.  In Connecticut, AT&T’s maneuvers are fueling a campaign for state tax reform to close the loopholes.

This morning, the Hartford Courant slammed AT&T:

AT&T Corp. has emerged as the poster child for these shenanigans.

A state Department of Public Utility Control audit found AT&T to be engaging in a tax-avoidance scheme sometimes called the Las Vegas Loophole. Over a period of 2.5 years, AT&T shifted about $145 million in Connecticut earnings to a subsidiary in Nevada, ostensibly paying licensing fees for the right to use the company’s own name and logo. Nevada has no corporate income tax, so the shifted earnings went untaxed and Connecticut lost out. If it sounds fishy, that’s because it is. AT&T is not alone. Many large corporations use sham transactions designed to move profits generated in Connecticut to a different state where they won’t be taxed.

AT&T’s executives benefit from creative tax accounting themselves, earning a stipend of up to $14,000 a year to hire high-priced accountants that specialize in finding ways to reduce their own personal tax bite.  But no matter — AT&T covers the taxes CEO Randall Stephenson has to pay on some of his benefits anyway.

While the rest of the country plods through a jobless recovery, Stephenson decided the time was right to get a base salary increase and resume taking a bonus — a big one, too.  His effective compensation package rose by a third in 2009.

Among Stephenson’s compensation and perks:

• $1.45 million in base salary, up two percent over 2008;
• $12.1 million in options and performance-based stock incentives;
• $216,000 in rebates to cover his club membership dues;
• $200,000 to cover his life insurance premiums;
• $140,576 to cover any taxes he is forced to pay on his benefits package.

Verizon gets to use partner Vodafone's British address to help reduce exposure to U.S. corporate taxes. It reports much of its income through its British partner, which helps reduce its American tax liability.

Meanwhile, over at the nation’s 12th largest company, Verizon has managed to cut its tax rate to just 10.5 percents.  That’s because on paper, Verizon’s British partner Vodafone gets much of the income, while the U.S. side gets lots of expenses.  That dramatically reduces the corporate taxes incurred by the company in the United States.  That tax rate is even lower than Steve Forbes’ much-promoted 15 percent flat tax.

Verizon’s compensation to Uncle Sam calls out the myth of America’s corporate tax rate.  With creative accounting work, companies can slash their tax obligations.

That gives Verizon more money to spread around to top executives at the company, all while Verizon lays off thousands of workers and leaves retirees wondering how long the company will stand behind its pension and health coverage benefits.

Some shareholders are rankled by news CEO Ivan Seidenberg is on track to receive an $11 million stock grant if the company makes it as low as 25th among 34 similar Dow Jones-ranked companies, and a doubling to $22 million, if the company ranks among the top four.  That’s hardly a high hurdle to achieve an $11 million bonus.

That kind of compensation raises the ire of former employees of Verizon, who launched the Association of BellTel Retirees to protect the pension and health care benefits of retirees.

“Large payouts for below-median performance does not adequately align pay with performance,” said Bill Jones, the retiree group’s president, a former managing director at NYNEX, now a part of Verizon.

The group is well known for its high profile pressure on Verizon to stop providing a largess of benefits for top management for merely doing their jobs.

This year, the Association will demand a vote on a resolution to better tie stock awards to stock performance and limit executive compensation.  It also wants to stop expensive windfall golden parachute packages, such as Seidenberg’s $33.1 million dollar bon voyage, which he receives if he’s fired or retires.

While a handful of Verizon executives fight to preserve their generous compensation packages, Verizon retirees are fighting to get their doctor bills paid.  Jones’ group is strongly advocating new legislation to stop companies from walking away from their agreements with retired employees.

Bill Jones appeared on WOCA-AM Ocala, Florida in February to discuss the threat retirees face when companies walk away from their pension and health care plans for former employees. (28 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

H.R. 1322, the Emergency Retiree Health Benefits Protection Act, was introduced into the 111th Congress by Rep. John Tierney and would:

• Prohibit group health plans from making post-retirement reductions in retiree benefits;
• Require plans to adopt provisions barring post-retirement cuts in retiree health benefits;
• Require employers to restore benefits reduced after retirement;
• Provide an exemption for employers who are unable to restore benefits because they would experience substantial business hardship to be determined by the Secretary of Labor; and,
• Create a loan guarantee program to assist employers in restoring retiree health benefits.

Bill Jones discusses his organization’s battles to protect pensions and health care benefits for Verizon retirees.  (5 minutes)

Time Warner Cable may be robocalling you any day now with news that your set top box is getting what the cable company is calling an upgrade.

Time Warner Cable is making this robocall to customers with set top boxes announcing an upcoming upgrade. (1 minute)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Calls are being made to customers with set top boxes in Buffalo and Rochester notifying them an upgrade to the new Mystro platform begins as early as April 13th, depending on the box being used.  Syracuse and southern tier residents can expect their upgrade to commence in May.  The company maintains a website that will let you find the exact schedule for the Mystro upgrade in your area.

Time Warner Cable’s Navigator software displays the electronic program guide, helps you program and control your DVR, and also includes the setup menu for the box.

The upgrade will result in a dramatic change in the look and feel of the box’s on-screen graphics, change how you navigate through the program guide, and provide more options for hooking up today’s HDTV sets. If you have a DVR box from Time Warner Cable, the upgrade sets the stage for an upcoming feature that will let you remotely program your DVR while away from home.

Not everyone is thrilled with the upgrade, however.  In fact, a Google search for “Time Warner Navigator upgrade” reveals a large selection of websites and forums filled with complaints.  Regularly reported problems include:

• Sluggish performance, especially on older set top boxes;
• Poor responsiveness on fast forward/rewind functions for DVRs, making it difficult to land precisely where you want to be;
• The loss of “virtual HD” channels which some boxes passed through to even standard analog-only TV’s (albeit not in HD of course);
• DVR bugs that made recording reliability inconsistent;
• A DVR menu that makes it difficult to record only new episodes of series that repeat regularly on the channel lineup;
• Box crashes, lost program guide data, and issues with the box retaining settings, especially for more complex HDTV setups;

Time Warner Cable began testing Mystro at least two years ago in selected markets, and the company believes it has worked out a number of the bugs noted above along the way. Time Warner plans to systematically upgrade their customers to the new platform nationwide now that testing has been completed.

This customer was so bemused with the Time Warner Navigator upgrade, he made a video illustrating the absurd journey he took to find a science-fiction movie to watch.

Time Warner Cable’s own promotional videos show off the new Time Warner Cable Navigator system in a better light. (5 minutes)

Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) is expected to resign his seat Monday

Rep. Eric Massa (D-New York), author of the Broadband Internet Fairness Act (HR 2902) — legislation that would ban Internet Overcharging, announced he will resign his office Monday.

In a fast-moving series of events, Massa first announced he would not seek re-election because of health reasons — the congressman faces a renewed battle with cancer, but allegations of ethical violations also surfaced earlier this week which have gotten national news coverage.

Massa is a first term congressman in New York’s 29th Congressional district, which has traditionally elected Republican candidates to office.  But as the national Republican party has trended further to the right, northeastern Republicans have become an endangered species in Congress.  Former Rep. Randy Kuhl only held onto the seat for two terms before being defeated by Massa in 2008.  Kuhl himself replaced retired congressman Amo Houghton, a long-serving moderate Republican whose voting record often split with the national Republican party on major issues.

Massa’s decision not to run for re-election surprised voters in his district, which runs from suburban Rochester to the Pennsylvania border along the southern tier.  Friday’s sudden announcement he’ll also resign his office effective Monday shocked voters and started a scramble for who might assume Massa’s seat upon his resignation.

The loss of Eric Massa to the Stop the Cap! cause is a concern for broadband consumers.  Massa stepped up to protect consumers from an Internet Overcharging experiment proposed last April by Time Warner Cable, which serves most of his district.  Massa immediately blasted the cable company’s plan to test usage-based billing on residential customers in the Rochester area, which is the only major city in New York State not served by Verizon and its expanding fiber to the home FiOS system.

Massa’s proposed legislation would have banned such schemes unless a company could demonstrate a clear financial need to adopt consumption billing and usage limits.

Thankfully, New York senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) remains in office, and is the only senator to protest Time Warner Cable’s experiment, and helped end it, not just for residents of western New York, but for residents of Texas and North Carolina as well.

As to the swirling of allegations surrounding Massa, I have no interest in expanding on them here.  You can get a detailed review of the congressman’s views on these issues by listening to a 90-minute radio show aired today on a WKPQ-FM in Hornell, New York.  Today’s show will probably break news because Massa expands in great detail what’s behind the allegations and the reasons for his retirement.

Eric Massa’s regular Sunday show on WKPQ-FM Hornell, NY today discussed his decision to resign his office in great detail. (90 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

As for his replacement, a number of Democrats from both the southern tier and Monroe County/Rochester are considering entering the race.  Massa’s already-campaigning Republican opponent, former Corning Mayor Tom Reed remains in the race.  The Republican county supervisor for Monroe County, Maggie Brooks, is also considering a run.  But so is the former Congressman Randy Kuhl.  “Randy the Dandy” would be the worst possible option.  His undistinguished record and contempt for his constituents makes my skin crawl.  In his last term, Kuhl refused to hold open town hall meetings, instead shepherding constituents in for ‘five minutes with Randy’ where someone took notes and another escorted you out when your time was up.  Nobody should have bothered to take notes — his ongoing lack of concern about what voters in his district thought helped him lose his seat in the first place.  His lack-of-listening tour would fit perfectly with certain cable companies who don’t listen to their customers.  Hopefully, voters will not contemplate a return of Randy Kuhl.  Four years was more than enough.

We’ll be looking for other members of Congress to take up where Eric Massa left off.  I would like to thank Congressman Massa for his hard work on behalf of our cause, as well as helping make a difference on so many other matters important to the voters in his district.  I wish him good health and best wishes.

Several television stations announced Rep. Massa’s decision to resign his office Friday in “breaking news” headlines.  This clip has three reports from WETM-TV Elmira, WHAM-TV Rochester, and WENY-TV Corning. (6 minutes)

Residents in the 29th congressional district react to Rep. Massa’s resignation announcement, and local politicians jockey for position to potentially run for Massa’s seat.  Three reports are included from WHAM-TV Rochester, WROC-TV Rochester, and WENY-TV Corning. (6 minutes)

America’s established cable and telephone companies are pulling out every stop to impede the Obama Administration’s broadband stimulus program.

Comcast alone, the nation’s largest cable company, has filed thousands of objections to proposed broadband projects in communities large and small, claiming those projects have the potential of introducing competition in their service areas, whether or not actual broadband service is being provided to residents in those communities.

Most large providers like Time Warner Cable, Comcast, and many national phone companies have steered clear of applying for broadband stimulus money.  They don’t like requirements that could force them to adhere to Net Neutrality provisions, sharing equal access to their networks.  But they don’t want anyone else on their turf getting funding either, and they’re spending enormous amounts of time and money objecting to anything and everything that seeks funding in their respective service areas.

It’s nothing short of a Broadband Blockade, and it is dramatically slowing the government’s ability to pour over thousands of applications.

Settles

Dan Hays, from consulting firm PRTM, told USA Today as a result of the delays, there’s significant doubt as to whether the monies can be awarded before the end of September when the funding authorization expires.

Could that be part of the plan all along?

“They aren’t leading, they aren’t following, and they won’t get out of the way,” said Craig Settles, a municipal broadband expert. “They’re not going to put proposals on the table because they don’t like the rules. Yet they’re not going to cooperate with the entities that are going after the money.”

“There are 11,000 public comments (about the funding applications), and I’m willing to bet that 9,000, at least, were a challenge or protest of one sort or another,” says Settles.

“We’re at a point where it’s the general public’s interest vs. the entrenched incumbents,” Settles added.

When giant telecommunications providers are threatened, they run to lawmakers for special protection, and they’re getting it.

National Public Radio ran this report about the problems awarding broadband stimulus grants. (5 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Coming next…

FairPoint – Bankrupt And Soaking in Failure – But Still Has Enough for Lobbyists, Attorneys to Fight Broadband Projects On Its Turf

Some of the crowd at Sunday's rally in Charleston

Verizon employees affiliated with the Communications Workers of America turned out in force Sunday to protest the proposed sale of Verizon’s West Virginia operations to Frontier Communications of Connecticut.

Hundreds of workers and union members rallied at the West Virginia Culture Center in Charleston, the state capital, to protest the deal.

The CWA is concerned the transaction will enrich a handful of corporate executives and Wall Street bankers while saddling the state with sub-standard phone and Internet service for years to come.  Frontier Communications will assume enormous debt to make the deal happen with Verizon, and set itself down the same path that ended in bankruptcy for two similar deals in the recent past involving FairPoint Communications and Hawaiian Telcom.

Union members are, of course, concerned about their future employment prospects at a Frontier-owned operation, but insist they are also concerned with the citizens of West Virginia.

“I work in the community and live in the community. I want to be able to go out to the stores with nobody yelling at me for not being able to provide service for them,” said Jim Radcliff, a Verizon employee.

(from left to right) CWA Pres. Larry Cohen, Local 2003 Pres. Anekia Greiner, and CWA District 2 VP Ron Collins

West Virginia’s governor Joe Manchin made an appearance at the rally, saying he has concerns about the proposed sale, and joined labor and community leaders to say he would do everything in his power to make the proposed deal work for working families in the state, not just Wall Street bankers.

Other rally speakers included Sen. Jack Yost, Del. Mike Caputo, state AFL-CIO President Kenny Perdue, and representatives from the firefighters, nurses and senior citizens.

Firefighters and other public safety officials are concerned about potential disruptions of 911 service, which were an ongoing problem after FairPoint Communications took control of Verizon lines in northern New England.

The Communications Workers of America is concerned the sale of Verizon’s phone lines to Frontier Communications could cause disruptions in 911 service, as happened with FairPoint Communications in northern New England.  The CWA is running this ad in West Virginia.

“We need to bring high speed broadband to West Virginia and communities across the country, to foster economic growth,” CWA President Larry Cohen said.  “Instead, Verizon is using an obscure tax loophole to do a tax free deal that will leave West Virginia without a platform for achieving the speeds that are necessary for economic development.  This deal is only good for Wall Street, not Main Street.”

Cohen was speaking about Verizon’s use of the Reverse Morris Trust provision in corporate tax law, which Stop the Cap! explored last fall in detail.  This transaction could cost taxpayers as much as $600 million in lost tax revenue.

Audio Clip: Communications Workers of America Frontier-Verizon Radio Ad (30 seconds)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

WCHS-TV in Charleston covered the weekend rally by CWA opposing the sale of Verizon’s landlines to Frontier Communications. (2 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CWA Rally Excerpts 1-10-10.flv

Here are some excerpts from Sunday’s rally including speakers protesting the proposed sale and praising union involvement in consumer protection. (courtesy: LairdWilliam) (10 minutes)