For more than a year, Stop the Cap! has been covering the issue of broadband mapping, warning against allowing incumbent telecommunications companies from being able to control or influence statewide maps that show who has broadband, and who does not.  A perfect example of why we repeatedly call out telecom-connected groups like Connected Nation being granted a piece of the mapping action can be found this weekend in a guest editorial published in the Fort Worth Star–Telegram written by Todd Baxter, vice president of government affairs and general counsel for the Austin-based Texas Cable Association — the Texas cable lobby:

Newly released maps show that broadband — high-speed Internet — is widely available in Texas. They also underscore that the broadband stimulus program has been ill-conceived and poorly executed by the federal government.

That’s because the federal government put the cart before the horse.

It gave out more than $270 million of your money to a dozen projects in Texas before actually determining where current broadband operators provide service. Common sense would say to find out where broadband is, or isn’t, available before spending the money.

The feds also should better define “underserved,” since the money is intended to help both unserved and underserved areas. It sounds like a riddle — how many broadband providers have to serve a household before it isn’t considered “underserved”? So far that riddle has no answer, and it is costing you, the taxpayer, a lot of money.

Without the data or the definition, how can the federal government make sure it is spending taxpayer money wisely and where it is really needed?

Now that we have the maps, we can see that more than 99 percent of all Texans can access some form of broadband, whether wired, wireless or mobile, from more than 123 providers. Yet — without this information — the federal government awarded hundreds of millions in grants and loans to the Texas projects, with possibly more to come before the broadband stimulus program wraps up in September.

The Texas Cable Association formally objected to seven of the dozen Texas projects when in the application stage, because the areas addressed are already covered by existing broadband providers. We don’t believe the areas are unserved or underserved.

Just a few weeks ago, the Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples, with great fanfare, unveiled the current state of broadband in Texas.  Connected Texas, a subsidiary of Connected Nation joined forces with the state government to perform a broadband census across the state, based on voluntary information provided confidentially by existing service providers.  The result was the stunning “achievement” that 97 percent of Texas already had broadband access, quite a revelation to the scores of consumers who aren’t served by cable companies and cannot get DSL service from the phone company, even if the Broadband Map of Texas says they can.

Texas Broadband Map (click to enlarge)

Kelly from Childress, located in the Texas panhandle, is a perfect example.  She writes Stop the Cap! to tell us how thrilled she was to see the phone company had finally brought DSL service to her street just on the outskirts of town.  She had nagged everyone she could for more than three years about her lack of broadband.  The cable company offered service, if she paid $9,300 for installation of an extended cable line to reach her.  The phone company, despite serving her neighbors less than 1/2 mile away, said she was not “qualified” to receive DSL service.  Today, her husband and two kids do access broadband service, albeit from the equivalent of the broadband black market.  Her nearest neighbor has rigged a souped up Wi-Fi system that allows her family to share the neighbor’s DSL account.  A directional antenna mounted on the roof of each home provides line-of-sight access.  They split the cost of the account and Kelly, an accomplished baker, keeps her neighbors well-supplied with some great pies in gratitude.

Connected Texas collected the information about where broadband service was supposedly available in Texas

Texas has a well-deserved reputation for neighbors helping neighbors to solve problems they’ve long since decided the government can’t, won’t, or shouldn’t solve for them.  Now that neighborly spirit has taken a high-tech approach to share broadband.

With the release of the new broadband map, Kelly thought the days of sharing accounts was over, and she called the phone company to sign up for service.  But, in no surprise to us, broadband availability to her home changed only on paper, not in reality.  No, she was told, she could not sign up for DSL service today or tomorrow for that matter — the company had no plans to extend service her way… indefinitely.

For others, the map is inaccurate because it shows service from dominant cable and phone companies, but ignores the competition.  Regular Stop the Cap! reader Michael Chaney noted, “I know for a fact this map is inaccurate. They show no fiber to the home coverage in Cedar Park, Williamson County, even though I’ve had residential fiber service for almost two years.”

In 2009, Public Knowledge released a report highly critical of Connected Nation, the group responsible for broadband mapping across many states.  Among the findings:

In order to be effective, a national broadband data-collection and mapping exercise should be conducted by a government agency, on behalf of the public, with as granular a degree of information as possible and be totally transparent so that underlying information can be evaluated.

Connected Nation is none of those and represents none of those characteristics. It is an organization sponsored by the telephone and cable companies and represents their interests in deciding what data to collect and how information should be displayed. They are quite up front about their company sponsorship and, in fact, believe it is an asset, if in a way counter to solid public policy.

It would be a setback for our broadband policy if Connected Nation were to take a prominent role in broadband mapping and data collection if it continues on its present policy course because the organization does not represent wise public policy and because it distorts its results.

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D) was correct in April, 2008, when he vetoed a $2.4 million appropriation for Connect Kentucky, which until then had received almost $7 million from the commonwealth. Beshear said that the program was being rejected for state financing because it had asked for funds “without specifically identifying any services to be rendered to the state or providing for any oversight, control or performance measures relative to the services being rendered.”

The group’s close association to incumbent cable and telephone company interests were easily apparent just from the national organization’s board which has 12 outside directors, eight of whom are well known cable and phone company lobbyists or those with direct interests in the industry:

• James W. Cicconi – AT&T senior executive vice president-external and legislative affairs
• Steve Largent – CTIA – The Wireless Association president and CEO
• Joseph W. Waz – Comcast senior vice president, external affairs and public policy counsel
• Larry Cohen – Communications Workers of America president. CWA is in frequent agreement with telecom companies on policy issues.
• Thomas J. Tauke – Verizon executive vice president for public affairs, policy and communication
• Walter B. McCormick – United States Telecom Association president
• Kyle E. McSlarrow – National Cable and Telecommunications Association president
• Grant Seiffert – Telecommunications Industry Association president. (The members are the equipment makers who sell their gear to the telecom industry.)

These individuals, and others, are listed as “national advisors” on the Connected Nation Web site. They are listed as “directors” in their filing with the Kentucky Secretary of State.

The implications of allowing incumbent service providers to influence broadband mapping can be seen in Baxter’s editorial.  If Texas cable and phone companies can declare broadband service available even in areas where it is not, they can then argue against broadband stimulus projects to expand availability as an unnecessary waste of taxpayer money.  The answer to Baxter’s riddle is, unfortunately, too often “none.”  Areas that declare access to wireless broadband, cable and DSL often have access to none of these options.  The cable company doesn’t wire that Texas ranch located too far away from the phone company for DSL and is in an area that just can’t get a good wireless signal.

In smaller communities in rural Texas, efforts by local entrepreneurs to launch needed local broadband services often meet fierce opposition from incumbent interests who declare communities already served, backed up with a map that shows coverage, and therefore should not be allowed to receive stimulus funding.  Often, objections from existing providers effectively disqualifies stimulus applicants and the result is a continued blockade for rural broadband.

The dividend Connected Nation hands to the Texas Cable Association is the political argument that there is no broadband problem in Texas — nearly 100 percent of homes can already access it.  That means broadband stimulus is, in the eyes of the cable lobby, just another federal government giveaway — wasteful spending of tax dollars.  Just look at the Texas Broadband Map and see for yourself.

The Texas Department of Agriculture failed the people of Texas by relying on a group with a vested interest in not finding a broadband availability problem.  And even worse — taxpayers nationwide effectively picked up the $3 million dollars in grant money given to Connected Nation for its map.  That’s a waste of tax dollars that Baxter didn’t bother to bring up.  Somehow I knew he wouldn’t.

We have received a copy of AT&T’s statement in response to yesterday’s report about slowed upload speeds impacting customers in several cities around the United States:

AT&T and Alcatel-Lucent jointly identified a software defect — triggered under certain conditions – that impacted uplink performance for Laptop Connect and smartphone customers using 3G HSUPA-capable wireless devices in markets with Alcatel-Lucent equipment. This impacts less than two percent of our wireless customer base. While Alcatel-Lucent develops the appropriate software fix, we are providing normal 3G uplink speeds and consistent performance for affected customers with HSUPA-capable devices.

That two percent figure seems low considering the sheer number of reports received, but it’s not unprecedented.  Equipment and software glitches can create major slowdowns and outages.  While the problem is being fixed, affected customers are falling back to older and slower upload protocols.  AT&T didn’t apologize for the slowed upload speed, nor provide an estimate for when repairs would be complete.  As of the time of writing (3pm ET), problems are still being noted by some customers.

Customers annoyed by the glitch might be able to obtain some credit for the reduced level of service by contacting AT&T customer service and asking for it.

A full page ad from Verizon mocks Apple's iPhone reception problems (click to enlarge)

Apple wants customers to believe it’s not a head-slapping design flaw that is bringing iPhone reception to its knees when holding the phone, it’s the software that is telling you AT&T’s reception quality is better than it really is. Change the formula to calculate how many bars of signal strength AT&T is not delivering to its customers, problem solved.

But just how will Apple make its fan base believe those dropped calls and lousy data transmission rates, made worse when holding the phone “the wrong way” are just the result of some software bug?

In a statement released Friday, Apple told worried customers the latest version of the phone remained the best it had ever produced, and the lack of signal shown on the display is a software problem (inferring AT&T’s usual network issues), not a fundamental design flaw:

Upon investigation, we were stunned to find that the formula we use to calculate how many bars of signal strength to display is totally wrong. Our formula, in many instances, mistakenly displays 2 more bars than it should for a given signal strength. For example, we sometimes display 4 bars when we should be displaying as few as 2 bars. Users observing a drop of several bars when they grip their iPhone in a certain way are most likely in an area with very weak signal strength, but they don’t know it because we are erroneously displaying 4 or 5 bars. Their big drop in bars is because their high bars were never real in the first place.

To fix this, we are adopting AT&T’s recently recommended formula for calculating how many bars to display for a given signal strength. The real signal strength remains the same, but the iPhone’s bars will report it far more accurately, providing users a much better indication of the reception they will get in a given area. We are also making bars 1, 2 and 3 a bit taller so they will be easier to see.

We will issue a free software update within a few weeks that incorporates the corrected formula. Since this mistake has been present since the original iPhone, this software update will also be available for the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 3G.

In other words, Apple is banking that its fans are so enamored with the company and its products that just making a software change will convince customers the phone isn’t the problem. Will AT&T’s already lousy customer rating take an even bigger hit when Apple passes the buck for its design flaws to the cell phone provider?

The ongoing revelations of the flaws in the latest iteration of the Apple iPhone are stunning, if only because they were completely missed during beta testing by company employees. As we learned several weeks ago from the Apple employee who left his phone behind in a California bar, some prototype phones didn’t use the “innovative” case design now implicated in the “grip of death.”  Perhaps other Bay Area testers just assumed the bouncing signal strength meter was simply AT&T-as-usual.

Now that the signal issue, among others, has been made the star of the iPhone show on YouTube, Apple has launched into damage control mode.  What Apple does to regain your trust depends on what type of customer you are:

Tech-minded, Informed Consumers: Apple will have the most trouble convincing these customers to sign-on the iPhone bandwagon, especially now.  Many have refused to hop on board all-along, unwilling to sacrifice their wireless phone service to AT&T.  While many of these customers would happily buy an iPhone… from Verizon, news of technical defects and design faults will not inspire confidence.

Tech-minded Early-Adopters: Apple will need to fix its problems with the iPhone to keep these customers happy.  They are the first to buy new products and are more forgiving of early manufacturing faults (and are among those who probably first documented and reported them), but they won’t forgive intransigence and PR nonsense.  These customers want honest answers, a schedule for a solution, and mitigation — a few free iPhone case bumpers as a consolation would probably make many of these customers happy.

Non-technical Apple Devotees: If it’s from Apple, these people will buy it.  They don’t have the first clue about the technical mumbo-jumbo that explains the design flawed antenna on the newest phone, and probably don’t care.  They are loyal Apple customers, but they’ll happily slam AT&T for dropping their calls.  Most of these customers are probably blaming any reception issues exclusively on AT&T already.

The Fanboys & Fashion-Minded: These are the folks who perennially set up the lawn chairs in front of Apple stores 15 hours before the launch of every version of the iPhone.  A criticism of Apple is a personal affront, and they’ve probably already bought the company explanation for the issue.  The fashion-minded treat the iPhone as a must-have personal accessory.  Nothing short of a total failure of the phone will pry them loose from grabbing the latest version of the phone they need to be seen with.

For those without (or who don’t care about) iPhones, watching customers wait in long lines, proclaiming all things from Apple to be good — quickly followed by torch-bearing complaints when they are not so good brings  rolling eyes and mutterings about why someone would punish themselves over a phone.

Potentially the most irritating of all is the fact Apple could make money from its design failure — by advocating consumers spend a ludicrous $30 on what is little more than a rubber band to protect the rim of the phone from your hand.  Apple is selling their “bumper” case one to a package in multiple colors.  For that amount of money, consumers should get one of every color.  A company memo underscored the fact Apple was not about to give these out for free to aggravated customers.  Why lose an opportunity to extract even more cash from devoted customers?

[flv width=”536″ height=”420″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/MSNBC iPhone Troubles 7-6-2010.flv[/flv]

MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’ was unimpressed with customers who first lauded and then “whined” about their iPhone purchases, after revelations of inherent design flaws and other quality control issues threaten to turn the product sensation into the Toyota of telephones. (3 minutes)

Class action law firms are salivating at the prospects, and attorneys claim no “software fix” is going to suddenly make the iPhone’s antenna design issues go away:

• One suit filed on behalf of Steve Tietze and others in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeks class action status. Tietze accuses Apple of unfair competition, false and misleading advertising, breach of warranty, and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
• A second was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of Kevin McCaffrey, Linda Wrinn, and others accusing Apple and AT&T of knowingly distributing a phone with a malfunctioning antenna. The suit charges general negligence, defect in design, manufacture, and assembly, breach of warranty, deceptive trade practices, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, and fraud by concealment.
• Two others: Alan Benvenisty v. Apple, 10-2885, and Christopher Dydyk v. Apple, 10-2897, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).  “Apple’s sale of the iPhone with this unannounced defect, assuming Apple’s prior knowledge of the defect, constitutes misrepresentation and fraud,” said Christopher Dydyk of Cambridge, Massachusetts in his complaint. “In omitting to disclose the defect in the iPhone 4, Apple perpetrated a massive fraud upon hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting customers.”  Dydyk wants Apple to hand out free “bumper” cases that cover the antenna in rubber to prevent signal issues.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WJZ Baltimore Lawsuits Filed Over New iPhone 4 7-2-10.flv[/flv]

WJZ-TV in Baltimore covers the Maryland lawsuit seeking class action status.  Baltimore area residents filed the suit against both AT&T and Apple.  (1 minute)

Other phone manufacturers are laughing themselves silly at Apple’s declaration that all smartphones lose reception and drop calls based on how you hold the phone. Nokia is having a field day at Apple’s expense, promoting the fact you can hold their phones anyway you like and won’t suffer signal degradation:

One of the main things we’ve found about the 1 billion plus Nokia devices that are in use today is that when making a phone call, people generally tend to hold their phone like a…. well, like a phone. Providing a wide range of methods and grips for people to hold their phones, without interfering with the antennae, has been an essential feature of every device Nokia has built.

Of course, feel free to ignore all of the above because realistically, you’re free to hold your Nokia device any way you like. And you won’t suffer any signal loss. Cool, huh?

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTTG Washington iPhone Signal Strength Can Drop 7-5-10.flv[/flv]

WTTG-TV in Washington spoke with Washington Post Tech Reporter Rob Pegoraro who discussed the signal ‘death grip’ and characterized AT&T’s service quality: “we have terrible coverage and we were lying to you [about it] all along.” The report also seriously questions Apple’s claims of a “software glitch” asking why a software problem would cause calls to drop when holding the phone “the wrong way.”  (4 minutes)

Apple’s public relations problem continued to grow this week when it declared earlier reports of terse e-mails purporting to be from Steve Jobs as fakes.  Boy Genius Report, who compensated one recipient of the e-mails, posted e-mail headers that they represent proves the messages did, in fact, come from Apple.

Apple also was caught in a case of bad timing when blogs discovered the company posting help wanted ads seeking antenna engineers, which seemed ironic coming after the release of the much-anticipated iPhone 4.

One biochemist offered his advice for free:

Subject: HowToFix for minimal cost — hydrophobic organic thin film layer

Hi,

In truth, Apple’s explanation for iPhone 4 signal reception problem is inaccurate at best and disingenuous at worst. iPhone users are in some of the hottest and most humid parts of the country this summer and have salty, damp hands especially at events such as baseball games, barbecues, or other outdoor activities. having bare metal antennae purposely handled will absolutely short the signal. This problem will be difficult to reproduce in Apple’s labs because the engineers are required to wash their hands before touching devices, which also strips off the natural hand electrolytes that are ever-present in the field on a hot day.

Anyway, the solution is not a redesign of the phone, but rather an electrically insulating organic hydrophobic layer atop the bare metal. a variety of plastics will work, such as polyethers, polystyrenes, or nylons. you could even use the plastic labels ever-present on aluminum soda cans, which likewise have an electrically insulating effect when holding said cans. these plastic coatings can be very very thin films which do not ruin the aesthetics of the device, and would require a minimal change of your production line. More importantly, this coating in no way affects the ability to recycle the aluminum — the organic thin film layer will burn away cleanly during the aluminum remelt process. Phones that have already shipped could easily be coated with this new layer at any Apple retail store or with a simple kit you could send to your customers.

In summary, this is a problem of electrochemistry, and certainly NOT a problem of software design, nor one that can possibly be solved by a software update.

Apple needs to hire some chemists.

Best regards,
XXXXXXXXXX, Ph.D.

KWGN-TV in Denver noted job postings from Apple seeking the help of experienced antenna engineers to help with their iPhone product line.  (3 minutes)

Several additional videos detailing the saga of the iPhone 4’s bugs are included below the jump.

… Continue Reading

The classic one-two punch of Internet Overcharging is to limit your broadband usage -and- throttle speeds downwards.  AT&T wireless customers in several major cities across the United States are experiencing that for themselves over the long holiday weekend, reporting upload speeds have been throttled down to 100kbps or less (one-tenth of the speed most customers enjoyed as late as last week).

Speedtest.net has shown AT&T network throttling in many parts of Baltimore, Boston, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Denver, Des Moines, Detroit, Fairfax, Houston, Kansas City, Las Vegas, New York, Orlando, Phoenix, St. Paul,  Salt Lake City, and Washington, D.C.

The speeds are so noticeably slow, it has become a national story as irate customers find their wireless broadband service first usage capped at just 2GB per month, and now upload speed throttled to the point of unusability.  AT&T promised a statement explaining the issue, but one has not yet been forthcoming.  Some speculated the throttles were designed to reduce congestion on AT&T’s network over the holiday, while others suspect a technical fault.

Reducing your wireless speed reduces the impact on AT&T’s backhaul network, which in turn reduces congestion and the number of dropped wireless calls.

The introduction of speed throttles for “heavy users” is a favorite in countries where overcharging schemes predominate.  Most permit a preset amount of traffic to pass at normal speeds, but once customers exceed an arbitrary allowance, a temporary speed throttle gets applied to dramatically reduce speeds and discourage further use.  Some limit customers to a selected amount of traffic per day, others per month.  Once the window expires, the throttle is automatically removed.

While there is no indication AT&T is applying such a throttle at this point, the company has strongly opposed efforts to ban such schemes.  AT&T has a history of antagonizing its wireless customers with poor network performance, and has been judged the least favorite provider by Consumer Reports.

Although not too far from Winston-Salem and Greensboro, Caswell County has a population of just over 23,000 people

In a painful display of callous disregard for the broadband needs of rural North Carolina, where half the state’s population lives, nine Republicans and two Democrats on the House Public Utilities committee voted down a bill to deliver service to 60 percent of Caswell County that currently goes without.

HB2067, introduced by Rep. Bill Faison (D-Orange/Caswell) would have allowed the rural county to provide broadband service to unserved residents and businesses.  What Rep. Faison did manage to put in HB2067 was initiative towards 21st Century technology.  The bill would have authorized Caswell County to install better technology, both up and down, where Centurylink offers slow DSL as the only option.  In introducing the bill, Faison explained that recent broadband data showed only 40 percent of Caswell County had access to broadband.

Already suffering from the exodus of textile jobs that used to provide an economic base for the area, the failure to obtain broadband has proven disastrous to the work of the county’s 21st Century Group, trying to restore Caswell County’s economy with a higher-tech future.  Six years of work was blocked by CenturyLink — the local phone company and 11 legislators, who told residents they don’t deserve anything better than they already have (which is often nothing.)

Without HB2067, Caswell County cannot even apply for federal stimulus broadband grant funds because the state law doesn’t provide specific authority to deliver the service.  Faison’s bill would correct that oversight and encourage public/private partnerships to get busy bringing broadband to the region.

CenturyLink and its top lobbyist Steve Brewer would hear none of it — Goliath was afraid that David would install better technology and force Centurylink to upgrade or hit the road.

Brewer was given more than half the available time for discussion about the proposed bill to fill the ears of committee members with half-truths.

CenturyLink, Brewer claimed, was more than willing to work with the county to provide the kind of speed its business park needed, yet failed to mention its long history of refusing to expand service to unserved areas.  Brewer’s claim that 70 percent of Caswell County is served by CenturyLink doesn’t mean the company offers broadband to all of those customers.  His further claim that 90 percent of those areas include equipment that is “DSL capable” also doesn’t mean those areas are providing the service today, just that they could… someday.  Many factors can disqualify a potential customer from getting DSL service, especially in rural areas where line quality is not always the best.

Bartlett Yancey House Restaurant and Gallery, a famous landmark in Caswell County.

Faison sought to explore exactly what Brewer defined as “broadband” service.  Brewer claimed DSL service offered anywhere from “1.5 to 6Mbps,” admitting speeds decline with distance and is untenable more than three miles from the telephone company switch facility.

Of course, Caswell County’s large rural expanse puts many of the unserved beyond the maximum distance DSL can work without additional equipment.  Many rural areas that can get DSL are typically offered between 768kbps-3Mbps service.  Caswell County is so rural, it met the Rural Utility Service’s (RUS) classic definition of an underserved community.  That allowed the county to technically qualify for first round federal broadband grant funding.

Unfortunately, legislators are not always as informed as they need to be to recognize statements riddled with loopholes and asterisks.

For instance, Rep. Daniel McComas (R-New Hanover) asked whether he could get high speed Internet over a phone line.  Although Brewer answered yes, what qualifies as “high speed” was left unanswered, as was exactly how many Caswell County residents requested DSL service, only to be refused by CenturyLink.  Yes, you can get DSL broadband over a phone line — but that doesn’t mean you will in Caswell County.

“The only definition of high speed Internet in North Carolina is from a statute from 10 years ago,” Faison noted. “You would have to admit that what was high speed Internet 10 years ago is not high speed Internet today.”

Just as the call for a vote was made, Brewer delivered an uninvited closing argument — probably unnecessary since no consumers were invited to speak on the issue.  If you don’t have broadband in Caswell County, 11 legislators on that committee weren’t interested in hearing from you anyway.

Brewer said the bill was completely unnecessary, because “federal broadband grants were no longer available,” and besides, it was unfair competition for the county to deliver broadband service better than what CenturyLink provides.  Of course, broadband grants -are- still available from the RUS, and few on the committee probably understood the irony of a phone company demanding that Caswell County not be allowed to deliver quality broadband service CenturyLink refuses to provide.

The substitute Committee bill would have protected CenturyLink from their fears of "unfair" competition by not allowing the county to build out broadband service where CenturyLink already provides it if it was not better service, but the company remained adamantly opposed to the county providing broadband service even in areas where they refuse to deliver it themselves for fear they would have to offer real broadband to Caswell County.

CenturyLink also claimed the county would have ‘secret insider information’ about CenturyLink’s every move through the permit process.  The glacial pace of the phone company’s broadband expansion is hardly a secret to the residents who live there.  Besides, permits are not required for the phone company to work in their own right-of-way.  Unlike cities who control the rights of way in their corporate limits, the state owns and controls the rights of way going through the unincorporated parts of the County.  Brewer’s comments were intended to scare legislators, not inform them.  It was a flat out lie.

The vote illustrates the disconnect many in the state legislature have about broadband.  Most of those in favor of the of the bill were Democrats mostly from rural sections of the state.  Two of the “no” votes came from Democrats in urban Mecklenburg County, which includes the city of Charlotte.  Representatives Beverly Earle and Becky Carney already have several choices for broadband service where they live.  Shame on them for condemning their rural neighbors in the north to a broadband backwater.

Mecklenburg County legislators were sure in a big hurry a few years back to do the bidding of AT&T, opening the doors to their kind of competition with statewide video franchising.  U-verse, which is available in parts of Charlotte, was supposed to put a stop the relentless rate increases and deliver competition.  So far, they’ve managed to sign up around 13,000 residents out of a potential 4 million plus in North Carolina, and the rate hikes just keep on coming.

The Republicans on the committee voted lock-step against the bill, even those from rural regions of the state.  Most of them are grateful recipients of big telecom money or are not running for re-election.  None of them can be bothered to ponder better broadband for their constituents unless it comes from a company cutting them a campaign contribution check.

When the vote was over, AT&T’s lobbyist Herb Crenshaw warmly shook McComas’ hand and congratulated him for a job well done. AT&T’s next check to McComas’ campaign fund will likely be bigger than the $500 he collected during the first quarter of this year.

The hit job on the broadband needs of rural Caswell County was complete.

The Members of the House Public Utilities Committee Voting Against Better Broadband for Caswell County & The Reasons Why
…and these amounts are just from the 1st quarter of 2010!

Rep. Harold J. Brubaker (R-Randolph) — Big Bucks Brubaker ran to the bank with $4,000 from AT&T, $4,000 from CenturyLink, $2,000 from Time Warner Cable, and $2,000 from Verizon.

Rep. Hugh Blackwell (R-Burke) — Blackwell accepted $500 from AT&T and $250 from Time Warner Cable.

Rep. Becky Carney (D–Mecklenburg) — AT&T and Time Warner Cable both cut checks for $500 each for Ms. Carney.

Rep. Beverly Earle (D-Mecklenburg) — She’s nice at half the price, with a grateful CenturyLink cutting a check for $250.

Rep. W. Robert Grady (R-Onslow) — Zippo.  He’s not running for re-election.

Rep. Jim Gulley (R-Mecklenburg) — Nada.  He’s not running again either.

Rep. Julia Howard (R–Davie/Iredell) — She gets around.  AT&T found her $500, CenturyLink provided a cool $2,000, and Time Warner Cable did even better with $2,500.

Rep. Linda Johnson (R-Cabarrus) — A double mint.  AT&T $500, Time Warner Cable $500.

Rep. Daniel McComas (R-New Hanover) — AT&T gave him $500, Time Warner Cable doubled that with $1,000.

Rep. Tim Moore (R-Cleveland) — Walking around money — AT&T $500, Time Warner Cable $500.

Rep. Wil Neumann (R-Gaston) — AT&T $500, but thanks to this year’s hefty rate hike, Time Warner Cable could afford $1,000 for Mr. Neumann.

Representatives Who Supported Rural North Carolina’s Need for Better Broadband, Voting For HB2067

Rep. Bill Faison (D-Orange, Caswell)

Rep. Kelly Alexander, Jr. (D–Mecklenburg)

Rep. Angela Bryant (D–Nash, Halifax)

Rep. Pricey Harrison (D-Guilford)

Rep. Marvin Lucas (D-Cumberland)

Rep. Nelson Cole (D-Rockingham)

Totals for 2010 (so far) for Telecom Contributions in the North Carolina General Assembly

AT&T $72,740

CenturyLink $51,750

Time Warner Cable $20,450

Verizon $10,500

(All figures are from the North Carolina State Board of Elections website, from candidates filings.)