We have the complete video of last week’s Revenue Laws Study Committee meeting which featured the introduction of a draft bill that would dramatically restrict any entrant into North Carolina’s broadband marketplace unless they were a private industry provider.  The de-facto municipal broadband ban legislation comes courtesy of retiring Senator David ‘Fiber is Obsolete’ Hoyle (D-Gaston), who sprung the proposed bill minutes before debate was to begin.  Despite the fact opponents (and consumers) were left unprepared to push back against Hoyle’s anti-consumer legislation, a few legislators and citizens rallied to the cause.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NC Rev Laws Study Comm 5.5.10-1.mp4[/flv]

North Carolina Revenue Laws Study Committee Meeting (May 5, 2010 — 47 minutes)

A Viewer’s Guide

Senator Daniel G. Clodfelter (D-Mecklenburg) wants both sides to “turn the volume down,” apparently not appreciating the fact a retiring senator pushing through an anti-consumer telecommunications company dream-come-true draft bill would likely provoke a consumer backlash.

Rep. Weiss was the loudest opponent of the proposed legislation to stop municipal broadband

Clodfelter is surprised the debate has become so polarized.  It shouldn’t be, considering this debate is hardly a new one.  Consumer advocates have seen providers use the same road map to enact anti-consumer municipal broadband prohibitions in more than a dozen states.  The same talking points and arguments appear every time this issue comes up.  Consumers are fed up with the corporate protectionism these bills represent, and they become extremely angry when those elected to represent them instead represent the interests of big corporate telecom companies.

Clodfelter’s ultimate vote spoke louder than his pleas for civility — he voted for the draft that guarantees North Carolina consumers will continue to pay high prices for telecommunications services.

Senator David Hoyle’s eyes rarely left his carefully prepared talking points.  Perhaps that’s because he’s not as familiar with the issues as he claims to be.  When a legislator is forced to keep his eyes on his remarks, seeming to stumble through several important points, it suggests unfamiliarity with the issues.  That’s hardly a surprise when legislation is introduced by a telecom-friendly legislator who knows only as much as the accompanying information packet of talking points allows.

We saw that first hand last year with Ty Harrell, who introduced legislation that he so fundamentally didn’t understand, he was later forced to repudiate his own bill.  Watch Hoyle and ask yourself — is this a legislator who understands municipal broadband, or is this a senator carrying water for big telecom?

Hoyle’s testimony contained many interesting comments we’d like to rebut:

“The level playing field aspect is gone.”  He’s got that right.  His proposed draft bill mires municipal providers with terms and conditions no private provider ever endured.  Where is your referendum about whether or not you wanted to pay Time Warner Cable for dozens of channels you never asked for, and don’t want?  Where is your referendum about whether or not you want the incumbent cable and phone companies to continue providing service in your town?  Does the phone company need to hold a referendum to replace phone wiring on the poles?  No?  Then why does Hoyle’s bill demand referendums for municipal system repairs and upgrades?

Rep. Luebke characterized Hoyle's proposal as premature and urged his colleagues to support further study on this issue

Hoyle misrepresented the financing of municipal broadband projects, most of which are not financed at the expense of every local taxpayer.  His carefully crafted suggestion that citizens should vote for such projects is a nice concept, but remember incumbent providers can use unlimited amounts of money they’ve earned from overcharging you for years to bombard residents with misinformation.  Meanwhile, your local government cannot spend a penny to rebut them.  Is that a fair vote or one engineered to provide victory to incumbent providers?

Senator Hoyle suggested unnamed interests have said he has a vendetta against cities — that he doesn’t like cities.  That’s an example of a politician constructing a false straw-man argument to shoot down.  Of course his real “vendetta” is against North Carolina consumers.  With Hoyle not seeking re-election, he doesn’t have to answer to them.

Hoyle brought up the sale of bankrupt Adelphia Cable’s systems to the local governments of Mooresville and Davidson, and then demagogued it with cherry-picked talking points, conflating an old, outdated cable system with construction of state-of-the-art fiber systems as proposed in communities like Salisbury.

Adelphia Cable’s founders and chief corporate executives are sitting in a federal penitentiary.  A court found both John and Timothy Rigas guilty of more than a dozen counts of fraud and conspiracy in 2004, a decision largely upheld in 2008, and both continue to serve 12 and 17 year sentences respectively.

Every Adelphia Cable system put up for sale by the Bankruptcy Court was littered with problems.  In San Diego, inspectors found more than 3,000 improperly grounded cable connections in customer homes.  Company records were in chaos as well, and the result was major headaches for buyer Time Warner Cable.

The North Carolina Adelphia systems were not much different.  The communities had been victimized twice by providers who delivered broken promises, fewer channels at higher prices, and bad service.  When Time Warner Cable proposed to take control of the systems and wouldn’t meet the communities needs, Mooresville and Davidson decided to exercise right of first refusal and purchase the systems themselves.

What they found after closing the deal were the same kinds of problem Time Warner Cable and Comcast were dealing with in other former Adelphia communities.  The difference is the cable companies just raised customers’ rates to defray the costs of cleaning them up.  They also left many towns with cable systems built based on economy more than customer needs.  With limited competition, where could dissatisfied subscribers go?

Mooresville and Davidson both faced:

A significant number of subscribers who stopped paying for service from Adelphia much earlier and faced no consequences or service suspension.  When MI-Connection, the municipal provider, began billing for services rendered, they canceled.  Of course, the sellers never disclosed the fact there were many non-paying customers getting service for free.  When the towns purchased the systems, it assumed subscriber numbers provided represented paying customers.  It turns out many weren’t.

Then there were more surprises:

Sen. Stein suggested legislation that could keep the United States behind in broadband adoption was of concern to him.

• Leamon Brice, Davidson town manager, told the Davidson News, “After the borrowing, but before the closing, Time-Warner, custodian of the system for one year, announced there were many more customers in the system than originally thought. As a result, the towns had to spend $12 million of the $80 million to buy those additional customers. This left less money for the upgrade of the system, so the towns borrowed an additional $12 million to complete the necessary improvements.”
• An economic crisis which is driving down subscriber rates for cable services nationwide.
• The early unavailability of a “triple play bundle” combining telephone, video, and broadband service on one bill.  Bundling is the economic driver of today’s telecommunications industry, and the two communities were late to get in on it.
• The high cost of system upgrades, especially with a system administered by Adelphia, which let most of its cable properties fall into disrepair long before bankruptcy.

Although Hoyle called out both communities for their losses, his numbers don’t add up.  He claimed the systems will lose $6.8 million dollars a year, based on one quarterly loss statement he chose to multiply by four.  In fact, the communities are seeking a one time $6.4 million allocation in the 2010-11 budget year, of which Davidson’s share is $2 million, to make up for the losses associated with all of the drama surrounding the Adelphia system purchase and upgrades.

Hoyle ignored the potential for MI-Connection, now that the upgrades are near completion and the company has introduced an aggressive triple-play package.  Revenues are up nearly 10 percent over the same period last year — an impressive result during an economic crisis.  Most of that growth came from newly launched broadband and telephone services.

The system needs only a few thousand additional customers to erase the losses.  Offering a compelling triple play bundled service package should help them achieve that goal.

Despite the difficulties associated with Adelphia’s legacy cable systems, most of the municipal broadband projects Hoyle seeks to stall are actually 100 percent fiber-based and are designed to service both residential and business customers with service far beyond what the local cable and phone companies are willing to provide.

The committee then heard input from speakers in the audience, with a two minute limit.  Unfortunately, that was too long for at least some committee members who chatted audibly as speakers tried to make their points.

One of those speaking in favor of the proposed draft was Octavia Rainey, once again seated with the lobbyists from Time Warner Cable and AT&T.  She arrived at the microphone with her practiced talking points.

After Rainey’s prior comments on this issue, we reached out to Ms. Rainey to get a better understanding of her point of view and establish a dialogue. When I attempted to speak with Rainey, she first hung up on me only to call back several minutes later to accuse me of being a “white supremacist,” even though I had revealed to her I also serve as a Human Relations Commissioner in Greensboro and fight against racial prejudice daily.

Such over-the-top accusations are not unheard of in this policy debate, particularly with some civil rights groups who attempt to shut down debate with accusations of bias when their public policy positions do not comport with the stated founding principles of that group. Usually, when this card is played, it comes when you’ve successfully called out the empty rhetoric and fact-challenged talking points most of these groups use to defend big telecom. Rainey is just another example of a well-meaning local community activist who has been duped by telecom astroturfing efforts, and AT&T’s financial involvement in causes helpful to her public profile don’t hurt either.

The litmus test for astroturf snowjob detection is simple:

• Will the constituents these individuals and groups claim to represent be well-served with a protected duopoly in broadband that prices service out of their reach?
• Has the group fully and publicly disclosed their financial contributions from telecommunications companies and the amounts given?
• Are there telecom company representatives serving on the board of the group?

Too often, following the money is all that’s required to understand the allegiance some groups and individuals have to adopting the telecom agenda.

At the end of the discussion, a vote was held and the draft bill passed.  There were only two audible “no” votes — from Representatives Jennifer Weiss (D-Wake County) and Paul Luebke (D-Durham).  I was told Senator Josh Stein (D-Wake County) also voted no, stating he did not “shout it out, but I definitely voted against the bill.”

The draft bill now goes to the House and Senate leadership to be assigned to committees.  If it survives the committee process, it moves to the full House and Senate.  I understand that leadership in both the House and Senate do not want anything controversial in the short session to follow, so let’s let them know nothing is more controversial than legislation that guarantees slow and expensive broadband from existing providers, indefinitely.

Make sure you let the North Carolina legislature know that now is not the time to ram through a provider-friendly municipal broadband bill from Senator Hoyle.  Tell Speaker Hackney and President Pro Tempore Basnight the issue requires further study, and the bill should be referred back to appropriate committees for further review:

Speaker of the House Joe Hackney (D-Chatham, Orange, Moore) 919-733-3451 [email protected]

President Pro Tempore Marc Basnight (D-8 Coastal Counties) 919-733-6854 [email protected]

Senator Hoyle's legislation lays the foundation for cable and phone companies to spend hundreds of thousands of subscriber dollars to mail smear campaign pieces like this one from Comcast.

(This piece is written by Jay Ovittore and Phillip Dampier.)

The good news is that all the pushback on an all-out-moratorium on municipal broadband was successful and Senator David Hoyle (D-Gaston) withdrew the idea.  The bad news is he had an even worse idea to replace it.

Hoyle Wednesday unveiled a new draft bill that hopelessly ties up municipal broadband projects into knots of red tape that, if passed into law, will bury municipal broadband projects in North Carolina indefinitely.

Hoyle sprung his telecom-industry-friendly legislation on the public after getting plenty of input and encouragement from the state’s cable and phone companies who already knew what was in it because they helped craft it.

For a retiring state senator who doesn’t have to worry about the next election, what better parting gift can you give to your friends in the cable and phone industry than a bill that preserves the comfortable duopoly they’ve  enjoyed for years.

Hoyle and those supporting the legislation will argue their bill doesn’t ban municipal broadband — it simply places conditions on such projects before they can go forward.  But what are those conditions?

Section One of the draft bill requires local governments to get funding for “external communications services” (ie. municipal broadband) by way of a General Obligation Bond (a GO Bond).  In North Carolina, that requires a taxpayer-funded referendum to be held for public input at the next election.

On the surface, getting public approval for municipal broadband isn’t a bad idea — no local government official expecting to win re-election would ever proceed on such projects without voter support.  But this requirement also gives plenty of advance notice to incumbent providers that a new player could be invading their turf.

We know what that means.  A well-funded opposition campaign to demagogue the project.  Local cable companies can insert an unlimited number of free ads during every advertising break to slam the proposal.  Phone companies can release a blizzard of opposition mailers to convince consumers it’s as scary as Halloween — all tricks and no treats.

How can a local city or county government respond to the misinformation barrage?  They can’t.  Public officials can’t spend taxpayer dollars to promote such projects or refute industry propaganda.  They can’t even financially assist a citizen-run campaign.

That’s a fight with ground rules only Don King could love.

In the end, that leaves ordinary citizens of North Carolina facing down a multi-billion dollar statewide consortium of telecommunications interests hellbent on preserving and protecting the status qu0.

The earlier-discussed moratorium was a brick wall against municipal broadband.  Hoyle’s bill is the Great Wall of China with the logos of AT&T, Time Warner Cable, and CenturyLink plastered all over it.

But wait, there’s more.  To deal with municipal broadband projects that got an initial green light to dare to interfere with the phone and cable industries’ grand business plans, another provision provides a near endless supply additional referendums to get rid of the projects.  Hoyle’s bill actually demands more votes should existing systems need:

• refinancing to reduce the interest rate or restructure existing debt;
• to make repairs to the system’s “fixtures;” and/or
• to upgrade the system to meet subscribers’ needs.

Ponder the insanity:

• The legislation could be interpreted to demand a public referendum if your service goes out.  Can you wait until the next election to get back your cable service?
• If a municipal broadband fiber cable falls in your backyard, does it make a sound?  It won’t, but you will when you learn that cable might not be reattached to the pole until the whole town holds a referendum about it;
• Would you be upset if your local municipal provider could refinance its debt at a much lower interest rate, letting them cut their prices, but they can’t before the next election?
• While cable and phone companies refuse to upgrade their service to levels that would have made such municipal alternatives unnecessary, they also want to make certain the one provider that did meet your needs can’t upgrade… without a public vote.

These systems are not constructed with public tax dollars, but Senator Hoyle wants every citizen in a community, subscriber or not, to ponder the future of a local municipal broadband provider.  It’s like giving AT&T veto power over Time Warner Cable’s channel lineup.  Guess who has to pay for these constant referendums?  Taxpayers.  So while Senator Hoyle complains municipal broadband costs the state tax revenue, his legislation guarantees increased government spending on pointless referendums.  That’s logic only a politician working for the interests of big cable can appreciate.

For the cable and phone companies, and their good friends in the North Carolina legislature, this is their idea of a level playing field.  In reality it’s about as level as a downhill ski run.

Let’s extend that “fairness” out to incumbent cable and phone companies and consider whether you got a vote on:

• Whether or not the cable and phone companies got to put their wires on phone poles plunked down in front of your house;
• Whether or not you wanted either company to dig up your yard to bury their wiring;
• Whether you wanted that giant metal refrigerator-sized metal box installed on your street, in your yard, or on the phone pole you see from your window every day;
• Whether or not you want the cable company to repair Mrs. Jenkins’ problems with HBO up the street whenever it rains or replace the cable the squirrels chewed up;
• What channels and services you want to pay for, which ones you do not, and at what price you need to pay your local phone or cable company.
• What cable or phone company gets to provide service in your community.

Apparently the fairness concept only applies to potential new competitors, not the existing providers.

Let’s also consider the cable television industry didn’t just magically bloom into a multi-billion dollar business without government help.  In the early days of cable television, investors were assured that they were financing a monopoly provider, guaranteed through a franchise agreement process that gave newly built cable companies exclusivity to help repay construction costs.  Franchise wars broke out between 1978 and 1984 as competing companies promised the moon with state-of-the-art two-way cable systems with the capacity to offer 70 or more channels.  The players then included Time’s American Television and Communications Corporation, Warner’s Amex, and Telecommunications, Inc. (TCI).  ATC and Amex would later evolve into Time Warner Cable and TCI became AT&T Cable before being sold to Comcast.  Communities seeking cable television for their residents would later learn a lot of these promises made were promises broken – reneged on by large cable companies with few, if any consequences.

During the Reagan Administration, then-FCC Chairman Mark Fowler bestowed additional deregulation benefits on the cable industry.  The Museum of Broadcast Communications explains:

The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 addressed the two issues that still hindered cable television’s growth and profitability: rate regulation and the relative uncertainty surrounding franchise renewals. Largely the result of extensive negotiation and compromise between the cable industry’s national organization, the National Cable Television Association, and the League of Cities representing municipalities franchising cable systems, the act provided substantial comfort to the cable industry’s future.

Its major provisions created a standard procedure for renewing franchises that gave operators relatively certain renewal, and it deregulated rates so that operators could charge what they wanted for different service tiers as long as there was “effective competition” to the service. This was defined as the presence of three or more over-the-air signals, a very easy standard that over 90% of all cable markets could meet. The act also allowed cities to receive up to 5% of the operator’s revenues in an annual franchise fee and made some minor concessions in mandating “leased access” channels to be available to groups desiring to “speak” via cable television.

Additional reforms guaranteed pole attachment rights to the cable industry so they could wire and service their network unencumbered by utility company interference or high pole attachment fees.  Cable consolidation allowed formerly mom and pop cable systems to become part of a cable industry where just a handful of cable companies provide service to the majority of cable households.  Countless millions are spent each year by the industry to lobby state and federal governments to keep the party going without regulatory interference, suggesting competiti0n alone is the only regulation required.

Except when a new competitor enters the market, of course.  Fearing competition from municipal providers who will force cable and phone companies to charge reasonable rates and upgrade service, the best possible solution is to find a way to ban such projects.

Forcing regular referendums and the complexities and expenses associated with them guarantees no community in North Carolina would ever bother with the onerous requirements to launch municipal broadband projects.

That’s not just Jay and I saying that.  What Hoyle has proposed hardly breaks new ground.  It’s the same dog and pony show the industry has brought to other states to stop competition and keep prices high and service slow.

So let’s learn from the painful experiences of others:

First lobbying for legislation requiring referendums and then winning it, SBC (later AT&T) and Comcast used the opportunity to spend more than $300,000 of their subscribers’ money to launch a major misinformation campaign with misleading and inaccurate mailers that successfully fought off a proposition to deliver better and cheaper service through a municipal broadband project in Batavia, Geneva, and St. Charles, Illinois.  Fiber for Our Future documented the whole sordid affair from start to finish as a lesson to others confronting industry-backed referendum requirements.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/unproven.flv[/flv]

Want a preview of the distortion and misinformation-campaign cable and phone providers will bring to stop municipal broadband?  Watch this SBC (today AT&T) executive tell city officials in Illinois that fiber is “unproven,” that the phone company’s DSL speeds are comparable to Comcast Cable, and that consumers don’t need the 3Mbps speed the company was delivering back in 2004 when this video was taken.  “What are you going to do with 20 megabits.  I mean, it’s like having an Indy race car and you don’t have the race track to drive it on.”  (3 minutes)

Longmont, Colorado spent years suffering with bad broadband service from Comcast and Qwest and sought a better alternative with a municipally-run provider.  But then the cable and phone giants spent $200,000 to put a stop to that.  While local subscribers may have preferred that $200,000 be used to reduce their rates, for Comcast and Qwest it was an investment in maintaining future pricing only duopolies can achieve, all while delivering “good enough for you” broadband service to Longmont residents.  In 2006, the Baller Herbst Law Firm collected information on industry-backed barriers to municipal broadband, and the list went on for nine pages.  Many of them sound eerily familiar to what Hoyle proposes (after cable and phone companies whispered time tested, industry proven ideas into his ear).

The city of North St. Paul, Minnesota has advice for states like North Carolina after their own experience with a coordinated industry-backed smear campaign against municipal broadband enabled by legislation similar to what Hoyle proposes:

What should be of interest to all communities was the organized opposition.  It appears that the incumbent providers, industry associations and politically conservative think tanks teamed up to promote negative news stories, do polling and opposition phone calls, provide transportation for identified “no” voters and create web sites.

While we heard some advocates lamenting this high priced anti-municipal fiber effort, this response is something that community leaders must expect and be prepared for.  A strong community education and mobilization effort must be a part of any municipal telecommunications initiative.  A coalition of business owners and residents must be created and maintained that can counter the expected efforts of the incumbent providers.  The benefits of the community-owned network should be documented and promoted so that an overwhelming majority of voters will choose to vote yes.  We hope that, one way or the other, North St. Paul gets the “More, Better Broadband” that the MN Broadband Coalition supports.

Of course, when local communities are banned from spending a nickel on advocacy for their projects, it effectively hands a restraining order to broadband advocates who can’t even get on the playing field, level or otherwise.

Outraged yet?

It will only get worse if Hoyle’s bill ever becomes law.  Residents in communities like Salisbury endured a sampling of the kind of negative campaign this industry will launch wherever municipal broadband competition threatens to appear.  In 2009, residents were hassled with push-polling phone calls from industry-backed astroturf groups claiming to represent ordinary citizens, but were actually little more than sock puppets for big telecom.  Your mailbox will be filled with blizzards of misleading mailers that current cable and phone customers pay for.  If they need more money, they can always raise your rates to cover the difference.  In the end, with the help of elected officials who don’t care about North Carolina consumers, existing municipal projects can bleed themselves dry (later to be used by the industry as “failed examples” to claim such projects are too risky to try) and proposed ones will never see a spade plunged into the soil to bury the first strand of fiber optic cable.

But it’s not all bad news.  It doesn’t have to happen this way.  You can tell your state representative you are watching them like a hawk on this issue.  Any “yes” vote for legislation like that proposed by Senator Hoyle is a no vote for them at the next election.  Let them know you are well aware of the game plan here — it has been tried in other states with similar legislation that is little more than protectionism for big telecom. Tell your elected officials you already have the power to choose whether or not you want these projects simply by voting for or against the elected officials that propose them.  While the concept of a referendum sounds fair on the surface, it’s not when you consider the past experiences of other communities who faced well-funded opposition campaigns, helpless to correct the record or fairly argue their position on the matter.  Providers know that, which is why they advocate this type of legislation in the first place.  It effectively stops competition, stops better service, and stops North Carolina residents from enjoying lower priced cable, phone, and broadband service.

There are a few stand-up representatives of the people of North Carolina who do deserve our gratitude and thanks today.

Rep. Paul Luebke, (D-Durham County) (who co-chairs the Revenue Law Study Committee) [email protected] 919-733-7663 College Teacher

Rep. Jennifer Weiss, (D-Wake County) [email protected] 919-715-3010 Lawyer-Mom

They both will likely face fierce opposition from the incumbent providers and their fellow legislators. Please take the time to thank them for standing with consumers today and for trying to protect the future of North Carolina and its economy.

Stop the Cap! will have video of today’s remarks by both legislators soon.  We hope to follow with a complete video record of today’s events surrounding the anti-competition legislation proposed by Senator Hoyle.  It will serve as a testament to just how much work we have to do to remove legislators who have stopped representing the public interest, and renew our support for those who stand with consumers.

Meanwhile, check out these two delightful pieces paid for by the cable and phone industry, sent to homes where municipal broadband projects faced a referendum in 2003 and 2004.  More than a dozen different mailers were sent to every home in the communities of Batavia, Geneva, and St. Charles, Illinois from phone and cable companies.  Now imagine the repercussions when not one of those communities could respond with their own mailers correcting the record and giving their side of the argument.  There is a reason why special interests spend enormous sums of money to protect their turf, and the battle is over before it even begins when those interests demand the other side not have the opportunity to respond in kind.

What smears do providers in North Carolina have in store for you?

… Continue Reading

Davey D

It’s gratifying to know we are not alone in recognizing the parade of minority interest groups on the dole of big telecom companies who are only too willing to parrot their talking points to strike down pro-consumer broadband reform.

Davey D, a journalist, educator, columnist and Hip Hop activist originally from the Bronx who now lives and works in Oakland where does a daily radio show – Hard Knock Radio (KPFA 94.1 FM) is pondering why so many groups are so willing to sell out their constituents:

One of the strategies used by AT&T was to go to communities of color, find Civil Rights organizations and in my humble opinion and pay for their silence or advocacy. The list ranged from LULAC to the Urban League which filed briefs siding with the FCC. It makes no sense why organizations which have long spoke about not having voice their voices heard and a seat at the table would go along with any sort of policy that strip that away from the average person who found such an opportunity via the Internet.

Was having sponsorship dollars for the next awards banquet payment enough? Or a some computers for an after school program payment enough? We’re talking about intelligent people here. It would be absolutely trifling to sell out for something that low and glaringly obvious.

Stop the Cap! exchanged views last week with one such “coalition of the willing to take the check” that claims to represent the interests of Latinos, but won’t answer basic questions about how much they got and from what phone or cable company.

Sylvia Aguilera, representing the Hispanic Technology and Telecommunications Partnership, which itself is made up of several groups cashing AT&T’s checks, chided me for my earlier remarks, “HTTP supports reasoned dialogue on the issues and remains dismayed by those, like you, who stoop to categorizing esteemed minority organizations as “astro-turf’. You will gain no allies in our communities with this strategy.”

Our response was to ask Aguilera to come clean on whether HTTP was also getting AT&T money and how much.  No response.  That speaks volumes, of course.  Aguilera makes the mistaken assumption that groups that actually represent consumers are interested in allying themselves with “dollar a holler” advocacy groups like those that make up the HTTP.  Latino readers of Stop the Cap! wondered where HTTP was when Time Warner Cable was testing Internet Overcharging schemes on their Road Runner service in Austin and San Antonio, Texas.  Unlike so many Net Neutrality foes in the not-for-profit community, Stop the Cap! doesn’t take industry money and is 100 percent supported by individual consumers.

Our contention is reasonable dialogue is impossible on telecommunications issues when some of that speech is bought and paid for by AT&T.  In other words, HTTP and its coalition members’ views on this specific issue are nothing more than astroturf and won’t carry much legitimacy in the eyes of consumers as long as AT&T is still cutting them checks.  Return the money, refuse to accept contributions that represent a conflict of interest on public policy debates, and then the reasoned dialogue can actually begin.

Now does this mean these kinds of groups do no good?  Of course not.  I’m sure they have projects that are valuable and important to their respective community interests.  But having come from the non-profit sector myself, I am also well aware of what some groups are willing to do to raise funds, and they aren’t fooling me for a second, nor should they you.

Davey D sums it up:

Below is a list of Civil Rights orgs that submitted files to the FCC saying they wanted to have the internet DEREGULATED. When your s*it starts slowing down, your message filtered or censored, your music hard to access and more importantly your fees go up, give these esteemed organizations and people a call and ask them how they intend to correct what will go down as a egregious error. Maybe they can let you use their accounts cause I’m certain in exchange for siding with these big telecoms they got a few perks including unfettered and fast lane access.

Here are recent anti-Network Neutrality filings by organizations of color

(There are more and I will post them later.)

Urban League Chapter

Click to access 7020408309.pdf

Click to access 7020400790.pdf

Click to access 7020400568.pdf

Click to access 7020408157.pdf

Click to access 7020400510.pdf

National Lesbian and Gay Chamber of Commerce

Click to access 7020408718.pdf

Hispanic Federation

Click to access 7020408716.pdf

LISTA

Click to access 7020408720.pdf

Latino community Foundation in San Francisco

Click to access 7020408354.pdf

Native Americans

Click to access 7020408711.pdf

Click to access 7020408291.pdf

Click to access 7020408712.pdf

Click to access 7020408709.pdf

Click to access 7020408717.pdf

Click to access 7020408708.pdf

Click to access 7020408713.pdf

NAACP in California

Click to access 7020408307.pdf

Rainbow Push

Click to access 7020408211.pdf

Texas State Rep. Robert Alonzo

Click to access 7020408179.pdf

MANA, A National Latino Organization

Click to access 7020400566.pdf

100 Black Men of South Metro

Click to access 7020400798.pdf

100 Black Men of Mobile

Click to access 7020401015.pdf

100 Black Men of Greater Mobile

Click to access 7020401015.pdf

ASPIRA

Click to access 7020400339.pdf

100 Black Men of Tennessee

Click to access 7020400506.pdf

100 Black Men of Orlando

Click to access 7020400502.pdf

HTTP

Click to access 7020400970.pdf

Hispanic Interests Coalition of Alabama

Click to access 7020401020.pdf

SER: Jobs for Progress

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020400060

NAACP Mar-Saline Branch

Click to access 7020399888.pdf

Japanese American Citizens League

Click to access 7020399819.pdf

Organization of Chinese Americans

Click to access 7020399334.pdf

Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies

Rep. Yvette Clarke

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7020399667.pdf

Sometimes you have to wonder who telecom front groups hire to push their agenda.  In the Stop the Cap! e-mail box came a news tip last week that a new study proved beyond doubt that passing Net Neutrality would put up to 1.5 million jobs at risk by the year 2020.  Just as bad, the study warns, broadband investment would plummet as a result, causing an investment retreat worth up to $5 billion dollars.  They thought I should know.

All of this ruinous news results from a government that wants to make sure your Internet Service Provider doesn’t block, impede, or censor the traffic of independent websites that don’t  pay a protection fee to keep their content online and accessible.  What’s that I smell?  The easily recognized scent of plastic grass — more astroturfing from a broadband industry intent on keeping broadband regulation as far away from them as possible.

The Employment and Economic Impacts of Network Neutrality Regulation: An Empirical Analysis, by Dr. Coleman Bazelon — working on behalf of something called “The Brattle Group, Inc.,” is a real page-turner.  I tore right through it myself.

Just reading the background of Dr. Bazelon rang all sorts of warning bells:

• Dr. Bazelon consulted and testified on behalf of clients in numerous telecommunications matters;
• Dr. Bazelon frequently advises regulatory and legislative bodies;
• Dr. Bazelon was a vice president with Analysis Group, an economic and strategy consulting firm.

More ordinary folks use a different, less fancy term to cover all this: lobbyist tool.

The key finding for the report:

New network neutrality regulations proposed by the FCC could slow the growth of the broadband sector, potentially affecting as many as 1.5 million jobs, both union and non-union, by the end of the decade.

So how does Bazelon come to this conclusion?

The academic literature on possible effects of network neutrality regulation does not provide a consensus view on whether such regulations should be expected to help or harm the broadband sector, although several economists have concluded that such regulation would be harmful.

I tore right through Bazelon's report.

Many of those economists were paid by the broadband industry to conclude that in their own “reports.”  Many of Bazelon’s footnotes reference himself, telecommunications company executives, or other connected parties who have a financial interest in opposing Net Neutrality or broadband regulations.

At the heart of Bazelon’s theory is that content-related jobs, those involving the development of the websites you like to visit to read, listen, watch, or download from, cost more money to create than broadband “dumb pipe” jobs.  In other words, if you’re developing iTunes content or a network to stream Netflix movies, your job cost more (and probably pays more) than a line splicer at AT&T who is rolling out 3 Mbps DSL service in Rolla, Missouri.

So, if we penalize content developers with Internet Overcharging schemes or speed throttles that discourage your use of iTunes or Netflix, AT&T can use the savings from dramatically lower demand and hire more people to wire up communities for basic DSL service.  That’s okay, because it creates new jobs: “to the extent that the absence of network neutrality regulations leads to a transfer of ‘wealth’ (or sector revenues) from the Internet content sector to the broadband sector, such a transfer would be expected to have a positive impact on employment.”

That’s a great deal for you, right?

Net Neutrality doesn’t impede bigger profits for broadband providers – it just insists that they don’t earn those profits parasitically on the back of someone else’s content.  If your cable or phone company owned Netflix, there wouldn’t be an issue.  They would provide a service and earn from it.  But they don’t, and demand a piece of the pie anyway.

By the way, Bazelon’s myopic report completely misses another fundamental fact.  In today’s non-Net Neutral world, large phone companies like Verizon and AT&T have slashed tens of thousands of jobs just fine without pesky Net Neutrality or other broadband regulations getting in the way.  It’s like telling a New Orleans resident standing in four feet of water during Hurricane Katrina that if we don’t do something about the levees next year, the city could be flooded.

The author also states the obvious:

Broadband open access and net neutrality regulations are both regulatory interventions aimed at restricting a broadband network owner’s ability to exercise market power. The first acts at a structural level to eliminate any potential market power in the provision of the good; the second acts at a behavioral level restricting the broadband provider’s ability to benefit from any such market power.

Sounds like a plan to me and millions of other consumers who see the results of the industry’s market power workout routine… in the form of ever-increasing monthly bills.

Bazelon's vision for the Internet's future

Bazelon is even willing to predict some winners and losers with the FCC’s proposed Net Neutrality regulations:

Under the strict network neutrality regime being considered by the FCC, different Internet content might flourish. In particular, some Internet content is less commercial and generates very little revenue. Content that does not generate much economic value may be advantaged by a network neutrality regime. It is worth noting, however, that such content, by not primarily being engaged in the economy, does not significantly impact employment. Larger commercial sites have the potential of doing better or worse under network neutrality regulations. On the one hand, potentially lower costs of access should benefit them; on the other hand, potentially less developed broadband infrastructure could harm their businesses. With some content winning and some content losing, there is no reason to believe that the total amount of content will be more or less (or more or less valued by Internet users) under one regime or the other. Some business models will do well under one regime, others under the other regime.

In other words, in Bazelon’s world, the formerly level playing field where content is king and website value is decided on its merits is replaced with a corporate-controlled broadband network where only the big, well-financed players will get to play.  If you’re CNN or Amazon.com, you’ll have no problem meeting the protection racket prices providers could demand to guarantee your content isn’t blocked or slowed to a crawl.  But if you’re a poor blogger, a new business start-up, or use the web to argue for and against various causes, get to the back of the line (if you are allowed in the line in the first place.)

The Internet gets reincarnated as Prodigy, for those old enough to remember using that online service.

Ultimately, Bazelon believes only big broadband providers can create economic success stories in our online future.  Making them play by certain rules will kill that success, he argues.

Only one problem – when Bazelon gazes up into the sky, he sees AT&T logos everywhere he looks.  That’s because Mobile Future, the group that paid for the study, is yet another creature of AT&T.  To hide the fact this is yet another AT&T front group, several of AT&T’s usual friends also turn up on the membership roster.  Just a few days after calling out LULAC – the League of United Latin American Citizens for selling out the Latino community to AT&T’s agenda, here they are again — joined at AT&T’s hip as a member of Mobile Future.

A selection of other Mobile Future (brought to you by AT&T) members

Asian Business Association – No national website, which already makes this suspicious, but the San Diego chapter admits AT&T is a corporate sponsor.

Asian Women in Business – AT&T underwrote their website.

Bump.com – The company is self-described on Mobile Future’s website as “the world’s largest purpose-formed safety, communication and marketing network. BUMP uses safe and convenient voice recognition and ALPR (automatic license plate recognition) to provide drivers worldwide with a communication platform that promotes safety on the roads and builds a unique global network.”  They should win an award for puffery.  In fact, this “world’s largest” enterprise doesn’t even have a website.  It claims it was founded in 2009, but its Facebook page just showed up April 15th of this year with a handful of photos showing… license plates.  Why license plates?  Because the group’s real aim is to set up a registry of those willing to receive text messages sent by typing in someone’s license plate and quietly linking it to your cell phone.

The Century Council – Public interest group padding.  Ask yourself what a group fighting underage teen drinking and driving built from and run by distilleries has to do with mobile broadband, Net Neutrality, spectrum demand, and wireless phone taxes — the primary issues Mobile Future seeks to address.

Climate Cartoons – The group’s CEO is a Washington, DC lobbyist specializing in fighting telecommunications issues.  Among Arnold Consulting Group’s “accomplishments:” building a “telecommunications coalition that successfully opposed federal and state ‘Net neutrality’ legislation” and a “cable television coalition that successfully opposed federal, state and local efforts to enact open access broadband regulations.”  Need I say more?

Hispanic Technology and Telecommunications Partnership – Another LULAC — follows AT&T policy initiatives around like a friendly puppy.  HTTP was busted by Ars Technica when asked whether AT&T had any hand in helping the group draft its opposition to Net Neutrality.  HTTP’s Sylvia Aguilera insisted she initiated the drive to oppose Net Neutrality, but was silent on whether AT&T helped draft the letter opposing it.

That’s only halfway down their so-called “coalition” list.  You get the point.  The only name that truly matters among all of Mobile Future’s members is AT&T because they are the ones spreading the money around to pay for it.  At the same time, if AT&T is writing contribution checks to your public interest group, or hiring your consulting/lobbying firm to represent your agenda, those are two compelling reasons for both to hurry on over to sign up for the cause in this, and other astroturf front groups.

On behalf of Climate Cartoons, which purports to “lure people into earth friendly behavior,” please be sure to give all due respect to this latest industry-backed study from Dr. Bazelon by tossing it into the nearest recycling bin.

Turner

Paralleling the debate for better broadband is the fight for renewable, domestically-produced energy, and outspoken former CNN founder Ted Turner has run into the same kind of corporate-backed opposition strategies broadband advocates face in a quest to deliver improved service to Americans.  As part of an event with T. Boone Pickens to promote the cause of renewable energy, Turner launched into an all-out assault on his former colleagues at Time Warner, who he characterized as inept.

“This is what I said at the Time Warner board room. I’m not on the board anymore because they didn’t get it, but I said ‘we’ve got to stop doing the dumb things and start doing the smart things.  We had 5 percent of Google in a music merger and I said to [former CEO] Dick Parsons, ‘Dick, I think we ought to hang onto that Google stock.’ This was about 10 years ago. He said, ‘That company’s a bunch of bullshit.’

Then, listen to this one. We had CNNfn, which was in 50 million homes, as Fox [Business] is in now. And they made the decision to close it down. It was breaking even, a cable network that was breaking even. We should have been in there competing with CNBC and Bloomberg.

They closed it down without even calling Rupert up, who said publicly he was looking really hard at getting into the financial news business. We could have gotten $100 million or $200 million from him just for the name and the 50 million subscribers. They didn’t even call him — they closed it down without even doing that, and he was sitting there with the money wanting to give it to ‘em. I mean, you know, how dumb can you be?”

Whenever incumbent interests are threatened with new innovations that challenge conventional business models, look out.  The well-financed opposition will do everything possible to stop new sources of competition, something a befuddled Pickens noted when he encountered a representative from oil and gas interests opposing his domestic production ideas.  He likened the guy to “Baghdad Bob.”  Turner also confronted corporate-friendly Fox Business News who interviewed both about their joint effort, leading Turner to drop the “BS-bomb” at one point on live television.

It’s just more evidence that the fight for better broadband with fiber-based networks, Net Neutrality, competition, and more affordable access will be resisted in much the same way entrenched incumbents always fight to preserve their profitable positions in the marketplace.  Your interests come second.

As for characterizations of Time Warner management’s ability to predict trends and make smart business decisions, Turner has the credentials to back up his beliefs as a vice-chairman of Time Warner from 1996-2006.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Turner Blasts Time Warner 4-26-10.flv[/flv]

Speaking at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Los Angeles, Ted Turner had choice words for his former partner, Time Warner.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Fox Business News Renewable Energy 4-26-10.flv[/flv]

T. Boone Pickens and Ted Turner sit for an interview with Fox Business News about renewable energy.  We’re into the weeds with this clip, but it’s useful to see the same kinds of astroturf campaigns drive other causes crazy as well.  Also fun to watch Turner drop the “BS-Bomb” on live television, causing some consternation for Fox Business News, which also challenged Turner’s notions of how to pay for smart grids.  (7 minutes)