AT&T: 'If you don't do what we say, we're taking U-verse away!'

AT&T is threatening to pick up its toys and go home if the Federal Communications Commission tries to bring back its oversight powers over broadband.

CEO Randall Stephenson threw a major hissyfit in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, annoyed the company doesn’t have free rein to do whatever it wants.

“I’m a 3-2 vote away from the next guy coming in and [trying to regulate us], [and] I take it away,” Stephenson said, referring to it’s U-verse IPTV service.

AT&T has threatened to cut spending on U-verse deployment if AT&T faces regulations like Net Neutrality in its broadband business.

“If this Title 2 regulation looks imminent, we have to re-evaluate whether we put shovels in the ground,” Stephenson said, claiming the company planned to spend a “couple billion” dollars a year on the service… until now.

But AT&T has already cut spending on U-verse, slashing $2 billion in U-verse investments in 2009 alone — news trumpeted to shareholders.  Additionally, AT&T has laid off thousands of employees.  In short, the threats the company made this week have already come to pass… more than a year ago.

Many analysts claim AT&T is bluffing.  Like most landline providers, AT&T is losing traditional phone customers who are disconnecting their wired phone lines.  Its wireless division has been pummeled for inadequate 3G coverage, poor customer service, and lousy reception in many areas.  AT&T can’t afford -not- to upgrade their services if they wish to retain customers.

The cable television industry certainly hopes AT&T isn’t bluffing.  They are enjoying AT&T’s disconnect business as customers dump inadequate DSL service and overpriced phone lines for cable-provided alternatives.

Unitel is one of five Maine telephone companies facing competition from Time Warner Cable's "digital phone" service

The Maine Public Utilities Commission has denied a request by Time Warner Cable to launch “digital phone” competition in rural Maine unless and until the cable operator agrees to completely wire every home that wants service in the affected communities.  The decision may carry national implications because it signals utility commissions have the power to stop unfair competition from companies that don’t agree to provide their service on a universal basis.

Five rural phone companies faced the prospect of trying to compete with Time Warner Cable’s “digital phone” service under requirements they provide universal service to every customer in their service area while the cable operator could cherry-pick where to provide service.

Unitel, Lincolnville Networks, Tidewater Telecom, Oxford Telephone Company and Oxford West Telephone Company told the PUC Time Warner Cable’s competitive threat was not fair because the cable company only provided service in choice neighborhoods, typically those with multiple residences adjacent to one another.  Only wiring significant population areas reduces costs for the cable operator while the rural landline providers are required to extend service to every resident in their communities, regardless of where they live.

A review by the PUC found Time Warner Cable’s request would create an undue economic burden on the rural telephone companies, reducing their value and increasing the risk of their long term survival, which would discourage investment and increase risk to creditors.

Reishus

PUC Chair Sharon Reishus: “Our decision…is taking place in a changing landscape for telephone regulation at the federal level with pending congressional and FCC actions, in the marketplace and in wireless technology. Our decision came down to an analysis of the current financial ability of the rural companies to withstand market competition if the exemption were lifted.”

“Customers in these rural areas must be assured a telephone service provider of last resort and access to lifeline services. Although the commission has a long history of recognizing the value of competition in the telecommunications market, in this instance, where Time Warner is not proposing to expand the availability of its service throughout the entire service territory of the rural companies, selective competition would undercut the ability of the rural companies to fulfill their ‘provider of last resort’ obligations.”

For years large telephone companies like AT&T and Verizon have argued that cable’s entry into the telephone business was unfair because cable companies never were required to serve every potential customer.  But instead of maintaining demands that cable match their universal service obligations, large phone companies have instead tried to free themselves from having to provide service to every possible customer.  AT&T, for example, has heavily lobbied for repeal of universal service requirements that mandate they provide telephone service to residents who live in the most rural service areas.

The Maine PUC has adopted a different standard — demanding that would-be cable competitors get busy wiring their entire communities for cable if they want permission to compete with area phone companies.  If they are not willing to do so, they cannot provide phone service to anyone in those communities.

Time Warner Cable had been seeking permission to provide phone service in rural Maine since 2008.

[flv width=”560″ height=”340″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Oxford Networks.mp4[/flv]

A promotional video from Oxford Networks (d/b/a Oxford/Oxford West Telephone Company) explaining the company’s history and their investment in fiber optics.  (3 minutes)

As expected, the Federal Communications Commission today voted 3-2 along party lines to move forward with a Notice of Inquiry on Chairman Julius Genachowski’s proposed “third way” of “light touch” regulation to restore the agency’s authority over broadband matters.

A Democratic majority approved Genachowski’s proposal after debate among Commission members.  Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps, long critical of the Bush Administration’s efforts to deregulate broadband, was among the most forceful in calling for some oversight over the industry.  Copps contended that the Bush Administration bent over backwards for large telecommunications companies in unprecedented ways, even stripping away basic consumer protection policies relating to privacy and billing.  The result, he contends, has been a disaster for broadband consumers.

“We need to reclaim our authority,” said Copps. “I, for one, am worried about relying only on the good will of a few powerful companies to achieve this country’s broadband hopes and dreams.”

Copps dismissed rhetoric from industry groups in opposition to the proposal, claiming broadband oversight was not a government takeover or regulation of the Internet.

“We are not talking, even remotely, about regulating the Internet,” Copps said. “We are talking about meaningful oversight of the infrastructure and services that allow Americans to get to the Internet.”

Genachowski’s proposal would correct flawed policy enabled by former Bush Administration FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who supported the classification of broadband as an “information service.”  Powell claimed that classification would include ancillary authority to back FCC enforcement.

That authority would be put to the test.

In 2007, Comcast secretly imposed speed restrictions on customers using peer-to-peer software.  Using the authority Powell claimed the agency had, the FCC ordered the broadband provider to cease and desist its speed throttling. Although Comcast discontinued the practice, replacing it with a 250 GB monthly data cap, the company also sued in federal court a year later, claiming the FCC’s broadband authority was flawed.

Earlier this year, the court agreed, ruling the FCC could not extend ancillary authority under its “information service” classification of broadband.  In that one decision, the FCC lost most, if not all of its oversight powers over broadband matters.

By reclassifying broadband as a “telecommunications service,” the Commission believes it can win back its oversight powers.  The Supreme Court, in an earlier case, upheld similar authority in another matter.

But telecommunications companies have claimed the proposed reclassification would subject broadband providers to 1930’s era regulations established for telephone landline companies.  They objected strongly to today’s vote.

Tom Tauke

Tom Tauke, Verizon executive vice president for public affairs, policy and communications said, “Reclassifying high-speed broadband Internet service as a telecom service is a terrible idea.  The negative consequences for online users and the Internet ecosystem would be severe and have ramifications for decades.  It is difficult to understand why the FCC continues to consider this option.”

Tauke, along with several other phone and cable companies have asked the Commission to turn the matter over to Congress.  Tauke referenced the industry-backed effort that secured nearly 300 signatures from members of Congress opposing reclassification.

But industry critics contend turning the matter over to a polarized Congress would represent a delay at best.  At worst, it could open the door to even more industry-backed, campaign contribution-fueled deregulation.

“There is a real urgency to this because right now there are no rules of the road to protect consumers from even the most egregious discriminatory behavior by telephone and cable companies,” said Markham Erickson, executive director of the Open Internet Coalition, which includes Internet heavyweights like Google and Amazon.com.

Aparna Sridhar, Free Press’ policy counsel said, “The FCC’s Third Way proposal presents a measured response to a problem created by a Comcast lawsuit: Without restoring its authority over broadband, the Commission won’t be able to bring broadband to rural and low-income Americans or promote policies that encourage innovation, creativity, free speech and job creation online. These are goals that we can all agree on, and we support the Commission’s effort to achieve them by first establishing a sound legal foundation for its policies.”

Republican commissioners largely adopted the broadband industry position that any additional regulation would harm investment and hurt consumers.

“I recognize that industry alone will not solve every challenge and no commercial market is perfect, but I fear that a more proactive broadband regulatory approach would adversely affect consumers, competition, and investment,” said Republican Commissioner Meredith Baker, who voted against the proposal.

At least one Republican congressman went all out for the industry in a letter to Genachowski that accused him of engaging in a “blind power grab.”

“Despite overwhelming opposition within a Congress that possesses the actual authority that the FCC covets, the Commission now inexplicably appears poised on Thursday to take another misguided leap towards its investment-suffocating attempt to regulate broadband providers as common carriers,” Rep. Fred Upton (R-Michigan) wrote.

Upton counts AT&T among his top-five contributors, giving the congressman and his leadership PAC $20,000.  Upton also accepted $15,000 from the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, $10,250 from Verizon, $10,000 from Comcast, and $7,500 from Deutsche Telekom, owner of T-Mobile.

Despite all the rhetoric, at least one carrier was forced to live under most of the rules Genachowski proposes for all of America’s broadband providers, with little difficulty.  AT&T agreed to maintain a Net Neutral policy from 2006-2009 as part of its merger agreements with SBC and BellSouth.  While doing so, the company increased investments in deploying its IPTV service U-verse, which included better broadband service for U-verse customers.

Stop the Cap! will provide detailed instructions on how to submit comments to the FCC as part of today’s Notice of Inquiry soon and will hopefully have video of today’s event up shortly.

North Carolina: the fight against S.1209, the municipal broadband moratorium bill that stops communities from building their own broadband alternatives now moves to the House Ways and Means/Broadband Connectivity Committee.

All 15 members are listed below.  You need to call and e-mail them and let them know you vehemently oppose this anti-consumer legislation as it stands.  Let them know you want that one year moratorium out of this bill at all costs.  Better yet, considering the study group mandated by the bill doesn’t include any consumers, just throw the whole thing out.  The only study that needs to be done is why North Carolina is near the bottom of the 50 states in broadband rankings.  Municipal providers can change that and revitalize local economies, create new high-tech jobs and help advance health care and education.  You can accomplish none of these things with a one-year roadblock on broadband progress.

Some of our allies on this legislation have been forced to mute their opposition, trying to avoid an even worse bill that could make a municipal broadband moratorium permanent.  That means North Carolina residents have to be on the front lines of opposition more than ever.

Let legislators know you understand some groups representing towns and cities in the state may have stopped fighting against the bill, but that doesn’t mean they endorse it.  More importantly, as a voter, you oppose the bill.  If you are personally served by one of these 15 representatives, let them know their vote is being carefully watched.  Will they stand with the people of North Carolina who want better broadband and believe local government should be able to provide it, or do they stand with Time Warner Cable, AT&T and other telecom companies seeking a one year moratorium that guarantees another year of high prices, inadequate broadband, and no alternatives for towns and cities that want better options.

As always, be polite, persuasive, and persistent!  Phone calls work wonders, but at least send an e-mail.  Doing both is even better.  You can click the e-mail addresses in bold to launch your e-mail software.  Please do not carbon copy legislators.  Send an individually personalized e-mail to the representative(s) of your choice.

House Ways and Means/Broadband Connectivity Committee

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.