[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Heath Shuler Campaign Ad.flv[/flv]

Congress doesn’t seem to know right from wrong, but we do.

It’s not right when big insurance companies write health care laws when millions can’t afford to see a doctor.

It’s not right when big oil companies write energy laws as gas prices skyrocket.

It’s not right when Congress passes trade bills that send our jobs overseas.

Congress won’t change until we change the people we’re sending to Washington.

–Rep. Heath Shuler’s 2006 campaign commercial

That was less than four years ago.  Apparently these days Rep. Heath Shuler (D-North Carolina) believes it -is- right for large telecommunications companies to censor online content, slow down Internet services they don’t want you to use, and allow the phone and cable industry to control broadband policies in this country.

Shuler’s abandonment of his mountain values was made easier with $23,000 in campaign contributions from a grateful industry.

Shuler

When those telecom checks cleared the bank, Shuler went to work for big telecom companies, becoming a leading opponent of consumer-friendly Net Neutrality.

For his supporters who once had high hopes for the Democratic congressman first elected in 2006, it’s been one disappointment after another.

Last fall, Shuler was a co-signer of a letter to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski opposing Net Neutrality.  To reiterate the point, many of the same co-signers of last fall’s letter were back on board with a second letter sent last month.

The latest letter was a godsend to AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and other Net Neutrality opponents who are using it to suggest there is considerable bipartisan opposition to broadband reform.

Many of his constituents are not impressed with Shuler’s legislative record these days.  One of them is Dave Houck:

I have long since had it with Mr. Shuler.  I admit it, I have no more patience for him.

[…]

I campaigned for you, and phone banked for you, and made cash contributions.  Today I find out that you are against net neutrality, that you signed a letter to the FCC Chairman supporting AT&T and other large corporations — choosing corporations over the people.

In 2010 I will be voting for anybody who runs against you, Democrat or Republican, as you have consistently demonstrated in the three years you have been in Congress that you are quite simply not up to the job of representing the people of Western North Carolina.  You and the “Blue Dog Coalition” are surrogates for corporate interests; you do not have the interests of the people of North Carolina at heart.  Or at least that’s the message you are sending to me.

I’m just fed up.

North Carolina's 11th District is currently served by Rep. Heath Shuler

Similar sentiments from upset residents in his district are voiced all over Shuler’s Facebook page.  Why not add yours?

Then give his office a call or drop him an e-mail.

Ask Rep. Shuler how standing with big phone and cable companies against consumer broadband protection could ever represent western North Carolina mountain values.

Tell him trusting AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable with our broadband future is like trusting BP to protect the Gulf Coast.

Let him know you were disappointed with his decision to sign the first letter opposing Net Neutrality last fall, but now you are simply appalled he’s done it again.

It’s not right when big phone and cable companies have the power to write their own legislation and stop pro-consumer protections like Net Neutrality.  Where is the Rep. Shuler who campaigned on doing the right thing in 2006?

If Shuler won’t change his mind on an issue as important as this, perhaps we need to take his own advice and change the person the 11th district sends to Congress.

Jim Kraft (D-District 1)

A proposal to add a monthly $4 fee to every Baltimore cable subscriber’s bill to raise money for the fiscally-challenged city has been withdrawn after the city solicitor’s office warned the legislation would violate federal law.

City councilman Jim Kraft (D-District 1) proposed the city extend the existing telecommunications tax levied on telephone lines to cable television service in a bid to raise up to $5 million dollars annually towards the $50 million required to restore funding for curtailed fire, police, and recreational facilities.

Kraft’s proposal was an alternative to a controversial four cent bottle tax on beverages that could have driven some shoppers out of the city for cheaper untaxed alternatives available in the suburbs.

Kraft called his cable TV tax proposal “a fair tax.”

“Employed or unemployed, property taxpayer or exempt from property tax — this fee is borne by all,” he wrote in a mailing to constituents.

But the proposed tax ran into the Internet Tax Freedom Act, currently extended until 2014, which bans any taxation on broadband service, a major component of today’s cable systems.  The city’s lawyers also warned Baltimore could not tax home satellite service either: “Congress has specifically exempted providers of direct-to-home satellite service from collection or remittance of any tax or fee imposed by a local taxing jurisdiction.”

America’s cities continue to face unprecedented budget challenges in light of the distressed economy.  Some cities are slashing services, others are raising taxes and fees to make up the difference.  Baltimore in in the latter category with wide-ranging proposals to up fees and taxes for everything from the hotel room tax rate, outdoor billboard advertising, and energy to new higher fines for parking and civil violations.

The bottle tax bill is likely back on the agenda as well.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WJZ Baltimore New Taxes 5-2010.flv[/flv]

WJZ-TV in Baltimore delivered this rundown on the city’s large number of tax and fee hikes to close a $50 million shortfall.  (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WBAL Baltimore Cable TV Tax Proposal Pulled 5-28-10.flv[/flv]

WBAL-TV ran this report over the demise of the telecommunications tax for cable television.  (2 minutes)

Los Angeles County's cable franchise map dating back to 2005 shows the county divided between Adelphia, Comcast, and Time Warner. Today, Time Warner Cable controls most of the county's cable service but still relies on some legacy equipment in place from the days of Adelphia and Comcast. Calabasas was formerly served by Adelphia. (click to enlarge map)

Some southern California residents continue to express anger and frustration at some poor business and customer service practices provided by Charter Cable and Time Warner Cable, both of which provide service in the community of Calabasas.

Unfortunately, city officials had their hands tied in resolving consumer complaints because California is one of several states that abandoned local cable franchising in favor of less accountable statewide cable franchises that carry few terms and conditions that protect California consumers.

The Calabasas Communications and Technology Commission dealt with several complaints raised by residents during its May meeting, often echoed by the commissioners themselves.

From the Calabasas Patch:

Resident Alvin Lindenauer spoke about his dissatisfaction with Charter.

“Charter has a long history of being less than competent in providing cable service,” he said.

Lindenauer’s complaints with Charter included misleading advertising, poor customer service and, most prominent, “improper billing practices.”

He said he received several erroneous notices of past due payments that resulted in forced late fees.

Lindenauer referred to Charter as “corrupt and deceptive” in its business practices.

He proposed that the commission hold Charter Cable more accountable for its service and reduce the city’s long-term contract with the company.

Charter Cable officials denied the company was either corrupt or deceptive, stating the company will work to address any customer service or billing complaints.

Cable commissions like those in Calabasas actually hold almost no power over incumbent cable or competing phone company video offerings.  The federal government deregulated the vast majority of cable operations as part of the 1996 Communications Act.  While many municipalities have cable boards or commissions, most are little more than venting stations for frustrated residents who feel their local provider is unresponsive.  Sometimes appeals like those by Lindenauer can get the attention of company executives and “guilt them” into intervening with intransigent customer service agents, especially when the media is watching.

Calabasas residents were also upset with Time Warner Cable — primarily because of its set-top boxes and a recent “upgrade” to its program guide software.

Customers are upset with the company’s legacy Motorola cable boxes still used on the part of the system originally owned by Adelphia.  Some residents inquired about why Time Warner doesn’t use the “more reliable” Scientific-Atlanta converters used in other parts of Los Angeles county.

Calabasas residents also complained Time Warner’s cable signals are intermittently plagued by “tiling,” an irritating digital artifact that appears like a series of small boxes that appear frozen or moving across a digital picture.  Company officials responded that the problems are in software, not in the set-top boxes, and they would work on them.

Time Warner’s Los Angeles county cable system is actually configured of several different cable systems acquired from Comcast and bankrupt Adelphia Cable a few years ago.  Those systems still have important differences in technology and channel lineups.  Despite those differences, Time Warner Cable collectively controls most of Los Angeles county’s cable systems.  Charter has most of the rest.

[You can watch the commission’s proceedings from their video archive.  Start watching at 17:35 to view Mr. Lindenauer’s complaint and follow-up.]

North Carolina Legislature

We collectively sighed last Wednesday when the Senate Finance Committee temporarily pulled S1209, but the victory is short-lived.  Sources tell us S1209 is scheduled to return this Tuesday, one day after the long Memorial Day weekend.

We are not happy with some of the rumors that have been circulating around the Legislative Building in Raleigh.  One suggests S1209 will be modified into a one year, renewable moratorium on municipal broadband while a joint task force ponders questions about financing of municipal broadband, broadband adoption and speed, and overall competition in North Carolina.  Without a clear sunset provision, the legislature can renew the moratorium indefinitely, assuring incumbent phone and cable companies of a continued easy ride into our wallets.

Much has also been said by Sen. Clodfelter regarding the legality of municipal broadband in North Carolina.  Some of his earlier comments suggest he’d be a proponent for a moratorium while the state legislature thrashes out the legal questions.

But the courts have already effectively dealt with this question and handed victory to municipalities.  Why bother with a moratorium when in 2005, Laurinburg, North Carolina won its court battle against big telecom companies.  The judge ruled:

“Laurinburg’s network is run over fiber optic “wires or cable,” providing a “system” for “transmit[ting]” and “receiv[ing]” electronic signals capable of being converted to “audio” and/or “video” streams of information. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-319(b). We believe this fits within a broad construction of the definition of a CTS. Therefore, we hold that Laurinburg is acting within its municipal authority to run its network, and was not acting ultra vires in contracting with School Link to provide the network’s ISP service.”

Doesn’t the legislature have better things to do than to spend all of this valuable time doing work for big phone and cable companies?

We need you to again write and call your legislators. We have been told by numerous sources that your input has been very effective in pushing back S1209.  The more North Carolina consumers speak out against this anti-consumer bill, the less likely it will ever become law.

Here are the points you need to raise in your next letter or phone call:

1. Why is the legislature still spending time on this unnecessary, anti-consumer legislation?  S1209 is wanted by large phone and cable companies.  You want your town or city to have every option open to deliver better service if a consensus is reached for it in your community.  The current system already provides effective checks and balances.  We don’t need S1209.
2. Studying broadband issues is fine, but placing a moratorium on municipal broadband projects in the meantime is completely unacceptable.
3. Corning’s plant in Hickory, North Carolina produces 40 percent of the world’s supply of fiber optic cable.  Passing S1209 impedes fiber projects in North Carolina, hurting our own workers and state economy.
4. North Carolina needs all the broadband expansion it can get.  We are ranked 41st out of 50 states.  Passing S1209 preserves mediocre broadband service in our state indefinitely.

For some of you, this will be your third or fourth call or e-mail.  Perhaps it’s time to remind legislators you are becoming increasingly concerned that measures like S1209 continue to be debated.  While Time Warner Cable and CenturyLink/Embarq’s legislative priorities continue to get plenty of time and attention in Raleigh, they don’t get a vote in the next election.  Remind them you do, and your continued support hinges on whether you can feel confident members represents your interests, not those of big cable and phone companies.

Remember the three rules when contacting your legislators:

• Be polite.
• Be persuasive.
• Be persistent.

Well-informed constituents who can defeat industry talking points represents the nuclear option against bad telecommunications legislation.

Now get on the phones and e-mail and get busy.  Remember — one e-mail message per address.  No carbon copies!

Here is the list:

The Denver Post this morning did a major disservice to its readers in a heavily slanted editorial objecting to the reclassification of broadband service to restore the FCC’s traditional oversight authority over Internet providers.

In their piece For Web and Broadband Regulation, Less is More, the editors at the Post delivered less facts and more industry talking points.  It even mislead readers by quoting from two Republican FCC commissioners, completely ignoring the Democratic majority that would likely prevail in a vote on the matter.

The editorial forgets to mention why this debate is taking place.  Readers should have been made aware the broadband industry the Post celebrates as successful under a light touch regulatory philosophy effectively-won total deregulation in a game changing court decision that stripped the FCC’s authority to provide checks and balances over today’s duopoly broadband market.

Ed Whitacre, AT&T

Comcast sued after the FCC punished the company for deliberately interfering with customers’ broadband speeds for certain Internet applications (despite Comcast’s initial denials).  The Post characterizes such behavior on the part of the nation’s largest cable company as “only a couple documented issues, which were quickly resolved.”  How does the Post think these were resolved?  The FCC used the authority it now no longer has to pressure Comcast to stop.  What stops the next “documented issue?”

AT&T’s former chairman and CEO Ed Whitacre gave Americans plenty to worry about in 2005 when the nation’s largest phone company infamously declared that popular web sites should not be expected to use AT&T’s “pipes for free.”  That attitude is still being defended today by millions of dollars in lobbying, fake grassroots astroturf campaigns, and industry bought-and-paid-for “research studies.”  Why spend all that money on a “resolved” issue?

But the most offensive part of the Post‘s piece was a completely dishonest attempt by the editors to imply there is widespread bipartisan opposition to common sense broadband regulation like Net Neutrality.

We had the opportunity Wednesday to talk with two FCC commissioners about the dual proposals for reform. They voiced concerns about an FCC move to redefine broadband networks as highly regulated telecommunications services.

Meredith Attwell Baker, who was nominated to the commission by President Obama, called the reclassification dangerous, adding it was a “brand new model.” FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell, nominated by President George W. Bush, worried about the unintended consequences that might come out of an additional layer of regulation.

On the right side of the Commission, the two Republican members Meredith Attwell Baker, a former telecom industry lobbyist and Robert M. McDowell.

How clever of the Denver Post to dangle the implication that Baker, being appointed by Obama, is somehow an ally.  She is not.  The Post only spoke with the two Republican minority commissioners for its editorial.  Atwell was appointed by Obama under long-standing FCC rules which require that only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party.  There is no practical difference between Atwell and McDowell.  Why didn’t the newspaper speak to at least one of the majority Democrats on the Commission, all of which are expected to support Chairman Genachowski?  Because that would have dramatically weakened the provider’s editor’s arguments and talking points.

Of course, there is nothing “brand new” about Title II authority.  It has been used successfully to oversee today’s increasingly deregulated landline marketplace to protect rural Americans who don’t have competitive choices should their phone company provide abysmal service.  What was new was the defective mechanism used by former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, under the Bush Administration, to oversee broadband using what the courts determined was phantom authority.

There is nothing about those regulations “ill-suited” to restoring the FCC’s lost authority, which is the ultimate game plan here.  Providers have fed talking points, which editors at the Denver Post apparently devoured, suggesting everything from unintended consequences to the sky falling down should the FCC be able to implement its National Broadband Plan on its terms.  Providers want the power to control and implement broadband deployment on their terms — the same ones that have left millions without any real broadband options at all, and the rest of us with slow service at high prices.

We hope that process ends with succinct and limited rules that apply to broadband providers, but leave them relatively unfettered so the Internet continues to be a place for entrepreneurs, thinkers and dreamers to pursue their ideas.

These are all noble goals, but they cannot be achieved if a handful of giant broadband providers start extorting fees from content producers and engaging in other abusive behaviors.  The Post seems to think America is a world-leader in broadband, yet we are not.  This country is now handily beaten by several Asian nations and even cities within the former Soviet Union and its east European bloc.  Just this week Ookla released a speed index report that tells the truth about America’s broadband experience:

Here are the top 10 U.S. cities and their corresponding 30-day average speeds:

1. San Jose, Calif. 15.02 Mbps
2. Saint Paul, Minn. 14.53 Mbps
3. Pittsburgh, Pa. 14.18 Mbps
4. Oklahoma City, Okla. 12.12 Mbps
5. Brooklyn, N.Y. 12.10 Mbps
6. Tampa, Fla. 12.05 Mbps
7. Bronx, N.Y. 12.01 Mbps
8. New York, N.Y. 11.85 Mbps
9. Denver, Colo. 11.68 Mbps
10. Sacramento, Calif. 11.34 Mbps

The global top 10:

1. Seoul, South Korea 34.49 Mbps
2. Riga, Latvia 27.88 Mbps
3. Hamburg, Germany 26.85 Mbps
4. Chisinau, Republic of Moldova 24.31 Mbps
5. Helsinki, Finland 20.58 Mbps Mbps
6. Stockholm, Sweden 19.97 Mbps
7. Bucharest, Romania 19.68 Mbps
8. Sofia, Bulgaria 18.99 Mbps
9. Kharkov, Ukraine 18.15 Mbps
10. Kaunas, Lithuania 17.46 Mbps

With evidence like this, the editors at the Post need to get out from behind those telecom talking points and visit today’s real broadband world.