Thursday’s Winston-Salem Journal featured an editorial calling on the North Carolina legislature to get out of the way as municipalities across the state take control of their broadband destinies.

The piece, Broadband Battle, echoes what Stop the Cap! has been writing for more than a year now:

• More than decade after the Internet became a household word, too many households in the state still don’t have broadband access to it;
• “High-speed,” as defined by many of the state’s providers, doesn’t meet today’s definition of multimedia-ready broadband that can support today’s high bandwidth applications;
• When private providers cannot or will not meet a community’s needs, they shouldn’t have to wait indefinitely for that to change.  If municipalities want to establish high-speed service at the behest of their residents, let them!

The Journal sees through a transparent effort by Senator David Hoyle and others to ensure protectionism for a marketplace duopoly.

Fifteen years after Internet use became common, the telecoms still do not provide high-speed service to much of North Carolina. They can’t expect people to wait any longer.

The telecommunications industry wants the legislature to make it more difficult for local governments to offer high-speed Internet service. The giant companies say they can’t compete with local governments in towns of a couple thousand people.

If the telecoms don’t want local governments to establish these Internet services, they should rush into these areas and establish service now.

The newspaper points out the yoga-like stretching Hoyle and his allies are doing to justify their obstacle course for municipal broadband, noting they are demanding a higher standard for financing municipal broadband than exists for most other government borrowing. And legislators would look hypocritical in passing such legislation because they’ve been borrowing without bond referenda for many years.

The newspaper takes a common sense attitude about such projects — if providers really want to stop them, they should rush into the areas where they are proposed and deliver the world-class 21st century broadband service consumers want and prices they can afford.  Instead, they divert subscriber’s monthly bill payments to high-priced lobbying efforts to kill potential competition.

The editorial’s advice to the General Assembly?  Ignore the telecoms on this issue.  Unfortunately, for some legislators, that means ignoring campaign contributions.  The best way to strengthen their resolve is to let them know they won’t get any more of those checks if they aren’t re-elected.

A retiring state senator wants to throw North Carolina consumers under the bus with new legislation that could cost residents millions in savings on their cable, telephone, and broadband bills.

Senator David Hoyle (D-Gaston), has introduced S1209 — what Hoyle calls “The Nonvoted Local Debt for Competing System Act.”  We call it “The Anti-Consumer Muni-Killer Act,” representing little more than a lavish parting gift to telecommunications companies that have supported Hoyle for years.

As we have been reporting here, here, here and here for the past few months, the telecom industry has pulled out all the stops looking for friends in the state legislature to do their bidding.  This year, the industry is following the game plan it has used successfully in other states to kill potential community-based competition for their broadband duopoly.

The state’s cable and phone companies (and their legislator lackeys) argue that taxpayers should not be on the hook for municipally-owned networks.  In the guise of “protecting consumers,” Hoyle and his bill’s co-sponsors would compel municipalities to fund municipal broadband projects with General Obligation B0nds — a regulatory minefield that includes referendums held at taxpayers’ expense and direct taxpayer involvement in the funding process.

As we’ve discussed earlier, Hoyle’s proposal would compel endless referendums for everything from system construction and financing to basic system upgrades and repairs.  The implications of such legislation:

• It makes municipal broadband projects untenable. What local government would consider a municipal project that would require endless referendums?  The only thing Hoyle didn’t include in his bill was a mandatory public referendum about where the engineers should order lunch.
• Someone has to pay for the referendum process — North Carolina taxpayers.  So much for protecting the taxpayer!
• The legislative minefield Hoyle lays for local communities is tailor-made for well-financed telecom industry opposition campaigns that are designed to demagogue municipal competition while tying the hands of communities to fight back.

The irony is, the current system already in place in North Carolina protects state taxpayers.

Both proposed and operational municipal broadband systems rely on Revenue Bonds that have to be approved by the North Carolina Local Government Commission.  These Revenue Bonds are not taxpayer-funded, and local residents are not on the hook should something go wrong.  The financing agreements with investors are designed to pay off the costs of such systems over time and they then become self-supporting.  But even from day one, municipal broadband represents an asset to a community’s efforts to attract digital economy jobs.

They also save you money.  Just ask the residents of Wilson, who didn’t face a rate increase outpacing inflation and finally had an alternative for “good enough for you” broadband from current providers.

Unfortunately, the current system is no good for Senator Hoyle because it doesn’t protect his friends in the phone, cable, and broadband industry, threatened with competition that would derail their duopoly gravy trains for good.

Hoyle should be willing to admit as such, considering his friends in the cable industry already have.  Marcus Trahen, a lobbyist for the North Carolina Cable Telecommunications Association told legislators at a Revenue Laws Study Committee meeting, “We don’t care if cities have internal systems; what we are worried about is competition.”

Under the guise of “protecting” taxpayers, Hoyle only manages to guarantee fat profits for Time Warner Cable, AT&T, and CenturyLink (formerly Embarq) without better pricing and service for you.  Perhaps Hoyle forgot North Carolina is ranked 41st out of 50 states for its comparatively-mediocre broadband services, mostly provided by those three companies.

Hoyle also argues that publicly owned systems harm private industry, despite the fact many in private industry support municipal broadband.  Several letters of opposition to S1209 have been sent to legislators from companies like Google, Intel, Alcatel-Lucent, and five private provider trade associations.

Hoyle doesn’t plan to stick around and watch the damage his proposed bill would create for North Carolina’s economic and high tech future.  After he retires from public office, his bill would leave a legacy of tied hands among local communities from Asheville to Greenville, and all points in-between.  Doesn’t your community deserve a better option?  If you want a third option that could dramatically lower prices and offer better service, shouldn’t local officials have the right to offer it if current providers won’t?

The fact is, none of these municipal projects would even be proposed if the cable and phone companies delivered the service communities want at fair prices. Cable and phone companies don’t need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defeat these projects — they could simply lower their prices and offer the kind of service consumers demand.

For Hoyle’s part, he’s shocked…  shocked to discover consumers are offended by his telecom-friendly attitudes.  He told Indy Weekly, “the lobbyists don’t influence me; I’m in the pocket of the people that provide jobs for this state, and Time Warner Cable employs 8,500 — I can’t imagine anyone that would want to compete with that.”

Senator Hoyle weighed the interests of Time Warner Cable against 9.4 million North Carolina consumers and sided with the cable company.

Let’s push the scale in the other direction.

What You Need to Know

The author of S1209 is  Sen. David Hoyle (D-Gaston).

The bill currently lists five co-sponsors:

• Sen. Peter S. Brunstetter (R-Forsyth)
• Sen. Clark Jenkins (D-Edgecombe/Martin/Pitt)
• Sen. Jerry W. Tillman (R-Montgomery/Randolph)
• Sen. Dan Blue (D-Wake)
• Sen. Fletcher Hartsell (R-Cabarrus/Iredell)

The latter two, Sens. Blue and Hartsell were formerly on our supporters list, and we’re reaching out for clarification as to why they are listed as co-sponsors on this bill.  We’ll update our readers about whether they will stand with North Carolina consumers or the telecom industry as soon as we hear back from their offices.

Your Action Alert

You must immediately contact legislators on the Senate Finance Committee, set to consider Hoyle’s bill this week, most likely on Wednesday.  But don’t wait until then.  You should be making contact today, just in case the bill gets voted on earlier, before opposition has a chance to build.

Tell the senators to oppose S1209 for the benefit of North Carolina’s economic future:

• Make it clear voting for this bill is just another way to stop municipal broadband from delivering the kind of broadband service North Carolina wants and needs to grow its economy.
• S1209 was custom-crafted to protect the interests of incumbent phone and cable companies, not North Carolina consumers.
• The current system already protects taxpayers because they are not paying for municipal broadband projects.  S1209 forces local governments to spend taxpayer funds on endless referendums.
• Explain you are already empowered to stop unwanted municipal projects through organized vocal opposition at town meetings as well as at the ballot box.  But your town would not be empowered to offer services private providers refuse if S1209 becomes law, because the legislation forces such projects into miles of red tape.
• Worst of all, S1209 gives phone and cable companies plenty of time to demagogue such projects, spending ratepayer funds in a hopelessly mismatched fight.
• Let them know you see through S1209’s anti-competitive intent, and you’re prepared to vote for those who stand up for North Carolina consumers and oppose these types of telecom industry-friendly bills.

Important! When writing, -DO NOT- simply carbon copy everyone on a single e-mail message.  Those mass mailings are discarded, unread.  For maximum effectiveness, send an individual e-mail to each legislator and another to their legislative assistant. Calling the legislator’s office can be even more effective and immediate.

Here is the list:

Free Press is raising money to buy advertising to remind residents in cities where Comcast has a lock on cable service that it now wants to acquire NBC-Universal.

Comcast won The Consumerist’s 2010 “Worst Company in America” award for its poor service, beating Ticketmaster, AIG and Countrywide Home Loans.  Now that’s a tough neighborhood.

Free Press wants to remind consumers if things are this bad now, imagine what they’ll be like when America’s largest cable company also owns a major U.S. television network and studio.

For its troubles, Comcast gets a small sculpture that Consumerist describes as “the Golden Poo” and the dubious honor of being mentioned in stories like this, notes The Washington Post.

Other contenders for the award included Bank of America and Cash4Gold.  They should have probably also included Chase Bank, which has been bloodsucking Americans since the days of the railroad robber barons.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Fox News Big Brother Getting Bigger 5-11-10.mp4[/flv]

Fox News has a special way of conflating consumer protection rules with a “takeover” of private business. Megyn Kelly moderates a “fair and balanced” debate between Jim Harper of the Cato Institute and Josh Silver of Free Press. (4 minutes)

Kelly frames the debate as an Obama Administration “takeover of the Internet, is it good or bad?”

With a setup like that, Silver had his work cut out for him.

Unfortunately, whenever Silver spoke, Kelly interrupted, at one point telling him discussions about “Net Neutrality” were way above the heads of the typical Fox News viewer.

For viewers keeping score at home, here is how Kelly divided up the time:

• Harper: 1 minute, 17 seconds with no interruptions
• Silver: 47 seconds, interrupted twice

Kelly’s framing of the issue put her squarely in Harper’s camp, which effectively added an extra 104 seconds of Obama paranoia cheerleading.

We report. You decide.

One of the lesser-known implications of broadband reform includes major changes to the Universal Service Fund (USF), a program that collects a few dollars a month from every phone customer to help subsidize the costs of delivering service to rural America.  As traditional phone lines become ever less important, a proposal to begin applying USF charges to broadband service has gotten increasing attention from conservatives who oppose the program, calling it a new “tax on broadband.”

The need for USF subsidies on rural telephone service continues to decline along with the number of landline customers.  Over the history of the program, repeated abuses have been documented which have diverted funding into cell phones for school administrators, telecommunications services in decidedly non-poor or rural areas, and steering vendor contracts to providers that kick money, trips, or other gifts back to decision makers.  With the FCC increasing the USF subsidy rate to 15.3 percent for the second quarter of 2010, an enormous amount of money is at stake, available for qualified programs.

So much money is available, some companies are building USF funding into their business plans.  Independent rural telephone companies can make a killing on USF subsidies, which are targeted precisely at their service areas.  But now cell phone companies have begun riding the USF gravy train, and are now marketing products and services that would be impossible to provide without USF funding.

One of the most controversial programs is free cellphones for income-challenged Americans, a program that first appeared during the Bush Administration, made possible by the Universal Service Fund.

To qualify, subscribers must either have an income that is at or below 135% of the federal Poverty Guidelines, or participate in one of the following assistance programs:

• Medicaid,
• Food Stamps,
• Supplemental Security Income (SSI),
• Federal Public Housing Assistance (Section 8),
• Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP),
• Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), or
• The National School Lunch Program’s Free Lunch Program

An extension of Lifeline and Link-Up, the free cell phone program has been extended to more than a dozen states by providers like TracFone’s SafeLink Wireless or Sprint’s Assurance Wireless.

Safelink provides qualified customers with free ($50 value) Motorola cell phones and free calling with no contract requirement.  They also receive free texting, national/international calling, voicemail, caller ID, and call waiting.

“A telephone service, just in general, is not a privilege, it’s a right, and we feel it’s a corporate responsibility to provide it,” says José Fuentes, TracFone’s director of government relations. “Everyone should be in contact, should have the opportunity to get a phone call, especially if it’s an employer.”

Fuentes may be right, but TracFone’s altruism is made considerably easier when the federal government is picking up the majority of the tab every month.  USF funding contributes $10 of the estimated $13.50 the service actually costs to provide.

Traditional Lifeline landline service has been a part of American life for decades, but the prospect of welfare recipients getting free cell phones is ready-made for demagoguery in the media.  A common meme is that the program represents more “Obama socialism,” despite the fact the program began under the previous administration, and there may be nothing inherently wrong with extending Lifeline service to an increasingly wireless world.

What this really represents is the opportunity to consider different approaches to funding subsidy programs.  For example, would such programs like cell phone subsidies be better served if they were funded by the carriers themselves as part of spectrum auction proceeds?  Is the FCC trying to substantiate the need for continued USF spending by expanding the number of projects and programs qualified to receive funding?  Is 15.3 percent a fair amount to charge telephone ratepayers?

Under the FCC’s proposed Broadband Plan for America, USF fees would be collected from and largely diverted to broadband service.  Rural America would get broadband service at a price comparable to what big city residents pay, and providers could substantiate the return on investment to begin constructing such projects partly subsidized by USF funding.

But that means the price of your broadband service will increase and some consumers don’t like it.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WLOS Asheville Broadband Tax 4-28-10.flv[/flv]

WLOS-TV in Asheville, North Carolina reports on concerns about a forthcoming proposed broadband tax.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”451″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WGRZ Buffalo Free Cell Phones On Your Dime 4-8-10.flv[/flv]

WGRZ-TV in Buffalo covers the free cell phone angle as residents see ads from companies like Assurance Wireless that offer free cell phones to income-challenged Americans. (2 minutes)