The corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) took a hit in the Georgia legislature last week as the clock ran out on several initiatives backed by its members and supporters on behalf of the group’s corporate clients.

While H.B. 282, a municipal broadband ban introduced by Rep. Mark Hamilton (R-Cumming) was soundly defeated in an unusual, bipartisan 94-70 vote, two other measures supported by Hamilton never came up for votes, including one that would have placed restrictions on city employees speaking out against corporate-ghostwritten bills like the public broadband ban he introduced.

Hamilton is no stranger at ALEC. He received $3,527.80 in ALEC “scholarships” in 2008 alone, according to the Center for Media and Democracy. Those payments covered certain travel expenses, wining and dining, and entertainment for state lawmakers (and often their families) bought and paid for by ALEC’s corporate members which include large telecom companies. After 2008, ALEC no longer had to disclose their scholarships and neither do many politicians who receive them.

In the last cycle, Hamilton cashed checks well into the thousands of dollars from AT&T, Charter Communications, Comcast and Verizon. That doesn’t include $1,000 from the Georgia Cable TV Association.

Rep. Don Parsons, another bill supporter, happens to be an active member of the ALEC Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force. He has received $5,735.48 during his first three years in that role.

ALEC’s principle role is to get corporate-backed legislative ideas written into state laws. The group maintains a large database of pre-approved legislation ready-made for introduction in any statehouse. Simply change a few words here and there and suddenly it isn’t AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner Cable or Comcast introducing the bills they helped draft, it is Reps. Hamilton and Parsons.

In 2013, these two representatives went over the top for their corporate friends at ALEC.

Mark Hamilton’s H.B. 228: The “Keep Your Mouth Shut Else or Else” Act

Hamilton

Among the most overreaching bills introduced in the 2013 session was Rep. Hamilton’s H.B. 228 – an untitled bill that would prohibit local government employees from using government computers, fax machines or email to promote or oppose legislation by the General Assembly. It would also prohibit employees from contacting members of the General Assembly or the governor to discuss the impact of pending legislation on local governments, unless the employee is registered as a lobbyist or information is requested directly by a member of the General Assembly.

The greatest wish-come-true of ALEC is introducing legislation supported by unshackled corporate interests while muzzling local governments from objecting to the legislation.

In the community broadband battle, large cable and phone companies have limitless budgets to spend opposing public broadband with scare mailers, push polling, newspaper, radio and even television ads. Local officials fighting to defend their interests in better broadband do not. Hamilton’s bill would have taken this imbalance even further, making it a crime for any agencies, authorities, bureaus, departments, offices, and commissions of the state or any political subdivision of the state to provide members of the General Assembly with information about their broadband problems. Communities could not correct misinformation, explain a bill’s unintended consequences, or request changes to the bill.

“HB 228 is utterly ridiculous,” said Conyers City Manager Tony Lucas. “When did a local government, contacting one of our representatives or our governor, become professional lobbying? It’s respective governments conducting business for or on behalf of our citizens.”

Don Parsons’ H.B. 176: AT&T’s “Put Your Cell Tower Wherever You Want” Act

Rep. Parsons had trouble coming up with a good name for his latest legislative gift to AT&T. Originally entitled the “Advanced Broadband Colocation Act,” that title was eventually scrapped because it was not snappy enough. In its place, the “Mobile Broadband Infrastructure Leads to Development (BILD) Act” was suddenly born.

Parsons

But after reading both it and a substitute amendment, we call it the “Put It Anywhere Act,” because the bill’s real intent is to largely strip away cell tower location authority from Georgia’s local governments.

Parsons does not host an AT&T cell tower in his backyard in Marietta, but other Georgian homeowners might had the bill passed.

H.B. 176 allowed cell towers to be placed anywhere a wireless company wanted with very limited local input. Companies were under no obligation to prove that the new towers were needed. Local governments could no longer veto their choices, much less limit additions to existing towers or suggest more suitable alternative locations.  Parsons’ bill even removed authority from local governments to insist that companies remove abandoned towers before constructing new ones.

Parsons went all-out for AT&T. Knowing that resource-strapped local governments often have bigger priorities, he set a deadline on cell tower applications at 90 days for existing towers, five months for new ones. Unless the community rejects a proposal showing good cause, it would be deemed automatically approved.

Amy Henderson, director of communications for the Georgia Municipal Association, scoffed at claims the bill was designed to streamline the cell tower application process.

“Dictatorship is just streamlined government,” she told the Rockdale Citizen. “It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s in the best interest of the public.”

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Youtube – Rep Parsons on HB176 3-2-13.flv[/flv]

Rep. Parsons’ rambling YouTube video featuring a laundry list of AT&T talking points about the need for cell companies to throw up cell towers wherever they please because it is good for business (even if it isn’t so good for you or your neighbors). Parsons’ video then launches into a hissyfit directed at the Georgia Municipal Association, unhappy with Parsons’ sweeping transfer of authority away from local communities in favor of AT&T and others. Al Gore never sighed this much. It garnered a whopping 41 views on YouTube to date and in the spirit of open dialogue, Parsons disabled comments on the video.  (17 minutes)

Private vs. Public: A Phone-y Debate

At the heart of most of ALEC’s legislative initiatives is a sense that public institutions are somehow hampering private enterprise. Community broadband is considered an especially dangerous threat because incumbent providers claim public broadband represents unfair competition.

But as ALEC itself demonstrates, corporate welfare is alive and well in the statehouses of even the reddest states. The idea that taxpayers should not be footing the bill for things the private sector can do without costing taxpayers a nickel just doesn’t fly with reality.

As Free Press reports, phone and cable companies have been on federal welfare since their inception. A 2011 Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy study shows AT&T and Verizon receiving more than $26 billion in tax subsidies from 2008–2010.

The FCC’s 2012 report on Universal Service Fund subsidies shows nearly $3 billion in federal payments to AT&T, Verizon and Windstream. In 2010, Windstream — a telecommunications company with services across the South — applied for $238 million in federal stimulus grants to improve its service in 16 states. More than 16 million taxpayer dollars went to upgrade the company’s services in Georgia.

“Phone and cable companies would not be recording the soaring profit margins that they do, if there were truly a free market,’” said Free Press Research Director S. Derek Turner. “They have created an unlevel playing field that gives them massive first-mover advantages. The real-dollar benefits of that can’t be quantified.”

Dampier

One of the most frustrating things about covering the public policy issues surrounding broadband is an-often lazy mainstream media that cannot tell the difference between an industry sock puppet and a consumer broadband advocate. One expects that the New York Times will do better than most.

It certainly did not this morning in a sloppy front page piece on Google’s privacy invasion concession.

New York Times reporter David Streitfeld seemed utterly out of his league from the lede paragraph in the story, where he suggested Google “casually scooped up passwords, e-mail and other personal information from unsuspecting computer users.”

That is a bit histrionic considering any “data theft” would have only occurred for the 5-15 seconds Google’s Street View vehicle was in range of an entirely unprotected home Wi-Fi network, and that you were actively using it at the time of Google’s “drive-by.” If you enabled any wireless network security, Google would have captured nothing beyond the name of your Wi-Fi network (assuming you had not hidden it with another setting) — something anyone could capture with a Wi-Fi sniffer.

Even more concerning was the sudden appearance in the piece of paid Google critic Scott Cleland, who runs a suburban Washington, D.C. corporate public strategy lobbying firm called Precursor LLC that has as its chief mission:

Help companies anticipate change to better exploit emerging opportunities and guard against emerging risks.

Attacking Google and broadband advocacy groups is Cleland’s bread and butter.

The New York Times called him a “consumer watchdog.”

At this point I coughed up my peppermint patty.

Cleland, whose rhetoric about Google ranges from alarmist to lugubrious — America must worry about being on the cusp of a Google-run online dystopia — is well-known to those of us who encounter his various paid-for campaigns. Cleland is best known for his anti-Google rhetoric and his reflexive defense of all-things-Big Telecom, hardly surprising considering his client list.

What is disturbing is that I know this and the reporters at the New York Times apparently do not:

“Google puts innovation ahead of everything and resists asking permission,” said Scott Cleland, a consultant for Google’s competitors and a consumer watchdog whose blog maintains a close watch on Google’s privacy issues. “But the states are throwing down a marker that they are watching and there is a line the company shouldn’t cross.”

At least the Times casually disclosed he was a “consultant for Google’s competitors.” But consumer watchdog? That is a line the Times shouldn’t cross because it is reality only in a world where Goldman Sachs is considered a model for altruistic investment banking.

Powell

Georgia’s House of Representatives on Thursday killed a bill that would have made community-owned broadband networks difficult to build and impossible to expand.

House Bill 282 failed with a bipartisan vote — 94 against and 70 for, with the help of Democrats and rural Republicans who represent poorly wired districts.

The measure would have made Georgia the 20th state to place impediments on public broadband networks, usually built in areas where incumbent providers have failed to offer good service.

Rep. Jay Powell (R-Camilla) told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution he voted against the measure because the lack of broadband has already cost his community economic development opportunities.

“You cannot get it, you cannot keep it without high speed fiber,” Powell said. The provider, he said, “ wouldn’t provide it because they knew they didn’t have to. They provided whatever crumbs from the table they wanted.”

The majority of those voting for the broadband ban were Republicans, but a curious block of mostly urban Democratic legislators also supported the bill.

Stop the Cap! encourages Georgia readers to reach out to these elected officials and let them know you are disappointed with the way they voted on this measure. It is more likely than not that another version of this bill will be introduced next year, making it critical that likely supporters of anti-broadband bills have an ample warning in advance you will be watching them:

1. Alex Atwood (R – Brunswick) District 179
2. Mandi L. Ballinger (R – Canton) District 23
3. Timothy Barr (R – Lawrenceville) District 103
4. Ellis Black (R – Valdosta) District 174
5. Buzz Brockway (R – Lawrenceville) District 102
6. Bob Bryant (D – Garden City) District 162
7. Jon G. Burns (R – Newington) District 159
8. John Carson (R – Marietta) District 46
9. David Casas (R – Lilburn) District 107
10. Joyce Chandler (R – Lawrenceville) District 105
11. Mickey Channell (R – Greensboro) District 120
12. Mike Cheokas (R – Americus) District 138
13. Christian Coomer (R – Cartersville) District 14
14. Sharon Cooper (R – Marietta) District 43
15. Robert Dickey (R – Musella) District 140
16. Matt Dollar (R – Marietta) District 45
17. Mike Dudgeon (R – Johns Creek) District 25
18. Geoff Duncan (R – Cumming) District 26
19. Earl Ehrhart (R – Powder Springs) District 36
20. 

    Virgil Fludd: Voted against community broadband.

    Virgil Fludd (D – Tyrone) District 64

21. Carol Fullerton (D – Albany) District 153
22. Mike Glanton (D – Jonesboro) District 75
23. Mark Hamilton (R – Cumming) District 24
24. Ben Harbin (R – Evans) District 122
25. Brett Harrell (R – Snellville) District 106
26. Calvin Hill (R – Canton) District 22
27. Bill Hitchens (R – Rincon) District 161
28. Penny Houston (R – Nashville) District 170
29. Mike Jacobs (R – Brookhaven) District 80
30. Rick Jasperse (R – Jasper) District 11
31. Jan Jones (R – Milton) District 47
32. Sheila Jones (D – Atlanta) District 53
33. Darryl Jordan (D – Riverdale) District 77
34. David Knight (R – Griffin) District 130
35. Edward Lindsey (R – Atlanta) District 54
36. Chuck Martin (R – Alpharetta) District 49
37. Howard Maxwell (R – Dallas) District 17
38. 

    O’Neal: Voted to protect incumbent providers.

    Rahn Mayo (D – Decatur) District 84

39. Billy Mitchell (D – Stone Mountain) District 88
40. Alisha Thomas Morgan (D – Austell) District 39
41. Greg Morris (R – Vidalia) District 156
42. Chad Nimmer (R – Blackshear) District 178
43. Larry O`Neal (R – Bonaire) District 146
44. Butch Parrish (R – Swainsboro) District 158
45. Don Parsons (R – Marietta) District 44
46. Allen Peake (R – Macon) District 141
47. Alan Powell (R – Hartwell) District 32
48. Jimmy Pruett (R – Eastman) District 149
49. Matt Ramsey (R – Peachtree City) District 72
50. Nikki T. Randall (D – Macon) District 142
51. Tom Rice (R – Norcross) District 95
52. Jay Roberts (R – Ocilla) District 155
53. Carl Rogers (R – Gainesville) District 29
54. 

    Smith: A business owner that doesn’t mind if rural Georgia is left behind.

    Ed Rynders (R – Albany) District 152

55. Jason Shaw (R – Lakeland) District 176
56. Donna Sheldon (R – Dacula) District 104
57. Barbara Sims (R – Augusta) District 123
58. Earnest Smith (D – Augusta) District 125
59. Lynn Smith (R – Newnan) District 70
60. Calvin Smyre (D – Columbus) District 135
61. Jason Spencer (R – Woodbine) District 180
62. Ron Stephens (R – Savannah) District 164
63. Valencia Stovall (D – Ellenwood) District 74
64. Willie Talton (R – Warner Robins) District 147
65. Jan Tankersley (R – Brooklet) District 160
66. Sam Teasley (R – Marietta) District 37
67. Ben Watson (R – Savannah) District 166
68. Al Williams (D – Midway) District 168
69. “Coach” Williams (D – Avondale Estates) District 87
70. John P Yates (R – Griffin) District 73

Stop the Cap! has developed a sample e-mail message Georgia residents can use to petition the state legislature to vote NO on H.B. 282, the latest Big Telecom corporate welfare bill to kill competition from publicly-owned broadband networks. With thanks to Mark Creekmore, one of many rural Georgians suffering with DSL “service” from Windstream Communications, we have jointly created this letter to illustrate the folly of this bad bill. We may need to send this to members of the state Senate as well.

We realize many of you are served by AT&T, Comcast, or other rural providers, so this letter should be tailored to include the horror stories that you have experienced with your own provider. Make sure you change the relevant sections, including references to your local town’s provider (things that should be changed in your letter are highlighted in blue below) before sending your e-mail to House members today:

Dear Rep. -or- Sen.  [insert name]

I am writing to tell you that I do not support H.B. 282 — the Broadband Municipalities Act, and neither should you.

This proposed legislation is a solution in search of a problem. No community I know of gets interested in entering the broadband business on a whim. But when you live in a rural area served by a single provider that delivers poor service, as I do, it becomes understandable why some communities seek a public broadband solution as a last resort.

At its core, this is a bill designed to protect the broadband status quo at the cost of Georgia’s economic development and its citizens’ need for quality broadband service.

[Share several sentences here detailing the problems you have with your provider.]

Georgia has a long way to go to meet the broadband speeds available in cities like Chattanooga, Tenn. That city’s municipal power company offers 1,000Mbps service to residents that cannot buy those speeds from any other provider. That has attracted companies in this state to move to get the kind of service they just cannot get from our providers. Comcast and AT&T are hardly going out of business in Chattanooga and actually claim to welcome the competition. But things are much worse here in rural Georgia, where just getting 12Mbps service is a real challenge. That is because the local phone company has oversold its network and is too crowded, slowing speeds to a crawl. I’d welcome competition even more, but there just isn’t any.

Consider this: While Dawsonville suffers with Windstream’s oversubscribed DSL service as our only practical option, Thomasville residents can get 22Mbps of service over a fiber to the home network owned by the local community. Rose.net is hardly a financial failure either. It has been so successful, the city eliminated the local property tax. If you pass H.B. 282, Dawsonville will never have a chance, because no other provider is interested in serving us and the local community will never be able to because Windstream arguably already does.

If you believe H.B. 282 will stimulate rural broadband investment, you need to read Windstream CEO Jeff Gardner’s own statements during a February 2013 conference call to investors. He noted Windstream plans to cut capital expenses and investments this year and even more the next, including those made right here in Georgia. Gardner noted that Windstream’s rural customers are largely captive with no competitive alternatives, making extra investment unnecessary. That means we have to live with the service we are lucky enough to get at the high prices we are forced to pay. In effect, we are told to live with what we have or go without. This is an embarrassment to our state which boasts of its high-tech communications capability and is home to several major data centers.

The bill’s logic is also lacking. Private telecom companies enjoy the benefits of state taxpayer dollars in several ways, ranging from access to public rights of way to receiving federal stimulus dollars to incentivize rural broadband expansion. To date, Windstream’s only help for Georgia seems to be wiring 250 homes in Blue Ridge. If local communities decide they need a better broadband solution, allowing out-of-state corporations like Windstream to tie their hands and dictate terms is an outrage. We have been here before in the last century when giant electric utilities refused to provide adequate service in rural Georgia, so those communities managed it themselves with municipal utilities.

It is clear to me, despite a few inadequate revisions to the bill since its introduction, H.B. 282 is a disaster for Georgia’s telecommunications future. It is little more than protectionism for incumbent providers who will continue to treat rural Georgians like second class citizens, delivering service that falls far below what was advertised, yet costing the same as big city folks pay. If my community decides it is essential for our future to do better than what Windstream is willing to offer, making the town work through an expensive qualification process analyzing census blocks is nothing more than a deterrent to keep them from even trying.

With all the problems we face in Georgia today, spending time protecting Windstream from competition is not on my list and it certainly should not be on yours.

I respectfully ask you reject H.B. 282 in full, regardless of current or future revisions. The next time a telecommunications company comes by your office to lobby you on bills like this, let them know the best way they can protect themselves from municipal broadband is to deliver the good service Georgians deserve at a fair price. If they manage that, there would be no demand to build these alternative networks in the first place.

I look forward to hearing your views on this critical matter to me.

Respectfully,

// signature

Time Warner Cable objects to publicly-owned broadband networks because they represent “unfair” publicly-funded “competition,” despite the fact TWC is also on the public dole.

The next time a cable operator or phone company claims community-owned broadband providers deliver unfair competition because they are government-funded, remind them that quite often that phone or cable company also happens to be on the public dole.

Take Time Warner Cable, which this week won a $5,266,979 grant courtesy of New York State taxpayers to extend their cable system to 4,114 homes in rural parts of upstate New York just outside of the cable company’s current service areas. That equals $1,280.26 in state tax dollars per household. For that public investment, Time Warner will reap private profits for shareholders from selling broadband, cable-TV, phone, and home security services to its newest customers indefinitely.

Now unlike some of my conservative friends, I am not opposed to the state spending money to wire rural New York. It is obvious cable and phone companies will simply never wire these areas on their own so long as Return on Investment conditions fail in these places. What does annoy me are the endless arguments we hear in opposition to public broadband from these same companies, claiming with a straight face that community-owned networks represent “unfair competition” because they are publicly funded. Time Warner Cable is no stranger to public taxpayer benefits itself, having won millions in tax abatements and credits in North Carolina, Ohio and a cool $5 million courtesy of Mr. and Mrs. N.Y. Taxpayer.

Many of the nation’s private telecommunications companies have plenty of love for federal, state, and local officials who have passed favorable tax laws and policies at their behest:

• AT&T not only did not pay any federal taxes in 2011, it actually secured a $420 million taxpayer-subsidized refund;
• Local governments have granted rights-of-way red tape cutting, tax credits and abatements in return for siting important facilities in select areas and hiring an appropriate number of employees to work in them;
• State laws that have made life easy for telecom companies, including statewide video franchising;
• State laws that make life difficult for their would-be competitors, especially public broadband networks.

So let us end the silly rhetoric about public vs. private broadband being a question of fairness. This is really a question about who controls your broadband future,  your community or big telecom corporations.

In states like Georgia, elected politicians like Rep. Mark Hamilton want those decisions made by Comcast (Pennsylvania), Windstream (Arkansas) and AT&T (Texas). His bill would make it next to impossible for a local community to do anything but beg and plead the phone company to deliver something, anything that resembles broadband service. For a good part of rural Georgia (and elsewhere), the answer has always been a resounding “no,” at least until the federal government steps up and kicks in your money to help defray the costs of extending Windstream or AT&T’s sub par DSL service that slows to a crawl once the kids are out of school.

Windstream waited for the federal government to kick in $7.28 million in taxpayer dollars before it would agree to extend its DSL service to rural customers in its own home state of Arkansas.

You have to wonder about the Republicans in Georgia these days who used to fight for local and state control over almost everything. It should be instinctive for any conservative to want out-of-state pointyheads out of their business, but Rep. Mark Hamilton, himself a business owner, seems content forfeiting those rights to companies headquartered hundreds of miles away. If it was the federal government telling Georgia what kind of broadband service it deserves, do you think Mr. Hamilton would be so amenable? Unfortunately, should Hamilton have his way, for the foreseeable future, residents and business owners in Gray, Sparta, or Eatonton to count just a few will have broadband just the way the state’s phone companies want it — super slow DSL, dial-up or satellite fraudband.