Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Time Warner Cable)

After passing through the Republican-dominated Finance Committee, Rep. Marilyn Avila’s (R-Time Warner Cable) cable company-written, anti-consumer legislation arrived in the North Carolina Senate this afternoon, where it was promptly, if temporarily, derailed over whether residents have the right to watch adult entertainment on community-owned broadband/cable networks.

That’s right… porn has thrown the state legislature into such silliness, the entire bill had to be pulled from consideration until Monday.

Here’s a quick rundown how things played out today:

♥ — H.129, Avila’s anti-broadband bill, has proved to be the first serious piece of legislation that has divided the normally lock-step Republican-controlled legislature this session.  That is entirely because YOU are putting the pressure on with your calls and e-mails to Senate members.  We have it on good authority the overwhelming amount of response to this bill from constituents has been downright hostile to the idea it should ever pass.  Consumers in North Carolina want more choices for broadband, not less.  They want increased competition, lower prices, and most importantly — better service (or at least s0me service from someone).  H.129 does none of those things.  It doesn’t deliver a single new broadband connection anywhere in the state.

♥ — Several amendments helpful to broadband development managed to win a place in the bill.  The communities of Wilson and Salisbury will get to expand their systems to cover larger areas, including the town of Faith Stop the Cap! covered earlier.  We also won a victory changing the terms of the “mandatory referendum” provision to strip away the loaded, misleading ballot question about whether cities should ‘take on more public debt’ to finance the construction of community broadband, replacing it with a fairer alternative — do you favor your community building its own broadband system. 

↓ — But we also lost a few battles. Yesterday, the industry covertly changed the definition of an unserved area from “an area where 50% don’t receive FCC basic broadband service” to a Census block, where 50% of the households don’t receive 768/200Kbps. That change annihilates the unserved area exemption. As confirmed by the highly credible e-NC authority, the industry provides its broadband data by Census block, not by household, and if a census block has just one home that receives Internet service, the entire census block is labelled as having Internet service.

Today, Senator Atwater (D-Chatham) tried to modify that definition with a much better measurement standard: “homes per square mile.”  The federal government has established that the least dense areas of the country are the most costly to serve, which explains why these areas traditionally lack broadband service or receive low speed DSL.  Atwater’s amendment targeted the 38% of the most rural areas in North Carolina to keep the door open for community broadband, but Senator Tom Apodaca (R-Hendersonville) would have none of it, despite the fact his district covers the rural expanse of the western mountains of North Carolina.  Stop the Cap! readers have shared stories with us about hanging out in parking lots using motel Wi-Fi to pay their bills online or complete homework.  In Apodaca’s world-view, that means those areas have broadband.

Now our readers will understand why we have stressed it is so important to have accurate, in-depth broadband map data.  Instead, industry-connected groups like Connected Nation conjure up maps created by unverified, provider-supplied data.  This map data is a critical part of H.129’s tragic terms and conditions.  If the maps say service exists, industry lobbyists use that to browbeat elected officials into believing there is no broadband problem, and there is no reason to allow communities to build their own broadband services.

Of course, the reality is very different.  We’ve received hundreds of messages from Americans who say these maps show broadband as being widely available in their communities, but in reality is not.  Some legislators in North Carolina have confronted this reality personally. For those that haven’t, it’s easy to accept provider arguments, cash those campaign contribution checks, and throw constituents under the bus.

We Saved the Most Ridiculous Part of Today’s Events for Last

Sen. Apodaca's obsession with adult entertainment derailed a scheduled vote on H.129 this afternoon.

When the city of Fayetteville wanted protection for their investment in fiber optics, at risk from H.129, the aforementioned Sen. Apodaca lost his mind.  Instead of protecting city funds already spent on next generation fiber, he substituted his own new amendment — to strip adult programming off community-owned broadband/cable systems instead.

You read that right. In case you didn’t, here it is again:

Sen. Apodaca would rather be the arbiter of what you can watch in the privacy of your own home than protecting community investments in broadband improvements.

So much for the “level playing field” title of Avila’s original bill.  Apodaca’s anti-porn crusade does not apply to Time Warner Cable or other private providers, so he has no problem at all if you want to pop some popcorn and settle down to some movies like “Suck It Sunrise,” “Boning Black Beauty 8” (to answer those lingering questions that went unanswered in part 7), or “Dripping Wet Lesbians,” all currently running on TWC’s adult channels.

No matter that Apodaca’s amendment is completely against federal law, which should signal how clueless some legislators are about these issues.  The Cable Act provides settled law on this subject.  Government cannot engage in cable content regulation — particularly the state and federal government.  The cable industry lobbied hard for that protection in the 1980s in part because of controversy over MTV and other “explicit” programming.  Only the local franchising authority can make decisions about the content they carry — and that means local communities get to make those decisions for themselves (47 USC 544(d)(1)).  That means Sen. Apodaca should worry about his own television viewing habits and stay out other peoples’ lives.

We’re helpers here at Stop the Cap!, so we’d point the senator to 47 USC 544(f)(1):

(f) Limitation on regulatory powers of Federal agencies, States, or franchising authorities

(1) Any Federal agency, State, or franchising authority may not impose requirements regarding the provision or content of cable services, except as expressly provided in this subchapter.

Those exceptions, by the way, have to do with changes in federal law, not the individual whims of one state senator.

Sen. Mansfield, who introduced the original amendment to protect Fayetteville, was naturally disturbed to find Apodaca’s non-germane substitute.  That promoted Apodaca to suggest Mansfield allowed his children to watch pornography, and from there the debate spiraled out of control.  After a brief recess, Apodaca returned to apologize to Mansfield, before killing the amendment to protect Fayetteville’s fiber investment for a second time.

Reviewing today’s events provides us with another edition of Legislators Out of Their League.  Apodaca’s naive amendment was not the only telling example (we know more about telecommunications law than he does.)  Yesterday in the Senate Finance Committee, Ms. Avila was utterly lost at sea as discussion ensued on amendments to the bill with her name on it.  Reduced to muttering at times, confused about the discussions dealing with the definition of underserved, her usual reaction was to oppose what she didn’t understand.  None of this is surprising considering the cable industry wrote the majority of her bill she introduced as her own.  She continues to protect their interests while ignoring yours.

This is why we continue to oppose H.129 and you should too.  We have until Monday to continue to drive the message home to state senators.  If you called or wrote before, it’s time to write and call again.  Tell your state senator H.129 is a bill written by and for the cable and phone companies.  It does not deliver any new broadband service to anyone, risks the investments communities across the state have already made, and allows a handful of big telecom companies to control North Carolina’s broadband destiny.  Considering the state achieves dead last ratings in broadband, that is the kind of control they should never be allowed to have.

Senate Representation By County

2011-2012 Session

(click on your member’s name for contact information)

One of Canada’s largest phone companies is willing to admit it is prepared to launch an Internet Overcharging scheme on its broadband customers now, while western Canada’s largest cable company would prefer to wait until after the next election to spring higher prices on consumers.

When Shaw’s president Peter Bissonnette told investors and the media he believes users who use more should pay more, all that needs to be put in place is exactly how much more Shaw customers will pay for already-expensive Internet access.  With Shaw making noises about usage-based billing, Telus felt it was safe enough to dive right into their own usage cap and overlimit fee pricing scheme.

Shawn Hall, a spokesperson for Telus, told CTV News that the phone company was ready to begin overcharging customers as soon as this summer.

Shawn Hall (CTV BC)

“It’s only fair that people pay for how much Internet capacity they use,” Hall told CTV.

Telus doesn’t seem to be too worried about the fact usage-based billing has become a major issue in the upcoming elections.  A review of the pricing scheme by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is due within months, but the phone company isn’t going to wait.

Shaw is being more cautious.  After the pretense of a “listening tour,” and with federal officials breathing down their necks, Shaw wants to wait until the elections are over before moving forward on their own price gouging, according to Openmedia.ca.

As Stop the Cap! has told our readers repeatedly, corporate “listening tours” about Internet Overcharging are about as useful as lipstick on a pig.  Providers don’t actually listen to their customers who are completely against these pricing schemes — and every survey done tells us that represents the majority of customers.  Instead, they only hear what they want to hear, cherry-picking a handful of useful statements in order to make it appear they are responsive to customer needs.

Shaw heavily redacted their own meeting minutes on their website, completely ignoring a large number of customers unalterably opposed to usage-based billing of any kind.  Instead, statements that fit their agenda were repeated in detail, especially those that suggested average users don’t want to pay for heavy users.

Shaw executives discuss with investors how they will stick customers with usage-based billing, despite customers telling them they don’t want these schemes. April 13, 2011. (7 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

It’s like arguing marathon runners should pay extra for the oxygen they consume because others don’t breathe as much.  It’s all a lot of hot air.

Broadband traffic costs providers only a small percentage of the amount they charge customers, and that number is dropping.  Yet providers want to raise prices, restrict usage, and charge punitive fees for those who exceed their arbitrary usage limits.

The power of the duopoly in place across most of western Canada has given providers little to fear from overcharging consumers.

Shaw CEO Bradley Shaw told investors they know few customers will switch providers if usage-based billing is imposed.

“We are of the mind that we still have a tremendous upside in terms of pricing power on our Internet services,” Shaw said.

The fact many Shaw customers have no other choice other than Telus does not escape Shaw’s notice either.

Telus’ Hall even had the nerve to call their Internet Overcharging pro-consumer.

Bissonnette

“It’s going to be really customer friendly,” he said. “You’d be forgiven for the first month you go over. You’d get lots of warning, lots of notice that you were going over with options of moving to other plans.”

Except an unlimited one — that is not available.

Openmedia.ca is trying to hold politicians’ feet to the fire on the issue of Internet Overcharging, demanding answers from every major party in Canada about how they will keep providers from imposing these pricing schemes.

Every major party, with one exception — the Conservative Party of Canada, has answered.  That’s the party currently in power.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has spoken out against usage-based billing, while NDP Leader Jack Layton has promised to ban it outright if elected to power.

Nearly a half-million Canadians have signed a petition opposing usage-based billing, and providers are showing once again they are not open to listening to anyone but their bean counters, intent on extracting as much cash as possible from Canadian customers’ wallets.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CTV British Columbia – Shaw planning to revive metered internet billing critics 4-25-11.flv[/flv]

CTV in British Columbia covers Shaw’s plans to revive metered Internet billing later this year.  (2 minutes)

Stop the Cap! has learned Rep. Marilyn Avila’s (R-Time Warner Cable) anti-consumer, anti-competition, anti-community broadband bill H.129 is on the move again.  Now it’s up for a final vote in the Senate Finance Committee early Wednesday afternoon.  This is our last chance to derail this nasty piece of legislation before it hits the Senate floor and community networks start considering pulling the plugs on their expansion efforts.

North Carolina is YOUR state.  The state legislature is not Time Warner Cable’s personal playground, where they can order up customized corporate protection bills to protect their monopoly profits and stick you with higher bills.  It’s time to let your state senator know H.129 is totally unacceptable.  North Carolina is suffering from America’s worst broadband, and nothing about H.129 will make it any better.  Instead, companies like Time Warner and CenturyLink will continue to charge more for less service than other states enjoy.

North Carolina needs all of the broadband it can get, and with the defeat of H.129, the towns and communities big providers have bypassed for years can finally address their own needs without enduring years of broken promises for broadband service that never seems to materialize.

Our allies at Free Press have made this as convenient as can be.  Check out their legislator look-up page, which will get you the contact information for your state senator.  Then make the call starting tonight (you can even leave a message on their voicemail):

“Hello, I am calling to ask Senator “x” to oppose H.129, Rep. Avila’s anti-broadband bill now before the state Senate.  H.129 is nothing short of a protection bill for Time Warner Cable’s fat profits and does not bring a single new broadband connection to our state.  If communities want to build better broadband for people like me, I say let them.

North Carolina has the worst broadband in the country and large parts of our state cannot get it even if they wanted it.  We have the power today to hold our local leaders responsible if they stray too far — it’s called an election.

We don’t need Ms. Avila and Time Warner Cable, an out of state corporation, telling us what kind of broadband service we can get.

I absolutely expect you to oppose H.129 and I am carefully watching who votes for and against this legislation as it will be a major determining factor how I vote in the next election.  Please feel free to contact me at (provide name, address, and phone number.)  Thank you for hearing me.”

We need your calls to make the difference!

Phillip Dampier

Federal Communications Chairman Julius Genachowski is racking up those frequent flier miles as he travels from one telecom industry trade show to another.  In addition to less-than-thrilling appearances at industry events run by the wireless industry and broadcasters, the chairman is now scheduled to be the headline act at the cable industry trade show to be held June 15 in Chicago.

Instead of devoting time and attention to provider profiteering and the ongoing concentration of the wireless marketplace, Genachowski will be shaking hands with big cable executives, sharing the stage with former FCC chairman Michael Powell, who now runs the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.  (Powell is a classic example of Revolving Door Syndrome: Start a career in public service and finish it using your government connections to cash in with a six figure salary working for the industry you used to oversee.)

While the current FCC chairman gets to bloat his expense account, his performance on behalf of the American people leaves plenty to be desired:

1. His vision of our broadband future is all talk and little action, with National Broadband Plan goals seen as increasingly anemic when contrasted with broadband development abroad;
2. Genachowski has caved on important consumer protections for broadband consumers, most notably with a very-industry-friendly Net Neutrality policy that won him little thanks (Verizon sued anyway);
3. His “white space” broadband plan to carve up UHF broadcast spectrum for mobile broadband comes poorly conceived, infuriating broadcasters who promise to spend millions in a lobbying death match;

Julius Genachowski has plenty of time for speeches, but never enough time to protect consumers who want better broadband, more competition, and lower prices..

At the NCTA convention, Genachowski is likely to deal with the hot potato retransmission consent issue — the one that pits you in the middle of million-dollar squabbles over what pay TV provider gets to carry what networks (and how much you will pay for them).  Also on the agenda: CableCARD 2: Electric Boogaloo, also known as AllVid, the almost certainly Dead on Arrival replacement for the first generation CableCARD set top box replacement that practically nob0dy uses.

Although Google loves AllVid, the powerful entertainment and cable industry is less impressed.  The Motion Picture Association of America considers it a piracy gateway because it lacks sufficient copyright protection mechanisms, and the cable industry has always been wary of standardized set top equipment that could tie down on-demand programming, signal theft protection, and future innovations.

Genachowski is sure to get a warmer reception at the cable show than he got from broadcasters earlier this month, who were downright hostile over his proposal to carve up the UHF TV dial (channels 14-51), selling off “extra” channels for wireless broadband.

The National Association of Broadcasters is starting to get a little worried, not feeling the love the Commission has bestowed on big cable and phone companies who got their lobbying wish-lists largely granted.  Instead, a year after being dragged into an expensive digital TV conversion, the FCC is back for more from television broadcasters, taking back perhaps a dozen or more channels for “white space broadband,” a vaguely-explained plan to enhance the amount of space available for wireless data.

Unfortunately, with thousands of television stations, the FCC will have to find enough channels for everyone to share without interfering with each other.  The FCC still hasn’t released a definitive plan about how to accomplish this, and with big wireless interests suggesting TV stations should slash their transmitter power and share the same or adjacent channels, a lot of stations fear they will be crammed together like a Japanese train at rush hour.

But the wireless industry wants it, even if it drives some stations in densely populated areas off the air completely.  In many other areas, especially in the northeast and southern California, stations might have to cut their signal coverage areas to avoid interfering with stations sharing the same channel in an adjacent city.  Rural residents relying on over the air television could be out of luck, even with a rooftop antenna.

In a bidding war, who would likely win the spectrum up for sale?  AT&T, Verizon, and perhaps some large cable companies looking for enhanced wireless services to sell.  No wonder the NAB is worried.  The FCC could favor selling spectrum out from under your local stations and sell it to their biggest competitors in the pay television business.

Consumers should be concerned as well.  Should today’s biggest wireless carriers scoop up “white space” frequencies, it will do nothing to bring enhanced competition or lower prices.  It will just lock up even more spectrum for a wireless industry that threatens to become a duopoly.

Instead of flying all over the country to attend trade shows and shake hands with industry leaders, Chairman Genachowski should be spending more of his time looking for creative, effective solutions to enhance competition and protect consumers, not simply throw them under the bus for the benefit of a handful of industry players already too large for the common good.

Commercial providers and their pals in the legislature will go to any length — even lie — to protect their cozy duopoly, charging high rates for poor quality service.

That fact of life has been proven once again in the state of Tennessee, where an effort to expand EPB Fiber — a community owned fiber network — to nearby communities outside of Chattanooga, was killed thanks to a lobbying blitzkrieg by Big Telecom interests.

The “Broadband Infrastructure for Regional Economic Development Act of 2011,” supported by chief sponsor House Majority Leader Gerald McCormick, (R-Chattanooga), is dead after telecom industry lobbyists unleashed a full court press to stop the legislation from passing into Tennessee law.

The bill would have permitted EPB and five other municipal electric services that have or are developing broadband infrastructure to expand service up to 30 miles outside of their service area, where appropriate, to meet the needs of businesses or consumers.

With the legislation, EPB could bring its 1 gigabit fiber broadband service to Bradley County, home to a future Amazon.com distribution center.  Amazon already operates a huge warehouse in Hamilton County, where it was able to obtain EPB’s super-fast broadband service.  According to Harold DePriest, EPB President and CEO, Chattanooga’s fiber network is helping sell the city as a high-tech mecca for business, where broadband connectivity is never a problem.

DePriest says EPB’s network has been a proven job-creator, and Amazon.com’s ongoing expansion in the region is just one example.

Chattanooga residents and businesses now have the fastest broadband service in the southern United States, at prices often far less than what the competition charges.  Expanding EPB’s success to other parts of Tennessee represents a major threat to the likes of Comcast and AT&T, the state’s dominant telecom companies.

EPB provides municipal power, broadband, television, and telephone service for residents in Chattanooga, Tennessee

Lobbyists fought the bill off with some whopper tall tales about the “horrors” of community broadband.

Some Republican lawmakers friendly to Comcast and AT&T’s point of view have bent their philosophical positions on government and regulation into logic pretzels.  One has even called for EPB to be regulated by Tennessee’s Regulatory Authority, a body many state Republicans feel is about as helpful as a tax increase.

Despite that, there was Rep. Curry Todd (R-Collierville) at a recent hearing telling fellow lawmakers EPB and other community providers should be regulated by the TRA to protect ratepayers from the “loss of tremendous amounts of money coming out of taxpayers’ pockets.”

Does Todd think Comcast and AT&T should also be regulated?  Of course not.  Nobody should protect consumers from AT&T’s and Comcast’s relentless rate hikes.  Todd cannot even get his facts straight.

After 19 months, EPB has 25,500 customers — far ahead of its projections, and is well ahead of its financial plan, according to DePriest.  So much for being a “financial failure.”

Rep. Curry Todd has trouble with the facts, but has no problem counting campaign contributions amounting to more than $12,000 from Comcast, AT&T, the state cable lobby and other telecom companies

On cue, the same cable industry that tried to sue EPB Fiber out of existence is now comparing the Chattanooga fiber network to Memphis Networx, a disastrous effort by that city to build a public-private wholesale fiber optic network only business and institutions could directly access.  It’s hard to earn critical revenue from consumers when you run a wholesale network.  Even harder when you build it just before the dot.com crash.

EPB sells its service directly to business and consumers, so it gets to keep the revenue it earns, paying back bondholders and delivering earning power.

Stop the Cap! reader John Lenoir notes some of the local tea party groups are also being encouraged to oppose EPB’s efforts to expand.

“Just as Americans for (Corporate) Prosperity is lying about North Carolina’s community broadband, these corporate front groups are also engaged in demagoguery over EPB in Tennessee,” Lenoir says.  “In addition to the usual claims EPB represents ‘socialism,’ the locals are also being told EPB wants to use their fiber network to run smart meters, which some of these people suspect are spying on them or will tell people when they can and can’t use their electric appliances.”

Lenoir in unimpressed with the telecom industry arguments.

“AT&T’s opposition is downright laughable, considering this company raised its rates on U-verse and will slap usage limits on every broadband customer in a few weeks,” Lenoir adds.  “We thank God EPB is here because it means we can tell AT&T to stick their usage limits and Comcast can take their overpriced (and usage limited) broadband somewhere else.”

Lenoir thinks EPB should embarrass both AT&T and Comcast, but since neither company feels any shame in his view, it’s more about business reality.

“Why do business with AT&T or Comcast and their gouging ways when you can sign up for something far better and support the local community,” Lenoir asks.

AT&T spokesman Chris Walker complains that the phone company is somehow faced with an unlevel playing field in Tennessee, despite the legislature’s repeated acquiescence to nearly every AT&T-sponsored deregulatory initiative brought before it.  The company wants a “level playing-field” statute like the very-provider-friendly (it should be — it was written by them) one currently before the North Carolina state Senate.

Comcast questions whether anyone needs 1 gigabit service, but the cable company’s Chattanooga vice president and general manager Jim Weigert told the Times Free Press it could deliver 1 gigabit service… to business customers… assuming any asked.

DePriest questions that, noting Comcast tops out its broadband service at 105Mbps, and only for downstream speeds.  Comcast upload speeds top out at 5Mbps.  EPB can deliver the same upstream and downstream speeds to customers and do it today.