Bachmann

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minnesota), appeared on Sean Hannity’s show last night to go way over the top, telling Fox News viewers the Obama Administration was supporting Net Neutrality as part of an effort to censor the Internet.

Oh sure, that’s all they have left now, is they use pejorative terms, hateful terms, against those who are carrying the message. So whether they’re attacking conservative talk radio, or conservative TV, or whether it’s Internet sites — I mean, let’s face it, what’s the Obama administration doing? They’re advocating Net Neutrality, which is essentially censorship of the Internet.

This is the Obama administration advocating censorship of the Internet. Why? They want to silence the voices that are opposing them.

This isn’t the first time this talking point has been used.  Glenn Beck fancies Net Neutrality in much the same world view, helped along by the likes of astroturfers like Americans for Prosperity’s Phil Kerpen.  Kerpen’s group, among others, receives corporate money to drag down consumer protections that would stop Internet providers from delivering less service to you at an ever-increasing price. If it takes suckering Fox News viewers into believing Net Neutrality is an Obama plot to shut down freedom of speech on the Internet, so be it.

Of course, Bachmann’s tirade is the opposite of reality.  She is either clueless about the concept, or has cynically bought a ticket on the PsychoTalk Express, delivering fear-based, fictional talking points about online freedom.  Net Neutrality preserves freedom of speech on the Internet, even for misinformed folks like Michele Bachmann, in at least two ways:

1. Your Internet Provider cannot shut down your website if they oppose your views;
2. A provider must assure access to your website unencumbered by speed throttles or other impediments they say can be removed… for the right price.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Fox News Michele Bachmann Net Neutrality 4-20-10.flv[/flv]

Rep. Michele Bachmann’s views on Net Neutrality were aired on Sean Hannity’s show last night.  (1 minute)

Why would bloggers imply a relationship between Rightnetwork and Comcast?

Simon, a frequent reader of Stop the Cap! dropped us a note to let us know reports that Comcast was backing a new right wing cable network might be premature.

Talk about passing the buck.  Comcast this morning issued a statement on their company blog denying any involvement in the Rightnetwork project Stop the Cap! and other blogs reported over the weekend:

Over the weekend there were some stories on a number of blogs about a new network called Right Network, and some of these rumored that Comcast might be involved as an investor, partner or distributor. Here is a statement from Comcast to clear up any confusion:

“The blog reports that Comcast is an investor in, or partner of the Right Network are inaccurate. We have no partnership with this venture and have no plans to launch or distribute the network. As we have done with hundreds of other content providers, we have met with the network’s representatives. We do carry a number of independent networks on Comcast representing a wide variety of interests and diverse viewpoints.”

"Through partners including Comcast..." prominently appears in Rightnetwork's own promotional literature (click to enlarge)

How could we have been so wrong?  🙂

1. The network’s founder is Ed Snider, chairman of Comcast-Spectacor, whose parent company is guess-who?
2. Rightnetwork’s own promotional “lookbook” (which they took down this morning, but which you can still get from us right here) says, “On television, through partners including Comcast….”

Somehow, Comcast forgot to call out Rightnetwork for making claims they absolutely don’t want to have associated with their company at such a politically-sensitive time, what with the Comcast-NBC merger on the table and all.  It was much easier to blame the bloggers.

It’s not as if the idea of Comcast launching a right wing network comes straight out of fantasy land.  In fact, Politico got David L. Cohen, Comcast’s executive vice president to toy with launching its own right-wing network to compete with Fox News:

A major Democratic donor and fundraiser, Cohen — who oversees the company’s Washington operation spent last week pitching the deal to regulators, editorial boards and reporters —described himself as “a news junkie” who watches MSNBC, CNN and Fox News. He didn’t dismiss out of hand the possibility of launching a right-leaning network to compete with Fox News, and he said Comcast wouldn’t tamper with NBC or MSNBC’s operations (Olbermann told POLITICO, “I’m confident they know exactly what they’re doing and exactly how valuable a commodity MSNBC has become”).

Cohen explained that Comcast’s job is not “to shape the content that people receive. It is our job to facilitate the delivery of a diverse set of voices and opinions to consumers, and we believe it’s up to the consumer to decide which of that content he or she would like to listen to or watch and which of that content he or she would like to avoid.”

Rightnetwork has remained silent on the matter, so we’ll apologize on their behalf for misleading you.

Rightnetwork's logo, which is actually kind of creepy, would be more true to itself if that "R" was replaced with a "C" for Comcast -- its true progenitor.

When your corporate message has to pass through a media filter, your talking points can get lost along the way.  Comcast has decided to cut out the middleman by launching a new right-wing, pro-corporate cable network that seeks to co-opt the tea party movement for its own agenda.

Rightnetwork, launching this summer, seeks to reach “Americans who are looking for content that reflects and reinforces their perspective and worldview,” according to its promotional material.  Featured prominently in the network’s promotional materials are tea party events and those that promote a pro-corporate agenda.  The network’s on-air talent is embedded in the national tea party tour that has been making its way across the country, which gives you a sense of where the network’s early emphasis will lie.

Comcast sheds any pretense of staying above the political fray and jumps in with both feet to deliver its business agenda to viewers.

“The lineup focuses on entertainment with Pro-America, Pro-Business, Pro-Military sensibilities — compelling content that inspires action, invites a response, and influences the national conversation,” says the network’s promotional “lookbook.”

“We’re creating a welcome place for millions and millions of Americans who’ve been looking for an entertainment network and media channel that reflects their point-of-view. Rightnetwork will be the perfect platform to entertain, inform and connect with the American majority about what’s right in the world,” says Ed Snider, chairman of Comcast-Spectacor.

Reviewing promotional clips for the network’s planned shows, something else is readily apparent — wedding a corporate agenda with a political movement in hopes of currying favor with those that might return the favor one day.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

One of the network’s most prominent planned shows is “Running,” which is little more than a political infomercial for Republican/tea party candidates.  One of the first targets Comcast-Spectacor has in mind is Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California).  Waxman is characterized as “infesting” his Congressional seat in the program.

Waxman, coincidentally, is also a big political foe of Comcast, favoring Net Neutrality and deeply concerned about media concentration issues, something the proposed Comcast-NBC merger would exacerbate.  Rightnetwork has effectively provided millions of dollars in free publicity to Ari David, Waxman’s opponent.  Should David win the seat, he will have Comcast to thank for helping make it possible.

Running‘s featured candidates:

• Ari David, Republican running against Henry Waxman who writes: “Capitalism is under attack from the progressive left.”
• Chris Simcox, Republican who ran against John McCain in the primary, who he called: “a sinister element, a progressive socialist masquerading as the leader and conscience of the Reagan Republican Party.”  Wants to promote free enterprise in a “post-McCain era.”
• Clint Didier, a Republican running against Sen. Patty Murray in Washington.  He uses his Rightnetwork coverage as a campaign ad on his website.
• Donna Campbell, a Republican running for a Texas congressional seat on the platform of deregulating business.
• Republican Jim Gibbons, a vice president of Wells-Fargo Bank who is running for Congress in Iowa on a platform of deregulating business, even after the already-deregulated banking industry caused the Great Recession.
• Republican John Dennis, running against Nancy Pelosi in California, who showcased an anti-Net Neutrality ruling on his Facebook page with a fan base whose views were best summed up by one writer: “If a private internet service provider wants to restrict certain types of content or opinions moving across their wires, then that should be their prerogative.”  That shrugging off of censorship is ironic coming from a supporter of the “pro-Liberty Republican” candidate.

Anyone think there is a “yes” vote for Net Neutrality or oversight of the cable industry and big media mergers among this crowd?

This isn’t Comcast’s first effort to curry favor with conservatives, who seem most likely to support the cable company’s political agenda.  Last September, Comcast and AT&T sponsored a U.S. Chamber of Commerce forum keynoted by Fox News personality Glenn Beck.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, itself implicated in notorious astroturfing efforts, is a strong opponent of Net Neutrality and broadband oversight.

The worst part is saved for last.  Who pays for this pro-corporate hackery?  You do, as part of your monthly cable bill, whether you want the corporate point of view on your basic cable lineup or not.

That’s just one more reason why the Comcast-NBC merger is such a bad idea.  It places enormous resources at the disposal of a company that has no qualms about using them to advance its own political agenda at your expense.

Plans by Frontier Communications to clamp down on “excessive usage” of their DSL service and overcharge customers who exceed 100GB of usage per month brought a strong negative reaction from a consumer group, who called Frontier’s limits “divorced from the underlying economics.”

Sources also tell Stop the Cap! the company is actively working on changing language in their Acceptable Use Policy that, as of this morning, is still misleading customers in Minnesota about their service.

A Frontier spokesperson also told an Oregon newspaper Frontier’s acquired FiOS service areas are not guaranteed cap-free service — the company may implement some restrictions there as well.

But first, Frontier Communications’ Acceptable Use Policy no longer matches reality for customers in Mound, Minnesota who are getting notified that their service is at risk of being shut off if they don’t agree to new, dramatically-higher priced service plans.  But such e-mails run contrary to several sections in the company’s own published policies:

Frontier’s Residential Acceptable Use Policy (Last Update: December 23, 2008) (PDF Archived 4/15)

The Company has made no decision about potential charges for monthly usage in excess of 5GB.

Frontier’s Supplementary “5GB” Addendum to their Acceptable Use Policy (PDF Archived 4/15)

Frontier has not implemented tiered usage plans and will continue to evaluate if and when they would be necessary. If and when Frontier implements a tiered usage plan pricing and usage information will be communicated to all High-Speed customers.

Does Frontier plan to limit my use of the Internet?
Frontier is providing (NOT LIMITING) all customers with a minimum of 5GB of usage on a monthly basis. The Company has made no decision at this time to charge for additional usage but wants to start to educate customers about their usage.

If I hit 5GB will my service be interrupted?
No. Your service will not be interrupted at 5Gb. You will continue to use our High Speed Internet service without disruption.

How will I know how many Gigabytes I am using?
Sometime in the future, Frontier will provide to all customers visibility as to what your usage is on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. We will also provide a the ability to estimate bandwidth usage for different types of activities – like streaming video downloads or file sharing. These tools will give our customers the ability to make informed decisions about broadband usage consumption.

Tell that to the customers in Mound who have 14 or fewer days and counting to either pay extortionist broadband pricing, curtail their usage, or go elsewhere for service (if they can).

It’s no surprise some customers in Mound are outraged when receiving the company’s e-mailed notification about paying higher prices for usage because it runs completely contrary to the published policies of Frontier’s broadband service.

That’s just one more mistake in a series of mistakes Frontier has made in marketing its broadband service, especially in areas where consumers can take their business elsewhere and not have to worry about exceeding Frontier’s minuscule usage allowance.

Wendy Davis at MediaPost quotes a statement released by Free Press research director S. Derek Turner: “While there may be a place for discussing reasonable usage-based billing, the scheme Frontier is testing is completely divorced from the underlying economics. Even worse than their price-gouging is Frontier’s assertion that a mere 5 gigabytes per month is a ‘reasonable’ amount of usage when just last month the National Broadband Plan reported that average Internet users with a fixed connection consume 9 gigabytes of data per month.”

Davis also managed to get a Frontier spokesperson on the record about the debacle, telling MediaPost, “the company is only trying to prevent some exceptionally heavy bandwidth users from degrading service for others on the network. She also says that people who received the letters were given an option of decreasing their bandwidth consumption or switching to a different, higher-priced plan.”

Yet the concept of DSL customers degrading the broadband experience of other customers on the network is itself controversial, as DSL providers have always emphasized they do not suffer from slowdowns like shared networks used by cable broadband providers.  While heavy consumption can theoretically congest “middle mile” networks that serve regional areas or connect telephone company switching offices, those congestion issues are not difficult to address when companies use fiber connections to connect them, as Frontier frequently does.  Indeed, Frontier is far more likely to suffer congestion issues when millions of former Verizon customers are piled on Frontier’s network.

Nowhere in Frontier’s e-mail does it tell customers they can reduce usage to retain service.  It only says “if you do not wish to switch to this new rate plan, you can have your service disconnected.”  Mound residents are faced with the prospect of immediately reducing usage from 100GB to just 5GB to stay within Frontier’s terms and conditions.  Under those conditions, they could do better with dial-up.

Meanwhile, those soon-to-be-discarded Verizon customers facing a transition to Frontier Communications may soon find themselves potentially impacted by some sort of usage limit as well, which could also apply to the areas served by FiOS.

Mike Rogoway at The Oregonian talked with Frontier spokesman Steven Crosby about Frontier’s plans:

I talked this afternoon with Frontier spokesman Steven Crosby, who said there won’t be tight bandwidth restrictions after Frontier acquires FiOS — but he indicated that there may be some restrictions.

Currently, Frontier’s user agreement sets a nominal 5 gigabyte cap on monthly bandwidth usage.

“You know, I know and everyone knows that’s a very low number,” Crosby said. “We don’t hold people to that.”

The letters that went out in Minnesota went to a small group of very heavy bandwidth users in one community, Crosby told me. It’s not meant to reflect a broader policy.

As Frontier prepares to take over Verizon’s operations in Oregon and other states — Crosby says the deal is on track and likely to close in late June or early July — Frontier is reviewing its Internet use policies.

I pointed out Comcast’s bandwidth cap, and told Crosby that it seems likely his company will do something similar. He left that possibility open, but said any Internet limits are still under discussion.

“I don’t know what that limit will be,” he said. “The one thing I do know is we don’t want to impact our customers.”

St0p the Cap! responds:

• This is the first time Frontier has hinted that usage limits could eventually apply to the FiOS fiber-to-the-home service it is acquiring from Verizon, a network constructed to manage 21st century broadband traffic Frontier now also seems willing to limit;
• Frontier does hold people to the 5GB usage cap when they are in violation of it, using it as an excuse to expose customers to far-higher-priced service plans or service disconnection.  If Frontier isn’t serious about it, why retain the language in customer agreements?
• If Frontier’s Mound e-mail notifications do not reflect a broader policy, than the only customers who will see a change in the Acceptable Use Policy will be those in the Mound, Minnesota area.  If customers elsewhere see a change, it -does- reflect a broader policy after all.
• As part of Frontier’s “review of Internet use policies,” the company should not defray expenses surrounding the Frontier-Verizon deal by dumping them on broadband customers with outrageously punitive pricing plans.
• As for not wanting to impact customers, our response is “too late.”  Frontier’s original introduction of the 5GB usage allowance in the summer of 2008 impacted customers far and wide, and for its largest service area — Rochester, NY, gave Time Warner Cable happy hunting grounds to experiment with a usage cap of their own.

Wendy Davis at MediaPost offers some food for thought:

Frontier’s letters could well trigger regulatory or judicial scrutiny, especially given the seeming disconnect between the company’s acceptable use policy and its recent actions.

Of course, the underlying problem is the lack of competition. If consumers had more options for broadband providers, a company that threatened to disconnect its customers, or charge $99 or $250 a month for broadband service, might quickly find itself dealing with more pressing problems than public criticism.

When millions of dollars are at stake, some commercial broadband providers will stop at nothing to preserve the duopoly they enjoy across most of North Carolina.  Their formula for success — delivering the least amount of service at the highest possible price.  When communities like Wilson and Salisbury decided that formula wasn’t working for them, they embarked on their own municipally-built, fiber-based broadband networks.  It wasn’t something either community took lightly.  They asked, they pleaded, they begged for better broadband service from incumbent providers who decided what they were providing was already good enough.

The biggest shock of these providers’ lives came when both communities decided to build better networks themselves.

Now, the commercial providers who are challenged to upgrade to compete are instead spending enormous sums of money in the North Carolina legislature to put a stop to these municipal projects.  Why spend money on upgrading when you can simply ban the potential competition?

Last year, Stop the Cap! teamed up with other consumer advocates to put a stop to legislation custom-written by the cable industry and introduced by a very-compliant state legislator.  When our readers and others called to complain, some found the phone handed off to a cable lobbyist literally sitting in his office!

Your outrage over paying big bills for bad service from too few providers was heard in Raleigh, and the legislation was de-fanged and buried in a committee charged with “studying the issue.”  The legislator who introduced it resigned under an ethical cloud last fall.

Unfortunately for consumers in North Carolina, there is always someone else willing to pick up where the last one who sold his constituents down the river left off.

Our North Carolina issues coordinator Jay Ovittore, who is now working with Communities United for Broadband to promote better broadband, is here with a report about the latest developments in North Carolina and a Call to Action! for all of our readers.  Preserving successful municipal broadband projects and those working to get off the ground protects this option for every community faced with intransigent broadband providers who won’t improve service.  — Phillip Dampier

As I told everyone on Stop the Cap! last summer, they would be back.

They are, and now they’ve shown us their cards.

North Carolina’s incumbent cable and phone companies are once again trying to ram through an anti-municipal broadband bill, and their timing is designed to rush it through committee before a groundswell of consumer opposition has a chance to build.  Time is short — the bill will be taken up April 21st in the Revenue Laws Study Committee, so your immediate action is imperative!

Clodfelter

This year’s push for anti-consumer legislation comes courtesy of Senator Daniel G. Clodfelter (D-Mecklenburg County).

He reportedly wants a moratorium on all municipal broadband deployments on the alleged basis that these are bad for the private sector and will harm state tax revenue.  Hello?  Virtually every municipal broadband project underway fuels job creation as crews work to install the fiber optic networks that will come to represent an economic catalyst and job creator.  When communities no longer have to turn away digital economy jobs lost because of inadequate broadband by existing providers, that’s an economic victory for hard-pressed North Carolina, where unemployment is at 11.2 percent these days — 10th worst in the country.

The FCC’s National Broadband Plan has prioritized stimulating the deployment of ultra high-speed broadband (100/50Mbps) service to 100 million households in ten years, so why are some in our legislature standing in the way of better broadband options for North Carolina?  You need to ask them!

Just look at Wilson’s community broadband project for evidence of a broadband success story.  Wilson pleaded with providers to deliver 21st century broadband service to no avail.  So Wilson did it themselves.

Cable and phone companies howled in protest.  They even brought in their astroturfing friends from corporate-funded groups like FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity to try and hookwink consumers into opposing municipal broadband.

It’s just another classic case of providers not wanting to spend money to upgrade their networks to compete.  Communities like Wilson getting the broadband service they deserve are good examples of why the industry is afraid such projects could spread.

[flv width=”480″ height=”292″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Save NC Broadband Catherine Rice Compares Rates 12-2009.mp4[/flv]

Watch what happens when a municipal provider competes for your business.  Catherine Rice of Action Audits delivered the undeniable proof at a December NC House Select Committee on High Speed Internet Access in Rural and Urban Areas hearing, showing while cable and broadband rates across the state march ever higher, they strangely don’t in Wilson, where GreenLight, the municipal alternative, keeps rates in check. Click here to download a PDF copy of the slides Rice refers to in her presentation. (11 minutes)

Some members of the legislature will stand with their constituents and vote against this anti-consumer nightmare.  Some may not be fully informed on the issues and are only hearing the telecommunications industry talking points.  For some others, I’m afraid it’s a case of following the money.

The telecommunications industry in North Carolina is very generous to their benefactors, only too willing to return the favor writing the industry’s wish-list into state law.

You will recognize some of the names from the Follow the Money series I wrote last year (read Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3).  It’s a new year, so Part 4 will follow in the coming days, updating the financial contributions of incumbents and introducing new members and how much they’ve accepted from this industry.

Ironically, one of the legislators, Rep. Pryor Allan Gibson, III works as a contractor for Time Warner Cable!  His vote will be particularly interesting to follow.

North Carolina Legislature

North Carolina Call to Action!

Phone calls are always the most effective, and they are timely coming just days before the April 21st meeting of the Revenue Laws Study Committee.  But you can also e-mail representatives (and that’s not a bad idea even if you also called).  North Carolina deserves world-class, next-generation broadband.  Don’t allow a handful of the same companies overcharging you for today’s slow service strangle your best chance for competition!

Here is a sample e-mail message to send to all of the Committee members involved:

Subject: Don’t You Dare Vote for an Anti-Municipal Broadband Bill!

Message: As a consumer, I was disturbed to hear the Revenue Laws Study Committee was prepared to vote for an industry-sponsored Anti-Municipal Broadband Bill on April 21st.  Please do not vote for this or any other bill that removes competitive choice for broadband service.  Our local communities should not be stopped from deploying 21st century fiber to the home systems other providers refuse to deliver.  Such fiber networks create jobs, keep North Carolina business competitive, and stimulate economic development, which will deliver needed tax revenue.

The same providers backing this bill that are not delivering service to unserved communities, or offer inadequate service in others, have had a decade to deliver the service municipal providers are actually providing today in our state. Instead of delivering, they’ve offered a litany of excuses and now want special legislative protections to preserve their entrenched market position.

As a consumer, I am fed up with relentless rate increases year after year.  In communities like Wilson, where a municipal provider delivers excellent service, the rate increases from cable and phone companies have stopped.  A vote for this bill guarantees we’ll be paying higher and higher cable and phone bills indefinitely, and that’s something I would definitely remember come Election Day.  Make no mistake — this proposed legislation is an obvious gift to the telecommunications industry at the expense of all of your constituents, including myself.  That’s why I am confident you will stand up and make your opposition heard to this and similar measures.

At a time when the FCC’s National Broadband Plan envisions 100 million households with ultra-fast broadband service delivering economic benefits, it’s ironic our state legislature is even considering impeding the very providers that are on track to fulfill that goal.

With 11.2 percent unemployment — the 10th worst in the country, now is not the time to put a moratorium on North Carolina’s communities considering a better future through municipally-provided broadband.

With all this in mind, I am confident you will deliver for constituents like myself and oppose these industry-backed bills.  I look forward to hearing from you soon on this issue.

For best results, use your own wording and talk about the broadband market in your community.  You can reference the excitement over Google’s fiber to the home project.

Here are the Committee members to write or call, including their district area and what they do for a living:

(Please send individual messages to members, even if the contents are essentially the same — avoid simply CC’ing a single message to every representative.)

• Sen. Daniel Gray Clodfelter (Co-Chair) Mecklenberg [email protected] (919) 715-8331 Democrat (704) 331-1041 Attorney
• Sen. Daniel T. Blue, Jr. Wake [email protected] (919) 733-5752 Democrat (919) 833-1931 Attorney
• Sen. Peter Samuel Brunstetter Forsyth [email protected] (919) 733-7850 Republican (336) 747-6604 Attorney
• Sen. Fletcher Lee Hartsell, Jr. Cabarrus, Iredell [email protected] (919) 733-7223 Republican (704) 786-5161 Attorney
• Sen. David W. Hoyle Gaston [email protected] (919) 733-5734 Democrat (704) 867-0822 Real Estate Developer/Investor
• Sen. Samuel Clark Jenkins Edgecomb, Martin, Pitt [email protected] (919) 715-3040 Democrat (252) 823-7029 W.S. Clark Farms
• Sen. Josh Stein Wake [email protected] (919)715-6400 Democrat (919)715-6400 Lawyer
• Sen. Jerry W. Tillman Montgomery, Randolph [email protected] (919) 733-5870 Republican (336) 431-5325 Ret’d school teacher
• Rep. Paul Luebke (Co-Chair) Durham [email protected] 919-733-7663 Democrat 919-286-0269 College Teacher
• Rep. Harold J. Brubaker Randolph [email protected] 919-715-4946 Republican 336-629-5128 Real Estate Appraiser
• Rep. Becky Carney Mecklenberg [email protected] 919-733-5827 Democrat 919-733-5827 Homemaker
• Rep. Pryor Allan Gibson, III Anson, Union [email protected] 919-715-3007 Democrat 704-694-5957 Builder/TWC contractor
• Rep. Dewey Lewis Hill Brunswick, Columbus [email protected] 919-733-5830 Democrat 910-642-6044 Business Exec (Navy)
• Rep. Julia Craven Howard Davie, Iredell [email protected] 919-733-5904 Republican 336-751-3538 Appraiser, Realtor
• Rep. Daniel Francis McComas New Hanover [email protected] 919-733-5786 Republican 910-343-8372 Business Executive
• Rep. William C. McGee Forsyth [email protected] 919-733-5747 Republican 336-766-4481 Retired (Army)
• Rep. William L. Wainwright Craven, Lenoir [email protected] 919-733-5995 Democrat 252-447-7379 Presiding Elder
• Rep. Jennifer Weiss Wake [email protected] 919-715-3010 Democrat 919-715-3010 Lawyer-Mom