Stopping robocalls

Landline customers in swing states have been under assault since last weekend from waves of robocalls, some containing false and misleading voting information, that have come in at rates of 20, 30, or even more every hour.

“Robocalls” are the annoying recorded messages mass-blasted to landline customers from candidates, their wives, political allies, and astroturf groups encouraging support for particular candidates or demonizing their opponents. While most landline customers receive a handful of “get out the vote” reminders during Election Day, voters in hotly-contested swing states are under siege with dozens upon dozens of recorded political messages. Now some are unplugging their phones until the polls close.

In Wisconsin, one woman said she received “calls” from President Obama, Governor Romney, and 63 others before she finally pulled the plug on her phone.

[flv width=”576″ height=”344″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WXMI Grand Rapids Assault of the Robocall 11-5-12.flv[/flv]

Norma Escribano-Smith in Grandville got 65 robocalls on her phone before she finally became so exasperated, she unplugged it. WXMI in Grand Rapids reports on life in a swing state. (3 minutes)

Some groups blast out calls opposing specific ballot measures — marriage equality and tax measures are two hot issues this season. Others are more clandestine about their true identity, launched by dirty tricks firms that are masters in the dark art of the misleading robocall.

In Florida, registered voters in heavily Democratic areas report getting calls identified by Caller ID as the local Obama campaign office. The recorded messages that follow inaccurately tell voters the election has “been extended” and they can “vote for Obama tomorrow” by dropping off their ballots at a local polling place. The local Obama office is not the source of the calls, however. Someone is faking (better known as “spoofing”) the Caller ID information.

In Tucson, Ariz., local Republicans are getting calls suggesting their party supports a state proposition on the ballot the GOP actually opposes. Over in Phoenix, the campaign of Republican candidate Jeff Flake was caught making misleading and inaccurate robocalls misdirecting Democratic supporters of Richard Carmona to the wrong polling locations, often miles away. Those calls are now being looked at by the Department of Justice in Washington.

Democrat Mary Crecco of Scottsdale  said she “just freaked out” when she got the Flake robocall. “It was totally wrong, totally wrong, and I feel like it was done purposely,” she told a Phoenix TV station.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KPNX Phoenix Democrats fuming over Flake robocalls 11-5-12.flv[/flv]

KPNX’s ‘Watch Dogs’ launched a special investigation into misleading robocalls from the campaign of Jeff Flake misdirecting Phoenix-area Democrats to the wrong polling locations. (3 minutes)

So who avoids robocalls? Cell phone customers. Under FCC rules, robocalls to cell phones are not permitted without permission from the person being called. In Pennsylvania, one Verizon Wireless store manager reported brisk sales from customers in the last few weeks driven away from their landline by the avalanche of political messages and other telemarketers.

Some states have successfully controlled the onslaught with laws that do not allow recorded robocalls unless first introduced by a live operator asking for permission to play them. That dramatically raises the cost of robocalling, leading many groups back to traditional mailers or broadcast advertising, both only slightly less annoying.

“Four out of five calls this morning were political calls,” John Fox, Pottsville, told a Pennsylania newspaper Monday at Fairlane Village mall. “I told my wife not to answer the phone anymore.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSAW Wausau Voters Annoyed by Political Robocalls 11-5-12.mp4[/flv]

 WSAW in Wausau has started giving out tips to call-weary Wisconsin voters who are fed up with a constant assault of robocalls on their home phones.  (2 minutes)

Burlington Telecom, the troubled publicly-owned fiber broadband network for Burlington, Vt., is working on a comeback by finally boosting its speeds well beyond what competitors FairPoint Communications and Comcast can offer residential broadband subscribers.

BT will offer residents 40/40Mbps service for $99.99 per month and 1,000/1,000Mbps service for just $50 more per month (with a 12-month contract), starting Dec. 1:

Stop the Cap! previously recommended BT consider offering faster speed packages that give subscribers a compelling reason to switch from Comcast or FairPoint. Community broadband providers with fiber optic networks need to leverage those superior networks to drive new customers to sign up, and BT certainly could use a influx of new business as it fights through its financial problems.

We strongly recommend BT consider boosting its 40/40Mbps offering to at least 100/100Mbps at the $100 price point to better compete with Comcast’s Extreme 105 tier, which offers 105/20Mbps for just $15 more per month. Pricing and speeds must be comparable with the cable competition to compel a customer to go through the hassle of changing providers, and most subscribers still don’t value higher upload speeds as much as download speeds.

BT’s gigabit offering succeeds on all counts, but it is unlikely to draw a large percentage of customers willing to pay $150 a month for residential Internet service.

Tomorrow is election day in the United States. Stop the Cap! has reviewed both presidential candidates’ positions (or the lack thereof) as well as the past voting records and platforms of members of both major political parties. With this in mind, it is time for our election guide for broadband enthusiasts. Regardless of what candidate you support, please get out and vote!

Neither political party or candidate has been perfect on broadband advocacy or consumer protection.

We’ve been disappointed by the Obama Administration, whose FCC chairman has major problems standing up to large telecom companies and their friends in the Republican-led House of Representatives. Julius Genachowski promised a lot and delivered very little on broadband reform policies that protect both consumers and the open Internet. Both President Obama and Genachowski’s rhetoric simply have not matched the results.

Bitterly disappointing moments included Genachowski’s cave-in on Net Neutrality, leaving watered down net protections challenged in court by some of the same companies that praised Genachowski’s willingness to compromise. Genachowski’s thank you card arrived in the form of a lawsuit. His unwillingness to take the common sense approach of defining broadband as a “telecommunications service” has left Internet policies hanging by a tenuous thread, waiting to be snipped by the first D.C. federal judge with a pair of sharp scissors. But even worse, the FCC chairman’s blinders on usage caps and usage billing have left him unbelievably naive about this pricing scheme. No, Mr. Genachowski, usage pricing is not about innovation, it’s about monetizing broadband usage for even fatter profits at the expense of average consumers already overpaying for Internet access.

Obama

Unfortunately, the alternative choice may be worse. Let’s compare the two parties and their candidates:

The Obama Administration treats broadband comparably to alternative energy. Both deliver promise, but not if we wait for private companies to do all of the heavy lifting. The Obama Administration believes Internet expansion needs government assistance to overcome the current blockade of access for anyone failing to meet private Return On Investment requirements.

While this sober business analysis has kept private providers from upsetting investors with expensive capital investments, it has also allowed millions of Americans to go without service. The “incremental growth” argument advocated by private providers has allowed the United States’ leadership role on broadband to falter. In both Europe and Asia, even small nations now outpace the United States deploying advanced broadband networks which offer far higher capacity, usually at dramatically lower prices. Usually, other nations one-upping the United States is treated like a threat to national security. This time, the argument is that those other countries don’t actually need the broadband networks they have, nor do we.

The Obama Administration bows to the reality that private companies simply will not invest in unprofitable service areas unless the government helps pick up the tab. But those companies also want the government to spend the money with as little oversight over their networks as possible.

That sets up the classic conflict between the two political parties — Democrats who want to see broadband treated like a critically-important utility that deserves some government oversight in its current state and Republicans who want to leave matters entirely in the hands of private providers who they claim know best, and keep the government out of it.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s regular cave-ins for the benefit of Big Telecom brought heavy criticism from us for his “cowardly lion” act.

Just about the only thing the two parties agree on is reforming the Universal Service Fund, which had until recently been directing millions to keeping traditional phone service up and running even as Americans increasingly abandon landlines.

But differences quickly emerge from there.

The Obama Administration believes broadband is increasingly a service every American must be able to access if sought. The Romney-Ryan campaign hasn’t spoken to the issue much beyond the general Republican platform that market forces will resolve virtually any problem when sufficient demand arises.

Republicans almost uniformly vociferously oppose Net Neutrality, believing broadband networks are the sole property of the providers that offer the service. Many Republicans characterize Net Neutrality as a “government takeover” of the Internet and a government policy that would “micromanage broadband” like it was a railroad. Somehow, they seem to have forgotten railroad monopolies used to be a problem for the United States in the early 20th century. Robber barons, anyone?

President Obama pushed for strong Net Neutrality protections for Americans, but his FCC chairman Julius Genachowski caved to the demands of AT&T, Verizon, and the cable industry by managing Net Neutrality with a disappointing “light touch” for those providers. (We’d call it “fondling” ourselves.)

Democrats favor wireless auctions and spectrum expansion, but many favor limits that reserve certain spectrum for emerging competitors and for unlicensed wireless use. Republicans trend towards “winner take all” auctions which probably will favor deep-pocketed incumbents like AT&T and Verizon. The GOP also does not support holding back as much spectrum for unlicensed use.

Republicans have been strongly supporting the deregulation of “special access” service, critical to competitors who need backhaul access to the Internet sold by large phone companies like AT&T. Critics contend the pricing deregulation has allowed a handful of phone companies to lock out competitors, particularly on the wireless side, with extremely high prices for access without any pricing oversight. The FCC under the Obama Administration suspended that deregulation last summer, a clear sign it thinks current pricing is suspect.

Romney

Opponents of usage-based pricing of Internet access have gotten shabby treatment from both parties. Republicans have shown no interest in involving themselves in a debate about the fairness of usage pricing, but neither have many Democrats.

As for publicly-owned broadband networks, sometimes called municipal broadband, the Republican record on the state and federal level is pretty clear — they actively oppose community broadband networks and many have worked with corporate front groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to ban them on the state level. Democrats tend to be more favorable, but not always.

The biggest problem broadband advocates face on the federal and state level is the ongoing pervasive influence of Big Telecom campaign contributions. While politicians uniformly deny that corporate money holds any influence over their voting, the record clearly indicates otherwise. Nothing else explains the signatures from Democrats that received healthy injections of campaign cash from companies like AT&T, and then used the company’s own talking points to oppose Net Neutrality.

But in a story of the lesser of two-evils, we cannot forget AT&T spends even more to promote Republican interests, because often those interests are shared by AT&T:

• AT&T has spent nearly $900,000 on self-identified “tea party” candidates pledged to AT&T’s deregulation policies;
• AT&T gave nearly $2 million to the Republican Governors Association — a key part of their ALEC agenda;
• AT&T gave $100,000 to everyone’s favorite dollar-a-holler Astroturf group — The Heartland Institute, which opposes Net Neutrality and community broadband.

Halloween scare stories are back!

It is amazing the length some incumbent broadband providers will go to stop publicly-owned networks from getting off the ground and competing with the “good enough for you” service on offer from the local phone or cable company.

This morning, Stop the Cap! received word from a Minnesota reader who reports their dinner hour was interrupted by an unsolicited phone call from a group called “Americans for Sensible Broadband,” which as far as we can tell does not exist as a formal group. The caller used ridiculous scare tactics worthy of a bad Halloween movie:

• Did you know that fiber broadband networks are expensive to run and will increase your electric bill to pay for the high powered lasers needed to send the signal to your home?

Fiber broadband projects now expanding in Minnesota have no relation to your electric bill because most are run by independent community-owned co-ops, not electric utilities. Even if they were run by an electric provider, the cost to power a fiber network is far smaller than the network of signal amplifiers and other transmission equipment needed by traditional cable and phone companies. The only electrical expense to the homeowner is powering any set top boxes or other related equipment to make use of the service. These costs are comparable to what one would pay with cable or phone services.

• Most fiber networks are not actually fiber at all. The largest companies in America actually let you keep your current wiring, but that is not fiber, so why spend tax money on a risky fiber network?

While AT&T U-verse has chosen the route of “fiber to the neighborhood,” which still relies on existing copper wiring from nearby poles to your home, many fiber to the home projects take fiber… straight to the home. Some community networks do make use of very short lengths of pre-existing copper wiring inside your home, but this has more to do with your convenience. You don’t need a fiber connection to your landline phone, for instance. Compare the broadband speeds and services on offer from the community provider vs. incumbent cable and phone companies. Choose the one that delivers the best services for the price.

• America’s cable and phone companies are working hard for pro-growth, pro-expansion policies in Washington that will allow your community to get the benefit of billions of private investment, at no risk to you.

An in-home threat to your children or incumbent provider profits?

Incumbent phone and cable companies already enjoy a higher level of deregulation than ever before. If they have not spent money to improve broadband in your area before, there is nothing that will open their wallets to provide the service now, unless someone else subsidizes part of the cost. Guess who “someone” is? That’s right. You the taxpayer or ratepayer. Whether in the form of broadband subsidies paid for by taxpayer dollars or ratepayer subsidies from the Universal Service Fund, only subsidies or competition prod incumbents to deliver better broadband to rural Minnesota (or anywhere else). If you fail a “Return On Investment” test, you will not get broadband no matter how much deregulation gets approved in Washington.

The question for rural consumers is whether AT&T, Frontier, CenturyLink, Comcast, or Charter Cable has your best interests at heart or whether a community co-op you partly own will.

• In socialistic countries, the government runs the broadband service and can monitor your web browsing. Do you want your local community checking up on your online activities?

“Socialistic” is in the eye of the beholder. Most broadband networks are run by private telecommunications companies, some with state subsidies, others entirely on their own. The federal government’s security agencies already have access to monitor Internet traffic under warrantless wiretapping laws, and that extends to every provider in the country, private or public. That said, there is no evidence local government officials would monitor your web browsing habits, much less have the budget or technical expertise to do so.

• Fiber cables create more hazards on utility poles designed for phone, cable and electric service. Is it worth risking those services for an unnecessary and expensive fiber network?

Electric and phone companies used the same scare stories to try and keep cable television lines off utility poles more than 30 years ago. Cable operators fought for and won the right to use utility poles to no ill effect, and at fair prices. It is ironic some cable companies want to use the same argument against municipal fiber that phone and electric companies used against them.

• In these difficult economic times, do you realize your local taxes could triple to pay for unnecessary fiber Internet?

Most public broadband projects are financed by municipal bonds obtained in the private free market. Investors can decide for themselves if they represent a safe investment, and many do. If the networks fail, private investors typically take the hit.

But the most ridiculous claim of all was that “recent news reports warn that lasers could blind your children if they happen to play with the fiber cables in your home.”

The only “news report” we could find on this subject was an Engadget news story from 2011 about an S3 Krypton laser that could blind astronauts without proper safety equipment. But those lasers are not powering broadband networks.

In reality, fiber to the home networks are safer than traditional copper phone wiring, which can send a significant electric shock to anyone playing with the wiring when a telephone rings. Many fiber networks rely on Class 1, low power lasers — the lowest risk level. Even if a customer stared at the lit end of an optical fiber connector, the visible light would be diffused into a cone pattern that would be completely harmless by the time it reached the retina. Many networks also include a secondary safety mechanism that quickly shuts down the laser light once the connection has been broken. Certain higher-powered laser communications networks can have some safety risks, but almost entirely for workers working on primary cables that deliver service to dozens of homes. Those workers are well-trained to avoid those risks.

Minnesota seems to be one of the latest hotbeds of incumbent wrath over expanding community-owned broadband networks. Despite efforts to label them insidious creeping socialism, they are actually no more threatening than a traditional co-op, except perhaps to incumbent cable and phone companies that have been running to the bank cashing checks from customers enduring low broadband speeds at high prices.

Cohen

Comcast’s chief lobbyist stalled plans to unveil cheaper Internet service for the financially disadvantaged to use as bait to win regulator approval of its 2009 merger with NBC-Universal.

The Washington Post today reports David Cohen’s influence at the cable operator as its chief of lobbying has helped the cable company achieve its status as America’s largest cable operator and entertainment conglomerate.

Cohen has friends in high places thanks to his status as a Democratic Party money bundler. A self-styled “consigliere” to the Roberts family that controls the company, Cohen has overseen a transformation of Comcast from one cable operator among many into a high-powered force not to reckoned with in Washington or Silicon Valley.

Comcast’s growth into a mega-corporation with $58 billion in annual revenues came, in part, from dealmaking that won regulator approval in D.C. Maintaining good relations with those regulators is a Cohen specialty. It did not take the Post too long to find former FCC officials giving Cohen high praise:

• “Every meeting with David is incredibly substantive,” Eddie Lazarus, former chief of staff to the FCC told the newspaper. “He always comes with a willingness to find solutions.”
• “David loves politics, he loves government and he has incredible situational awareness — a 360-degree view of business,” said Blair Levin, a former senior adviser to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. “He’s just so good at what he does.”

Under Cohen’s leadership, Comcast has spent lavishly on its corporate lobbying and legal team. Today, 20 full time lobbyists work under Cohen’s direction, with dozens of others available on retainer. The company spent $8.3 million of its subscribers’ money solely on lobbying. The Post reports that makes Comcast the ninth biggest K Street spender, above Verizon.

The poor and disadvantaged had to wait for Comcast to seal the deal on their $30 billion acquisition of NBC-Universal before affordable Internet could become reality for them.

In 2009, Comcast insiders were hard at work on a discount program for the disadvantaged who could not afford Comcast’s regular prices for broadband service. But the program was stalled at the direction of Cohen, who wanted it to be a chip with regulators to win approval of its acquisition of NBC-Universal. The program, sure to be popular among advocates of the digitally disadvantaged, was a key part of approving the $30 billion deal.

“I held back because I knew it may be the type of voluntary commitment that would be attractive to the chairman [of the FCC],” Cohen said in a recent interview.

Regulators promoted Comcast’s “concession” to offer the discounted Internet service as a win for consumers as part of the final approval of the deal. In reality, Comcast was planning to offer the service anyway and finally introduced it in 2011 — two years after first being proposed inside the company.

That fact is a slight embarrassment to current FCC chairman Julius Genachowski, who has told audiences the discounted Internet program was partly to his credit.

“This particular program came from our reviewing of the Comcast NBC-U transaction,” Genachowski said in a speech. “Comcast embraced it as good for the country, as well as good for business. And I’m fine with that.”

Cohen defends Comcast’s lobbying expense as part of the company’s effort to combat scrutiny and challenges to its all-or-nothing video business model, denying customers access to a-la-carte programming.

Comcast’s scope has now grown so large, it has become a force few companies are willing to challenge, and those that try are quick to run into a blockade of Comcast lawyers, lobbyists, and carefully constructed contracts that protect the company’s bottom line from would-be competitors.

Deep pockets like Verizon, Apple, Netflix and Google have all tried… and failed to recast the cable television experience with on-demand programming, a-la-carte channels, and cord-cutting technology.

In response, Comcast has kept competitors tied down to the same cable packages that require subscribers to pay for everything, even if they seek only a few channels. Comcast leverages its broadband network with usage limits that effectively curtail cord-cutting among consumers looking to skip the TV package. Anyone seeking a place in today’s entertainment industry ends up dealing with Comcast sooner or later.

“They are hugely important because they can singlehandedly sink or swim multiple businesses that rely on the Internet ecosystem by virtue of controlling the dissemination of information through their pipes and now by supplying so much of the content,” said Joel Kelsey, a policy director at consumer interest group Free Press. “So many companies have come to us and ask we fight their battles for them because they are afraid of retribution.”

Cohen is well-compensated for his effectiveness. His latest three-year contract makes him one of the highest paid corporate lobbyists in Washington, with a $15 million annual compensation package and $3 million in bonuses, not including his ample stock holdings in Comcast.

His influence extends to the highest levels of the Obama Administration. Last summer, the family hosted a $1.2 million campaign fundraiser for President Obama, and the Cohens have separately contributed $877,000 to various campaigns. Comcast itself has spent $3.3 million in campaign contributions so far this year.