Your ship's captain for a catastrophic anti-consumer cruise sponsored by Time Warner

Representative Harrell, we honestly cannot understand your surprise over the outrage and backlash that came after you handcrafted, on spec from Time Warner and its lobbying lawyers, an incredibly anti-consumer, anti-competitive, nightmare of a piece of legislation designed to destroy municipal broadband across the state of North Carolina.

Rep. Ty Harrell (D-NC), who normally considers himself a progressive Democrat, has so bumbled his way through this entire affair, he’s managed to end up on the same side as the ultra-big-corporate friendly Americans for Prosperity, which is now war-dialing its way through North Carolina with push polls and fear-monger phone messages.  If that doesn’t sound alarm bells that something isn’t right, what will?  He admits he didn’t realize North Carolina has been through this anti-consumer nonsense before.  In 2007, largely the same bill was bought and paid for by big telecom special interests, but failed to pass after elected officials realized it would antagonize their constituents into voting for anyone but them in the next election.  No kidding.

Harrell said he introduced the legislation, which amazingly channels industry wishes word for word, because ‘Time Warner approached him and asked for it,’ and even worse:

Opponents suggested a study bill, but Harrell says the industry representatives refused to consider it. “Having gone through those battles last time, the proponents of this bill were basically saying, ‘We’ve gone down that road before and we want to have it heard in committee. I said, ‘OK, since my name is on it and you’re in my district.’”

Time Warner evidently has direct access to the Ty Harrell’s Legislation Hotline, because when consumers call asking for protection from sky high rate hikes and municipal broadband competition, the only question from his office apparently is, “how did you get this number?”

Our conservative readers here get it. They know the best way to fight monopolies is to promote competition, which this bill certainly does not. Our progressive readers here get it. They know that an unregulated duopoly of providers (or monopoly in many areas) will deliver the slow service at high prices, so when private companies aren’t interested in delivering, their own community should step up and provide better service.  Your bill trashes the dreams and hopes of both by making competition impractical and monopolies/duopolies a sure thing across the state.

It’s a real shame the only ones that don’t get it are elected officials who do the bidding of big cable and don’t have the wisdom to realize the way to survive this consumer catastrophe is not to be a part of it in the first place.  Perhaps voters will need to remind them.

Contact Information:

Phone:      919-733-5602
Email:     [email protected]

Rep. Ty Harrell
NC House of Representatives
16 W. Jones Street, Room 2121
Raleigh, NC 27601-1096

North Carolina residents get pro-industry "push poll" calls.

When it comes to representing the rights and profits of big business, there is no better friend to turn to than “Americans for Prosperity,” a front group designed to protect the prosperity of big corporate interests and their fat cat friends who write checks to keep these groups in business.

The group’s “North Carolina chapter” has recently been exposed as being behind a scam push poll operation and harassing recorded message campaign calling residents in or near communities with planned municipal broadband systems.  The messages, and the group, attempt to put a conservative political spin on municipal broadband, hoodwinking state residents into thinking there is some sort of government takeover of broadband in the state, financed with tax dollars.

Of course, the municipal broadband systems under consideration in the state are being financed by bond issues that do not co-mingle taxpayer funds, and the systems are designed to be self-sustaining through subscription revenues.  Many were built from expanding municipal fiber networks originally intended to serve local government.  They are being proposed in areas where incumbent cable and telephone companies have deemed those communities “sufficiently served” by broadband, at inadequate speeds and high prices (and soon to be much higher if tiered pricing returns).

… Continue Reading

This week, StoptheCap! will be paying extra attention to the events in North Carolina, as the state legislature continues its review of two bills that would effectively end municipal broadband competition across the state.  Competition is a key asset in dealing with rogue corporate providers that leverage the lack of competitiveness in a market with high prices and comparatively bad service.  Time Warner, among other incumbent providers, have been heavily engaged in trying to stop municipal competition before it spreads around the state.

If you are a resident of North Carolina, this is your action week.  Without the potential threat of municipal broadband, big providers can keep your access capped, metered, and slow.  Threaten them with the potential of competition, and your access to the latest broadband technology is a much safer bet.

If you are outside of North Carolina, you should still be paying close attention to this issue.  If your community is stuck with a single provider of fast broadband threatening to impose profit parties through caps and metered billing, and the other provider in town offers slow service, is unavailable, or threatens to cap as well, municipal broadband is a mighty powerful sword to wave at bad actors.  Protecting the ability to build such a system requires vigilance from bad legislation hand-written by big cable and their lobbyist friends to ban or restrict this tool.

Get involved, for your own sake, even if your local community doesn’t have a system on the drawing board… yet.

StoptheCap! reader Tim wrote this morning to alert us that Fox News had picked up a story from the Sunday Times of London warning of the great Internet brownout about to afflict us all.  It turns out our old friends at Nemertes Research have trotted out another sensationalist study (right on cue after a month of nonsense about it from Time Warner Cable) predicting our online demise from too many users.

But is it any good?

The original article sure wasn’t.  John Harlow, who needed reporting assistance from Adam Lewitt, couldn’t be bothered.  Lazy reporters who reprint sensationalistic theories as fact without ever bothering to ask any questions about the source or challenging the theories, is a hallmark of sloppy, never break a sweat journalism.  Even Ted Ritter, quoted in the story, called the journalism sensationalistic and said the reporter “took great liberty with my quotes,” and he’s the guy pushing the theory!

I keep asking, “where’s the media” on so many issues that deserve more than a slapdash reprint of the cheat sheet on the study, toss in a few quotes and call it a day.  But then I realized in this day and age, we are the media.

So I plodded my way through the report.  It’s the same alarmist stuff as the last one, and the one before that.

They said it in 2007 and the only scurrying that came after it was from Nemertes’ clients running to Kinkos to make copies and get them into the hands of legislators to justify whatever political agenda they were selling that season (no to net neutrality, yes to bandwidth caps, yes to government funding or tax credits for private broadband, etc.)

And that is exactly the problem.

Nemertes’ findings are like magic sprinkles on top of a Baskin-Robbins ice cream cone.  They work with every flavor to justify whatever you want.

On all such matters, the only fact you have to remember is to “follow the money.”  Who pays for this research?

Ted Ritter from Nemertes answers:

Our research is funded by our clients: Vendors, service providers and fortune 500 enterprise.

And the results of this research are celebrated by all of the above:   Equipment suppliers love it because they can trumpet the scary findings on their “upgrade now” brochures. ISPs love it because they can claim they have to cap and tier customers in order to buy equipment to combat the “exaflood.” Proponents of government funding for the Internet love it because it hints major funding to subdue the crisis might be needed.

Without those supporters, this study would never have been done in the first place.  Additionally, Nemertes appears to have an additional revenue stream from licensing the results of the study to interested clients, who wouldn’t bother unless they had a vested interest in trumpeting the findings.

In other words, this is a classic case of “conflict of interest.”  But if you order in the next 20 minutes, you also get these extra benefits:

Since we all know the results are made public, and media availabilities are prominently mentioned on the website, a paying client has the bonus of a seemingly independent third party who will be available to discuss the findings and results.  That’s a quick path to media coverage, the more sensational the better.

Since it’s Nemertes saying it, that keeps the clients’ hands clean when they license a purportedly independent report and mention it prominently when delving into public policy lobbying, public relations, and marketing strategies.

It’s also unsurprising that Nemertes stays out of specific public policy recommendations, because that is exactly what clients want. They’ll provide their own spin as they see fit, just as happened in 2007 and will no doubt happen again.  Why pay for a study that makes a public policy conclusion you oppose?

It’s all very neat and tidy, especially when Mr. Ritter complains that the media was sensationalizing the results.  I’m sure his clients think exactly the opposite.  But then sensationalism and spin follows Nemertes’ report wherever it appears. It drew panic headlines in 2007, was dredged up again by a few marketing people to justify broadband usage caps in 2008, and largely the exact same panicky coverage is appearing now, coincidentally in the same month Time Warner used Nemertes’ theories to justify their Internet rationing effort.

One local Rochester television newscast even suggested a router failure responsible for a Time Warner service outage this past weekend might have been the result of an Internet “brownout.”  That was Baskin-Robbins Flavor #7, “Very Berry Strawberry.”  See, it does work for everything!

The Sunday Times doesn’t have time to check the facts with anyone else, and there are many others who have a different view on this.  Andrew Odlyzko is a professor of Mathematics at the University of Minnesota, and has been tracking Internet growth since 2001:

Nemertes Research has an updated version of their study from last year, and continues to predict a collision between demand and supply, unless dramatic increases in investment are made. The basic, and highly debatable, assumption behind their work, though, is that traffic is growing at 100% per year or more, and will continue to do so for the next half a dozen years. So far there is little evidence of that, though.

Nemertes waves away Odlyzko by claiming that their discrepancy in data with his comes from the ‘secret Internet’ private backbones. Of course, that data Odlyzko can’t get from them is the same data Nemertes cannot get from them either. So we are left with an assertion without raw data.

The creepy part of all of this is, I could use Nemertes’ study to help the cause on StoptheCap! Nemertes says nothing about the need for usage caps and limits — it instead suggests that insufficient infrastructure spending will cause the Internet to brown out causing loss of innovation, jobs, and all the rest.  So I could use Nemertes to justify why cable companies have a basic responsibility to stop cutting infrastructure spending and start increasing it, instead of capping people to ration the net.

But I won’t, because I have integrity.  I realize that no report is worth mentioning as factual and accurate without the underlying assurance of its independence and lack of bias.  As I wrote Mr. Ritter:

If you want to do reports for clients who subscribe to your service, then send them the results and don’t make them public. Let the clients make the report public, because they are effectively paying for it. It prevents the accusation you are astroturfing on their behalf by insulating their involvement and investment in the findings.

Otherwise, a list of all supporting clients by name, in addition to whether they have been licensed to use the material, absolutely must be added to the bottom of your findings, or those findings are rightfully dismissed out of hand as bought and paid for.

Alternatively, if you are doing this in the public interest, do not accept funding from those with a vested interest in the findings, and do not license their use by anyone. Let people read them on your site, in full and in context, not after some marketing group has massaged the relevant points for their latest strategy.

Ultimately, I think Nemertes basic conclusion that the Internet is growing, and fast, is borne out by reality — just not at the panic stricken pace they suggest.  I also think that just like every other technological challenge we have faced, innovation will bring solutions to problems we fear and panic about today, but aren’t that big of a deal tomorrow.

The short answer continues to be, upgrade the network.  The bad answers include another effort by some of those that we’re likely to discover paying for Nemertes’ studies to advocate supersizing profits through reduction in competition, installing artificial usage limits to retard the growth curve, and trying to legislate protectionism for incumbent providers.

The trade association for independent cable systems trumpeted their belief that broadband usage caps and metered pricing was inevitable, and pointed to Sunflower Broadband as a perfect example of how metering can work in a community.

Sunflower, a podunk provider in the Lawrence, Kansas area has been sticking it to their customers for the last four years with tiers as low as 1GB of usage with $2 a GB in overlimit fees thereafter.  For Patrick Knorr, who works for Sunflower and is also ex-officio chair of ACA, life is good.  But the people of Lawrence think otherwise.  They’ve recognized they are stuck in a broadband backwater with Sunflower sticking it to them with very high prices and not so great service, but for a lot of folks, it’s their only choice.  AT&T offers DSL service without caps, but many people in Lawrence are not close enough to get good speed.  When living in a backwater this bad, people try and innovate, and the Lawrence Freenet was the result.  It’s a non-profit organization offering wi-fi access without Sunflower’s caps within Lawrence.

For smaller cities across America, the lack of competition nearly always equals high pricing for limited quality service.  Sunflower illustrates that in action.  In rural areas, equity of access to broadband at affordable prices is becoming a national issue.  Perhaps regulation may be the best answer when providers get out of hand.