If you are customer of Charter Cable, chances are you are paying a lot more than $60 a month for a complete package of cable television with a DVR box and 30Mbps broadband, price locked for two years.  But Charter is selling precisely that package to customers in Monticello, Minn.  Why do they get a deal you can’t have?  Because your town probably doesn’t have a community-owned broadband provider delivering competition.

Charter’s website offers new customers a six-month cable/broadband promotion for $64.98 a month, but that does not include a DVR box and delivers half the speed Charter pitches to the chosen few in Monticello.  After six months, the deal ends. A package including what Charter sells in Monticello for $60 a month costs more than twice as much elsewhere — $145 a month for customers in Rochester and Duluth.

"For the BEST prices in town, you must call your 'In-Field' representative," the flyer declares, including the name and number of a local Charter representative.

The cable operator is keeping the two-year special offer quiet as much as possible with the use of door flyers hand-delivered to potential customers. If Charter’s five million customers nationwide find out, they may wonder why they are paying dramatically more for the exact same service.

The city of Monticello already knows why.  The local community decided the incumbent providers — TDS Telecom and Charter Communications — were not giving the city the attention it deserved, so it built its own 21st century fiber to the home system to bring faster broadband to the region.  Now the incumbent commercial operators appear to be stopping at nothing to put FiberNet Monticello out of business.  Charter’s pricing takes fat profits from customers in nearby Minnesota cities and appears to cross-subsidize the heavily discounted service on offer in Monticello.  While that delivers short-term savings to customers in Monticello, other Charter customers are helping cross-subsidize those low rates on their own high cable bills.

If you are a Charter Cable customer, why can’t you have the same deal residents in Monticello are getting?  Why not call Charter at 1-888-438-2427 and ask them?

Sen. Linda Runbeck, a dues-paying member of ALEC, a corporate funded pressure group that advocates for legislation advantageous to ALEC's corporate sponsors.

Rural Minnesota is facing a full frontal assault on community broadband, courtesy of a state representative so proud of her involvement in a corporate front group, she’s actually a dues-paying member.

State Sen. Linda Runbeck (R-Circle Pines) introduced HF 2695, a bill to prohibit publicly-owned broadband systems:

A bill for an act relating to telecommunications; prohibiting publicly owned broadband systems; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 237.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. [237.201] PUBLICLY OWNED BROADBAND SYSTEM; PROHIBITION.

(a) Notwithstanding section 475.58, subdivision 1, other state law, county ordinance, or any authority granted in a home rule charter, a city or a county may not use tax revenues raised within its jurisdiction or issue debt to construct, acquire, own, or operate, in whole or in part, a system to deliver broadband service.

(b) Notwithstanding sections 123A.21, 123B.61 to 123B.63, 125B.26, and 475.58, subdivision 1, no school district or service cooperative may use state revenues, tax revenues raised within its jurisdiction, or issue debt to construct, acquire, own, or operate, in whole or in part, a system to deliver broadband service.

(c) For the purposes of this section, “broadband service” means a service that allows subscribers to access information from the Internet by means of a physical, terrestrial, non-mobile, or fixed wireless technology.

(d) This section applies to a system to deliver broadband service whose construction begins after the effective date of this section, but does not apply to:

1. the city of Minneapolis, St. Paul, or Duluth; or
2. the maintenance or repair of a system delivering broadband service whose initial construction began before the effective date of this section, provided that the geographical area in which the system delivers broadband service is not expanded as a result of the maintenance or repair.

EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment.

The public broadband option delivers the most bang for the buck, which is why some providers want to see it banned.

Runbeck is a dues-paying member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a secretive corporate front group that lobbies lawmakers to introduce business-friendly legislation, often on the state level.  Runbeck told the Minnesota Independent via email that she paid $100 for a two-year membership in the organization, and says she’s never used ALEC’s “model legislation,” bills that are sometimes written by corporate members of the group and that pop up in state capitols across the country.

But Runbeck’s sudden interest in banning community broadband coincides with similar efforts in states like Georgia and South Carolina backed by big cable and phone companies.  Runbeck’s bill would directly target rural Minnesota, where broadband is the least robust, while exempting Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth (and incumbent phone and cable companies) from the bill’s provisions.  Runbeck’s bill also constrains existing public broadband services from expanding, an important matter for providers still rolling out service to additional neighborhoods in their communities.

Community broadband is already hampered in Minnesota by laws that make such projects difficult to approve and build.  When projects do break ground, incumbent providers do everything possible to throw up roadblocks to delay or abort the progress being made.  In Monticello, TDS Telecom filed nuisance suits against that city’s public broadband network before finally deciding to upgrade service themselves.  Mediacom and Charter, two major Minnesota cable operators, have objected to public broadband projects that don’t even serve communities they’ve wired.

When the networks are in operation, providers like Charter work to undercut them by selling service at prices so low, they’re predatory.  But when competitors are driven out, prices rise… quickly.

 Runbeck’s $100 membership in ALEC is paying dividends, if you are a big incumbent cable or phone company. Consumers will pay much more than that if broadband competition is curtailed.

Consumers and community leaders across Georgia can now rest a little easier knowing AT&T’s plans to throw up roadblocks against community broadband have gone awry.  SB313, a custom-written corporate welfare bill designed to protect cable and phone companies from competition, has reportedly been turned into a “study bill” — a graceful way to kill bad legislation without hurting too many feelings.

It wasn’t just the fact incumbent phone and cable companies wanted to stop community broadband projects from wiring communities they’ve ignored for years.  It wasn’t even the absurdity of the bill defining Georgia’s “broadband” speeds at just 200kbps (later ‘generously’ amended and increased to 758kbps).  This bill died because of consumer and community outrage — local officials working hand in hand with woefully under-served Georgians asking their elected officials why they seemed to care more about AT&T’s interests than those of the people who elected them to office.

Specious political arguments about “government/taxpayer involvement in broadband” and a sudden blitz of campaign contributions for the bill’s backers simply couldn’t overcome the reality of broadband-challenged rural Georgia.

According to the National Broadband Map, Georgia ranks 20th in the nation for broadband access. According to the forward of a report by Rich Calhoun, Program Director of the Georgia Technology Initiative, “As I traveled through the state to talk with leaders in municipalities, counties and community anchor institutions, I found that many places throughout Georgia indicated that they did not have access to affordable or sufficient broadband services. Telecommunications firms who have made significant investments in Georgia indicated that in some areas of the state the return on investment would not qualify for further investment at the present time.”

As Stop the Cap! exposed to our readers, AT&T isn’t interested in serving the broadband needs of rural Georgia and doesn’t want anyone else serving them either.

We exposed the well-financed propaganda campaign that maligned some of Georgia’s past experiences with municipal broadband, many projects derailed not by government ‘failure’ but through political interference and the private sector.  We showed readers how to follow the money to see the connection between campaign contributions and the sudden interest in effectively banning community broadband.  We exposed the fact this is a coordinated, nationwide effort by a corporate backed lobbying group (ALEC) that pays to wine and dine lawmakers and then sell them on a catalog of bills ghost-written by some of the nation’s largest telecommunications companies.  Legislation that hamstrings competition and protects monopoly profits, while always conveniently exempting incumbent providers from the terms of the bills they effectively wrote.

But the real victory goes to readers who picked up the phone or sent e-mail letting Georgia legislators know you were watching them and paying attention to this obvious corporate welfare bill.  You made it more expensive for lawmakers to vote with AT&T, despite their campaign contributions, than to vote for -your- interests.  The next election is never too far away.

Why We Fight: These are the minimum speeds needed by some of Georgia's most important institutions. While state lawmakers have 100Mbps access in Atlanta, some are content to define 758kbps "broadband" as just fine for the rest of the state.

We also applaud the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.  Their Community Broadband Networks project was able to educate, coordinate, and rally local governments who may not have been aware their broadband future was about to be indefinitely held ransom by AT&T and Comcast.

We never underestimate AT&T’s power and money.  But they continue to underestimate us and the communities they are supposed to be serving.

Common sense prevailed in Georgia.  South Carolina may be a different story.  Their own anti-broadband measure is still alive and kicking.  We’ll be holding additional “calls to action” on this bad bill shortly.

Stay involved in the fight.  The better broadband you protect may be your own.

While incumbent phone and cable operators often try to directly block community broadband projects, sometimes politics and special insider interests also get in the way.  One of our loyal readers shared a piece with us published in Fierce Telecom that outlines the trouble spots:

Gov. Bobby Jindal Blows It for Louisiana; Wife’s Foundation Heavily Supported By AT&T

Jindal's wife's charity is a recipient of AT&T money.

The U.S. Dept. of Commerce awarded $80.5 million to help drain Louisiana’s broadband swamp with a new statewide fiber network linking the most rural and poor areas of the state, including schools, libraries, hospitals, and universities.  Users could have obtained service from 10Mbps-1Gbps, but not if Jindal had his way.  He preferred AT&T (and the state’s cable operators) handle everything the same way they have traditionally handled telecommunications in the state — service in big cities and next to nothing everywhere else.  In addition to directly supporting the governor, AT&T contributes substantially to a charitable foundation founded by Jindal’s wife.

Jindal never openly blocked the project.  Instead, his administration “dithered and bickered” over the fiber network and ran the clock out.  Last October, the Commerce Department revoked the grant, leaving Louisiana’s Broadband Alliance with little more than a plan they’ll never be able to implement as long as Jindal occupies the governor’s office.  Stop the Cap! covered the mess back in November.

Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell:

“We want to know what the heck happened; we’re the only ones in the country that dropped the ball,” Campbell said. “I meet with people in every parish, and the number one priority by far is high-speed Internet, and how do you lose $80 million coming from the federal government to do that. How do you drop the ball, and if they did drop the ball was it because someone whispered in their ears, ‘it’s going interfere with big companies?’”

AT&T-Backed Astroturf Operation Scandalizes the Mayor’s Office and Ruins A High Tech Training Program

Marks

As Stop the Cap! wrote last fall, a scandal involving AT&T and the mayor of the state capital of Florida ultimately cost the city of Tallahassee a $1.6 million dollar federal broadband grant to expand Internet access to the urban poor and train disadvantaged citizens to navigate the online world.

Mayor John Marks never bothered to inform the city he had a direct conflict of interest with the group he strongly advocated as a participant in the grant project. The Alliance for Digital Equality (ADE) is little more than an AT&T astroturf effort — a front group that did almost nothing to bring Internet access to anyone. Mayor Marks was a paid adviser.

After the media got involved, the mayor’s office hoped the whole project would just go away. And it did, along with the $1.6 million.

Wisconsin Republicans <Heart> AT&T, Even When It Means Forfeiting $23 Million for Better Broadband

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is a close friend of AT&T.  So close, when the phone company was threatened with the loss of revenue earned from the institutional broadband network it leases to the state, Walker and his Republican colleagues intervened, literally turning away $23 million in government stimulus funding.  Walker alone has accepted more than $20,000 in campaign contributions from AT&T.  Stop the Cap! covered this story in detail in February 2011.

Governor Walker (R-AT&T)

The decision to return the money had a direct impact on 380 Wisconsin communities, 385 libraries, 82 schools, and countless public safety offices across the state.  Namely, being stuck with AT&T’s outdated and expensive network the state leases in successive five year contracts.  Since broadband stimulus funding requires the construction of networks designed to last 20 years, not five, Walker’s insistence on sticking with AT&T made the stimulus funding off-limits.  But what are friends for?

AT&T has historically had no trouble getting its phone calls returned by Republican state lawmakers, who have cheered most of AT&T’s proposed legislation through the state legislature.  Today, Wisconsin takes a “hands off” approach with the state’s cable and phone companies, passed a statewide franchising bill that stripped oversight away from local communities, and AT&T’s landline network faces little scrutiny in the state, especially in rural communities.

The state university is now attempting to bypass Walker with its own $37 million project, but it will never serve Wisconsin consumers.  The institutional network will target schools, hospitals and first responders.

As Fierce Telecom notes, other communities could face the loss of their stimulus funding if they do not get busy building the projects they promised.  The Rural Utilities Service, part of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, has put several projects on notice they could forfeit broadband stimulus funding if they fail to meet project deadlines.

Not a problem

Who knew America’s largest cable and phone companies were in the broadband shortage business?

Broadband evangelist Craig Settles has been as outraged about this year’s crop of anti-broadband legislation as we have here at Stop the Cap!

He wrote about the implications of allowing state laws to be changed in favor of the big cable and phone companies in a piece published by GigaOM that details where these anti-community Internet bills are coming from:

This push is brought to you by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group of corporate lobbyists who ghostwrite state bills behind closed doors that their pocket legislators then push on the floor. This “model” of anti-muni broadband legislation contains wording that is replicated in these latest bills and newspaper op-eds that attack community broadband.

Many of the nation’s largest phone and cable companies funnel funds into ALEC, and even sponsor wine-and-dine trips for state legislators and their families as part of a comprehensive effort to get their foot (and later proposed legislation) in the door.

Download this archive of ALEC-written and sponsored state legislation/policies affecting telecommunications and IT.  (16mb .zip file)

Few state legislators fully realize the implications of some of these measures, which can hamstring their state’s broadband networks into “good enough for you” broadband, as determined by Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, and others.

ALEC’s dog-and-pony show opens with its corporate backers enhancing their campaign contributions to legislators likely to support their agenda.  ALEC’s lobbyists can then provide “boilerplate” templates for legislation that can be slightly modified and introduced at the state level for consideration.

With a significant increase in campaign contributions targeting friendly legislators, community broadband suddenly becomes a hot topic at the statehouse.

Legislators do not work alone to pass these measures.  As we’ve seen in other states, industry-backed lobbying firms deliver a comprehensive set of support services for the campaign to stop community broadband competition:

1. Talking points for legislators and others opposed to municipal Internet;
2. Professionally produced mailers that can be distributed to every home in a community bashing community networks;
3. Sample letters to the editor intended for local newspapers and easy-to-send letters to legislators asking them to support anti-broadband legislation;
4. Help from seemingly “independent” outside groups that criticize such networks, without disclosing their funding comes, in part or whole, from the cable or phone company.

Settles

Being hoodwinked by the companies that want these kinds of bills passed leave your community’s broadband needs entirely in the hands of providers that have performed so poorly in some cities, local governments have decided they have to provide the service themselves.  Settles illustrates the obvious:

This isn’t about unfair competition by local government. When Wilson’s 12-person IT department can plan, build and manage a network that can deliver speeds (up to a gig) 20 times faster than the best Time Warner Cable offers, that’s competing with superior technology. When Comcast customers switch to Chattanooga’s gig network because of their public utility’s better customer service, that’s competent competition. When tiny Reedsburg, Wis. refuses to compete against the large cable company on price, but beats competitors by offering greater value such as a better selection of Internet services, they compete based on local credibility.

So U.S. communities have to ask themselves, are they going to stay stuck on the train or will they be zipping along at warp speed?

Providers and their industry friends will always argue that you don’t need gigabit broadband speed — what you get from your cable or phone company today is “fast enough.”  Some go as far as to argue current providers are equipped to deliver whatever service customers need, but the demand “just is not there.”

Big Problem.

But as we argued on GigaOM ourselves, the nation’s largest telecom companies have already proven they apparently cannot meet the demand that exists today.  That is because an increasing number of them have started to slap arbitrary usage caps and other limits on their customers’ broadband usage.  Customers don’t want these Internet Overcharging schemes, yet they persist because of what providers effectively admit is a broadband shortage on their networks.

So for a city like Chattanooga, Tenn., which of the following providers should be punished (and potentially even banned) for being in the broadband business:

1. AT&T, which delivers around 6-7Mbps DSL in suburban Chattanooga or up to 24Mbps on its U-verse platform with 150GB/250GB usage limits respectively;
2. Comcast, which delivers up to 50Mbps over cable broadband with a 250GB usage cap;
3. EPB Fiber, which delivers up to 1,000Mbps over fiber optics with no usage cap.

If you are AT&T or Comcast, clearly the provider that must be stopped is #3 — EPB Fiber.  After all, you can’t be in the broadband shortage business when the competitor next door offers a broadband free-for-all made possible from an investment in a superior network that exists to serve customers, not shareholders and investment banks.