AT&T is seeking freedom from regulation, oversight and the right to abandon its landline network with the assistance of Connecticut legislators who modeled a state deregulation measure on recommendations from the corporate-funded, AT&T-backed, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

The legislature’s Energy and Technology Committee voted 20-4 to approve the bill, which would eliminate service and oversight requirements and allow the phone company to raise rates. AT&T has lost most of its landline customers since assuming control of service in Connecticut. Today, only 28 percent of homes in the state choose AT&T for their home phone service. The Office of Consumer Counsel suggests AT&T’s poor performance in the state may have had a lot to do with that, citing the company’s slow job of restoring phone service after a series of storms affected the state.

AT&T wants the power to drop telephone service altogether in areas considered unprofitable to repair or continue to serve. A trio of company-backed bills in the state legislature would hand them that right.

House Bills 6401, 6402 and Senate Bill 888 are all measures that would deregulate the phone company and open public lands for placing cell towers, limit regulator oversight and cut reporting requirements that let regulators track telephone rates.

None of the measures have been introduced on a whim, contend critics. The Connecticut Citizen Action Group released a report showing links between corporate-written model bills produced by ALEC and the current legislation before the Connecticut General Assembly.

HB 6401: House Bill 6401 strips the Public Utilities Review Authority (PURA) of their ability to regulate Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) telephone services. An emerging market, this bill creates deregulation for the sake of deregulation.

HB 6402: House Bill 6402 eliminates the right of regulators to oversee AT&T to make sure it has some form of accountability to the public. The section on annual audits has been gutted, making it impossible to protect the public from rate-fixing. More importantly, it includes a provision to allow AT&T to end service to any customer it wants upon 30 days’ written notice.

SB 888: Senate Bill 888 has an ALEC-drafted provision that allows cell phone towers to be built on public lands on a presumption that the will of telecommunications companies is in the interest of the public good.

“If AT&T is allowed to drop service in unprofitable areas at their sole discretion, if they’re allowed to let service outages drag on for weeks with no consequences, if they’re allowed to jack up rates — of course they will,” Daniel Ravizza of Connecticut Citizen Action Group said in a statement. “‘Trust me’ is not a good enough guarantee for Connecticut consumers.”

ALEC and AT&T’s Legislative Chorus

• Rep. Debra Lee Hovey of Monroe and Newtown and Sen. Kevin Witkos of Simsbury, Avon, and Torrington serve as ALEC’s chair people for the state;
• Rep. John Piscopo is currently serving as ALEC’s National Chair;
• Rep. Lonnie Reed (D-Branford), chairwoman of the state legislature’s Energy and Technology Committee defended the measures saying they would give certainty to the telecom industry which would attract more investment in broadband and phone services. But she admitted once consumers learned of the proposed bills, things got heated quickly. “Some of this stuff is radioactive,” she told The Hartford Courant. “It’s hard even if you change the language to convince people otherwise;”
• “The arguments by opponents of HB 6402 have been shown to be without merit so now they’re resorting to desperate measures and innuendo,” said AT&T spokesman Chuck Coursey. “The fact is modernizing our telecom rules this year will help encourage private investment, job growth and consumer choice at a time when Connecticut needs it most;”
• John Emra is AT&T’s chief lobbyist in Connecticut. Emra was behind last year’s attempts to advance similar deregulation. Emra serves as the Executive Director of External Affairs for AT&T and as the chair of ALEC Connecticut.

“This is part of a national strategy by ALEC to advance a pro-corporate agenda at the expense of consumers,” James Browning, regional director of state operations for Common Cause, said in a statement. “We’ve seen the destructive impact these measures have had in other states. AT&T should not be allowed to get away with it here in Connecticut.”

The New Haven Register notes Browning said the three bills — SB888, HB6401 and HB6402 — closely resemble model legislation ALEC’s legislative template used in 20 other states where telecommunications regulatory overhaul has occurred. In 17 of those 20 states, telecommunications rates have increase, and in some cases, the cost of service has doubled.

Connecticut consumers can share their feelings about the bills through e-mail with their elected officials.

Cable One has announced it will invest $60 million in network upgrades across 42 cable systems in its mostly rural footprint to enhance reliability and deliver faster Internet service.

The cable operator, owned by the Washington Post, has been criticized for outdated infrastructure and poor service, particularly in Mississippi.

”We’re committed to delivering the best possible experience to our customers,” said Cable One CEO Tom Might. “We’re confident that this investment will ensure that our customers will receive superior service in the speed, reliability, and the overall performance of our services.”

The two-year upgrade project aims to replace amplifiers, split broadband customers who share a backbone connection into smaller groups, replace aging coaxial cable and improve the cable company’s fiber optic backbone.

The upgrade might allow the company to consider relaxing its draconian usage cap and speed throttle policies, which force customers to choose between an uncapped 5Mbps connection (with a speed throttle for those using more than 3GB per day) or a 50/2Mbps connection with caps as low as 50GB per month (overlimit fees: $0.50-1.00/each extra gigabyte.)

Cable One now offers two levels of Internet service: an uncapped 5Mbps plan for $50 a month and a 50/2Mbps plan for $50 a month with a 50-100GB monthly usage cap, depending on the package bundle. Usage is measured between 8am-12 midnight. Users on the uncapped 5Mbps plan are subject to speed throttling if they exceed 3GB of usage per day.

This looks good enough for us, says the American Cable Association

A lobbying group for small cable operators says the nation’s current broadband availability maps are flawed, but good enough for the FCC to rely on to veto funding for rural broadband projects that might compete with some of their members.

The American Cable Association submitted its comments to the FCC as part of discussions about the next phase of broadband subsidy funding from the Connect America Fund.

Most current broadband maps rely heavily on unverified data voluntarily submitted by existing broadband providers or by third-party groups that are funded or controlled by some of the nation’s largest phone companies. Both have a vested interest painting an optimistic map of solid broadband coverage as a tool in the ongoing public policy fight pitting broadband advocates clamoring for better access and speed against the cable and phone companies that offer the service.

ACA members are concerned that the government might subsidize new broadband start-ups that could eventually compete against existing cable companies. The group calls such “overbuilders” redundant and wasteful.

“The FCC should protect the public by ensuring that broadband deployment subsidies do not result in significant government-supported overbuilding, which would cause real harm to cable operators that have invested only private capital,” ACA President and CEO Matthew M. Polka said. “It would also mean that locations across the country that need support will not receive broadband because the program would not have additional funding.”

Don’t Surprise Us With Doubling the Minimum Speed Requirement When We Thought 3Mbps Service Was Good Enough

ACA member cable operators assumed they would be safe from the government-funded overbuilders if they provided at least 3Mbps broadband, but now the FCC is exploring doubling the minimum speed to 6Mbps, which threatens a number of smaller cable operators that have avoided upgrades to increase speeds.

Polka

“This is a huge burden on a smaller operator.  These operators assumed when they filed data through the State Broadband Initiatives (SBIs) in June, 2012, providing service with speeds of at least 3 Mbps/768 kbps service was enough to protect them,” Polka said.

The ACA also wants the agency to initially reject applicants for broadband funding if current broadband map data shows another provider operating in the area, even if that provider’s volunteered service coverage maps are exaggerated.

“The Commission should presume the National Broadband Map (“NBM”) is accurate and rely upon it in identifying eligible areas for Phase II support, even though it is a work in progress and contains inaccuracies. The reasons for this conclusion are many.

First, the NBM is the most accurate and most granular representation of national broadband deployment that currently exists. Second, the federal government has already made a significant investment in the NBM, is seeking to further perfect its data, and clearly intends for it to be a key tool upon which to base its policies.

The group also warned that if the FCC does not rely on its inaccurate map, providers might be hesitant to voluntarily supply more coverage data in the future.

Prove That We Don’t Already Provide Service If Your Broadband Operation Wants Funding

The ACA’s comments also urge the FCC to require would-be new broadband providers to have the burden of proof that a cable operator does not already offer service in an area before they can qualify for Connect America funding. How? By calling the cable company pretending to be a new customer and seeing if they can schedule an installation at each particular home a provider plans to serve.

“In the normal course of business to attract customers, small cable operators post their service areas and broadband service offerings,” writes the ACA. “All a [new entrant] needs to do is survey the operator’s website and advertisements and, if necessary, call customer service. In contrast, it would be a much greater hardship for small cable operators, who lack regulatory staff and have already made the effort to be designated on the [map], to bear the initial burden and start from the beginning to submit documents to ensure they are on the map.”

In short, the ACA wants the FCC to assume their cable operator members cover an area until proven otherwise.

“It would be far less burdensome for the [new entrant] to challenge [allegedly inaccurate coverage map data] first, in which instance only those operators who are challenged would need to reaffirm their presence,” writes the ACA.

Because We Are Cable Operators Running the “Robust DOCSIS Platform,” It Means We Already Provide Great Service

The ACA also called on the FCC to give cable operators a free pass from demonstrating they can meet the Commission’s quality of service standards regarding latency and the responsiveness of the customer’s broadband connection.

“For cable operators, the Commission should presume that because they employ the robust DOCSIS platform they meet the latency requirement,” the ACA wrote.

Committing to study and oversee the quality of cable broadband is also a really bad idea according to the cable lobbying group.

“Further exploration of a cable system’s latency performance without clear and convincing evidence to the contrary would be unproductive for the Commission in carrying out its public interest mandate and for cable operators,” the ACA argued.

Don’t Tell Us What We Can Charge and What Usage Limits We Can Impose; That Should Be Reserved for Wall Street and Our Investors

The ACA is also concerned that the FCC might consider the price consumers pay for rural broadband and what usage limits rural cable operators impose when deciding whether it is time to help fund the launch of a competing provider.

Captive rural customers can pay the same or higher prices for much slower broadband service than urban Americans pay, but the ACA advocates the FCC look the other way and avoid making any such comparisons:

“[…] There are many reasons for the Commission to refrain from establishing (even minimal) comparable rates and terms of service for the provision of broadband service by cable operators to be deemed as “serving” an area.

First, the Commission should recognize that cable operators as a rule build their networks and provide broadband service with no government support, only using private capital and based on a business case enabling them to receive a market return on that investment.

Any effort by the government to impose price or usage allowances – that is regulate the service – has great potential to lower that return and slow rural broadband deployment. With universal service funding limited, this would lessen the ability for the Commission to achieve its objective of bringing broadband to unserved areas.

Further, it would be almost impossible to establish a reasonably comparable rate and terms of service because, at least for cable operators, these change so often and are usually offered in bundles with other services. Most cable customers subscribe to either or both a package of services and some sort of promotional offering. Further, bundles are far from homogeneous and operators change frequently. All of this makes it virtually impossible to have valid urban-rural comparisons.

[…] Finally, if it were to establish a comparable rate and terms of service for broadband, the Commission would be acting in an area where it clearly lacks authority.

[flv width=”528″ height=”318″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/MSNBC A Mom and Pop Cable Company by OPEN Forum 3-30-13.flv[/flv]

ACA past chairman Ben Hooks, CEO of Buford Media and operator of cable systems under the Alliance Communications brand, appeared on MSNBC to rail against federal cable broadband regulations and oversight requirements. Hooks operates several small cable systems in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama that are throwbacks to a much earlier era of cable. Many offer just a few dozen channels and deliver no broadband or cable phone service.

Hooks is upset because the federal government wants to help fund new start-up broadband providers in his backyard. He thinks this is unfair, because his cable operations, run with largely refurbished, cast-off cable equipment discarded years ago by larger cable operators, is funded with private capital and may have to compete with new providers partly funded by the Connect America Fund. In the middle of the dispute are rural Americans who cannot get broadband from Alliance Communications and would be prevented from getting it from anyone else if Hooks has his way.  (6 minutes)

West Virginia’s broadband future is up for hot debate in the state legislature as Internet haves and have nots fight over whether the state should spend money to bring broadband to those lacking it or improve service for those that do.

House Bill 2979, a bill to expand the broadband purview of the West Virginia Infrastructure and Jobs Development Council, has turned into one of the most contentious bills before the legislature this term. An amendment to redefine what speeds represent “broadband” and requiring the council to prioritize efforts on unserved areas has sparked the most debate.

Sen. Robert Plymale (D-Cabell) introduced and won support for an amendment that would discard the current provider-favored standard defining a community as “served” if customers can buy at least 200kbps service. Plymale favors adopting the federal broadband speed standard — 4/1Mbps as the bare minimum. Plymale also wants the state to devote most of its resources to getting broadband to rural areas that do not have the service today.

“If you’re going to compete in this world today, you have to have access,” Plymale told lawmakers. “Access has to be the number one item, and this amendment allows access to be the priority.”

Plymale

But other lawmakers representing constituents in communities that already have broadband, but receive inadequate speed and service, objected to Plymale’s amendment.

Sen. Herb Snyder (D-Jefferson) claims Plymale’s amendment would restrict the council’s ability to manage broadband resources and require it to spend most of its funding on wiring smaller communities at the cost of service upgrades that could reach more people. Approximately 85,000 West Virginians still have no broadband access other than satellite.

“It’s entirely appropriate to use taxpayer dollars to help and assist people to get broadband service and get on the information superhighway rather than upgrading those already on it,” argued Sen. Mitch Carmichael (R-Jackson), who also happens to also be an employee of Frontier Communications.

Much of the state’s broadband infrastructure spending has been devoted to institutional and middle mile networks that consumers and small businesses cannot directly access. Spending on “last mile” infrastructure makes the difference between getting broadband service or being told it is unavailable.

But Sen. Snyder argues satellite broadband already offers access to the entire state, so broadband speed improvements were more important.

“As we speak the entirety of West Virginia is bathed in 5Mbps satellite broadband service,” Snyder said. “So we’re already surpassing that standard in the entire state, unless you’re in a cave where you can’t get the signal.”

Getting the best broadband bang for the buck was a priority for Sen. Clark Barnes (R-Randolph). He wanted to make sure any amendment would not prevent the council from spending money in areas where satellite service was available.

“If we have 10 folks up in Possum Hollow that have no access to broadband, would they receive priority over the thousand people who only have 2Mbps service?” he said.

The answer would seem to be yes under Plymale’s amendment.

The Federal Communications Commission has opened the door for Time Warner Cable to raise basic cable rates in several parts of Ohio and California after ruling the company faces effective competition from Dish Networks and DirecTV.

Under FCC rules cable rates for the broadcast basic tier, which includes local television stations and a handful of basic cable networks, remain regulated by the government until a cable operator can prove at least 50 percent of their service area is covered by a competing provider and 15 percent of its would-be customers are signed up with a competitor.

Cable companies have requested rate deregulation in countless communities as satellite and television service from phone companies penetrates their markets. Once rates are deregulated, cable operators can raise them to whatever price they believe the marketplace will bear.

In several affected communities, Time Warner Cable’s service is so uncompelling, almost half of the households have signed up for satellite service instead.

The communities affected in Ohio:

• City of Bellefontaine
• Howard Township
• Village of Huntsville
• Village of Lakeview
• McArthur Township
• North Bloomfield Township
• Village of Russells Point
• Stokes Township
• Washington Township
• Village of Zanesville

In California:

• Bradford