Home » Rural Broadband » Recent Articles:

FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn Calls North Carolina’s H.129 A “Broadband Barrier”

FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn

Federal Communications Commissioner Mignon Clyburn thinks Time Warner Cable-sponsored legislation to regulate community-owned Internet Service Providers in North Carolina is a barrier to broadband improvement and could create economic harm across the state.

The commissioner, who hails from the Carolinas, today issued a statement expressing serious concerns about H.129, Rep. Marilyn Avila’s (R-Time Warner Cable) bill to hamper community-owned competition for large cable and phone companies in the state.

“I have serious concerns that as the Federal Communications Commission continues to address broadband deployment barriers outlined in the National Broadband Plan, new obstacles are being erected that are directly contrary to the Plan’s recommendations and goals,” Clyburn said.

Clyburn called out the legislation starting with the name of the bill – ‘Level Playing Field/Local Government Competition.’

“[…] Do not let the title fool you. This measure, if enacted, will not only fail to level the playing field; it will discourage municipal governments from addressing deployment in communities where the private sector has failed to meet broadband service needs,” Clyburn said. “In other words, it will be a significant barrier to broadband deployment and may impede local efforts to promote economic development.”

Clyburn noticed such legislation delivers benefits to major telecommunications corporations, but doesn’t deliver any improvement or competition in rural and small sized cities that suffer with low speed DSL, or no broadband service at all.  North Carolina currently ranks 41st out of 50 states in broadband delivery and quality.

Clyburn spent time in North Carolina last year defending community-owned broadband developments, commending them for bringing Internet access to communities either without service, or woefully underserved.

H.129 has passed the House of Representatives in the North Carolina legislature and is now pending in the Senate.

Read the entire statement here.

House Republicans Sell Out North Carolina’s Broadband Future to Big Telecom

North Carolina: The home of the House-sanctioned broadband slow lane.

Not a single Republican member of the North Carolina House of Representatives stood with consumers yesterday as the cable industry’s custom-written anti-community-broadband bill — H.129 — passed the House in a lopsided 81-37 vote. Fifteen Democrats joined them, some after it was apparent the bill would enjoy lockstep support from their Republican colleagues.  Only three dozen Democrats were willing to choose the interests of their constituents over the interests (and campaign contributions) from Time Warner Cable, AT&T, and CenturyLink.

Rep. Bill Faison (D-Orange) told WRAL-TV voters need to be aware H.129 was Time Warner’s custom-written bill imposing harsh terms and conditions on community broadband networks, while exempting big cable and phone companies.

“Where’s the bill to govern Time Warner?” Faison asked.

Faison predicted the bill will make it next to impossible for any future community broadband effort to deliver service, even in areas where nobody else has or will.

In the communities of Mooresville and Davidson, House Speaker Thom Tillis (R-Cornelius), who represents north Mecklenburg including Davidson and Rep. Grey Mills (R-Mooresville) both voted for the bill, throwing the local community-owned MI-Connection cable system under the bus.  That cable system, acquired from bankrupt Adelphia Cable and rebuilt to modern standards, faced unexpected financial hurdles from the decrepit state the infrastructure was left in when it was sold.  H.129 would limit the system’s ability to reach its entire natural service area in an effort to remain viable, likely banning service for unincorporated Mecklenburg and Iredell counties, and parts of the community of Corelius.

Avila’s statements defending her bill ranged from confusing to the downright absurd — particularly the assertion that high tech businesses will avoid North Carolina if her bill didn’t pass because companies would not want to do business in a state where the local government provided competing broadband service.  That’s a ludicrous notion for a business confronted with 1.5Mbps DSL from CenturyLink.  No high technology business will want to do business in a state that delivers some of the nation’s least adequate broadband service.  With Ms. Avila’s efforts, that fact of life could gain rubber stamp approval from many in the state legislature more interested in protecting the profits of New York-based Time Warner Cable than Wilson, N.C.-based GreenLight.

The bill is headed to the Senate next.  We’ll have a Call to Action up shortly regarding this.

If your member from the House of Representatives is not on the list below, they need to be held accountable for doing the wrong thing for North Carolina broadband.

NC House of Representatives Members Voting For Consumers By Opposing H.129

(Click the name of your member to obtain current contact information, and please send thanks for their vote yesterday.)

 

Party District Member Counties Represented
Dem 58 Alma Adams Guilford
Dem 107 Kelly M. Alexander, Jr. Mecklenburg
Dem 106 Martha B. Alexander Mecklenburg
Dem 21 Larry M. Bell Sampson, Wayne
Dem 63 Alice L. Bordsen Alamance
Dem 60 Marcus Brandon Guilford
Dem 7 Angela R. Bryant Halifax, Nash
Dem 100 Tricia Ann Cotham Mecklenburg
Dem 50 Bill Faison Caswell, Orange
Dem 24 Jean Farmer-Butterfield Edgecombe, Wilson
Dem 114 Susan C. Fisher Buncombe
Dem 43 Elmer Floyd Cumberland
Dem 33 Rosa U. Gill Wake
Dem 45 Rick Glazier Cumberland
Dem 66 Ken Goodman Montgomery, Richmond
Dem 54 Joe Hackney Chatham, Moore, Orange
Dem 119 R. Phillip Haire Haywood, Jackson, Macon, Swain
Dem 29 Larry D. Hall Durham
Dem 57 Pricey Harrison Guilford
Dem 56 Verla Insko Orange
Dem 39 Darren G. Jackson Wake
Dem 59 Maggie Jeffus Guilford
Dem 115 Patsy Keever Buncombe
Dem 42 Marvin W. Lucas Cumberland
Dem 30 Paul Luebke Durham
Dem 34 Grier Martin Wake
Dem 69 Frank McGuirt [ Appointed 03/07/2011 ] Anson, Union
Dem 9 Marian N. McLawhorn Pitt
Dem 5 Annie W. Mobley Bertie, Gates, Hertford, Perquimans
Dem 44 Diane Parfitt Cumberland
Dem 72 Earline W. Parmon Forsyth
Dem 118 Ray Rapp Haywood, Madison, Yancey
Dem 38 Deborah K. Ross Wake
Dem 23 Joe P. Tolson Edgecombe, Wilson
Dem 35 Jennifer Weiss Wake
Dem 55 W. A. (Winkie) Wilkins Durham, Person
Dem 71 Larry Womble Forsyth

 

North Carolina Call to Action: Fight to Protect Better Broadband!

Q.  What moves faster than North Carolina’s cable and DSL service?

A.  Legislation to make sure the state’s telecom companies can continue to provide slow, expensive, and hit or miss service for years to come.

Big Telecom money has greased the process as H.129, the Telecom Monopoly Preservation and Protection Act is rushed to the House floor before North Carolina consumers know what is happening.

Residents have until Monday evening at 7pm to make their feelings known on this anti-consumer nightmare for cities and small towns:

  • H.129 will shut down the digital economies of small cities like Wilson and Salisbury just as they are primed to sell themselves as a great home for high-tech, high-paying jobs.
  • H.129 guarantees rural North Carolina will resemble the 21st century equivalent of Oliver Twist — begging for whatever limited broadband the state’s phone companies refuse to deliver.

The appalling truth is that the companies pushing for this bill only want broadband service on their watch, under their control, with their high prices and virtually no competition or choice.  And now AT&T is prepared to limit your broadband usage as well, establishing usage caps and overcharging customers who exceed them.

Do you want your broadband choices limited to these phone and cable companies?  Considering North Carolina broadband is ranked 41st out of the 50 states, it’s clear they don’t consider the state a priority.

But it does not have to be this way.  Where providers drop the ball, communities should have the choice to pick it up and run with it.  That is what Wilson and Salisbury did, and the result is the best broadband service in the state.  That’s a threat Time Warner Cable and CenturyLink can’t afford to ignore, which is why they want these networks stopped at all costs.

Defeating H.129 is critical to the state’s broadband future.  As written, it delivers no new broadband connections, does not promote or provide any competition, or help any individual or community.  It was written by the state’s telecom companies to benefit them, and them alone.  It guarantees you will be stuck paying ever-increasing bills for limited service indefinitely.

Tell House members they must do what is right for the voters, not what is right for the cable and phone companies.  Tell them to VOTE NO ON H.129.  The broadband saved may be your own.

You can find your individual representative and their contact information below the jump.  Please get writing and calling today!

… Continue Reading

An Open Letter to Content Producers: Netflix, Hulu, Valve, Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo

Dear Content Producer:

Your money train is leaving the station.

Customers are about to start making some very important choices about what they do on the Internet. AT&T announced this month they are going to start capping their DSL customers at 150GB per month and their fiber-to-the-neighborhood U-verse customers at 250GB per month, with overlimit fees for those who exceed them.

Comcast already has a 250GB per month cap, currently loosely enforced. Time Warner Cable has strongly advocated usage-based billing for years. Other telecommunications companies are all either supporting or considering these Internet Overcharging schemes for one reason, and one reason only:

It makes them absolute boatloads of cash.

Canada already lives with this reality. So does Australia, although they’re backing away from it. South Korea? Japan? Europe? Nope. Flat-rate Internet service is the norm there.  In Europe, mobile customers are demanding the removal of bandwidth caps American providers are still trying to attach to customers’ bills.

So how does this impact you? 250GB a month is a lot, and you’ll be fine? Sure. For now.

But what happens when Sony introduces the Playstation 4, or Microsoft announces the Xbox Next? Games aren’t exactly going to get smaller, and online distribution is far and away the future of games and software in general. Right now a game for the 360 or PS3 can be as large as 20GB. PC game enthusiasts routinely cope with 10-12GB game upgrades, and woe be unto you if you have to reinstall your Steam library and have 20-30 (or more) games to restore.

Internet Overcharging schemes make providers, and the lobbyists who do their bidding, very wealthy.

For the “Massively Multiplayer Online” game universe, incremental software updates and upgrades often come through BitTorrent, which exposes users to peer-to-peer traffic well beyond the size of the update itself.  In fact, as games increasingly turn towards Cloud storage and distribution, the traffic adds up.

For online video companies, your very business model could be at risk.  Netflix? Hulu? People are no longer satisfied with grainy, compressed video.  They want HD content, and you’ve answered the call.  But as consumers increasingly face 8-10GB per movie (at 720p, 15GB+ for 1080p), the usage racked up is going to blow past all of these caps.

Who knows what happens in the next five years, or ten.  Considering Canada, where a similar duopoly of broadband providers have lowered usage allowances, do you really expect anything different down here?  The only thing likely to be raised is the monthly price, which remains higher here than in most places around the world.

Google has the right idea with their experimental 1Gbps fiber-to-the-home network. The problem is, that’s only going to serve one (or perhaps a few) communities in the U.S.  The rest of the country will have to survive with ‘Ultra’ cable broadband packages serving up 10-20Mbps service or DSL that barely manages 6Mbps.  If you don’t live in an urban area, tough luck.  You will be lucky to get 3Mbps service.

Broadband service upgrades come painfully slow in the absence of robust competition.  Time Warner Cable and other providers are slowly starting to roll out DOCSIS 3, which allows speeds up to 100Mbps, assuming the average consumer can afford the Cadillac price that comes with it.  Many phone companies continue to bet the farm on their DSL service, which can also be expensive when it’s the only broadband service in town.

Against this backdrop, the rest of the world marches on, and beyond, North America.

South Korea? They’re promising national speeds of 1Gbps by 2013 — for $27 a month!

How has this happened?  Where have we gone wrong?

For starters, the broadband providers have very powerful lobbyists — quite a few of which are ex-legislators. Together, they wage their public policy battles on both the state and federal level, often writing the bills a compliant legislator is willing to introduce as their own.

Washington regulators take a "see no evil, hear no evil" approach to regulating super-sized corporations who can cause them trouble.

The Federal Communications Commission has adopted a “see no evil, hear no evil” approach to broadband, capitulating when a chairman occasionally strays too far into the industry minefield laid to protect their business agenda.  As a result, the agency is a toothless dog.  It recently adopted a “Net Neutrality” policy all but written by Verizon, who ironically is now spending money to fight the rules they helped write.  As a backup, virtually every Republican and several Democrats have teamed up to pass a Resolution of Disapproval seeking to overturn the weak-kneed Net Neutrality rules the FCC adopted.  Lobbyists are well paid to cover every contingency.

Consumers — your customers — can’t do much about this beyond writing their members of Congress and complaining.  But because they did not enclose a check or money order made payable to the respective politician’s campaign fund, the result will be a form letter response weeks, if not months later… after the corporate agenda is enacted into law.

We just cannot fight this battle all by ourselves.  Recognizing the realities of today’s politics, we need your help to fight money and power with money and power.

The video game industry earns billions yearly. You have already faced battles in Washington, so you know how this works. You can fight for your interests while protecting ours by ensuring broadband service is cheap, plentiful, and unlimited. The same story applies to other content producers, such as online video, software, and any other company that wants to move to online distribution to power their business. You cannot succeed if customers are too afraid of using your service because of a bandwidth cap.

The remarkable thing is that countries many Americans cannot find on a map are now beating the United States with better and cheaper broadband while we hand over our digital economic future to a duopoly. That will not buy us better service, just bigger bills for “fast enough for you” Internet access.

So that’s it. Act now. Act strongly. If you cannot stand up for your customers, you may not have any.

Signed: A gamer. A movie watcher. A music listener. An enjoyer of entertainment. A lover of the Internet.

Broadband consumer and reader Jason Ballew penned this guest editorial, with some editing and additions from Stop the Cap! editor Phillip M. Dampier.

Travesty: North Carolina’s Telecom Companies Oppose 4Mbps Broadband Service in Rural Areas

Despite today's setback, North Carolina's broadband hero is Rep. Bill Faison, who stood up for rural broadband.

In the North Carolina legislature’s Finance Committee, a one week timeout “to hear views from the public” actually means giving breathing room for cable and phone lobbyists to strip away surprise amendments not to their liking.  This morning, in a catastrophe for consumers, the state’s largest phone and cable companies got legislators to wipe out a provision that would have helped guarantee rural North Carolina at least 4Mbps broadband service, either from existing providers or new ones that develop in their absence.

During debate of H.129, the anti-Community Broadband bill, North Carolina consumer interests were kept out of sight and mind as lobbyists worked their magic to get rid of Rep. Bill Faison’s (D-Caswell, Orange) amendment that would set the state’s minimum acceptable definition of broadband at 4Mbps with a 1Mbps upload speed.  With the help of several flip-flopping representatives, they got their wish.

Faison’s amendment was designed to open the door to someone — anyone — to bring broadband into rural areas of the state.  While Time Warner Cable, AT&T, and CenturyLink dawdle, large numbers of rural residents simply go without any broadband service.  Faison’s amendment was simple and reasonable — if at least half of an area is not served with 4/1Mbps service, provisions should be made to allow local communities, if they wish, to establish service themselves to get the job done.

Last week, when Faison’s amendment appeared to be headed for incorporation into the bill, industry lobbyists blanched and fled the room, raising vocal objections and demanding a week timeout before a vote was taken.  After winning their reprieve, they managed to get the Republican majority in line to throw rural North Carolina under the bus, uniformly opposing Faison’s amendment.  Two Democrats, one representing the city where Time Warner Cable’s regional division is headquartered, joined them.

Hall of Shame: Rep. Carney does not care about North Carolina's digital divide.

In its place, they substituted a new amendment which defined broadband in the state of North Carolina as any service occasionally capable of achieving 768kbps downstream and 200kbps upstream.  That represents “well-served” among these industry-friendly legislators.

Among the worst offenders that stood out today were Reps. Jeff Collins (R-Nash) and Becky Carney (D-Mecklenburg).  Last week, they were standing with North Carolina consumers.  This week, they are voting for the interests of the cable and phone companies.  Rep. Carney, who lists her occupation as “homemaker”, voted to guarantee North Carolina families years of slow, expensive and erratic broadband service, if available at all.  Collins supported an amendment that says Nash County residents should do just fine with broadband speeds that don’t even manage to break 1Mbps.

The bill next moves to the floor of the House for consideration.

What is missing from this debate is a realization on the part of the legislature cable and phone lobbyists do not want anyone delivering basic broadband service in rural North Carolina unless it comes from them, and to date they have shown no interest in delivering it.

After all the debate, here is a fact no one can ignore.  The only networks in the state capable of delivering world class 100Mbps broadband are two fiber based community-owned networks in Wilson and Salisbury.  The companies that want to see them out of business see 768kbps as more than adequate to define broadband availability in North Carolina.  When members of the Finance Committee agreed, it helps explain how the state has managed to rank 41st in broadband excellence.

It’s time to ask your legislators what side they are on.  Yours or the state’s cable and phone companies.

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

Your Account:

Stop the Cap!