Mehlman

A telecom industry front group acknowledged today American broadband in the last decade has not won any awards for speed or price, but if you just give the industry ten more years of deregulation, there will be more competition than ever to change that.

For the Internet Innovation Alliance’s Bruce Mehlman, the cable and phone companies have done a fine job bringing broadband to Americans, especially considering the industry is only ten years old.  If you leave things the way they are today, the next decade will bring even more competition from phone and cable companies, he promises.

But consumer groups wonder exactly how a duopoly will ever deliver world class service in the next ten years when it has spent the last ten hiking prices on slow speed broadband and now wants to limit or throttle usage.

This afternoon, National Public Radio’s All Things Considered tried to referee the broadband debate, pondering whether America is a world leader in broadband or has just fallen behind Estonia.  Reporter Joel Rose was perplexed to find two widely diverging attitudes about broadband, each with their set of numbers to prove their case.

On one side, consumers and public interest groups like Consumers Union and Free Press who believe deregulation and industry consolidation has created a stagnant broadband duopoly that only innovates how it can get away with charging even higher prices.

On the other, the phone and cable companies, the groups they finance, and their friends on Capitol Hill who believe there isn’t a broadband problem in the United States to begin with and government oversight would ruin a good thing.

Compared with other nations, the United States has continued to see its standing fall in broadband rankings measuring speed, price, adoption rates, and quality.  When East European countries and former Soviet Republics now routinely deliver better broadband service than America’s cable and telephone companies, that story writes itself. Embarrassed industry defenders prefer to confine discussion of America’s broadband success story inside the U.S. borders, discounting comparisons with other countries around the world.

For Rep. Joe “I Apologize to BP” Barton (R-Texas), it’s even more simple than that.  Even questioning the free market is downright silly.

“As everybody knows, if it’s not broke, don’t fix it,” Barton said at a March congressional hearing to discuss broadband matters. “And y’all are trying to fix something that in most cases isn’t broke. Ninety-five percent of America has broadband.”

Industry-financed astroturf and sock puppet groups readily agree, and dismiss industry critics.

Bruce Mehlman, co-chair of the industry-supported Internet Innovation Alliance, which opposes more regulation, acknowledges that the story of broadband in the U.S. is a classic glass-half-full, glass-half-empty predicament. Still, he says he thinks broadband adoption in the U.S. is going pretty well considering broadband has only been available for 10 years.

“For the optimist, you’d say within a decade we’ve seen greater broadband deployment than you saw for cell phones, than for cable TV, than for personal computers,” Mehlman says. “It’s one of the great technology success stories in history.”

Mehlman says Americans don’t need more government intervention to make broadband faster and cheaper. “We haven’t yet and that’s in the first decade,” he says. “In the second decade, the marketplace is only going to be that much more competitive.”

Kelsey

The problems go further than that, however.

Derek Turner, research director for the public interest group Free Press, told NPR broadband rankings tell an important story. “For the providers to try to say that there’s no problem, it’s merely just a smoke screen,” he says.

Providers would prefer to measure their performance against each other instead of comparing themselves with foreign providers now routinely providing better, faster, and cheaper service than what American consumers can find.  They have to, if only because of those pesky international rankings illustrating a wired United States in decline.

Joel Kelsey at Consumers Union tells NPR there is an even bigger question here — what role broadband plays in our lives.

Because 96 percent of Americans can only get broadband from a duopoly — the phone or cable company, the only people truly singing the praises of today’s broadband marketplace are the providers themselves and their shareholders.  Consumers see a bigger problem — high prices, and particularly for rural consumers, slow speeds.

“If you talk to [the] industry,” Kelsey says, “they think of broadband as a private commercial service akin to pay TV or cable TV.”

On the other hand, Kelsey says, “There’s a lot of folks who think it is an essential input into this nation’s economy — an essential infrastructure question.”

National Public Radio reporter Joel Rose dived into the battle over broadband numbers between consumer groups and industry representatives. Is America’s broadband glass half-full or half-empty? (June 28, 2010) (4 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Telstra is Australia's largest telecommunications company. (Photo: Telstra)

It’s not as if the Australian government didn’t warn private broadband providers, notably Telstra.  For the past several years, Australians have endured expensive, slow, heavily usage-limited broadband service that has put the country well behind many other Commonwealth nations.  Australian Communications Minister Stephen Conroy finally warned the nation’s largest telecommunications provider if it didn’t move forward on upgrades and improved service, the government would be forced to step in to protect the national interest.

Instead of improving service, Telstra spent years stonewalling the government and the Australian public, while banking high profits for broadband service.  That’s a familiar story for North Americans, stuck with companies like Bell, Rogers, AT&T, Comcast and Verizon — all of whom seek ultimate control over what kind of service you receive, what you pay for it, and what websites you can and, perhaps down the road, cannot visit without paying a surcharge.

Australia is closing the chapter on this story with a happier outcome for its 22 million citizens.  Perhaps the United States and Canada could learn a thing or two from the folks down under.

Bringing U.S. Oligopoly-Style Management to Australian Broadband: The Sol Trujillo Years — 2005 to 2009

Telstra, a former government monopoly comparable to the American Bell System, was privatized in the late 1990s.  Telstra looked to the United States for a chief executive that had experience navigating that transition.  They found Sol Trujillo working his way up the management ladder at AT&T, finally culminating in chairmanship of former Baby Bell Qwest Communications.  Would Trujillo like to take on the challenge of managing Australia’s largest phone company? Trujillo signed on with as Telstra’s CEO in 2005 promising to modernize the business and to bring American-style innovation to the South Pacific.

Instead, Trujillo established an American-style rapacious oligopoly.

[flv width=”424″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Nine Australia Trujillo War on Unions.flv[/flv]

Channel Nine in Australia reported on Telstra’s sudden interest in union-busting after Sol Trujillo arrived in 2005.  (1 minute)

Sol Trujillo

In his first year at the company, Trujillo started an all-out war to get rid of Telstra’s organized labor, slashing 10,000 jobs to “save the company money” all while boosting his own salary.  What started as $3 million in compensation in 2005 would rise to more than $11 million dollars just four years later, even as the value of Telstra declined by more than $25 billion on his watch.

Trujillo alienated his employees and officials in the Australian government.  Then-Prime Minister John Howard attacked Trujillo’s salary boost as abusive.

“I’m not complaining about the salary I get but I do think the average Australian, who gets paid a lot less than I do … regards that sort of salary as being absolutely unreasonable,” Mr Howard said on Southern Cross radio. “And it doesn’t help the capitalist system, which I believe in very passionately, that some people appear to abuse it.”

Trujillo’s salary was 38 times greater than the highest official in Australia’s government.

The average Australian retiree gets by on $219AUS a week.

Trujillo had to make due with more than $211,000 a week.

[flv width=”424″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Nine Australia Telstra Salary Hike.flv[/flv]

Channel Nine ran this report on the controversy over Sol Trujillo’s compensation package.  That old meme about having to pay high salaries to attract quality talent would have been more convincing had Trujillo’s policies not caused a $25 billion reduction in Telstra’s value.   (2 minutes)

Customers weren’t exactly endeared to spending more of their money on Telstra products and services.  Telstra had already embarked on cost controls for network upgrades, leveraged its monopoly power in many parts of the country with high rates for usage-restricted service, and bungled a critical application to participate in Australia’s National Broadband Network.

Australia’s National Broadband Plan, a roadmap for broadband improvements, set pre-conditions to involve small and medium-sized businesses in network construction.  Trujillo balked, demanding that Telstra — and only Telstra — should have the right to determine what kind of network should be built in the country.  More importantly, unless they exclusively ran it, the company would do everything in its power to block or destroy it.

Internet Overcharging schemes limit enjoyment of broadband usage across Australia. Telstra provides a usage meter estimator that includes all of the useless measurements for e-mail, images, and web browsing. But throw in some movie watching and the gas gauge really starts to spike.

The Sydney Morning Herald business reporter Ian Verrender was stunned:

Telstra has employed a three-step strategy to muscle out any competition.

It can be neatly condensed into three words: Bluster, Belligerence and Obfuscation.  We [just] saw it again in spades.

Telstra has been excluded from one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects announced by a Federal Government in decades: the construction of a national broadband network.

Could it really be that Telstra’s board and management were so incompetent that they could not get past stage one in a tender process of this magnitude?

After all, there were only four main criteria that had to be met. The first was the proposal had to be lodged in English. The second and third had equally low hurdles. Metric measurements – not the old inches, feet and miles – were required and the bid had to be signed. Nothing too difficult there.

But the fourth criterion appeared to stump Telstra. It didn’t include any plan for the inclusion of small business. And so the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, was obliged to exclude Telstra, an announcement that shook 12 per cent from the value of the country’s biggest telecommunications company.

This was no accident on Telstra’s part. It knew it was lodging a non-conforming proposal. Why, you ask?

The answer is simple. Telstra does not want a national broadband network, particularly one that involves anyone else. That includes taxpayers.

And if one has to be built, Telstra will do everything in its power to delay or kill the process. Yesterday marked stage one in a protracted war, ultimately designed to defeat one of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s key election promises.

Trujillo claimed yesterday that Telstra had been unfairly excluded from the process on a technicality. That’s just rubbish.

In recent months, the company, its chairman, Don McGauchie, and Trujillo repeatedly threatened to walk away from the tender process, and lodged the proposal only a few hours before the deadline.

Trujillo’s rhetoric yesterday was laced with the usual mixture of bravado and threats. He compared Australia to North Korea or Cuba. He declared only Telstra was capable of building the type of network required by the Government.

But two lines stand out. First this: “Customers make the choice of who they do business with; regulators and governments and others do not.” And then: “We reserve our rights regarding future action.”

The message is clear. Telstra will launch legal action at every opportunity – and even when there aren’t opportunities.

That time-honored American practice of simply suing your way through any legislative or regulatory roadblocks threatened to come to Australia.

The exclusion of Telstra from such a revolutionary broadband project didn’t sit well with the board or shareholders, and directly led to Trujillo’s ouster in 2009.  By then, he had alienated customers, the government, and just about everyone else.  Perhaps the government would allow a second look at a Telstra broadband application if it was submitted by someone other than Sol Trujillo?  It couldn’t hurt to find out.

[flv width=”424″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Nine Australia Telstra Trujillo Quits 2-26-09.flv[/flv]

Channel Nine covers the ousting of Sol Trujillo, wondering what sort of golden parachute he’d receive on the way out the door.  (3 minutes)

Just weeks after leaving, Trujillo decided to settle scores with Australia, telling reporters that he thought the country was backwards and racist.

[flv width=”424″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Nine Australia Trujillo Calls Australia Racist 3-09.flv[/flv]

Payback time.  Trujillo threw a hissyfit in a BBC interview calling Australia’s lack of laissez-faire regulatory policies backwards, and treatment towards him racist.  (Channel Nine – 1 minute)

The Post-Trujillo Era: More Arrogance and Ruthlessness, But a Communications Minister Outmaneuvers the Telecom Giant — 2009 to Present Day

Telstra spent the summer of 2009 attempting to heal the Trujillo-caused wounds with conciliatory statements in the Australian media.  Telstra’s new chief executive, David Thodey, admitted the company’s customer service record needed improvement.  He distanced himself from some of the more caustic comments from the former CEO, and claimed the company was on-track to be a major participant in improving Australia’s broadband experience.

Conroy

But as the months progressed, Australia’s Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy ultimately concluded he was getting the lip service treatment that Telstra had delivered Australians for years.  Conroy, already suspicious of the company’s control-minded tendencies, quietly began bending the ear of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.  Conroy had watched Telstra’s steadfast refusal to work constructively towards a National Broadband Network (NBN).  By last summer, the company was making proposals for underwhelming broadband expansion.  Fiber optic broadband was unnecessary and expensive, they said.  Besides, the service Telstra was providing was already good enough.

Australians didn’t agree.  Part of the platform that brought the Rudd government to power was the promise of better broadband service in Australia.  Waiting for Telstra to provide it was a futile exercise.

Conroy told Rudd the government should not be setting its broadband policy agenda based on what worked most conveniently for private providers.  If they won’t move, then let’s get them out of the way, Conroy suggested.  Rudd, working for the interests of the Australian people — not just a handful of telecom companies seeking riches with substandard service at monopoly prices, agreed.

After reviewing the proposals submitted to design and construct 21st century broadband service for Australia, Rudd dismissed them all, calling them inadequate.  The government, he announced, would go it alone and build the network itself — delivering a fiber to the home network for 90 percent of Australians on an open network available to any provider that wanted to rent access at wholesale rates.

More importantly, Conroy was not going to allow Telstra to continually block progress on the NBN.  Conroy was not some supine minister willing to compromise away the goal of super-fast affordable broadband.  His critics called him Machiavellian, slashing and burning anything that stood in his way.  But Conroy was steadfast — corporations would never be allowed to dictate broadband terms to the government.  He warned Telstra to cooperate or face the consequences.

Telstra continued to stall and stonewall, and last September, the Rudd government delivered what it promised — a forced break-up of Telstra.  The company was given a choice — either sell back its copper wire landline network to the government or divest itself of satellite TV service Foxtel and lose access to any additional wireless mobile frequencies for Telstra’s cellular service.

The equivalent in the United States would be to declare fiber to the home to be in the national interest, and if AT&T and Verizon didn’t deliver it to nearly every home in their service areas, the government would move in and do it themselves, taking back ownership of the AT&T and Verizon’s infrastructure along the way.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Network 10 Aus Telstra Break-Up 9-15-09.flv[/flv]

Network Ten covered the announced break up of Telstra by the federal government.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Nine Network Telstra Breakup 9-15-09.flv[/flv]

Channel Nine ran several reports on the announced breakup of Telstra, including an interview with the opposition.  (6 minutes)

Australia Declares Broadband a Utility Service that Private Providers Cannot Control

Monday marked a day in history for Telstra, agreeing to sell back its copper wire landline business (for which it will receive $11 billion in compensation).  In return, Telstra is assured wholesale access to the new fiber broadband network, and can market products and services on it.  It cannot, however, serve as a gatekeeper to keep competitors out nor maintain virtual monopoly service, especially for less suburban and rural customers.

Some telecom analysts believe the deal is actually good news for Telstra, if they’d see beyond their control tendencies.  After all, they say, Telstra gets to rid itself of a legacy copper-wire landline network that is expensive to maintain and serves a dwindling number of consumers, many who have switched to wireless.  They also get to develop and market new high bandwidth applications on a network they are no longer responsible for financing.

It’s a win for the government as well who gets a single, national fiber network built in the public interest, which makes it far easier to recoup the billions in costs to build it.  They’ll even likely make a profit suitable to defray the costs of subsidizing wireless broadband service for Australia’s rural residents, to be served with at least 12Mbps connections.  No cost-recovery fees on customer bills, no usage limitations that restrict innovation, and broadband that serves everyone, not just a handful of corporations that seek to monetize every aspect of it.

Conroy wouldn’t think much of America’s National Broadband Plan, which relies near-exclusively on private providers voluntarily doing the right thing. Conroy stopped putting blind faith in Australia’s large telecommunications companies.  The Obama Administration hasn’t.

We’ve seen millions spent lobbying to permit a handful of providers to control broadband service on their terms.  Few will provide fiber to the home service and many are content leaving rural Americans with dial-up service.  With dreams of Internet Overcharging schemes to manipulate usage to maximize profits even higher, things could get much worse.  What’s right for AT&T isn’t right for us.

For Australia, who has lived under such monopolistic broadband regimes for over a decade, a National Broadband Network without arbitrary usage limits and available to all — rural and urban — is the promised land.  It will leapfrog Australia well ahead of the United States and Canada, with far faster speeds and better prices, all because a government stood up to a corporate provider that preferred to overpay its executives instead of getting the job done right.

Australia had a reality check — broadband is a utility service necessary for every citizen who wants it.  Just as electrification and universal phone service became ubiquitous in the last century, broadband will also join those services in the years ahead as commonplace in nearly every home.

If only the strength and conviction that is fueling Australia’s broadband future could also be found in the United States, where too often what is urgently needed today gets frittered away into “maybe we can have it someday” compromises with big telecom and their lobbyists.  That isn’t good enough.

ABC National Radio interviewed telecom analysts about the implications of today’s deal with Telstra to retire Australia’s copper wire phone network (June 21, 2010) (4 minutes, 17 seconds)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Senator Queen worked hard to try and strip the one year moratorium out of Senator Hoyle's anti-consumer bill

With the League of Municipalities essentially cutting a deal to sit on a municipal broadband study group that includes no actual consumers, voting for big telecom’s favorite bill of the year became a no-brainer.  It was a real shame to see the voting results on S.1209, despite pleas from consumers and some of North Carolina’s most rural representatives demanding to keep the municipal broadband option open.  They understand reality — while a handful of politicians in Raleigh cash big corporate contribution checks from the cable and phone companies, those out in the rural real world live with the results — no broadband.

We don’t need a one year moratorium on municipal broadband.  If the state government wants to study the issue, so be it, but a one year suspension on municipal broadband is a stall technique that big telecom providers are celebrating across the state.

Residents across North Carolina owe Sen. Joe Sam Queen a special thank-you for leading the charge for better broadband for rural residents.  He offered an amendment that would let the study go forward, but stripped out the anti-consumer moratorium.

Mark Binker of the Greensboro News & Record explained what happened next:

During the debate Monday night, Sen. Joe Sam Queen, a Waynesville Democrat, offered an amendment to allow the study to go forward but remove the moratorium.

Sen. David Hoyle, a Dallas Democrat and the Rules Committee chairman, offered a substitute amendment that essentially altered the bill’s language a bit but kept the moratorium around. Hoyle is one of the bill’s primary architects.

“We do not need a moratorium on the expansion of broadband across North Carolina,” Queen said. “This will only pour cold water on a very innovative sector.”

Now for a word on substitute amendment: When a substitute amendment is offered and accepted, it has the effect of wiping out the first amendment, which then can’t be offered again during the debate. It’s a way of doing away with things that the majority really doesn’t want to vote on.

During the past five years, I’ve mostly seen it used in the Senate my Democratic leaders to do away with Republican amendments they view as noxious – typically politically charged measures that could be awkward votes for rank and file members. I can’t recall the last time I saw a Dem on Dem substitute amendment.

I don’t know what, if any, conclusion can be drawn other than Hoyle was going to make darned sure his bill went through as is. Vote for the final measure was 41-7.

When big telecom pays the way, Senator Hoyle knows their needs must be met at all costs, no matter that his transparent shilling for the industry steamrolls over his fellow Democrats.  Besides, with his retirement looming (we’ll be watching to see where he lands next), who cares if his constituents are upset?  Certainly not Hoyle.

Fifteen Senate members stood against Hoyle’s ridiculous moratorium and deserve some recognition as well:

Senator(s): Allran, Atwater, Boseman, Dickson, Dorsett, Foriest, Goss, Jones, Kinnaird, McKissick, Purcell, Queen, Shaw, Snow, and Vaughan

Courtesy of Mark Turner, here is the audio from the Senate floor debate over S.1209 and the arguments for and against a municipal broadband moratorium. (June 7, 2010) (30 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Tomorrow, the fight in the House begins with a call to action to start flooding members of the House Ways and Means/Broadband Connectivity Committee with calls and e-mails.  In the short House session, there are plenty of opportunities for us to derail this anti-consumer gift to the state’s cable and phone companies.  I’ll have a contact list up tomorrow.

Phillip Dampier

S1209 would have sailed through the North Carolina Senate 39-5 this afternoon had it not been for Sen. Joe Sam Queen who objected to the third reading of the bill.  Senator David Rouzer (R-Johnston, Wayne) also changed his vote from “no” to “yes” which would have ultimately left the count at 40 for and 4 against.  After that, the Senate adjourned and will take up the bill once again on Monday.  What a job well done… for the cable and phone companies.

Brian Bowman reports that none of the Wake County senators opposed the bill or asked that the moratorium be removed.

Out of the entire North Carolina Senate, there are just four good guys?:

Senator Joe Sam Queen (Haywood, Yancy, Avery, Madison, McDowell, Mitchell) [email protected]
Senator Steve Goss (D-Alexander, Ashe, Watauga, Wilkes) [email protected]
Senator James Forrester (R-Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln) [email protected]
Senator John Snow (D-Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Jackson, Macon, Swain, Transylvania) [email protected]

Be sure to send all four of these folks your enormous thanks for doing the right thing.  Apparently that is becoming more and more difficult these days.

For those who forgot why this fight matters, here’s a reminder.  Watch it.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Martha Abraham, Mars Hill NC.mp4[/flv]

The people in Mars Hill, N.C. cannot afford to forget.

Now let’s talk reality for a moment.  I’ve been involved in legislative battles on issues regarding telecommunications policy all the way back to the late 1980s when I was fighting for home satellite dish-owner rights.  Back then it was a struggle against big cable, too.  It took several tries, but we eventually won that one.  Along the way, a lot of the same legislative trickery involved in S1209 reminded me of similar experiences back then.  We shouldn’t make the same mistake twice.  Let’s take a look:

The revised S1209 establishes a subcommittee to study municipal broadband funding issues while buying the industry a one year reprieve from any other cities or town going their own way.  The members on this fact-finding endeavor are specifically defined:

• A cable service provider.
• A wireless telecommunications service provider.
• A local exchange provider that is not a wireless telecommunications service provider.
• A local exchange provider that is a wireless telecommunications service provider.
• A city that operates a cable system and an electric power system as a public enterprise.
• A city that operates a cable system as a public enterprise and does not operate an electric power system as a public enterprise.
• A city that is a member of a joint agency established under G.S. 160A-462 for the operation of a cable system as a public enterprise.
• The North Carolina League of Municipalities.

Now, can anyone reading tell me who is -not- on the list?  Have you guessed?

-You- are missing from this list!

Everyone else is in the back room — cable and phone companies, cities, and a lobbying group representing cities.  But not one North Carolina consumer who lives with broadband challenges day in and day out has a place at that table.  What do they know anyway?

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Brooks Townes Weaverville NC.mp4[/flv]

Brooks Townes in Weaverville doesn’t have a seat at the table, either.

How ironic that everyone holding a seat claims their interests coincide with ordinary citizens like you and I.  After all, we’re supposed to be what this fight is all about.  Sometimes, our interests will meet.  Other times, especially when it comes to legislative strategies, they might not.

An Uncomfortable Revelation Caught On An Open Mike

Thanks to WUNC’s Laura Leslie, you can listen yourself as Senator Clodfelter, not realizing his mike was on, tells Senator Blue, “Now I’ll tell you that the … what I call the crazies who circulate around this issue are not going to like this [S1209 revision with a moratorium], but the municipalities are all on board. They negotiated it, they negotiated it so it’s not possible….” Blue asks Clodfelter how long he’s been talking with the groups representing municipalities. Clodfelter’s response: “We’ve been meeting daily — twice daily, so they’re all on board with this precise text.” The recording ends with Clodfelter presumably tapping his mike. Is this thing on? You bet it is. (June 2, 2010) (50 seconds)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

We already know what Senator Clodfelter feels about the people who are appalled at yet another embarrassing year of legislators falling all over themselves to do big cable and phone companies another favor.  In his mind, we’re the “crazies” — the indignant citizens fed up with the time, money, and effort not spent building 21st century broadband networks, but instead devising strategies to prevent building them.

Corning has a plant in North Carolina that manufacturers endless miles of fiber optic cable that 40 members of the North Carolina Legislature just said they don’t need.  Send it somewhere else.

Those 40 senators just told citizens — who are still using dial-up Internet access in the Appalachians, or who can’t afford the asking price for service in Spring Creek, or who only get excuses from AT&T why certain homes in Alamance County can have broadband, but they cannot — they really don’t care.  What AT&T, Time Warner Cable, and Embarq wants is much more important.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Layten Davis Spring Creek NC.mp4[/flv]

…More important than the needs of folks like those in Spring Creek.

So while they propose to hold a debate over the merits of the free market vs. community’s doing-for-themselves when the free market fails them, countless thousands of North Carolina’s residents go without or are still hearing modem tones as they connect at speeds dozens of times slower than everyone else.

With a legislature hellbent on stalling or stopping projects that ameliorate this serious problem, no wonder North Carolina’s broadband rankings are falling fast.  In 2007, the Census Bureau ranked North Carolina 35th in broadband adoption.  A year later, the state was down to 41st.  At least you can be proud you’re not West Virginia, right?

But then again, there are eight more positions to drop, so there is still room to make things even worse.

Now I ask myself, what could have possibly happened to deliver 40 votes into the hands of big cable and phone company interests.

Could it have been the time honored trick of dividing and conquering the opposition?  For cities who want to deliver service, the threat of “either/or” seemed particularly effective.  Either take our one year moratorium -or- face the ludicrous original legislation that required a community-wide referendum if Mrs. Nickels over on Fairfax Drive needs a new cable installed at her home to get a better picture.  Either way, because certain folks didn’t say no way to either choice, it’s a victory party for Time Warner Cable, with no need to BYOB — they’ll provide it themselves.  Besides, say the bill’s supporters, we’re offering a chance to hear your voice and views on our stall-tactic fact-finding subcommittee.  Senator Clodfelter even thanks you for being reasonable and adult about all this.

AT&T thanks you as well.

Just keep those “crazies” out of the room.

Cable and phone companies get seats, so they can continue to deliver their talking points that don’t actually deliver broadband to any underserved area of North Carolina. Haven’t they said enough already?  As Senator Queen asked, where is the broadband service for my communities?

In the end, the fact finding mission (cough) will deliver a watered-down report that will find its way into the nearest recycling bin.  The cities’ strong views on municipal broadband will be diluted because they’ll have four competing voices from private industry saying the exact opposite.  Besides, after yesterday’s performance in the Senate Finance Committee, does anyone really believe members like Senator Hoyle care what the subcommittee will have to say?  He can just make it up as he goes along, just as he did when supposedly quoting the mayor of Salisbury.

After all the years spent watching negotiations over legislation, allow me to share this one piece of advice — collaborate and compromise with interests that seek to bury you at your own risk.  Big money interests will call you every name in the book for standing and fighting for your principles (and a few legislators too), but if you make it known it’s time for the other side to start compromising — by actually delivering service and charging a reasonable price for it, there wouldn’t have been a need to engage in this battle in the first place.

That’s why this “crazy” website didn’t back down when Time Warner Cable brought its “new and improved” Internet Overcharging scheme to the table after consumers rebelled against the original plan.  The cable company promised a listening tour, to take advice from reasonable consumers, and to modify its plans accordingly.  Some folks played the game on their field — debating numbers back and forth about what an appropriate amount of rape and pillaging of our wallets was tolerable.  Time Warner changed a few numbers and blessed us with a counteroffer that would have only tripled broadband prices for the same level of service.  Couldn’t we be reasonable and take their offer?

We said no and stood by it, even if it meant going down with a fight.  By not backing down, we won the battle knowing full well the war wasn’t actually over yet.  But you can’t win a battle, much less a war, if you surrender and refuse to fight.

In the end, we were right and they were wrong.  We even proved they were never really interested in listening in the first place.

The correct way forward is to remain 100 percent committed to opposing S1209, so long as it stalls, bans, slows, or sets onerous conditions on providing broadband relief.  That means calling every senator between now and Monday and then doing the same in the House.

The three words you need to remember are real simple:

Kill this bill.

If you are spending time negotiating over who gets to sit in what chair on the subcommittee, you are not paying attention.

Kill this bill.

If you are trying to split the difference over how long the moratorium is going to last, you do not understand.

Kill this bill.

If you are trying to extract some extra concessions to reduce the rape and pillaging of your citizens, stand up, take a deep breath, go outside, and then tell the first person you see to call their representatives and tell them to:

Kill this bill.

If you are a consumer, you’re probably already upset.  In a polite, persuasive, and persistent way, tell your elected officials you understand S1209 has been modified thanks to a compromise, but nobody bothered to compromise with you.  You aren’t interested in this bill in any form, and you know that legislator is going to do the right thing and vote no to:

Kill this bill.

If they vote yes, all they’ve managed to kill is your faith in them as your elected representative.  That’s something that can be taken care of at the next election.

Maybe people like me are crazy to dare to presume that our elected officials work first and foremost for “we the people” and not for the phone and cable company.  Maybe it’s nuts to spend so much time and energy fighting legislation that is so obviously written by and for the industry that cuts a check to the first representative willing to put their name on it and introduce it.  We’ve seen the merits of those who tried the same thing last year.  Only one of them is no longer with the state legislature, brought down on ethics charges.  How surprising.  This year’s fight is lead by a retiring senator who will never endure the satisfaction voters might get disconnecting him from the legislature for selling them down Telecom River.  That is not too surprising either.

Senator Hoyle turns his back on consumers and reads from his industry-provided talking points to stop municipal broadband

[Phillip Dampier co-authored this piece.]

North Carolina communities seeking to provide Internet access to their residents would have to wait a year while legislators argue over their terms of entry under a revised bill that swept through the Senate Finance Committee yesterday on a voice vote.

S1209, originally a poison pill bill that would effectively kill municipal broadband projects, was revised into a demand for further study, accompanied by a one-year moratorium for any city contemplating its own broadband project.

That concerns officials in several cities across the state, especially Greensboro, who wants to preserve the option of municipal broadband should Time Warner Cable revisit an Internet Overcharging experiment attempted in 2009 which would have drastically limited broadband usage for its customers.

The bill’s passage with a calling of the “yeas and nays” made it impossible for members of the public to know who voted for and who voted against the compromise measure.  But an accidentally open microphone allowed many to get a real sense of how much one member of the Committee disliked consumers fighting back against telecom special interests pulling all the strings.

Senator Daniel Clodfelter (D-Mecklenburg) nearly raised a toast to his fellow members during the session praising them for doing the “grown-up” thing and agreeing to his manufactured compromise that phone and cable companies are celebrating as a victory today:

“This is not, I would say to you, a peace treaty.  It is an armistice. And what the bill does is provide an armistice so that the shooting war stops and a conversation will occur among those people who’ve been meeting with each other in those conference rooms for the past week,” Clodfelter said. “Thank you all, because you did the grown-up thing, and I really appreciate it.”

Clodfelter’s seemingly-sincere comments might have gone off better had the audience not heard Clodfelter’s private remarks to Senator Dan Blue (D-Wake) a few minutes earlier, inadvertently captured by a live microphone:

“The — what I call the crazies that circulate around this issue are not gonna like this,” Clodfelter told Blue.

Observed WUNC reporter Laura Leslie: “I’m sure Clodfelter isn’t the first lawmaker to think so, but most of them cover the microphone before they say it out loud.”

The bill’s author, Senator David Hoyle (D-Gaston), who spent the day mangling the words “fiber optic,” condescendingly lectured his colleagues and communities about their opposition to his bill.  Mistakenly called a Republican in the pages of the Greensboro News-Record, Hoyle complained cities don’t belong in the broadband business.  He doesn’t want government competing with private industry, which might explain why the newspaper switched his party affiliation.  But considering the amount of telecom special interest money that has flowed into the retiring senator’s campaign coffers, there may be much more to this than a philosophical debate.

Hoyle has gone all out in the North Carolina media on behalf of his telecom industry benefactors.

Money makes legislators do strange things... like disrespect their constituents with obvious industry-backed protectionist legislation

Delivering a series of eyebrow-raising one-liners, Hoyle is hardly ingratiating himself with cities and towns across the state.  He inferred most city and town leaders were naive, telling ENC Today he expects all of the attention on municipal broadband will only cause more municipalities to get into the business.

“There are a whole lot of cities that can’t wait to jump on the bandwagon — monkey see, monkey do,” Hoyle said, using language that some have since called inappropriate.

Hoyle argues these systems are destined to fail.  Once again he called out the cities of Davidson and Mooresville completing required upgrades to an old Adelphia cable system the community acquired nearly three years ago.

“There’s a couple of cities in this business that they should sure wish the heck they were not into, and that’s Davidson and Mooresville,” Hoyle said.

That came as news to MI-Connection, the municipal provider providing service to the two communities, whose revenues for the quarter that ended March 31st were up 9.4 percent from a year earlier.

Davidson resident and MI-Connection board member John Venzon told the Davidson News he’s worried that the legislation could “unlevel the playing field” for MI-Connection and make it harder to compete.

MI-Connection General Manager Alan Hall also told the News the entire board has concerns about these kinds of bills.

Hoyle and his telecommunications industry friends may wish the communities weren’t in the business, but MI-Connection believes otherwise.

As Stop the Cap! has reported on several occasions, MI-Connection’s challenges have hardly been unique to Davidson and Mooresville.  Time Warner Cable ditched over 125 Adelphia systems it purchased, and the company is still coping with legacy equipment left in place at the former Adelphia system it now runs in Calabasas, California.  The cost of upgrades for the old Adelphia systems kept by both Time Warner Cable and Comcast ran well into the millions.

Another messy misstep for the state senator has been what one could charitably call “stretching the truth.”

Mayor Susan Kluttz, representing the people of Salisbury, N.C., was called a "gentleman" and "he" by an out of touch David Hoyle

“I got a call from a gentleman yesterday, Mayor Kluttz from Salisbury, and I mean he laid me out.  He called me dumb.  I had no idea,” Hoyle complained to other members on the Senate Finance Committee.

One person who was not amused by that story was Salisbury Mayor Susan Kluttz, who was seated directly in front of Hoyle.  She had no idea what Hoyle was talking about.  I later spoke with a representative of the city who told me no one from their staff called Hoyle.  With a mistake like that, maybe that phantom caller was onto something after all.  Listening to Hoyle, the self-appointed expert on municipal fiber projects, refer to them as “fiber opticals,” “fiber opt,” “fiber install and do all the things they’re going to do,” and “totally fiber project any city,” did not inspire confidence.

At the heart of Hoyle’s opposition is the idea that local municipalities should not be involved in the private sector… ever.  In his mind, broadband service is a luxury, and the private marketplace is best equipped to decide who gets it, and who does not.  Hoyle brings no answers to the table for communities bypassed by the duopoly of providers who are increasingly focusing their time, attention, and resources on larger cities where average revenue per customer can be higher than in rural areas.  If the local cable or phone company doesn’t provide the service, that’s just too bad.

Mirroring the attitude of the state’s telecommunications companies, Hoyle believes municipalities or even private providers that seek broadband stimulus money represent unfair competition, even in cases where existing providers refuse to offer service.

That is the ultimate dilemma.  If you believe broadband is not becoming an essential component of most American lives and is simply a nice thing to have, it’s not insane to agree with Hoyle.  But hundreds of thousands of North Carolina residents don’t believe that.  Parents of children in broadband-disadvantaged schools quickly learn their kids fall behind their peers in larger, wired communities.  Businesses will not locate in areas where inadequate broadband exists.  Digital economy entrepreneurs cannot start new businesses without good broadband either.  Even senior citizens, who are among the most resistant to broadband adoption, often complain about the inherent inequity of being forced to rely on dial-up service.

Senator Purcell

Some of the same arguments about disparity of access went on during the early 1900s in rural North Carolina, deprived of electricity and telephone service by private providers.  Once President Roosevelt effectively declared these types of services as essential utilities, where private providers didn’t go, municipalities and co-ops did.  In North Carolina, keeping the brakes on an expansion-minded state government came even before Roosevelt was president, with the passage of the 1929 Umstead Act — a law that prohibits the state from directly competing with private enterprise.

The Umstead Act has been seized on by the telecommunications industry, arguing municipal broadband violates the spirit of the law, even though it never applied to local municipalities.  Besides, the law has been amended since 1929 because, free market theory notwithstanding, free enterprise doesn’t have every answer and cannot meet every need.  Just ask BP.

Only Ayn Rand could appreciate that Hoyle and his allies support an entrenched duopoly that embraces its profitable urban customers while they fight for restraining orders like S1209, blocking efforts by others to deliver service the duopoly won’t provide.  We call that corporate welfare and protectionism.  But some in the state legislature can’t see that because of the blizzard of cash being dropped in front of them by that duopoly, just to leave things entirely in their hands.

Hoyle noted nobody, including himself, liked the final bill.  In Hoyle’s eyes, that adds up to a “good bill.”

Other members on the Committee had different views to share.

Senator William Purcell (D-Anson, Richmond, Scotland, Stanly) is the former mayor of Laurinburg — the same city from the 2005 court victory in BellSouth/AT&T v. Laurinburg, which paved the way for municipal broadband in the state.  He asked pointedly, “What assurances do we have that the private companies are going to provide [service] to smaller areas?”

Senator Queen

Hoyle answered by pulling out his talking points generously provided by the cable and phone companies and delivered a non-answer, finally stating, “we are not going to get broadband to everyone in the state.”  Perhaps Hoyle is foreshadowing his next job after he retires from the Senate — working for the same telecom companies he seems to represent now.

Senator Joe Sam Queen (D-Avery, Haywood, Madison, McDowell, Mitchell, Yancey) delivered the most passionate presentation of the day on behalf of his constituents, among the least likely to have broadband service available to them.  As Hoyle disrespectfully rolled his eyes and winked at the cable industry lobbyists in the audience, Queen blasted the industry’s record of performance in his district, which covers the High Country — the rural Appalachian mountain counties in the western half of the state.

“We don’t have last mile access in the mountains,” Queen told the Committee.  “[My constituents are] frustrated that it’s not getting done by the cable companies, the network companies, whoever’s doing it. They’re just cherry-picking and leaving off so many of our citizens, and that’s just unacceptable.”

Queen noted the private industry that refuses to serve many of his areas also refuses to allow others to provide that service.

“The private sector is not getting it done fast enough,” he added. “We have electricity to everybody, we have water to everybody. We should have Internet to everybody in the 21st century.  In my counties, we are still struggling to make that happen.  Our children don’t have the virtual broadband educational opportunities that they have in the urban areas. Our business owners don’t have the access to markets that our urban citizens have.”

Senator McKissick

One senator had a question about the year-long moratorium.  Senator Floyd B. McKissick, Jr. (D-Durham) asked if no action was taken by the end of the 2011 session, would the moratorium expire automatically?  Although provisions in S1209 do provide for a firm sunset date, Paul Myer from the North Carolina League of Municipalities told me nothing precludes the Senate from quietly extending the moratorium, or removing the sunset provision altogether, effectively making the ban permanent.

Meanwhile, communities contemplating such projects would have to give 15-days written notice to every private provider potentially impacted, providing more than two weeks for a fear-based opposition propaganda campaign.  And we know where they’ll get the money to pay for it, too.

The only good news out of all this:

• Cities already providing or constructing broadband projects may continue;
• A Google Fiber city in North Carolina gets a pass;
• Federal broadband grant recipients may proceed, although many of those grants are going to existing providers anyway;
• The bill is headed next to the House, where we have a new opportunity to derail it.

Recognizing the spirit of this entire proceeding which left consumer interests out in the cold, no public comments were heard and no recorded vote was taken.

Needless to say, the revised S1209 is only slightly less loathsome than the original, and must be opposed.  But more on that coming shortly.

We couldn’t close this piece without recognizing that when all the talk was over and vote was taken, it was rest and relaxation time for selected senators, brought to you by Electricities who picked up the tab for a fabulous spread of food and drink.  WUNC reporter Laura Leslie wrote about what she called an Irony Supplement.

The S1209 compromise also won the grudging support of Senator David “Business-Friendly” Hoyle (D-Gaston).

After telling Senate Finance that “Somebody, maybe a lot of bodies, needs to stand up for our free enterprise system,” Hoyle went on to knock the state’s biggest public utility co-op:  “If anybody thinks that the experiment with Electricities was a resounding success, I’d like for you to raise your hand.”

No one did.

But after session today, quite a few of the Hons found their way across the street for free food and drinks provided by – wait for it – Electricities.

As one House Republican told me tonight, “If you can’t bash them and then eat their hors d’oeurves, you’re in the wrong business.”

No, sir, I’m not.  But I’m thinking you might be.

Senate Finance Committee deliberations on a revised S1209, a bill to establish a one year moratorium on municipal broadband projects. (June 2, 2010) (34 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>