[Stop the Cap! has written extensively about the pervasive influence some of the nation’s largest cable and phone companies have on telecommunications legislation in this country.  On the state level, one group above all others is responsible for quietly getting company-ghost-written bills and resolutions into the hands of state lawmakers to introduce as their own.]

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is the latest corporate response to campaign finance and lobbying reform — a Washington, D.C.-based “middle man” that brings lawmakers and corporate interests together while obfuscating the obvious conflict of interest to voters back home if they realized what was going on.

ALEC focuses on state laws its corporate members detest because, in many cases, they represent the only regulatory obstacles left after more than two decades of deregulatory fervor on the federal level.  State lawmakers are ALEC’s targets — officeholders unaccustomed to a multi-million dollar influence operation.  The group invites lawmakers to participate in policy sessions that equally balance corporate executives on one side with elected officials on the other.  Consumers are not invited to participate.

ALEC’s telecom members have several agendas on the state level, mostly repealing:

• Local franchising and oversight of cable television service;
• Statewide oversight of the quality of service and measuring the reliability of phone and cable operators;
• Consumer protection laws, including those that offer customers a third party contact for unresolved service problems;
• Universal service requirements that insist all customers in a geographic region be permitted to receive service;
• Funding support for public, educational, and government access television channels;
• Rules governing the eventual termination of essential service for non/past due payments;
• Local zoning requirements and licensing of outside work.

But ALEC is not always focused on deregulation or “smaller government.” In fact, many of its clients want new legislation that is designed to protect their position of incumbency or enhance profits.  Cable and phone company-written bills that restrict or ban public broadband networks are introduced to lawmakers through ALEC-sponsored events.  In several cases, model legislation that was developed by cable and phone companies was used as a template for nearly-identical bills introduced in several states without disclosing who actually authored the original bill.

ALEC specializes in secrecy, rarely granting interviews or talking about the corporations that pay tens of thousands of dollars to belong.  Corporate members also enjoy full veto rights over any proposal or idea not to their liking, and aborted resolutions or legislative proposals are kept completely confidential. More often than not, however, legislators and corporate members come to an agreement on something, and the end product ends up in a central database of model bills and resolutions ready to be introduced in any of 50 state legislatures.

Many do, and often these proposed bills are remarkably similar, if not identical. That proved to be no coincidence.  In July 2011, the Center for Media and Democracy was able to obtain a complete copy of ALEC’s master database of proposed legislation.  The Center called it a stark example of “corporate collaboration reshaping our democracy, state by state.”

National Public Radio takes an inside look at the American Legislative Exchange Council and how it works to help major corporations influence and change state laws. (October 29, 2010) (8 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

ALEC’s Corporate Telecom Members

ALEC defends itself saying it does not directly lobby any legislator.  That is, in fact true.  But many of its corporate members clearly do.  AT&T is one of ALEC’s most high profile members, serving as a “Private Enterprise Board” member, state corporate co-chair of Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas (all AT&T service areas), a member of the Telecommunications and Information Technology Task force, and “Chairman” level sponsor of the 2011 ALEC Annual Conference (a privilege for those contributing $50,000).

AT&T’s lobbying is legendary, and is backed with enormous campaign contributions to legislators on the state and federal level.

But AT&T isn’t the only telecommunications company that belongs to or supports ALEC:

• CenturyLink (also including Qwest Communications), “Director” level sponsor of 2011 ALEC Annual Conference ($10,000 in 2010)
• Cincinnati Bell
• Comcast, State corporate co-chair of Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri and Utah and recipient of ALEC’s 2011 State Chair of the Year Award
• Cox Communications, “Trustee” level sponsor of 2011 ALEC Annual Conference ($5,000 in 2010)
• Time Warner Cable, State corporate co-chair of Ohio, “Director” level sponsor of 2011 ALEC Annual Conference ($10,000 in 2010)
• Verizon Communications, Private Enterprise Board member and State corporate co-chair of Virginia and Wyoming

ALEC supporters among trade groups and astroturf/corporate-influenced “non profits”:

• National Cable and Telecommunications Association, ALEC Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force member
• Free State Foundation (think tank promoting limited government and rule of law principles in telecommunications and information technology policy)
• Heartland Institute, Exhibitor at ALEC’s 2011 Annual Conference, Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force member, Education Task Force member, Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force, Financial Services Subcommittee member and Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force member

ALEC’s Ready-to-Introduce Legislation

The two most pervasive pieces of legislation ALEC’s telecom members (especially AT&T) want as a part of state law are bills to strip local authority over cable systems and hand it to the state government and the elimination or excessive micromanagement of community broadband networks:

This model bill for increased cable competition strips most of the authority your community has over cable television operations and transfers it to under-funded or less aggressive state bodies. Although the bill claims to protect local oversight and community access stations, the statewide video franchise fee almost always destroys the funding model for public, educational, and government access channels.

These municipal broadband bills are always written to suggest community and private players must share a "level playing field." But bills like these always exempt the companies that actually wrote the bill, and micromanage and limit the business operations of the community provider.

Legislators: Bring the family to Mardi Gras World on us, sponsored by America's largest telecommunications companies.

WHYY Philadelphia’s ‘Fresh Air’ spent a half hour exploring who really writes the legislation introduced in state legislatures. When ALEC gets involved, The Nation reporter John Nichols thinks the agenda is clear: “All of those pieces of legislation and those resolutions really err toward a goal, and that goal is the advancement of an agenda that seems to be dictated at almost every turn by multinational corporations.” (July 21, 2011) (32 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Unfortunately, state lawmakers are not always sophisticated enough to recognize a carefully crafted legislative agenda at work.  National Public Radio found one excellent example — the 2010 Arizona immigration law that requires police to arrest anyone who cannot prove they entered the country legally when asked.  America’s immigration problems remain a major topic on the agenda at some ALEC events, curious for a corporate-backed group until you realize one of ALEC’s members — the Corrections Corporation of America — America’s largest private prison operator, stood to earn millions providing incarceration services for what some estimated could be tens, if not hundreds of thousands of new prisoners being held on suspicion of immigration violations.

CCA was in the room when the model immigration legislation, eventually adopted by Arizona’s legislature, was written at an ALEC conference in 2009.

Bring the Kids, Stay for the Corporate Influence

Getting legislators to attend these seminars isn’t as hard as it might sound.

In January, we reported members of the North Carolina General Assembly, who showed their willingness to support telecom industry-written bills when it passed an anti-community broadband initiative in 2011, were wined and dined (along with their staff) by ALEC at the Mardi Gras World celebration in New Orleans.  Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Time Warner Cable), who introduced the aforementioned measure, brought her husband to Asheville to enjoy a special weekend as the featured guest speaker at a dinner sponsored by North Carolina’s state cable lobbying group:

The North Carolina Cable Telecommunications Association reported they not only picked up Marilyn’s food and bar bill ($290 for the Aug. 6-8 event), they also covered her husband Alex, too.  Alex either ate and drank less than Marilyn, or chose cheaper items from the menu, because his food tab came to just $185.50.  The cable lobby also picked up the Avila’s $471 hotel bill, and handed Alex another $99 in walking-around money to go and entertain himself during the weekend event.  The total bill, effectively covered by the state’s cable subscribers: $1,045.50.

Rep. Avila with Marc Trathen, Time Warner Cable's top lobbyist (right) Photo by: Bob Sepe of Action Audits

ALEC makes it easy because it pays the way for lawmakers and families to attend their events through the award of “scholarships”:

The organization encourages state lawmakers to bring their families. Corporations sponsor golf tournaments on the side and throw parties at night, according to interviews and records obtained by NPR.

[…] Videos and photos from one recent ALEC conference show banquets, open bar parties and baseball games — all hosted by corporations. Tax records show the group spent $138,000 to keep legislators’ children entertained for the week.

But the legislators don’t have to declare these as corporate gifts.

Consider this: If a corporation hosts a party or baseball game and legislators attend, most states require the lawmakers to say where they went and who paid. In this case though, legislators can just say they went to ALEC’s conference. They don’t have to declare which corporations sponsored these events.

Reporter John Nichols told NPR ALEC’s focus on state politics is smart:

“We live at the local and state level. That’s where human beings come into contact more often than not,” he says. “We live today in a country where there’s a Washington obsession, particularly by the media but also by the political class. … And yet, in most areas, it’s not Washington that dictates the outlines, the parameters of our life. … And so if you come in at the state government level, you have a much greater ability to define how you’re going to operate.”

Resources:

• ALEC Exposed: Access a database of more than 800 corporate ghost-written bills and resolutions intended to become state law in all 50 states. Sponsored by the Center for Media and Democracy.
• ALEC’s Database Revealed: A more general indictment of ALEC and its coordinated agenda to allow corporate influence to hold an increasing role in public policy.
• Protestors Demand End to Verizon’s Involvement in ALEC: In Albany, N.Y., protestors turned up in front of Verizon demanding the company end its association with ALEC.
• California Lawmakers Enjoy Free Trips to Hawaii, Europe: California’s state politicians are under fire for lavish travel arranged by ALEC.

Netflix continues to step up its attacks on providers who implement Internet Overcharging schemes on their wired broadband customers.

That concern is understandable as Netflix increasingly transitions to broadband streaming instead of mailing DVD’s to customers.

Getting in the way are five of the nation’s seven largest broadband providers, all imposing limits on customers just as they discover they might be able to do without cable television.

Netflix’s streamed HD shows now consume around 2GB per hour, according to Netflix general counsel David Hyman.  That can eat through usage allowances quickly.  Hyman penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last year blasting the practices of usage caps and consumption billing.

Hyman

“Wireline bandwidth is an almost unlimited resource due to advances in Internet architecture,” Hyman wrote. “The marginal cost of providing an extra gigabyte of data—enough to deliver one episode of 30 Rock from Netflix—is less than one cent, and falling.”

That doesn’t seem to matter much to Comcast, CenturyLink, Charter Communications, and Cox.  All four providers have introduced hard usage limits on customers — a usage cap.  Exceeding it gives any of those providers the right to cut off your broadband service.  AT&T, always one to see a financial angle, charges for excess use of their DSL and U-verse service — $10 for every 50GB. Time Warner Cable recently announced its own experimental “optional” usage pricing package for very light users who consume fewer than 5GB per month.  It will slap overlimit fees on those participating customers who break through the 5GB ceiling at a rate of $1/GB, an enormous markup.

Providers with strict caps usually argue they come as a result of their own network’s capacity problems.  Cable operators who do not consistently manage their network traffic can experience traffic clogs by overselling service without upgrading capacity to sustain user demand.  But providers like Comcast, Cox, and Charter resolved those capacity problems with upgrades to DOCSIS 3 technology, which offer operators an exponentially bigger pipeline for Internet traffic.

Although Comcast promised to regularly review and adjust usage caps since implementing them four years ago, the nation’s largest cable operator has thus far seen no need to raise them.

“We feel that that is an extraordinarily large amount of data,” says Comcast’s Charlie Davis. “That limit is there to make sure we provide a great online experience for every single paying customer.”

Wall Street bankers have closely monitored the industry’s early results from Internet Overcharging, and have been encouraged, so long as operators implement it carefully.

Credit Suisse in a 2011 report to its investor clients suggested the key for successful usage-based pricing is to introduce it slowly and keep “sticker shock to a minimum in the early days” to reduce backlash by consumers and lawmakers.

Once established, the sky is the limit.

Netflix itself is also battling an Internet Overcharging scheme it faces — double-dipping by cable operators like Comcast.  In addition to the fees Comcast collects from customers for its broadband service, the cable operator also wants to be paid directly by Netflix to allow the movie service’s traffic on its network.

That’s an Internet toll booth, charges Netflix and consumer groups.  It’s also uncompetitive, says Hyman.

This month Comcast unveiled its own movie and TV show streaming service — Xfinity Streampix — from which, unsurprisingly, the cable company has not sought extra traffic payments from itself.

Opposed to Internet Overcharging

Three providers which don’t cap customers don’t see a reason to try.

Verizon Communications says its fiber network FiOS has plenty of capacity and has no plans to restrict customers’ enjoyment of the service.  In 2009, Cablevision’s Jim Blackley told one panel discussion usage caps are not in the cards.

“We don’t want customers to think about byte caps so that’s not on our horizon,” Blackley said. “We literally don’t want consumers to think about how they’re consuming high-speed services. It’s a pretty powerful drug and we want people to use more and more of it.”

California’s Sonic.net Inc., goes even further.  Its CEO, Dane Jasper, believes the Federal Communications Commission needs to be more assertive about protecting America’s broadband revolution and the customers that depend on the service.

The fact different operators can take radically different positions on the subject, despite running similar networks, suggests technical necessity is not the reason providers are implementing usage restrictions and extra fees on customers.

As Hyman writes:

Bandwidth caps with fees piled on top are a lousy way to manage traffic. All of the costs of supplying residential broadband are for supporting peak usage. Bandwidth consumed off-peak is completely free. If Internet service providers really wanted to manage traffic efficiently, they would limit speeds at peak times. If their goal is instead to increase revenues or lessen competition, getting consumers to pay per gigabyte is an excellent strategy.

Consumer access to unlimited bandwidth is good for society. It fosters innovation, drives commerce, and advances political and social discourse. Given that bandwidth is cheap and plentiful and will only grow more so with time, there is no good reason for bandwidth caps and fees to take root.

Consumers and regulators need to take heed of what is happening and avoid winding up like the proverbial frog in a pot of boiling water. It’s time to jump before it’s too late.

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.

California AT&T customer Matt Spaccarelli can’t understand why his wireless phone company is selling him an “unlimited data plan” for his iPhone that is subject to being throttled to dial-up speeds after as little as 13 minutes of Netflix viewing per day over the course of a month.

Spaccarelli argued his case with several AT&T representatives, who recommended he “upgrade” his account to a tiered plan that would guarantee him at least 3GB of an unthrottled experience for the same price he was paying for an ostensibly “unlimited use” plan.

“That to me says ‘if you pay more, then you get what we promised you in the first place,’ and that is not cool,” Spaccarelli told the Associated Press.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/AP ATT Backpedals on Throttling 3-1-12.mp4[/flv]

The Associated Press talks with Matt Spaccarelli, who successfully sued AT&T over his throttled Internet connection.  (3 minutes)

The Simi Valley man did what few AT&T customers have dared — he took the company to small claims court, and won a judgment of $850.

A Ventura County judge took a dim view of AT&T’s claim that customers can enjoy an “unlimited usage” experience, as long as they understand AT&T never promised what speeds customers would receive along the way.

AT&T lost, according to the judge, because of the legal concept of “justifiable reliance,” which means because AT&T advertises itself as the “fastest wireless network,” a normal consumer with an average understanding of mobile broadband should not expect to have their speeds on an advertised “unlimited use” plan reduced to something akin to an AOL dial-up account.

After AT&T’s representative read the company’s carefully-constructed legalese in its contract and terms of usage in court, even the judge was confused, relates Spaccarelli.

“What does this mean?” Spaccarelli remembers the judge asking.

AT&T's Control Measure for "Heavy Users"

Spaccarelli said he tried it AT&T’s way — switching to a 3GB tiered usage plan to stop the throttling on his “unlimited” plan.

“For one month they switched me to a tiered plan and that month I used the smallest amount of data ever and got the highest bill,” he told KTTV in Los Angeles. “AT&T has not and cannot show that my usage has ever caused damage to their network or caused other people to slow down.”

The AT&T Usage Limbo Dance — Lowering the Bar on Customers With Continuously-Decreasing Usage Allowances

Spaccarelli explained in court his throttling experiences with AT&T have gotten worse over the last several months as part of what he calls AT&T’s “Upside Down Pyramid Scheme.”

“The problem with using the top 5% of data users [as a basis for throttling] is because [customers] are not able to use the services that we would normally use, data usage becomes less and less,” he says. That in turn makes AT&T’s “top 5% usage throttle” engage at perpetually lower and lower usage rates.  Heavy users that used to make the top 5% of data users last fall were consuming a dozen or more gigabytes per month.  Today, AT&T’s “top 5%” consume only 2GB of data.

“When this all started I was getting slowed down after around 10GB of usage, then 8GB and then 5GB,” he says. “[Now] AT&T will admit that 2GB is the average when most people get slowed down.”

“They don’t want my usage to affect other users, which I totally understand,” Spaccarelli says. “But it seems like as long as I pay more they don’t care that my usage might affect other people.”

Spaccarelli pays AT&T around $140 a month for a plan he says AT&T sold him as “unlimited everything.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KTTV Los Angeles ATT Lawsuit Interview 3-1-12.flv[/flv]

KTTV talked with Spaccarelli about why he decided to sue AT&T, what the experience was like, and why consumers should be concerned about usage-limiting Internet plans.  (5 minutes)

A judge was persuaded by Spaccarelli’s argument and awarded him $850 for the value of his effectively-lost “unlimited use” plan.  But Spaccarelli isn’t waiting by his mailbox — AT&T has indicated it intends to appeal the judge’s ruling and has not sent a check.  (Perhaps he could follow in the footsteps of George Kontos, an AT&T customer in Winston-Salem, N.C. who walked into a local AT&T retail store with a Forsyth County Sheriff’s deputy, to seize the store’s merchandise to satisfy Kontos’ $2,000 judgment.)

Lowering the bar on "unlimited use" customers.

That a customer successfully sued AT&T in small claims court is a potential nightmare for the company, which has worked for years to eliminate consumer protection clauses from its contracts.  AT&T already prohibits customers from pursuing class action lawsuits and typically mandates corporate-friendly arbitration in customer-company disputes.  But AT&T has not yet prohibited customers from suing them in small claims court, where damages are limited.

“I’m not a lawyer and I’ve never done something like this before,” Spaccarelli writes on his website. “I did my own research and took my own time to put together this case against AT&T.”

A case that he has begun documenting in an effort to help consumers pursue their own actions against AT&T.  He says filing a small claims case is simple.

“You give the clerk $85 and the court will give you a court date, that’s it,” Spaccarelli told AP.

Now AT&T has backpedaled on its original plan to throttle unlimited customers who use more than 2GB per month.  Instead, they have announced the throttle will kick in after 3GB of usage, the same amount offered by AT&T’s most popular $30 tiered plan.  That gives customers two choices: a speed throttle or overlimit fees for customers who exceed AT&T’s allowance.

AT&T has at least 17 million customers grandfathered on its now-discontinued “unlimited use” plan.  Any of them face the potential of throttling by AT&T, which could lead others to small claims court, with Spaccarelli’s help.  He told the New York Times he’s willing to travel anywhere in the country to appear as an “expert witness” in future court cases, as long as someone covers his travel expenses.

Spaccarelli says he’s not really interested in the $850, he just wants his unlimited use plan to really mean “unlimited use” again.

“I’d give back the money if they stopped slowing my speed down,” he says.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Spaccarelli Calls ATT 3-12.flv[/flv]

Spaccarelli calls AT&T customer service looking for his $850.  (2 minutes)

AT&T to Rural America

While Verizon leverages its 4G LTE wireless network as a rural broadband solution, AT&T shows no signs of sharing Big Red’s enthusiasm (and investment).

In fact, while AT&T celebrates the end of its U-verse fiber-to-the-neighborhood expansion and admits it has no answer to America’s rural broadband problem, the always excellent DSL Prime by Dave Burstein reports AT&T is mulling a sale of its rural DSL operations to a third party provider, essentially letting the new owner(s) deal with the rural broadband problem:

[AT&T] is “doing a rapid tech evaluation” of whether they can upgrade their DSL + wireless to “a competitive broadband product.” But Randall “doesn’t see a solution.” If that’s confirmed, “we’re looking for others who might want the properties.” […] It’s unclear if any of the “rural carriers” – Century, Frontier, Windstream – have the financial ability to make an attractive offer. If operators can’t raise the money, [AT&T] would need to make a financial transaction.

Verizon has sold off its entire “wireline” (landline infrastructure and business) operation in smaller, rural states — often properties it acquired years earlier from GTE — to focus on more lucrative urban markets.  AT&T could either spinoff its broadband operation to a third party to run or follow Verizon and sell off entire rural service areas not already upgraded for AT&T’s more modern U-verse.

Likely buyers include FairPoint Communications, Frontier Communications, CenturyLink, and Windstream — all independent traditional landline operators trying to focus on less-competitive rural markets pitching DSL broadband service.

AT&T has shown little interest investing in rural service areas located primarily in the southern and central United States.  As Karl Bode writes on Broadband Reports, AT&T is on record stating that they can’t find an “economically viable” way to upgrade these users, despite a looming increase in faster and less expensive last mile DSL technologies.

As AT&T has sought to redefine itself as a wireless company, the buildout of its wireless network could bring AT&T to also eventually pitch 4G wireless Internet service to its former DSL customers.  But like Verizon, those plans would likely include severely usage-capped service, while leaving its traditional DSL product starved for investment.