The Kansas Senate’s Commerce Committee has introduced a bill that would make it next to impossible to build publicly owned community broadband networks that could potentially compete against the state’s largest cable and phone companies.

Senate Bill 304 is the latest in a series of measures introduced in state legislatures across the country to limit or prohibit local communities from building better broadband networks that large commercial providers refuse to offer.

SB 304 is among the most protectionist around, going well beyond the model bill produced by the corporate-backed American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). At its heart, the bill bans just about any would-be competitor that works with, is run by, or backed by a local municipality:

Sec. 4. Except with regard to unserved areas, a municipality may not, directly or indirectly offer or provide to one or more subscribers, video, telecommunications or broadband service; or purchase, lease, construct, maintain or operate any facility for the purpose of enabling a private business or entity to offer, provide, carry, or deliver video, telecommunications or broadband service to one or more subscribers.

For purposes of this act, a municipality offers or provides video, telecommunications or broadband service if the municipality offers or provides the service:

• Directly or indirectly, including through an authority or instrumentality:
• Acting on behalf of the municipality; or for the benefit of the municipality;
• by itself;
• through a partnership, joint venture or other entity in which the municipality participates; or
• by contract, resale or otherwise.

This language effectively prohibits just about everything from municipally owned broadband networks, public-private partnerships, buying an existing cable or phone company to improve service, allowing municipal utilities to establish broadband through an independent authority, or even contracting with a private company to offer service where none exists.

The proposed legislation falls far short of its intended goals to:

• Ensure that video, telecommunications and broadband services are provided through fair competition;
• Provide the widest possible diversity of sources of information, news and entertainment to the general public;
• Encourage the development and widespread use of technological advances in providing video, telecommunications and broadband services at competitive rates and,
• Ensure that video, telecommunications and broadband services are each provided within a consistent, comprehensive and nondiscriminatory federal, state and local government framework.

Proponents claim the bill is open to allowing municipalities to build broadband services in “unserved areas.” But upon closer inspection, the bill’s definition of “unserved” is practically impossible to meet anywhere in Kansas:

“Unserved area” means one or more contiguous census blocks within the legal boundaries of a municipality seeking to provide the unserved area with video, telecommunications or broadband service, where at least nine out of 10 households lack access to facilities-based, terrestrial broadband service, either fixed or mobile, or satellite broadband service, at the minimum broadband transmission speed as defined by the FCC.

Even the FCC does not consider satellite broadband service when it draws maps where broadband is unavailable. But this Big Telecom-backed bill does. Even worse, it requires would-be providers to prove that 90 percent of customers within a “census block” don’t have access to either mobile or satellite broadband. Since satellite Internet access is available to anyone with a view of the southern sky, and the most likely unserved customers would be in rural areas, it would be next to impossible for any part of the notoriously flat and wide open state to qualify as “unserved.”

To illustrate, Stop the Cap! looked at Greeley County in western Kansas. The county’s total population? 1,247 — the smallest in the state. Assume Greeley County Broadband, a fictional municipal provider, wanted to launch fiber broadband service in the area. Under the proposed bill, the largest potential customer base is 1,247 — too small for most private providers. Still, if a private company decided to wire up the county, it could with few impediments, assuming investors were willing to wait for a return on their investment in the rural county. If SB 304 became law, a publicly owned broadband network would have to do much more before a single cable could be installed on a utility pole.

To open for business, Greeley County Broadband would have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to independently verify its intended service area — the county — is unserved by any existing broadband technology, including satellite and mobile broadband. The authors of the bill intentionally make that difficult. Just one census tract in Greeley County (#9561), encompassing the county seat town of Tribune (pop. 741) has dozens of census blocks. Some are populated, others are not.

Greeley County Broadband now has several big problems. Under the language in the bill, a municipal provider must first define its service area entirely within its borders — in this case Greeley County — and base it on contiguous census blocks. That means if pockets of qualifying potential customers exist in a census block surrounded by non-qualifying census blocks, Greeley County Broadband cannot include them in its service area.

Census Block 958100-1-075 — essentially at the intersection of Broadway Ave. and West Harper St., right next to City Hall — has a population of 10. AT&T Mobility’s coverage maps show Tribune is covered by its 3G wireless data network (but not 4G). That census block, along with every other in the area, would be disqualified from getting municipal broadband the moment AT&T upgrades to 4G service, whether reception is great or not. It doesn’t matter that customers will have to pay around $60 for a handful of gigabytes a month.

But wait, Verizon Wireless declares it already provides 4G LTE service across Greeley County (and almost all Kansas). So Greeley County Broadband, among other would-be providers, are out of business before even launching. Assuming there was no 4G service, if just two of those ten residents had a clear view to any satellite broadband provider, Greeley County Broadband would not be permitted to provide anyone in the census block with service under the proposed law. Under these restrictions, no municipal provider could write a tenable business plan, starved of potential customers.

Kansans need to consider whether that is “fair competition” or corporate protectionism. Is it a level playing field to restrict one provider without restricting others? If competition promotes investment in technologically challenged rural Kansas, would not more competition from municipal providers force private companies to finally upgrade their networks to compete?

In fact, the bill introduced this week protects incumbent cable and phone companies from competition and upgrades by keeping out the only likely competition most Kansans will ever see beyond AT&T, Comcast, or CenturyLink’s comfortable duopoly – a municipal or community-owned broadband alternative. Providing the widest possible diversity is impossible in a bill that features the widest possible definition of conditions that will keep new entrants out of the market. Community-owned networks usually offer superior technology (often fiber optics) in communities that are usually trapped with the most basic, outdated services. While the Kansas legislature coddles AT&T, that same company wants to mothball its rural landline network pushing broadband-starved customers to prohibitively expensive, usage capped wireless broadband service indefinitely.

Milwaukee’s Public, Educational, and Government (PEG) channels will soon be off Time Warner Cable’s analog basic cable lineup with little recourse for city officials upset about the channel losses.

Time Warner Cable is notifying analog cable subscribers in several Wisconsin cities about an upcoming digital conversion that will cut an average of a dozen channels from the analog lineup this fall. In Wisconsin, Time Warner is targeting several well-known cable networks like The Weather Channel and CNBC for the digital switch, as well as Ion TV over the air affiliates and several independent/religious broadcast stations.

The loss of PEG channels without any discussion with local officials has some Wisconsin community leaders upset, fearing significant viewing losses. Communities across Wisconsin lost their right to compel the carriage of the public interest channels after a 2007 deregulation bill essentially written by AT&T became law.

“It has been brought to our attention that a number of channels in the local Time Warner Cable ‘basic’ package will be shifted to the digital tier next month, meaning that most Milwaukeeans without a newer model television will need to obtain a digital to analog converter box in order to continue to view the entire basic cable package. We are both frustrated and perturbed by this news,” said Milwaukee Council members Jim Bohl, Robert Bauman, and Tony Zielinski. “Let’s not minimize who it is that will be most impacted by this move on Time Warner’s part either — people with older model televisions who only subscribe to a basic cable package. In short, this cut in service will have a disproportionate effect on residents within the city of Milwaukee.”

Time Warner Cable spokesman Michael Hogan made it clear the transition is something subscribers will have to get used to, because Time Warner is gradually moving all of its cable systems to digital only service.

“We are moving towards a higher-quality, digital-only experience by making channels that had been available in both analog and digital formats available in a digital format only,” said Hogan. “Delivering channels digitally frees up capacity in our network to deliver faster Internet speeds, more HD channels and On Demand choices, and other new services in the future. We began the process several years ago of moving towards a digital-only experience. All of our direct video competitors – including direct broadcast satellite providers and phone companies – already take advantage of the efficiencies of digital delivery and deliver all of their programming solely in digital format.”

The Sordid History of “Video Competition” in Wisconsin

The race to digital service to keep up with satellite providers and AT&T U-verse is not exactly the type of competition Wisconsin residents thought they would get from the passage of a 2007 statewide video franchise law advocated by AT&T.

According to the Center for Media and Democracy, the Wisconsin law is modeled on the American Legislative Exchange Council’s “Cable and Video Competition Act,” a model bill ghostwritten by AT&T for use in statehouses around the country. AT&T provided more funding for ALEC’s activities in Wisconsin from 2008-2012 ($55,735) than any other corporation. Supporters of the legislation promised it would lead to more competition, better customer service and lower cable rates.

Instead, it leaves Wisconsin communities with no recourse when cable operators decide to digitize or encrypt cable channels that city officials believe should be widely available to the public. Provisions in the law no longer permit local communities to have any say in a provider’s channel lineup, placement, or technology used to deliver the service.

Milwaukee Alderman Jim Bohl called the channel conversion a Time Warner bait-and-switch maneuver that will cut off residents’ access to city government. As for those promises of lower cable rates, Bohl rolled his eyes.

“I can only tell you it’s gotten worse,” Bohl told the Milwaukee Express. “This change would not have been looked at real happily by the council. I don’t think they ever would have done that if they were still accountable for their franchise agreement with the city of Milwaukee.”

Time Warner Cable subscribers without converter boxes who directly attach coaxial cable to the back of older television sets will be affected by the switch and will need to pay extra for a standard set-top box on each affected television in the home (roughly $7 a month each), or take advantage of a temporary offer from the cable company to supply a small digital to analog converter box that will be available for free for one year. After that, the smaller converter boxes will cost $0.99 a month each with no purchase option.

Without the boxes, Time Warner Cable subscribers will find themselves increasingly out of luck as the company gradually eliminates analog channels from the lineup.

Being AT&T’s Best Friend Can Be Rewarding

Supporters of AT&T’s video competition bill have been luckier than most Wisconsin cable subscribers.

Former Republican state Rep. Phil Montgomery, lead sponsor and claimed author of the 2007 video competition bill, was well compensated with a sudden $2,250 campaign contribution from AT&T the year the bill was introduced. Another $1,500 arrived from AT&T executives and one of their spouses in Texas and $1,500 from a senior AT&T executive in Wisconsin.

Before AT&T’s bill was written, the company barely knew Montgomery existed, donating a total of only $300 to his campaigns from 1998-2005.

After the bill became law, Montgomery spent his remaining years in the Wisconsin Assembly building a solid record avidly supporting AT&T’s public policy maneuvers, including a measure to deregulate basic phone rates and end oversight of telephone service quality by the state’s Public Service Commission.

Despite revelations Montgomery served as an ALEC board member and received contributions amounting to $10,800 from telecom companies, in 2011 Gov. Scott Walker appointed him to chair the PSC — very same agency Montgomery worked for years to disempower.

“He was very friendly to industry when he was a legislator, and was seen as carrying water for the telecommunications industry and the utilities,” said Mike McCabe, executive director of the Democracy Campaign. “Consumer advocates would naturally have concerns about somebody who seemed so supportive of industry now being in a position of overseeing those industries.”

Sen. Jeff Plale Takes Marching Orders from AT&T, His Chief of Staff’s Rap Sheet, a Freezer Full of Steaks and a Country Club for Cronies

AT&T’s biggest ally in the Wisconsin Senate was Jeff Plale, one of only a handful of Democrats — all pro-business conservatives — belonging to ALEC.

The patience of his district was tested after Plale began openly advocating for his corporate donors and claimed he could not understand why questions about his integrity were being raised by his opponents. Plale, after introducing AT&T’s companion video franchising bill in the Senate expressed he was shocked, shocked to discover he received more campaign contributions from AT&T and the cable industry than any other legislative Democrat. He added he did not know why AT&T’s Political Action Committee had suddenly maxed out on its campaign contribution two years before the next election.

Plale’s close working relationship with AT&T evolved inside of his office.

In 2003, Plale hired Katy Venskus, a charged felon, to raise funds for his election campaign. Despite pleading no contest to siphoning off more than $12,000 from an abortion rights organization and being caught up in a scandal over illegal campaign work for another Democrat, Venskus was appointed Plale’s chief of staff and would quickly become the point person for AT&T’s video competition bill in Plale’s office, working closely with AT&T to adjust the bill’s language to the company’s liking and help coordinate its movement through the Senate.

The successful passage of the bill would prove personally lucrative to Venskus when she left Plale’s office to join lobbying firm Public Affairs Co., of Minneapolis just one month after AT&T’s bill was signed into law. One year later, she took on AT&T as a lobbying client.

In 2009, Plale and AT&T closely collaborated to write another deregulation measure to be introduced in the Wisconsin legislature, this time deregulating phone rates, making provision of landline service optional, and gutting service oversight. By then, AT&T Wisconsin considered Venskus an on-contract lobbyist.

The irony of a felon serving as the chief of staff for a Wisconsin state senator or as a registered lobbyist was not lost on the Milwaukee Express’ Lisa Kaiser.

“Despite being a felon, Venskus can affect public policy at the highest levels as a registered lobbyist,” observed Kaiser. “Yet she couldn’t be licensed to become a day care provider.”

According to e-mails and draft copies of the telephone deregulation bill obtained from the Legislative Reference Bureau and interviews conducted by The Capital Times, a number of meetings —  “too numerous to count,” according to Plale’s chief of staff, Summer Shannon-Bradley — occurred with AT&T lawyers and executives and several other key industry stakeholders to work on the bill.

One important meeting in November 2009 included this attendance list: Andrew Petersen, director of external affairs and communications with telephone company TDS; William Esbeck, executive director of the Wisconsin State Telecommunications Association (WSTA) – a telecom industry lobbying group; that group’s attorney, Judd Genda; and AT&T attorney David Chorzempa.

E-mails and other correspondence between those at the meeting and Plale’s staff show slashes or check marks next to sections of the proposal that attorneys for AT&T and the WSTA suggested should be changed.

“It’s like lawmakers looked around and said, ‘These are the companies affected. So sit down with the drafters and make a bill,’ ” Barry Orton, a UW-Madison telecommunications professor told the Times. “The public interest isn’t represented. How could it be? Nobody was there to represent them.”

Life got tougher for Ms. Venskus a few months later when she was charged with felony theft and felony identity theft on suspicion of making $11,451 in improper purchases with her Public Affairs credit card, including a freezer full of steaks, according to the criminal complaint filed in Dane County court. She repaid the charges, but her contract to work for AT&T’s interests was suspended.

That September, Plale wore out his welcome in the 7th District serving southern Milwaukee and lost to primary challenger Chris Larson, who contended Plale was far too conservative and cozy with AT&T for his district.

Plale would land on his feet when, after siding with Republicans on a lame duck session vote to stick it to the state’s unions, he joined the administration of Republican Gov. Scott Walker as the administrator of the Division of State Facilities — a $90,000 a year job.

“Instead of seeking out the best and brightest, this governor is busy creating a country club for cronies,” Marty Beil, executive director of the Wisconsin State Employees Union, told the Wisconsin State Journal. “When he says ‘open for business’ and then appoints people like Plale, he’s obviously saying that he doesn’t draw the line at the world’s oldest profession.”

Comcast has been a part of life in Muskegon, Mich. for decades, thanks in part to an unusually long 25-year franchise agreement signed when President Reagan was serving his last year in office. In 1988, the Berlin Wall was still in place, Mikhail Gorbachev formally implemented glasnost and perestroika, Snapple appeared on store shelves nationwide, and compact discs finally outsold vinyl records for the first time.

All good things must come to an end and Comcast’s contract to serve will finally expire Aug. 2. City officials want residents to understand that after two plus decades, it is appropriate to take some time to consider all the options. But a 2007 law has cut that time of reflection down to a month, and removed most of the powers Michigan communities used to have to select the best cable operator for their community. It’s a fact of life Comcast is well aware of, and it underlined that point by tossing a carelessly written, pro forma/fait accompli franchise renewal proposal into the mail that left Muskegon’s civic leaders cold. But if they fail to act fast, Comcast will win automatic approval of whatever it proposes to offer the 38,000 residents of the western Michigan city for years to come.

Statewide Video Franchising in Michigan

In December 2006, primarily at the behest of AT&T, the Michigan legislature passed a new statute that would create a uniform, statewide video franchise agreement template that providers could use to apply for or renew their franchises to operate. In theory, establishing a uniform, simplified franchise application would lead AT&T to quickly wire Michigan with U-verse, its competing cable/broadband/phone service, and bring dramatically lower prices for cable service and fewer complaints because of greater competition.

The Uniform Video Services Local Franchise Act was remarkably similar to those passed in more than a dozen other states — no mistake considering it was based largely on an AT&T-written draft distributed and promoted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an AT&T-backed third-party group that encourages state legislatures to enact corporate-ghostwritten bills into law.

Under the new law, much of the power reserved by local officials to approve cable franchises and enforce good customer service was stripped away and handed to the state’s Public Service Commission. The deregulation measure tipped the balance of power in providers’ favor, making it possible to do business on their terms, not those sought by community leaders. Among the law’s provisions:

1. Communities are still bound by the terms of their existing franchise agreements, but providers can break the legacy contracts for any reason, forcing a new agreement under the new statewide franchise law. If a provider wants out, they can abandon the community or transfer operations to a new provider with 15 days advance notice and no prior approval.
2. A franchise renewal proposal will be automatically approved if a city does not reject it within 30 days.
3. Communities cannot unreasonably restrict providers from access to public rights-of-way, an important consideration for AT&T’s U-verse, which requires the placement of large, sometimes noisy utility cabinets (a/k/a “lawn refrigerators”) to connect its fiber network with residential copper wiring.
4. Communities are limited to collecting up to 5% of video revenue in franchise fees and up to 2% to support Public, Educational, and Government (PEG) channels. In the past, some communities asked cable operators to wire schools, libraries, and local government offices at no cost, and several negotiated other forms of support for PEG channels, which allow local citizens to view town board meetings and create and distribute locally produced programming. Today, those agreements are only possible on a voluntary basis, without any threat if a provider refuses, they will get their franchise request rejected.
5. Providers are no longer obligated to honor agreements setting timetables to wire communities. Instead, they can handpick areas to be served, except in cases where racial or income discrimination can be proven.

Since the law was clearly designed to help new entrants like AT&T’s U-verse and Verizon FiOS, Michigan’s incumbent cable companies either demanded the same rights, remained neutral, or halfheartedly protested the proposed law suggesting it unfairly benefited new competitors. Cable companies, for example, would not benefit from laws throwing out buildout requirements because their networks are already largely complete.

But once signed into law, cable operators did begin asking cities to voluntarily adopt the new uniform statewide video franchise. Muskegon joined most other Michigan cities in declining the invitation.

AT&T did begin wiring Michigan for U-verse service, although there is no evidence it would not have done so had the Act never been signed into law. But that has not helped Muskegon, because the dominant phone company in the area is Frontier Communications. Frontier has so far shown no interest in building a competing cable TV service, so the only competition residents get are from two satellite companies.

City of Detroit v. State of Michigan and Comcast

Soon after the statewide franchise law was passed, Comcast notified the city of Detroit it could take the proposed renewal of its existing 1985 franchise agreement and go pound salt. The franchise agreement with the city expired in February 2007, just a month after the new law took effect. It was a new day, Comcast told city officials, and the company offered its own proposal for renewal — a 5% take-it-or-leave-it franchise fee and nothing else. Comcast even rejected the city’s counteroffer to include a 2% PEG fee, permitted under the new law.

Franchise negotiations went nowhere, but Comcast had nothing to fear. The city did not properly reject their franchise renewal offer so, as far as the company was concerned, it automatically won a franchise renewal.

The city sued both Comcast and the State of Michigan in the summer of 2010 alleging the statewide law violated the federal Cable Act, usurped local “home rule” authority, and that Comcast was illegally trespassing in the city without a franchise agreement. The Michigan Attorney General took Comcast’s side, defended the state law, and helped the cable company argue its case in court.

Comcast did not want the case heard and asked for its immediate dismissal, which was rejected.

In the summer of 2012, the judge split the decision between the city and Comcast. The judge found that Comcast had probably been operating illegally in Detroit since 2007 and owes the city damages. The judge also found parts of the state law troubling enough to invalidate. In particular, he emphasized cities do have a clear right to reject franchise proposals offered by cable operators and that in many cases those operators must adhere to their existing franchise agreements until they expire. Cities also have the right to protect and manage their rights-of-way, ending the perception cable and phone companies have the right to place hardware almost at-will in public areas.

The judge found nothing inherently faulty with the concept of statewide video franchising, nor did he rule that providers are required to serve everyone in a geographic area or that cities are allowed to enforce local customer service standards.

The impact of the statewide law, even after the judge’s ruling, still erodes local control. As pre-2007 franchise agreements expire, it is highly unlikely cable operators will continue to offer free service to municipal buildings, will not accept requirements to provide “universal service” or even language requiring wiring of every home that meets a “homes per mile” test. Some cable operators are even closing local customer service centers that used to be required in many franchise agreements.

Comcast did not appreciate the court ruling, sought to have it set aside, and failed. Now the Court of Appeals will likely weigh in on the case by the end of this year. Comcast is particularly concerned about the prospect of paying damages to the city of Detroit for illegally operating without a valid franchise. The judge hearing the case considered that a very real possibility and requested submissions from all parties about how much Comcast should pay the city.

Muskegon officials cited the judge’s rulings in the Detroit case in their letter rejecting Comcast’s proposed renewal agreement. The city wants to renegotiate certain terms regarding its PEG channels, still wants complimentary service to public buildings, and requests cable service be extended to the Hartshorn Marina.

Six Years Later, Cable Rates and Complaints Still Rising, the Competition is Fleeting, and Many Believe the Law Has Achieved Nothing

The Michigan Public Service Commission is tasked with reporting annually to the legislature and the public about the impact of the AT&T-sponsored law. The PSC’s broad conclusion is that the new law is working:

Increases in subscribers as well as the emergence of another video/cable provider are positive signs for the video services industry in the state of Michigan. Both franchise entities and providers have continued to report that video/cable competition is continuing to grow. Growth in competition has been observed each year since the Commission began issuing this report. In addition to the increase in competitive providers, companies continued to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into the Michigan video/cable market in 2012.

As the Act enters its seventh year of existence, signs of progress and competition continue to be evident. It appears that both franchise entities and providers perceive that providers are offering more services to customers. In addition, more areas throughout Michigan are beginning to have a choice of video/cable service providers.

But in the same report, the PSC admits the overwhelming consensus among those in individual communities is the law has made little to no difference in competition or pricing. For example, every provider has continued to raise their rates, particularly after promotional new customer packages expire. Much of the savings calculated in Michigan took introductory prices into account, such as when AT&T U-verse entered a market. After 1-2 years, those savings evaporate. AT&T has increased its pricing just as often as dominant cable providers Comcast and Charter.

The PSC touts that 15 new competitors have begun offering service in Michigan since the law was enacted. But besides AT&T’s U-verse., the majority of those new entrants are municipal telephone companies, small/family owned rural cable companies, or providers that specialize in serving only apartment complexes or condos. All but AT&T serve only tiny areas in Michigan and most have customers that number only in the hundreds to low-thousands.

Michigan’s New Competitors

• Ace Telephone Company of Michigan Inc.
• AT&T (U-verse)
• Bloomingdale Communications, Inc.
• Drenthe Telephone
• Martell Cable Service Inc.
• Mediagate Digital
• Michigan Cable Partners (MICOM Cable)
• Packerland Broadband
• Sister Lakes Cable TV
• Southwest Michigan Communications Inc.
• Spectrum Broadband
• Summit Digital
• Sunrise Communications LLC
• Vogtmann Engineering
• Waldron Communication Company

How many new Michigan customers has this competition netted since 2011? 2,116

The overwhelming majority of Michigan communities still have just one cable operator and no competitor. AT&T U-verse accounts for almost all the communities reporting a second provider.

Complaints have also been higher every year the statewide franchise law has been in effect. In 2007, there were 615 formal complaints made to the PSC. Every year thereafter, the number of complaints exceed 2007 levels, ranging from 757 in 2011 to 1,074 in 2010. Comcast is by far the worst offender — 51 percent. AT&T and Charter had a smaller percentage of complaints, 15 and 14 percent respectively. The majority of complaints among all providers deal with billing issues.

Since the new law took effect, many communities have felt so disempowered, they stopped reporting local complaints to the PSC. But among those who have, the story is the same in states without statewide franchise laws:

• System updates not completed as promised. Large numbers (of residents) have gone to satellite;
• Upgrades needed to allow for better reception and channel selection;
• There are two providers in our area, yet little increase in competition;
• Cost to extend service to reach potential customers affects competition;
• Cable provider left when switching from analog to digital, stating not enough customers to afford the changeover. Now only satellite is available;
• No broadband/high-speed Internet service in many townships;
• No phone, cable service available;
• Michigan has totally failed bringing affordable Internet service to this community, and has prevented our township government from providing the needed services.

The perceived impact of the 2007 law isn’t so great either:

• Communities lost in-kind and other services from the incumbent provider;
• Cable rates continue to increase;
• Zero value added and has eroded local control of franchising;
• Customers have a choice now, but rates are still higher;
• Providers simply poach competitor’s customers as evidenced by flat franchise revenue; as one increases the other decreases;
• This statute has proven to accomplish literally nothing for municipalities and only serves to benefit providers;
• The Act did nothing to improve service.

Wisconsin taxpayers and students could face substantially higher taxes and tuition fees because Republicans prefer AT&T and other commercial Internet Service Providers deliver high-speed Internet access to schools and libraries, even if prices are more than double those charged by the existing non-profit, cooperative provider.

Last week, under growing pressure and criticism from Republican legislators and the potential threat of private litigation, the University of Wisconsin withdrew its contract with WiscNet, fearing a costly backlash that could interrupt the school’s educational and research missions.

Republicans in the state legislature forced a competition ban in the 2011-2013 budget directly targeting WiscNet, an institutional broadband provider serving 300 public schools, state agencies, and 15 of 17 Wisconsin library systems. They consider WiscNet a direct competitive threat to the business interests of AT&T and other telecommunications companies.

The loss of business from UW has raised questions about the ongoing viability of WiscNet’s operations, and has encouraged critics to continue the campaign against public broadband.

“Isn’t it a sad day when political pressures from telephone company lobbyists keep us from working together,” asked WiscNet Wire. “It’s frustrating, yet fascinating.”

Many of WiscNet’s members report that “going private” for Internet connectivity will more than double their costs. This was confirmed by Wisconsin’s Legislative Audit Bureau, which reported a member paying WiscNet $500 month for Internet service would face bills of $1,100 or more if provided by AT&T or other telecom companies.

Republicans have complained WiscNet’s close ties to the state university system and its efforts to resist the Walker Administration’s efforts to dismantle the institutional fiber network’s current operational plans border on unethical.

Cheerleading the Republicans are providers including AT&T and CenturyLink, both filing their own respective complaints (AT&T) (CenturyLink). Joining them is the Wisconsin State Telecom Association (WSTA), which represents Wisconsin’s independent rural phone companies like Frontier Communications.

William Esbeck, WSTA’s executive director, has been on WiscNet’s case for years. He said WiscNet’s recent victory in a procurement process to supply Internet service across the UW system was proof the bidding was rigged.

“The UW simply created a ‘request for proposals’ that matched what WiscNet was already doing,” said Esbeck.

Republican legislators joined Esbeck threatening hearings and unspecified repercussions for the “civil disobedience” on display by university officials attempting an end run around the Walker Administration.

“There have been repeated, flagrant violations of state law — intentional deception at a level that I just am flabbergasted by, even today — and no accountability for it whatsoever,” said state Rep. Dean Knudson (R-Hudson), at a recent budget committee hearing. Among Knudson’s biggest campaign contributors: the WSTA and CenturyLink.

In a May 23 letter sent to UW System president Kevin Reilly, state Sen. Paul Farrow (R-Pewaukee) accused UW officials of “mismanagement and unethical behavior,” saying they’d shown disdain for the legislature and contempt for the laws and directives it passed, reported Bill Lueders, the Money and Politics Project director at the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism.

Among Farrow’s biggest campaign donors: TDS Telecom and the WSTA.

Both Farrow and Knudson are also known members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a corporate financed group that produces anti-public broadband draft legislation for introduction by the group’s members. Both CenturyLink and AT&T are sponsors of ALEC, AT&T in particular.

The Walker Administration has given the UW System an extra six months to sever all ties with WiscNet.

New York taxpayers will cover more than $3.1 million in state tax breaks handed to Time Warner Cable to build a new Business Class customer call center inside an abandoned hospital.

Local politicians and Lt. Gov. Robert Duffy were on hand in Buffalo Monday to celebrate the deal, which could mean 152 new jobs over the next five years at the site of the former Sheehan Memorial Hospital, east of downtown.

Duffy, the former mayor of Rochester, said Time Warner Cable could have placed the call center anywhere in the country, but they chose western New York.

Assemblywoman Crystal Peoples-Stokes (D-Buffalo) told the Buffalo News such jobs typically pay an average of $15 an hour nationwide, or $31,200 for a 40-hour workweek. That means roughly two-thirds of the average salary would be paid for by New York taxpayers in the form of forgiven tax liabilities.

Time Warner Cable is the same company that regularly argues community owned broadband networks represent unfair competition because they receive taxpayer subsidies. The company has financed efforts by groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to lobby for public broadband bans enacted under state laws. But neither the cable company or ALEC objects to taxpayer subsidies, payments in lieu of taxes, tax credits, or other considerations covered by ordinary taxpayers going to private corporations.

Duffy said he was uncertain if the agreement included any taxpayer protection provisions to hold Time Warner Cable to its promises to hire new workers in return for the tax credits. Such “clawback” provisions typically force companies to reimburse the state if they fail to meet their commitments.

Time Warner employs over 1,000 in western New York, 10,000 statewide. In February, Time Warner Cable accepted  a $5,266,979 grant courtesy of New York State taxpayers to extend their cable system to 4,114 homes in rural parts of upstate New York.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Buffalo News Time Warner major tax breaks for call center 6-24-13.flv[/flv]

A Buffalo News reporter interviewed Lt. Gov. Bob Duffy and Time Warner’s Terence Rafferty about the taxpayer-financed grant to the cable operator.  (4 minutes)