Back on April 28th, I e-mailed the Mayor of Greensboro, Yvonne Johnson, requesting that the City of Greensboro look at the resolution that Raleigh passed opposing HB1252/S1004 and pass a similar resolution.  I am quite aware of what goes on in my city, but this slipped past me.  At the  May 5th City Council meeting the following transpired:

Assistant City Manager Denise Turner reviewed the resolution of the City of Greensboro opposing SB1004/HB 1252, inaccurately captioned “The Level Playing Field Act” with Council.  Councilmember Perkins moved adoption of the resolution. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Bellamy-Small.

Assistant Manager Turner provided an explanation for the basis of the bill, the incentives of the bill, affects on the City on offering broadband usage throughout the City, the funding utilized, restrictions of the bill and stated that the bill would prevent municipalities from offering and providing broadband services as an incentive to incoming businesses. Assistant Manager Turner provided information as to Economic Stimulus funding for broadband usage and access for a municipality to provide.

The resolution was adopted on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Barber, Bellamy-Small, Groat, Johnson, Matheny, Perkins, Rakestraw, Wade and Wells. Noes: None.

133-09 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF GREENSBORO OPPOSING SB 1004/HB 1252, INACCURATELY CAPTIONED “THE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD ACT”

WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1004 and House Bill 1252, both captioned The Level Playing Field Act, have been introduced in the 2009 Session of the General Assembly of North Carolina, and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee and House Committee on Science and Technology, respectively; and

WHEREAS, broadband is communications infrastructure that is as important to the City of Greensboro’s economy as are the interstate and state road systems; and

WHEREAS, high-speed broadband is an indispensable part of competition both between businesses and between global, state and local jurisdictions to attract businesses; and

WHEREAS, high-speed broadband is vital to the future economic development, educational outreach, and community growth necessary to replace lost textile, tobacco, furniture and manufacturing jobs in Greensboro and in North Carolina; and

WHEREAS, cities are organized to provide public services in the local community and their governing boards generally decide what and what level of services the city will provide; and

WHEREAS, the courts in North Carolina have already determined that local governments are authorized by the General Assembly to provide the communications services addressed in the playing field bills; and

WHEREAS, if the City of Greensboro should at any time in the future decide that it needs to provide or encourage the development of broadband communications systems to meet unmet needs, these proposed bills would greatly hinder the City’s ability to provide such needed services, especially advanced high-speed broadband services; and

WHEREAS, the bills do not in actuality require a “level playing field” with regard to provision of broadband and information services but instead seek to saddle cities and towns with several onerous duties, proscriptions and mandates that do not apply to private providers and that cities have never had to meet with respect to other enterprise businesses; and

WHEREAS, there is no justification for treating public communications enterprises differently from other public enterprises that are essential for a sound economy; and

WHEREAS, government dollars were used to fund much of the current corporate telecommunications infrastructure in the United States and to develop the Internet; and

WHEREAS, private providers have made the business decision not to provide and offer broadband to residents and businesses in North Carolina at the high speeds that are readily available in competing locations such as Poland, Canada, South Korea, Japan, and Wilson, North Carolina, despite having received favorable regulatory and tax treatment from government to enable them to make upgrades and investment to broadband; and

WHEREAS, while private broadband providers declare that it is cost prohibitive to provide top quality service in the United States, Japan and other countries (many of which traditionally have been considered to be third world nations) continue to outpace our country in broadband access, cost, and growth in the number of users—Japan has lower cost internet access that is at least 500 times faster than what is defined as high-speed in the United States; and

WHEREAS, the United States Congress has provided funds in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (federal stimulus) to reverse our country’s broadband decline by making local and state governments, directly eligible for $4.7 billion in federal grants to provide affordable access to high capacity broadband services where needed; and

WHEREAS, because the proposed playing field bills would prohibit government from using funds other than those generated by the enterprise broadband communications systems themselves, NORTH CAROLINA AND ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO USE THE BILLIONS OF FEDERAL STIMULUS GRANT FUNDS SET ASIDE FOR BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, while cities in other states would have access to these funds and gain a competitive economic advantage over North Carolina cities—job opportunities for local residents would be negatively impacted by the funding restrictions in the proposed bills; and

WHEREAS, local businesses and suppliers will create jobs and spur the local economy with federal stimulus dollars used to build and improve broadband infrastructure, but will lose such opportunities if the legislature adopts the proposed bills depriving North Carolina of the opportunity to bring broadband stimulus dollars to our economy; and

WHEREAS, the bills are counter to the North Carolina Local Development Act of 1925 which allows local governments to aid and encourage economic development in communities throughout North Carolina.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GREENSBORO opposes Senate Bill 1004 and House Bill 1252 and urges all members of the North Carolina General Assembly to vote “no” in committee and, if necessary, on the floor of the General Assembly.

(Signed) Robert V. Perkins

The City of Greensboro joins several other cities in NC that have passed resolutions opposing HB1252/S1004, including Chapel Hill and the state capital of Raleigh.  City staff really did their homework from the content of the resolution, pointing out places with higher speeds like Poland, Canada, Japan and South Korea.

I am proud to live in this city.  Our people won’t take the garbage that Time Warner throws at us and our council listens to it’s people on this issue.  More good news on broadband in Greensboro will be coming in the next few weeks.

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt, attending a conference sponsored by Sanford “He Who Loves Cable & Fat Profits” Bernstein, made it be known he still loves the concept of consumption based billing for the Internet, and what he sees as potentially fat profits that come from it.

“Clearly, we didn’t handle the public relations very well and had a bit of debacle to be honest,” said Britt.  “I still think the use-less-pay-less and use-more-pay-more model can work.”

At their prices?  Wasn’t one backlash enough for them?

Britt also repeated that their experiment in Beaumont, Texas, which they have apparently considered an appropriate test for the entire Time Warner Cable service area nationwide, was “successful.”

Meanwhile, investors don’t think the company performance has been all that successful.

Shares of TWC are declining after company Britt admitted that the company is seeing a continued slowdown in subscriber growth.

Perhaps their antagonistic policies and abusive behavior against their customers might be part of the reason.

Britt is convinced that 40GB per month, as delivered in Beaumont, was more than enough for the average user, and those who consume more should pay more.  Indeed, up to 300% more for the exact same level of service customers get today.

He dismissed notions that speed-based pricing is appropriate, claiming most customers find speeds meaningless.  Britt feels all the action, and the big profits, will come from turning a meter loose on customers and billing them for consumption of online video and other high bandwidth applications.

While Britt continues to claim that heavy users should bear the expense of upgrading Time Warner’s network, he also announced they would not be making any significant upgrades to that network, because what they have now is good enough for the next 10 years.

“I’m very comfortable with our plant,” he said. “I don’t see a need for a massive upgrade.”

In fact, the company is seeking ways to reduce their infrastructure spending further.  They plan to explore utilizing less powerful set top boxes to cut their costs, for example.

Time Warner Cable is finding the broadband component of their service offerings more and more important to customers as time passes.  For a growing number, it is the key component.  Leveraging that value, particularly in markets that aren’t as competitive, could bring massive new profits to the company.  Time Warner Cable acknowledges it has just two big competitors for broadband – Verizon FiOS and AT&T U-Verse.  Everyone else, wireless or copper wire DSL, just don’t have that great of an impact.  Cities that have or will have fiber or AT&T’s hybrid network, will force the company to keep service levels high and prices competitive.  In markets where those competitors don’t exist, it could become a profit free-for-all, as customers will find few, if any alternatives.

In yesterday’s story, FairPoint Communications learned that the state utility commissions in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, were underwhelmed by their proposal to take control of telephone service formerly provided by Verizon.  The regulatory authorities in all three states felt state residents would bear most of the risk, and too few rewards in return for approving the deal.  New Hampshire was among the most skeptical.

[flv width=”320″ height=”240″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WMUR Manchester FairPoint and Verizon Plan to Refile Proposal 12-21-07.flv[/flv]

Vermont wasn’t overwhelmed with what it saw either:

[flv width=”320″ height=”240″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WCAX Burlington FairPoint’s New Plan.flv[/flv]

But FairPoint returned to the negotiating table to make additional promises and concessions.  But would they ultimately keep them?

… Continue Reading

Dr. John Malone

Dr. John Malone, who formerly presided over TeleCommunications, Inc., (TCI, which became AT&T Cable, which then merged with Comcast) has decided that the Internet video free-for-all is too confusing and chaotic for Internet users, and told The Wall Street Journal‘s “D7: All Things Digital” conference attendees that online video needs a “content aggregator” to control and package online video for consumers.  Oh, and by the way, they also need to charge for watching it.

Malone, who now runs Liberty Media, a programming distribution and entertainment company closely aligned with the cable and satellite television industry, said his company would be perfect for the job.

“We’d love to be the aggregator; so would the cable industry,” he said.

Malone also said the traditional model of television is changing, where networks and channels are becoming less important than individual programs.  The worst mistake, in his view, is that content providers are giving it all away for free online when they should be charging a fee instead.

“Clearly advertising has proven to be insufficient, particularly in cycles we go through, to create robust product creation and distribution,” he said.

He pointed to Hulu as a failed model, because it doesn’t have enough ads to generate revenue to produce new content, and relies mostly on reruns and older shows that have been seen on television for years.

Malone compares the online video world to the early days of cable television, before cable programmers began exponentially increasing their rates in order to produce or purchase more “valuable” programming.  Malone claims he understands the dilemma of subscribers who are used to getting content for free, but feels that has to change, and customers will pay for programming they want to see.

He pointed to sports programming in particular, noting the success of the $300 annual fee for the NFL’s Sunday Ticket package, which offers every pro football game to viewers.

Malone has a controversial history, however, being called the head of a “Cable Cosa Nostra” mafia-like family of industry executives and “cable’s Darth Vadar” by then Sen. Al Gore (D-TN).  That was because Malone was a proponent of maintaining strict and unyielding control over programming, and extracting top dollar for the right to view it.  Turning John Malone loose on broadband Internet video has every indication of becoming a repeat performance, where content is served through an online portal controlled by him or other industry executives, and at a price every American should refuse.

Following the Money: Cable's Best Friends in North Carolina Get a Payday

In this second installment of “Follow the Money”, I will look at the sponsors and co-sponsors of HB1252 (Protect Cable Monopolies Act). The bill has a host of legislators involved here in North Carolina.

The sponsors are Rep. Ty Harrell (D-Wake Co), Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Wake Co), Rep. Earl Jones (D-Guilford Co) and Rep. Thom Tillis (R-Mecklenburg Co).

First the good news: Not as much money was thrown around in the House as was in the Senate. Rep. Earl Jones took no money from individuals or PAC’s related to the cable/telecom industry. Rep. Marilyn Avila took $500 from Embarq and $500 from AT&T, along with $100 from an engineer for Verizon.

Rep. Thom Tillis took a total of $3500 from PAC’s ($500 from Embarq, $1000 from Time Warner, $1000 from AT&T PAC and $1000 from AT&T Mobility PAC).

Rep. Ty Harrell took a total of $2750 from PAC’s ($500 from Embarq, $750 from Time Warner, $1000 from AT&T, and $500 from Electricities PAC). He also took $4600 from industry related individuals ($250 from James K Sexton – President of Telephone Strategies Group, $250 from Anthony Copeland – former lobbyist for BTI Telecommunications and FiberSouth, $4000 from Jim Goodman – CEO of Capital Broadcasting, which owns the Raleigh area’s biggest TV and radio stations, and $100 from Lynn R Holmes, who three months after making the donation became one of the current lobbyists for the NC Cable Telecommunications Association).

For the Primary Sponsors a grand total of $7250 from PAC’s and $5600 was given from individuals related to the cable/telecom industry.

The co-sponsors and amounts are as follows:

• Rep. Larry Bell – $500 from Embarq
• Rep. Nelson Cole – $4250 from PAC’s ($2500 from Embarq, $750 from Time Warner and $1000 from AT&T NC PAC).  Cole also received $100 from Charles W Pickelsimer – VP/General Manager of Citizens Telephone Co.
• Rep. James W. Crawford Jr. – $3000 from PAC’s ($2000 from Embarq and $1000 from Time Warner).  He also took $200 from James Pratt Wilson, a retired telecommunications worker and $50 from Richard Reese, an executive from Lexcom Communications.
• Rep. William A. Current Sr – $1500 from PAC’s ($750 from AT&T and $750 from AT&T NC PAC) – Oddly he was given $250 from Embarq and then returned it the same quarter he received it.
• Rep. Nelson Dollar – $3250 from PAC’s ($1000 from Embarq, $750 from Time Warner and $1500 from AT&T)
• Rep. Beverly M. Earle – $1750 from PAC’s ($250 from Embarq and $1500 from AT&T)
• Rep. W. David Guice – took no PAC money from the cable/telecom industry. He did receive $300 from Charles Pickelsimer III- VP Citizens Phone, $1000 from CW Pickelsimer Jr- VP Citizens Phone and $1000 from Senator Tom Apadaca who took a lot of money ($12500) from the industry.
• Rep. Jim Gulley – $500 from PAC’s ($250 from Embarq and $250 from Time Warner)
• Rep. Mark Hilton – $500 from Embarq. He took nothing else.
• Rep. Hugh Holliman – $11500 from PAC’s ($1500 from Embarq, $2000 from Time Warner, $4000 from AT&T, $500 from NC Cable PAC, $2000 from ElectriCities and $1500 from the NC Assn. of Broadcasters). He also took $550 from Richard Reese who is an executive for Lexcom Communications. You should know that the amounts are generally bigger for Holliman because he is the House Majority Leader.
• Rep. Linda P. Johnson – $750 from PAC’s ($250 from Embarq and $500 from AT&T).
• Rep. Carolyn K. Justus – $500 from Embarq.
• Rep. Marvin W. Lucas – $1000 from PAC’s ($500 from Embarq and $500 from AT&T)
• Rep. Wil Neumann – $1000 from PAC’s ($500 from Embarq and $500 from AT&T)
• Rep. Efton M. Sager – $250 from Embarq
• Rep. Fred F. Steen – $3000 from PAC’s ($1000 from Embarq, $1000 from AT&T and $1000 from ElectriCities)

There is one more House Representative I wanted to bring to your attention, Rep. Harold Brubaker. Brubaker is a former Speaker of the House. He is also on both the House Public Utilities Committee and the Joint Committee for Revenue Law. Brubaker took a grand total of $16250 from industry related PAC’s ($5500 from Embarq, $2750 from Time Warner, $6000 from AT&T, $1000 from Sprint/Nextel and $1000 from the Verizon Good Government Club). He also took $300 from CW Pickelsimer – VP Citizens Telephone.

The way I see it, following the money trail, Rep. Harrell introduced HB1252 for Time Warner’s attorneys and lobbyists. Rep. Holliman can use his powerful position to help secure votes and Rep. Brubaker sits on the committee that decides the bills fate. The cable/telecom industry seems to be getting what it has paid for. They spent a grand total of $463,699 for campaign contributions to legislators in the North Carolina General Assembly in 2008. That’s nearly a half-million dollars! I assure you that if we contributed a half a million dollars collectively as a consumer rights PAC, we would have quite a bit more influence in the legislative process. We have the ability to derail this money train from buying its legislation. We have shown this before. We must remain vigilant in our approach to beating back a greedy industry and keeping our legislators honest (or tossing them to the curb come election).