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;”>

Pelosi

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) is not impressed with the telecom industry effort to oppose Net Neutrality and broadband policy reform.  Pelosi was referring to two talking-point-infested letters sent to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski opposing Commission efforts to restore regulatory oversight of the broadband industry lost in a recent court decision.

Speaking for the Democratic majority, Pelosi told bloggers the effort was destined to fail unless Democrats suddenly develop a bipartisan streak, long absent in the House, to sign on Rep. Cliff Stearns’ (R-Florida) anti-oversight bill, something she considers unlikely.

“I don’t know how many options they have unless they choose to work with Republicans, but it’s not going to be a Democratic initiative,” she told bloggers on the conference call.  She added:

“Part of the innovation agenda I advocated for when I became Leader was universal broadband. We had hoped to get it done within five years. We just got the bill passed three years ago under President Bush, but we had no funding. Now we want to have the resources to take us to that place so we don’t have a disparity between urban and rural populations. Reclassification, net neutrality, universal access for every American, these are priorities for us. And we see it not in isolation but as part of a new prosperity, as a job creator, to make America healthier, smarter and an international leader.”

Firedoglake reports pro-consumer Net Neutrality advocates have a letter of their own thanks to Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Washington):

The PCCC has a petition to sign in support of Inslee’s letter, as well as a tool to contact your Representative in the House to tell them to get on board. Today, Speaker Pelosi spoke about the need to educate Representatives on why this is so important, so get to it! Pick up the phone and call, and tell your elected official that you want the Internet protected from greedy corporations.

AT&T’s days of unlimited wireless data plans for smartphone customers officially end June 7th when the company launches new wireless data plans that all come with usage caps attached:

• DataPlus $15 a month and limited to 200 megabytes  of data.  If you exceed it, your overlimit penalty is $15, good for an additional 200 megabytes.
• DataPro $25 a month gets you just 2 gigabytes of data.  The overlimit penalty for those exceeding it is $10 which buys an additional 1 gigabyte of usage.

AT&T Smartphone customers will also be able to add tethering under the $25 DataPro plan for an extra $20 per month, with DataPro’s usage allowance applied.

Current AT&T customers can remain on their current unlimited Smartphone data plan indefinitely, even if they change or upgrade phones according to AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel.  That concession probably helps AT&T preserve anticipated demand for next week’s new iPhone launch.  Without it, customer demand could be tempered by the realization a phone upgrade could cost you your $29.99 unlimited usage plan.  If you were considering getting an AT&T phone with unlimited data, you have until June 6th to sign up for service under that plan.  After that date, you’re out of luck indefinitely.

AT&T is promoting the end of unlimited wireless broadband as a benefit to customers, claiming that 98 percent of its Smartphone customers use on average less than 2GB of data per month.  But that represents today’s usage.  AT&T’s decision to eliminate an unlimited option they claim 98 percent of their customers never exceeded would be curious without understanding the next generation of Smartphones will provide dramatic improvements in high bandwidth video streaming that will dramatically start eating into those low usage allowances.  The company’s next generation of faster wireless broadband will also include low limit plans, which makes them untenable as a home broadband replacement for all but the most casual users.

For new iPad customers, the $25 per month 2 GB plan will replace the existing $29.99 unlimited plan. iPad customers will continue to pre-pay for their wireless data plan and no contract is required. Existing iPad customers who have the $29.99 per month unlimited plan can keep that plan or switch to the new $25 per month plan with 2 GB of data.

AT&T offers up the common practice of boasting about how much you can do with a usage-limited account, based on the thousands of e-mails you'll never send, the 500 pictures you'll never take, or the 20 - one minute YouTube clips you'll never watch. Notice they never seem to include figures for streaming multimedia applications like music, movies, and TV shows or playing more bandwidth-intensive games. To do so would only upset customers further.

AT&T says customers can continue to use unlimited amounts of data when they access it over the company’s Wi-Fi network hotspots.

Wall Street is happy with AT&T’s elimination of unlimited plans, sensing higher profits and reduced costs will follow.

“The new plans appear well designed to reduce undue network stresses,” Craig Moffett, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein told The Wall Street Journal.

Analyst Philip Cusick at Macquarie Securities also told the Journal AT&T may see lower growth in data revenue in the short term as a result of the new changes, but will gain leverage over the heaviest data users, improving its ability to manage its network and charge for capacity. Tiered plans may also pull more customers into data plans, he said.

But because current customers can choose to remain on the grandfathered unlimited plan, existing heavy data users accused of chewing up AT&T’s wireless network can continue to do so as long as they remain customers.  AT&T will only be capping future customers who sign up on or after June 7th.

For those outraged by AT&T’s decision, fleeing to Verizon Wireless for unlimited data may not be an option for too much longer either.

Verizon Wireless Chief Executive Lowell McAdam indicated in an interview with the Journal last month that he, too, is looking at pricing based on use.

“The old model of one price plan per device is going to fall away,” McAdam told the newspaper, adding that he expects carriers to take an approach that targets a “bucket of megabytes.”

One company that doesn’t plan to end an all-you-can-eat wireless data buffet is Sprint, which now sees its unlimited data plan as a potential marketing asset.

A Sprint spokesperson spoke the words you were already thinking:

“We’re giving customers a better value. With data usage growing, customers don’t want to worry about going over their limits.”

Some customers upset that AT&T only sold an unlimited plan welcomed the lower cost options because they didn’t spend a lot of time using the data features of their phones, but several wondered why the company didn’t simply introduce lower cost options -and- leave the unlimited plan in place for those who wanted it.

Overall, AT&T is getting an earful from angry customers over the announcement — even those who don’t exceed 2GB per month.  They sense greed and overcharging.   A sampling:

If 3% are using data “a lot” now, then in another two years, it’ll be 15% and then 60%. Simply put, this is gouging customers, where pricing is decided by dudes in a board room looking at charts and graphs and sales numbers, figuring out how to gouge people for maximum profit.

Obviously AT&T is killing the unlimited plan to cut down on usage and to raise their profits. I also believe it is heavy handed to eliminate the unlimited access plan. If anything, offer other plans and raise the price of the unlimited plan. It will be interesting to see of the other players follow suit and also kill their unlimited plans (can you say “price fixing”? Sure you can!).

AT&T is always full of good ideas, like that Microcell thing. Hey, we can’t give you good service you paid for, so we are going to ask you for more money for this piece of equipment to supplement the service you are not getting.

Just another greedy ploy to make more money. They are selling air. The charges are ridiculous and this is one industry that should be under government control.

My spouse and I pay half of what AT&T would charge us for excellent Palm smartphones on Sprint. We also get turn-by-turn GPS included–something AT&T AND Verizon both charge extra for. Sprint’s network is top-notch. I can’t fathom why people continue to waste money on Verizon and AT&T.

If you’ve got a smartphone or you tether your computer, you really have no idea how much bandwidth your device is consuming. Even worse (or better if you are the phone company) customers can’t control the bandwidth that their devices consume. How often does your email client check for new messages? Can you even stop your computer from downloading a security update? What about that last application you installed, can you stop it from calling home every time you launch it? Do you even know that it does track and report your usage? That’s a huge difference between phone services and data services. You KNOW when you’ve dialed a number and talked for 10 minutes. You can’t control all the data consuming applications and services on your devices… and trying to bill customers for something that they can’t control the usage or cost must be illegal. Surely someone will address this problem soon. Surely.

[flv width=”576″ height=”344″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN ATT Goodbye to unlimited data 6-2-10.flv[/flv]

CNN Money reports on AT&T saying goodbye to unlimited data plans for iPhones and iPads.  (1 minute)

Caswell County, North Carolina

A new bill from Rep. Bill Faison (D-Orange, Caswell) would offer one North Carolina county the chance to build its own municipally-owned cable and broadband provider to deliver service to places other providers refuse to go.

H2067, “An Act to Allow Caswell County to Provide Internet Services, An Authorized Purpose Under Cable Television,” would authorize Caswell County to build its own municipal broadband system by adding cable television systems to a list of defined public enterprises.  That opens the door to selling bonds to raise private funds for system construction.

Faison told us that a 2005 ruling in the BellSouth (today AT&T) v. Laurinburg case, a state appeals court ruled that communities had the right to build systems to deliver broadband service to their residents.  He told IndyWeek there are many areas in his district and beyond that have been bypassed by cable and DSL service providers, with little hope in sight that many of the residents he represents would ever see anything beyond dial-up.

In making his case for the bill, Faison cited as an example electrical co-ops across the state that brought basic utilities services to under-served towns. “High speed internet is just as important today as electricity was in another era as a basic service,” said Faison, a proponent of municipal broadband.

“We need to supply to every one. Where AT&T will go and provide at a reasonable cost, I am happy to let them do it—but where they won’t go, someone must step up and bring that service to those people,” he added.

Faison

We had a few moments to talk to Rep. Faison about his bill and its timely introduction during the ongoing heated debate over S1209, a poison pill bill that would stop municipal broadband projects in the state.

He told us Caswell County officials appealed to him as their State Legislator to introduce the bill so they could move forward on their project, and H2067 concisely delivers within the parameters of the 2005 court case.

It will be interesting to watch progress on Faison’s H2067 in contrast to the anti-consumer S1209, introduced by Sen. David Hoyle (D-Gaston).  The only downside to Faison’s legislation is that it is limited to Caswell County.  But Faison also shows the way forward for other legislators to introduce similar bills to authorize projects in the areas of the state they represent.

For Caswell County residents, it means the potential to finally get quality broadband service after years of broken promises from incumbent providers.  Comcast of Danville, Virginia provides limited service, mostly in parts of Yanceyville, the county seat.  AT&T offers limited DSL service, but not to several areas of the county.  Those unlucky enough to be bypassed still rely mostly on dial-up.

Rep. Faison deserves your support for being a legislator that truly represents his constituents, and his actions illustrate he thinks of them first.  Please take a moment to write or call to thank him for his vision on this important issue and his support for getting the job done.

Rep. Bill Faison — [email protected] — (919) 715-3019

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Caswell County.flv[/flv]

Here is a senior citizen and a librarian in Caswell County, trying to live life without acceptable broadband.  These are real people with real stories to share. Broadband is not a luxury for these residents.  (4 minutes)

Once again, S1209 discussion was postponed Tuesday in the Senate Finance Committee.  No explanation for the change was given.  But before you get your hopes up, the bill is on the agenda for today at 1:00pm.

Brian Bowman of Save NC Broadband invites anyone in the Raleigh area to consider coming to the Legislative Office Building, Room 544 at 1pm this afternoon if you want to make your presence known to the Committee.

If you can’t go, please consider following through on our Call to Action and get in contact with your legislators and tell them to oppose S1209.

IndyWeek notes calls and messages opposing the bill are making an important impact:

Sen. William Purcell, a Democrat representing Anson, Richmond, Scotland, and Stanly counties, attended yesterday’s meeting, and said he cannot support S 1209 as written.

“I hope the bill is going to come back changed,” said Sen. Purcell. “I have had a lot of calls and emails from local governments in my district who are very concerned about this bill.”

Sen. Purcell is most concerned with the burden the bill places on local governments to apply for and receive General Obligation Bonds before implementing a broadband system or repairing an existing project. “Local governments going up against powerful communications people who have the money to do a large campaign against a broadband project during a general election, could make it virtually impossible for any city to put in their own system.”

Municipal cable and broadband consultant Catharine Rice of Action Audits said, “I think Sen. Clodfelter finally understands that there are negative impacts to Sen. Hoyle’s bill.”

“These Senators have to hear from the grassroots,” said Rice. “They need to hear from their own people who don’t want our state handed over to Time Warner Cable and AT&T.”