Fayette County, Pennsylvania

Brazen copper thieves have taken to ripping phone cable right off the poles in an effort to cash in on resurgent copper pricing, usually to feed expensive drug habits like the ones discussed when you visit this web-site.

In southwestern Pennsylvania, repeated thefts have gotten so bad Verizon announced a $50,000 reward for information leading to the prosecution of those involved.

The epidemic of copper theft in Fayette County has reached an all-time-high as Verizon finds large sections of working cable stripped right from telephone poles.  When the cables come down, phone and broadband service goes out.

“These thefts are incomprehensible because they put people’s lives in danger and can cost thousands of dollars to repair,” said Michael Wagner, director of construction for Verizon Pennsylvania.  “We will not tolerate these deliberate and malicious acts against our telephone network and our customers.”

As a result of these crimes, hundreds of Verizon local phone customers have unnecessarily experienced telephone service delays – up to several days in some cases – and endured risks to their personal safety.

“They’re putting people who rely on phone service out of service,” Verizon spokesman Richard Young explained. “They’re putting customers who need service in danger in the event of an emergency to call an ambulance, to call the fire department. This person is putting the lives of people at risk.”

Verizon has suffered nine losses across the county in just a month:

• April 22 in Uniontown – A 360-foot section of copper cable was cut and stolen.
• April 25 in Farmington – A 600-foot section of copper cable was cut and stolen.
• April 26 in White House – Nearly 400 feet of copper cable and a fiber-optic cable were cut and stolen.
• May 5 in White House – A 290-foot section of a copper cable and a fiber-optic cable were cut and stolen.
• May 11 in Shoaf – A 300-foot section of cable was cut and stolen.
• May 11 in Smithfield – A 230-foot section of cable was cut and stolen.
• May 12 in Haydentown – More than 1,200 feet of copper cable and a fiber-optic cable were cut and stolen.
• May 14 in McClellandtown – Two sections of copper cable totaling 500 feet were cut and stolen.
• May 17 in Gates – A 350-foot section of copper cable was cut and stolen.

Southwestern Pennsylvania is by no means alone in confronting copper theft.  Across the country, thieves are stealing copper wiring from every utility.  Thieves also steal copper pipes from homes, and in a new trend, are stripping copper coils from air conditioning units.

The reason for the interest in copper is its ever-increasing value.  Copper prices exploded a few years ago, and have trended upwards ever since.

Copper price trends

In January 2009, copper was bringing “just over a dollar a pound,” according to Lee Swann, a security contractor who works with Georgia Transmission Corporation. Today — “depending on what type of copper it is” — the metal is bringing $2.80-$3.10 per pound — an all-time high for many recyclers, even as prices have recently declined on the spot market.

At those prices, the incentives are there for theft.  Recovering and recycling copper has been a growth business for years, and many companies aggressively advertise “top dollar paid for recovered metals” promotions in newspapers and circulars.

Some recycling facilities are vigilant for suspicious truckloads of “recovered” copper while others are less so.  But as law enforcement confronts the growing trend in copper theft and utility companies begin offering rewards to stop it, many facilities are now regularly cooperating with local police.

Most of the proceeds from stolen copper likely go towards illegal drugs, particularly methamphetamine, believes the Coalition Against Cable Theft, a Washington-based advocacy group funded by home builders, contractors, and utility companies who are usually the victims of copper theft.  The Coalition wants strengthened laws to deter recyclers from accepting and paying for questionable sources of recovered copper.

Perhaps copper theft would be just one more reason why providers should dump copper wire for fiber optic networks, but many of the thieves are stupid — indiscriminately cutting and tearing down cables of all kinds, only later to find they were stuck with fiber optic cable, which most immediately discard at the base of poles, deemed worthless.

Anyone with information about the Pennsylvania copper capers can contact Verizon Security at 412-633-4902 or the Pennsylvania State Police at 724-439-7111.  In other areas, if you discover suspicious activity, call 911.

The money and utility service you save may be your own.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KDKA Pittsburgh WALA Mobile Copper Thieves 5-10.flv[/flv]

KDKA-TV in Pittsburgh covered an earlier copper theft of Verizon wiring and WALA in Mobile ran a very similar story about copper thieves plaguing AT&T.  (4 minutes)

WTTG's "Ask Allison" segment answers a question about unwelcome mandatory data plans

Ever wonder why your cell phone bill seems to keep increasing when you renew your contract?

American wireless phone companies have discovered that subjecting an increasing percentage of customers to required data plans can create a revenue bonanza for companies, whether customers use many data services or not.

Many customers are just learning of new, mandatory data plans now required by all four of the country’s major carriers.  Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile now compel customers upgrading to new “smartphones” — designed to be used for accessing online services — to also choose an extra add-on plan to cover their data usage.  In some cases, that can add an additional $30 a month to monthly cell phone bills.

Some Verizon customers have learned about this the hard way when they tried to buy a new phone at the end of their two year contracts.  For those longstanding Verizon customers grandfathered on service plans developed five or more years ago, being forced to switch to one of Verizon’s current plans carries quite the sticker shock, especially for those who only occasionally send text messages or use data features.

The insistence by Verizon that Smartphone owners commit to their $29.99 unlimited data usage add-on plan adds considerably to monthly bills.  Many Verizon customers don’t care about increasing sizes of calling allowances — Verizon customers already enjoy free night and weekend calling and free calls to other Verizon Wireless customers (of which there are many — Verizon is now the nation’s largest wireless provider).

Here is a comparison between two near-equivalent Verizon Wireless calling plans, ones from 2005 and the other currently in effect.  There is a dramatic difference in pricing, particularly for those who would find a 250 text message allowance, and data usage counting against your minutes allowance more than sufficient to meet their needs:

AMERICA’S CHOICE II FAMILYSHARE PLAN (2005)

Plan Details

Promotion details

UNLIMITED N&W MINUTES, UNLIMITED VERIZON-TO-VERIZON CUSTOMER CALLING, MOBILE WEB – WEB USAGE COUNTS AGAINST MINUTE ALLOWANCE

Additional features

250 MESSAGE TEXT PLAN, INCLUDING TEXT AND VIDEO ($5 PER MONTH)

NATIONWIDE FAMILY TALK & TEXT SHAREPLAN (2010)

Plan Details

Promotion details

UNLIMITED N&W MINUTES, UNLIMITED VERIZON-TO-VERIZON CUSTOMER CALLING, UNLIMITED TEXT, PICTURE, AND VIDEO MESSAGING

Additional Features

REQUIRED UNLIMITED DATA PLAN (SMARTPHONE) ($29.99 PER MONTH)

Before taxes, fees, and surcharges, Verizon Wireless customers holding onto their legacy FamilyShare plan from 2005 would pay $65.00 per month for two lines sharing 700 minutes of calling, with one line also getting 250 text, picture, or video messages, and a data plan that ate from your minutes allowance, instead of charging you per megabyte.

Today’s plan costs far more — $129.98 — more than double, for most of the same features.  The only difference is that Verizon Wireless doesn’t presently limit your data usage or messaging on their SharePlan.

No wonder consumers are getting sticker shock when upgrading their phones.  The paradigm shift to a “required data plan” forces customers away from older service plans onto new ones.  The result is a much higher monthly bill.

All this and the same companies that have figured out how to effectively double your cell phone bill in five years are also contemplating taking away the “unlimited” part of the required data plan.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTTG Washington Is It Legal to Require A Phone Data Plan 5-7-10.flv[/flv]

WTTG-TV’s “Ask Allison” feature recently answered a question from a viewer who just discovered the “mandatory data plan” as an unwelcome part of her new phone purchase.  The Washington, D.C. viewer wants to know if that’s legal.  Allison educates viewers in the nation’s capital that isn’t the only trick or trap cell phone companies have in store for you.  Bottom line: maybe you don’t want that new phone after all.  (3 minutes)

AT&T has discovered marketing gold.  What do you do when you run one of America’s worst-rated mobile networks — the one that drops your calls, doesn’t provide uniform reception and is often woefully overloaded — and don’t want to spend what it takes to upgrade?  How about developing a “Home Cell Tower” device that helps solve AT&T’s problems, but adds to yours by charging you $150 for the privilege of owning one.

AT&T’s 3G MicroCell shouldn’t need to exist.  If AT&T had reliable coverage, nobody would need to own a device that helps their bottom line far more than yours.

The MicroCell is sold to customers who are stuck walking their AT&T mobile phone over to the nearest window in order to get a signal from AT&T.  The unit, manufactured by Cisco, plugs into your home broadband connection and effectively creates a tiny “home cell tower.”  Suddenly, you now have five bars of reception indoors and can make and receive calls and reliably use the data features of your smartphone.  AT&T effectively moves your service off their own congested, weak-signal mobile network,  and routes everything over your Internet connection instead.

AT&T 3G MicroCell

It’s a win-win for AT&T.  They get to charge you a substantial markup for a device that costs far less than $150 to manufacture and reduces the urgency to commit to needed upgrades to solve congestion problems.

But AT&T’s marketing department has also figured out a way to earn an even bigger bonus along the way.

Customers who do not choose a special added-cost AT&T MicroCell add-on plan (a ludicrous $19.99 per month plus a $1.25 monthly bill-padding-“regulatory recovery fee”) will be shocked to discover AT&T deducts minutes from your calling allowance even when using the MicroCell to provide you with service.  It takes a special kind of nerve to charge customers for making and receiving calls that don’t even use the company’s mobile network.  It’s like AT&T setting up a kiosk in front of the nearest Verizon payphone and charging you $1 for the privilege of paying Verizon 25 cents to make a call.  The $20 a month add-on plan doesn’t even cover data usage, which means AT&T charges you for accessing data and text messages sent and received over your own home broadband connection.

The Associated Press reviewed AT&T’s 3G MicroCell and seemed unimpressed.

Despite marketing claims it will deliver more bars in more places within 5,000 square feet, the AP found the MicroCell only managed a less impressive 40 feet. AT&T admits concrete or brick walls can also reduce coverage. For all practical purposes, don’t expect the device to provide much help out in the yard.

AT&T also claims MicroCell users can initiate calls from the MicroCell and have them “seamlessly” transferred to AT&T’s mobile network when they walk out of range.  The AP found more times than not, AT&T simply dropped the call, forcing the customer to start a new call.  Even worse, customers initiating a call on AT&T’s mobile network will find the MicroCell can’t take over when they arrive home, making the primary reason for getting the device irrelevant the moment you walk in the door and risk dropping the call.

The only good news is that introductory promotions can knock down the upfront price.  Customers committing themselves to the $20 MicroCell add-on calling plan qualify for a $100 rebate when purchasing the MicroCell.  If you also sign up for new AT&T DSL or U-verse service when buying the MicroCell, you can get an additional $50 rebate, effectively making the MicroCell free to own.  AT&T broadband customers will also get $10 off the MicroCell add-on calling plan.

There is nothing inherently wrong with offering customers these devices, known in the industry as femtocells, but companies like AT&T should be providing them at-cost and be grateful when customers use them.  Instead, the company treats these customers as nothing more than another profit center, ripping them off with a ludicrously priced add-on calling plan to avoid watching call allowances erode away, even when calls don’t travel over AT&T’s mobile network.

[flv width=”586″ height=”310″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT MicroCell Demo.flv[/flv]

This video covers how AT&T markets their MicroCell device and accompanying add-on plan and also includes a brief tutorial on how the device works.  (4 minutes)

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/AP ATT’s Home Cell Tower Delivers an Added Cost 5-5-10.flv[/flv]

The Associated Press reviewed the AT&T MicroCell and ultimately wondered why customers had to pay for a device to improve service you already pay to receive.  (2 minutes)

[Updated 2:30pm — Coverage area correction made.]

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski has gotten the message.  After a report earlier this week in the Washington Post that the chairman was contemplating leaving broadband unregulated, without Net Neutrality protections, thousands of calls and e-mail messages poured into FCC headquarters protesting the report and asking for action.  Many also called their members of Congress and the White House demanding the administration keep its word on broadband reform policies.

Late Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal published news that Genachowski had apparently changed course:

In a move that will stoke a battle over the future of the Internet, the federal government plans to propose regulating broadband lines under decades-old rules designed for traditional phone networks.

The decision, by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski, is likely to trigger a vigorous lobbying battle, arraying big phone and cable companies and their allies on Capitol Hill against Silicon Valley giants and consumer advocates.

Breaking a deadlock within his agency, Mr. Genachowski is expected Thursday to outline his plan for regulating broadband lines. He wants to adopt “net neutrality” rules that require Internet providers like Comcast Corp. and AT&T Inc. to treat all traffic equally, and not to slow or block access to websites.

The Journal’s framing language about “decades-old rules” aside, the decision by the chairman to reclassify broadband as a “telecommunications service” was the only way forward for an agency who had its authority cut from beneath it by a recent court decision.

The news that Genachowski was considering leaving things as-is, totally deregulated, met with opposition from both leaders of the House and Senate Commerce Committees which have jurisdiction over the FCC.  Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California) and Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) wrote Genachowski urging the Commission to consider “all viable options” to regain authority over broadband.  When Congress speaks, the FCC listens.

The Commission had two choices — keeping broadband “regulated” under Title I of the Telecommunications Act under the now court-discredited “information service” paradigm, or reclassifying it under Title II as a “telecommunications service,” where the Commission enjoys the prospect of already court-tested and approved authority to regulate.  Either way assured legal challenges, but under Title II the Commission faced just a single lawsuit to reaffirm its authority to regulate such services.  Under Title I, every reform attempted by the Commission would face provider lawsuits, with precedent on the side of the cable and phone companies to win.

Net Neutrality opponents claim the policy would be ruinous to broadband providers, but when SBC and AT&T merged into a new super-sized AT&T, the company agreed to adhere to Net Neutrality guidelines for two years and didn't suffer any ill effects.

The telecommunications industry and their allies have attempted to frame such reclassification as a government takeover or regulation of the Internet.  Some of these companies even threaten to challenge any reclassification as a violation of their First Amendment rights, an absurd notion for a company that transports content from third parties to its customers.  Since when does a provider get to assert ownership over speech from someone else?  It’s overreach like this that helped fuel the demand for Net Neutrality in the first place.  The policies the FCC seeks to enact as part of the National Broadband Plan, including Net Neutrality, do not regulate or “take over” the Internet — it guarantees that providers can’t block or control that content for monetary gain.

Genachowski is signaling he’s intent on reclassifying broadband not to saddle broadband providers with 1940s telephone regulations, but to assure the Commission and the Administration it can bring the National Broadband Plan to reality without provider roadblocks thrown up along the way.

Sources have leaked details to the media that suggest Genachowski will propose a novel “third way” of broadband reclassification — asserting the right to regulate broadband under Title II, but exempting broadband providers from most of the regulatory provisions that were written to deal with Ma Bell.  In other words, the changes would turn the clock back, before the DC Circuit Court threw out the FCC’s regulatory authority to spank Comcast for throttling its customers’ broadband speeds.  With Title II authority in place, Genachowski hopes a court hearing the same case would have found for the FCC, not against it.

The telecommunications industry has already gone over the top suggesting Genachowski’s plan represents Broadband Armageddon.

One of the industry’s good friends is Senator John Ensign (R-Nevada).  He has their talking points down word for word:

“Using this heavy-handed approach to regulation … will jeopardize private investment and innovation in broadband and inject regulatory uncertainty throughout the entire Internet,” Ensign said in a statement.

“We would expect a profoundly negative impact on capital investment,” warned Stanford Bernstein analyst and lover of big cable Craig Moffett in a research note to clients Wednesday night titled “The FCC Goes Nuclear.”

“The only potential winners are the satellite providers, DirecTV and Dish Network, for whom incremental broadband regulation would dramatically reduce the risk of competitive foreclosure in the video business at the hands of bottleneck broadband providers,” he wrote.

The hue and cry over any broadband regulations or court decisions unfavorable to the industry always results in claims it will “dry up investment,” “retard growth,” or downright ruin the Internet for everyone.

Some in the business press even suggest today’s unveiling of Genachowski’s “third way” represents uncharted waters for America’s broadband story.

But how soon they forget.

When SBC and AT&T won approval to merge, one of the conditions was that the new super-sized AT&T respect Net Neutrality concepts for a period of two years.  They agreed:

Net Neutrality
1 . Effective on the Merger Closing Date, and continuing for 30 months thereafter, AT&T/BellSouth will conduct business in a manner that comports with the principles set forth in the Commission’s Policy Statement, issued September 23, 2005 (FCC 05-151).

2. AT&T/BellSouth also commits that it will maintain a neutral network and neutral routing in its wireline broadband Internet access service. 15 This’ commitment shall be satisfied by AT&T/BellSouth’s agreement not to provide or to sell to Internet content, application, or service providers, including those affiliated with AT&T/BellSouth, any service that privileges, degrades or prioritizes any packet transmitted over AT&T/BellSouth’s wireline broadband Internet access service based on its source, ownership or destination.

So for two years, AT&T lived under the same rules the FCC seeks to enforce nationwide for all broadband providers.  Did the company shut down?  No — it grew larger with additional mergers and acquisitions.  Did  broadband expansion stop?  No — AT&T has since unveiled its U-verse service and faster broadband in many cities across its service area.  Has it reduced investment in broadband?  What do you think AT&T is spending on deploying U-verse?

The sky never fell, the investment never disappeared, and there was no panic in the streets.  When consumer protections are enacted, the same companies that are currently proclaiming that such changes will ruin their businesses will be singing a different tune to their Wall Street investors once they are enacted.

Read Chairman Genachowski’s Full Statement Below the Jump!

… Continue Reading

Senator Hoyle's legislation lays the foundation for cable and phone companies to spend hundreds of thousands of subscriber dollars to mail smear campaign pieces like this one from Comcast.

(This piece is written by Jay Ovittore and Phillip Dampier.)

The good news is that all the pushback on an all-out-moratorium on municipal broadband was successful and Senator David Hoyle (D-Gaston) withdrew the idea.  The bad news is he had an even worse idea to replace it.

Hoyle Wednesday unveiled a new draft bill that hopelessly ties up municipal broadband projects into knots of red tape that, if passed into law, will bury municipal broadband projects in North Carolina indefinitely.

Hoyle sprung his telecom-industry-friendly legislation on the public after getting plenty of input and encouragement from the state’s cable and phone companies who already knew what was in it because they helped craft it.

For a retiring state senator who doesn’t have to worry about the next election, what better parting gift can you give to your friends in the cable and phone industry than a bill that preserves the comfortable duopoly they’ve  enjoyed for years.

Hoyle and those supporting the legislation will argue their bill doesn’t ban municipal broadband — it simply places conditions on such projects before they can go forward.  But what are those conditions?

Section One of the draft bill requires local governments to get funding for “external communications services” (ie. municipal broadband) by way of a General Obligation Bond (a GO Bond).  In North Carolina, that requires a taxpayer-funded referendum to be held for public input at the next election.

On the surface, getting public approval for municipal broadband isn’t a bad idea — no local government official expecting to win re-election would ever proceed on such projects without voter support.  But this requirement also gives plenty of advance notice to incumbent providers that a new player could be invading their turf.

We know what that means.  A well-funded opposition campaign to demagogue the project.  Local cable companies can insert an unlimited number of free ads during every advertising break to slam the proposal.  Phone companies can release a blizzard of opposition mailers to convince consumers it’s as scary as Halloween — all tricks and no treats.

How can a local city or county government respond to the misinformation barrage?  They can’t.  Public officials can’t spend taxpayer dollars to promote such projects or refute industry propaganda.  They can’t even financially assist a citizen-run campaign.

That’s a fight with ground rules only Don King could love.

In the end, that leaves ordinary citizens of North Carolina facing down a multi-billion dollar statewide consortium of telecommunications interests hellbent on preserving and protecting the status qu0.

The earlier-discussed moratorium was a brick wall against municipal broadband.  Hoyle’s bill is the Great Wall of China with the logos of AT&T, Time Warner Cable, and CenturyLink plastered all over it.

But wait, there’s more.  To deal with municipal broadband projects that got an initial green light to dare to interfere with the phone and cable industries’ grand business plans, another provision provides a near endless supply additional referendums to get rid of the projects.  Hoyle’s bill actually demands more votes should existing systems need:

• refinancing to reduce the interest rate or restructure existing debt;
• to make repairs to the system’s “fixtures;” and/or
• to upgrade the system to meet subscribers’ needs.

Ponder the insanity:

• The legislation could be interpreted to demand a public referendum if your service goes out.  Can you wait until the next election to get back your cable service?
• If a municipal broadband fiber cable falls in your backyard, does it make a sound?  It won’t, but you will when you learn that cable might not be reattached to the pole until the whole town holds a referendum about it;
• Would you be upset if your local municipal provider could refinance its debt at a much lower interest rate, letting them cut their prices, but they can’t before the next election?
• While cable and phone companies refuse to upgrade their service to levels that would have made such municipal alternatives unnecessary, they also want to make certain the one provider that did meet your needs can’t upgrade… without a public vote.

These systems are not constructed with public tax dollars, but Senator Hoyle wants every citizen in a community, subscriber or not, to ponder the future of a local municipal broadband provider.  It’s like giving AT&T veto power over Time Warner Cable’s channel lineup.  Guess who has to pay for these constant referendums?  Taxpayers.  So while Senator Hoyle complains municipal broadband costs the state tax revenue, his legislation guarantees increased government spending on pointless referendums.  That’s logic only a politician working for the interests of big cable can appreciate.

For the cable and phone companies, and their good friends in the North Carolina legislature, this is their idea of a level playing field.  In reality it’s about as level as a downhill ski run.

Let’s extend that “fairness” out to incumbent cable and phone companies and consider whether you got a vote on:

• Whether or not the cable and phone companies got to put their wires on phone poles plunked down in front of your house;
• Whether or not you wanted either company to dig up your yard to bury their wiring;
• Whether you wanted that giant metal refrigerator-sized metal box installed on your street, in your yard, or on the phone pole you see from your window every day;
• Whether or not you want the cable company to repair Mrs. Jenkins’ problems with HBO up the street whenever it rains or replace the cable the squirrels chewed up;
• What channels and services you want to pay for, which ones you do not, and at what price you need to pay your local phone or cable company.
• What cable or phone company gets to provide service in your community.

Apparently the fairness concept only applies to potential new competitors, not the existing providers.

Let’s also consider the cable television industry didn’t just magically bloom into a multi-billion dollar business without government help.  In the early days of cable television, investors were assured that they were financing a monopoly provider, guaranteed through a franchise agreement process that gave newly built cable companies exclusivity to help repay construction costs.  Franchise wars broke out between 1978 and 1984 as competing companies promised the moon with state-of-the-art two-way cable systems with the capacity to offer 70 or more channels.  The players then included Time’s American Television and Communications Corporation, Warner’s Amex, and Telecommunications, Inc. (TCI).  ATC and Amex would later evolve into Time Warner Cable and TCI became AT&T Cable before being sold to Comcast.  Communities seeking cable television for their residents would later learn a lot of these promises made were promises broken – reneged on by large cable companies with few, if any consequences.

During the Reagan Administration, then-FCC Chairman Mark Fowler bestowed additional deregulation benefits on the cable industry.  The Museum of Broadcast Communications explains:

The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 addressed the two issues that still hindered cable television’s growth and profitability: rate regulation and the relative uncertainty surrounding franchise renewals. Largely the result of extensive negotiation and compromise between the cable industry’s national organization, the National Cable Television Association, and the League of Cities representing municipalities franchising cable systems, the act provided substantial comfort to the cable industry’s future.

Its major provisions created a standard procedure for renewing franchises that gave operators relatively certain renewal, and it deregulated rates so that operators could charge what they wanted for different service tiers as long as there was “effective competition” to the service. This was defined as the presence of three or more over-the-air signals, a very easy standard that over 90% of all cable markets could meet. The act also allowed cities to receive up to 5% of the operator’s revenues in an annual franchise fee and made some minor concessions in mandating “leased access” channels to be available to groups desiring to “speak” via cable television.

Additional reforms guaranteed pole attachment rights to the cable industry so they could wire and service their network unencumbered by utility company interference or high pole attachment fees.  Cable consolidation allowed formerly mom and pop cable systems to become part of a cable industry where just a handful of cable companies provide service to the majority of cable households.  Countless millions are spent each year by the industry to lobby state and federal governments to keep the party going without regulatory interference, suggesting competiti0n alone is the only regulation required.

Except when a new competitor enters the market, of course.  Fearing competition from municipal providers who will force cable and phone companies to charge reasonable rates and upgrade service, the best possible solution is to find a way to ban such projects.

Forcing regular referendums and the complexities and expenses associated with them guarantees no community in North Carolina would ever bother with the onerous requirements to launch municipal broadband projects.

That’s not just Jay and I saying that.  What Hoyle has proposed hardly breaks new ground.  It’s the same dog and pony show the industry has brought to other states to stop competition and keep prices high and service slow.

So let’s learn from the painful experiences of others:

First lobbying for legislation requiring referendums and then winning it, SBC (later AT&T) and Comcast used the opportunity to spend more than $300,000 of their subscribers’ money to launch a major misinformation campaign with misleading and inaccurate mailers that successfully fought off a proposition to deliver better and cheaper service through a municipal broadband project in Batavia, Geneva, and St. Charles, Illinois.  Fiber for Our Future documented the whole sordid affair from start to finish as a lesson to others confronting industry-backed referendum requirements.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/unproven.flv[/flv]

Want a preview of the distortion and misinformation-campaign cable and phone providers will bring to stop municipal broadband?  Watch this SBC (today AT&T) executive tell city officials in Illinois that fiber is “unproven,” that the phone company’s DSL speeds are comparable to Comcast Cable, and that consumers don’t need the 3Mbps speed the company was delivering back in 2004 when this video was taken.  “What are you going to do with 20 megabits.  I mean, it’s like having an Indy race car and you don’t have the race track to drive it on.”  (3 minutes)

Longmont, Colorado spent years suffering with bad broadband service from Comcast and Qwest and sought a better alternative with a municipally-run provider.  But then the cable and phone giants spent $200,000 to put a stop to that.  While local subscribers may have preferred that $200,000 be used to reduce their rates, for Comcast and Qwest it was an investment in maintaining future pricing only duopolies can achieve, all while delivering “good enough for you” broadband service to Longmont residents.  In 2006, the Baller Herbst Law Firm collected information on industry-backed barriers to municipal broadband, and the list went on for nine pages.  Many of them sound eerily familiar to what Hoyle proposes (after cable and phone companies whispered time tested, industry proven ideas into his ear).

The city of North St. Paul, Minnesota has advice for states like North Carolina after their own experience with a coordinated industry-backed smear campaign against municipal broadband enabled by legislation similar to what Hoyle proposes:

What should be of interest to all communities was the organized opposition.  It appears that the incumbent providers, industry associations and politically conservative think tanks teamed up to promote negative news stories, do polling and opposition phone calls, provide transportation for identified “no” voters and create web sites.

While we heard some advocates lamenting this high priced anti-municipal fiber effort, this response is something that community leaders must expect and be prepared for.  A strong community education and mobilization effort must be a part of any municipal telecommunications initiative.  A coalition of business owners and residents must be created and maintained that can counter the expected efforts of the incumbent providers.  The benefits of the community-owned network should be documented and promoted so that an overwhelming majority of voters will choose to vote yes.  We hope that, one way or the other, North St. Paul gets the “More, Better Broadband” that the MN Broadband Coalition supports.

Of course, when local communities are banned from spending a nickel on advocacy for their projects, it effectively hands a restraining order to broadband advocates who can’t even get on the playing field, level or otherwise.

Outraged yet?

It will only get worse if Hoyle’s bill ever becomes law.  Residents in communities like Salisbury endured a sampling of the kind of negative campaign this industry will launch wherever municipal broadband competition threatens to appear.  In 2009, residents were hassled with push-polling phone calls from industry-backed astroturf groups claiming to represent ordinary citizens, but were actually little more than sock puppets for big telecom.  Your mailbox will be filled with blizzards of misleading mailers that current cable and phone customers pay for.  If they need more money, they can always raise your rates to cover the difference.  In the end, with the help of elected officials who don’t care about North Carolina consumers, existing municipal projects can bleed themselves dry (later to be used by the industry as “failed examples” to claim such projects are too risky to try) and proposed ones will never see a spade plunged into the soil to bury the first strand of fiber optic cable.

But it’s not all bad news.  It doesn’t have to happen this way.  You can tell your state representative you are watching them like a hawk on this issue.  Any “yes” vote for legislation like that proposed by Senator Hoyle is a no vote for them at the next election.  Let them know you are well aware of the game plan here — it has been tried in other states with similar legislation that is little more than protectionism for big telecom. Tell your elected officials you already have the power to choose whether or not you want these projects simply by voting for or against the elected officials that propose them.  While the concept of a referendum sounds fair on the surface, it’s not when you consider the past experiences of other communities who faced well-funded opposition campaigns, helpless to correct the record or fairly argue their position on the matter.  Providers know that, which is why they advocate this type of legislation in the first place.  It effectively stops competition, stops better service, and stops North Carolina residents from enjoying lower priced cable, phone, and broadband service.

There are a few stand-up representatives of the people of North Carolina who do deserve our gratitude and thanks today.

Rep. Paul Luebke, (D-Durham County) (who co-chairs the Revenue Law Study Committee) [email protected] 919-733-7663 College Teacher

Rep. Jennifer Weiss, (D-Wake County) [email protected] 919-715-3010 Lawyer-Mom

They both will likely face fierce opposition from the incumbent providers and their fellow legislators. Please take the time to thank them for standing with consumers today and for trying to protect the future of North Carolina and its economy.

Stop the Cap! will have video of today’s remarks by both legislators soon.  We hope to follow with a complete video record of today’s events surrounding the anti-competition legislation proposed by Senator Hoyle.  It will serve as a testament to just how much work we have to do to remove legislators who have stopped representing the public interest, and renew our support for those who stand with consumers.

Meanwhile, check out these two delightful pieces paid for by the cable and phone industry, sent to homes where municipal broadband projects faced a referendum in 2003 and 2004.  More than a dozen different mailers were sent to every home in the communities of Batavia, Geneva, and St. Charles, Illinois from phone and cable companies.  Now imagine the repercussions when not one of those communities could respond with their own mailers correcting the record and giving their side of the argument.  There is a reason why special interests spend enormous sums of money to protect their turf, and the battle is over before it even begins when those interests demand the other side not have the opportunity to respond in kind.

What smears do providers in North Carolina have in store for you?

… Continue Reading