Word has reached Stop the Cap! that hundreds of e-mails and phone calls are pouring into Rep. Marilyn Avila’s (R-Time Warner Cable) office protesting her hard work on behalf of the state’s largest cable company.  We are being called “mean and nasty” by those supporting Avila’s anti-consumer bill, H.129.

Our answer to that: we are not “mean” or “nasty.”  We are fed up c0nsumers (and voters) who have serious concerns about certain state legislators who introduce bills custom-written by cable lobbyists to enact their business agenda into law.

These anti-community broadband bills have come year after year in North Carolina, despite the fact the state has an “also-ran” reputation as a broadband backwater, with tremendous room for improvement in broadband speed, price, availability, and choice of providers. The bills have also been nothing but trouble for those that have introduced them, alienating constituents and bringing them bad press:

Ty Harrell resigned his office in disgrace over financial irregularities, but he was already in hot water when he introduced his bill. We were stunned when his office staff literally handed the phone to a cable industry lobbyist sitting there to answer questions.  We held him accountable.

David Hoyle did not leave office at his finest moment either, openly admitting on television Time Warner Cable wrote the bill he introduced.

This year, it’s Ms. Avila, who repeatedly promised to hold existing community-owned networks harmless by exempting them from the draconian, project-killing legislation she has proposed.  But after closed door meetings, we learned those promises were hollow.  The words of her bill may have changed, but the results are exactly the same — she is micromanaging community networks into insolvency (while exempting the companies that wrote the bill she introduced).

The unanswered, critical question every legislator needs to ask is: How does H.129 improve North Carolina’s dismal broadband ranking and deliver improved service?

The answer is, it does nothing.  Not only does it ignore the chasm of low quality service prevalent west of Charlotte and north of Winston-Salem, it specifically erects roadblocks to keep any community from trying to resolve a situation they’ve dealt with for years and years.  Ask any rural community’s leader if they’ve heard from constituents upset by the unavailability or quality of broadband in their area and you will get an earful.  The truth is, had the cable and telephone companies in the state had a real interest in providing 21st century service to these communities, they would have already done it.  With H.129, they can rest easy knowing nobody else will try.

This is not an auspicious position for Ms. Avila to take.  She ran for office upset with backroom deals, insider political maneuvering, and closed government.  Reviewing her campaign platform, the one thing she emphasized time and again was her promise to bring “open government” to the people in her district, just north of the state capital.

Where is the open government on H.129?  Nowhere to be found.

Stop the Cap! would have loved to include the complete video record of the first meeting to modify her bill to protect incumbent providers.  Only there is no video record.  The meeting was held behind closed doors, and it took a source to reveal details about how the cable and phone companies ran it as their own.  It’s the epitome of the kind of back-room deals Ms. Avila railed against in her campaign.

Considering the results, we can understand why the meeting was secret.  The cable lobby understands full well the power of sunshine’s disinfecting power.  Shining a bright light on the cozy connection between legislators and the companies whose interests they brazenly represent tells a story they do not want the voting public to hear.

Unfortunately, it gets worse.  We’ve learned Ms. Avila plans to bring H.129 to a vote in the Finance Committee as early as this Thursday, with no public discussion allowed.  Voters can be spectators of their own broadband demise, but they will not be allowed to say a word about it.  Meanwhile, certain members of the legislature have had plenty of time to meet repeatedly with cable and phone company lobbyists.

As we’ve seen time and time again, that lobbying campaign of disinformation tries to muddy the implications of bills such as these.

Legislators who may not understand what H.129 is really all about need to hear from the public and communities to understand precisely what they are voting for and what impact this legislation will have.  The ripple effects go far beyond just keeping Time Warner and CenturyLink free from pesky competition.

Neither company is truly harmed by community broadband networks.  In fact, both of them have thumbed their noses and shrugged their shoulders even in the presence of much larger competitive threats in their urban markets — Time Warner for the phone company and AT&T’s U-verse, which is available in limited areas.

The best thing Ms. Avila could do is withdraw her legislation because it simply is not in the best interests of North Carolina.  Barring that, she should do what she promised and specifically exempt ALL existing community networks in the state from the provisions of her bill.  At this point, that delivers a win to bondholders who will see their investment pay off, communities can continue to provide service to interested customers, and everyone else will continue to enjoy the benefits of lower rates these networks bring every telecommunications customer.

That’s common sense to everyone except the cable and phone companies that will stop at nothing to bury community-owned providers.

Where does your legislator stand?  If you have not made your feelings known to the members of the Finance Committee, time is running out.  Call and e-mail them and let them know you expect them to vote NO on H.129 when it reaches their committee this week.  We’re going to do our best to watch what may turn out to be another “voice vote” that prevents voters from knowing how individual members voted.  This time, we’ll be paying close attention to the lips and movements of individual committee members and take our own vote so we know who to thank and who needs to held accountable.

Finance Committee Members

(click each name for contact information)

Senior Chairman	Rep. Howard
Chairman	Rep. Folwell
Chairman	Rep. Setzer
Chairman	Rep. Starnes
Vice Chairman	Rep. Lewis
Vice Chairman	Rep. McComas
Vice Chairman	Rep. Wainwright
Members	Rep. K. Alexander, Rep. Brandon, Rep. Brawley, Rep. Carney, Rep. Collins, Rep. Cotham, Rep. Faison, Rep. Gibson, Rep. Hackney, Rep. Hall, Rep. Hill, Rep. Jordan, Rep. Luebke, Rep. McCormick, Rep. McGee, Rep. Moffitt, Rep. T. Moore, Rep. Rhyne, Rep. Ross, Rep. Samuelson, Rep. Stam, Rep. Stone, Rep. H. Warren, Rep. Weiss, Rep. Womble

 

The Wall Street Journal attempted to attach its own conventional wisdom in an opinion piece about cloud-based streaming that suggests Canada “is just ahead of the U.S. in introducing usage-based pricing [and] has bloggers and politicians accusing Bell Canada of unconscionable ‘profiteering’ from usage caps. The company, they rage, is reaping huge fees for additional units of bandwidth that cost Bell Canada virtually nothing to provide.”

The author, Holman Jenkins, is a regular on the ultra-business friendly editorial page of the Journal, and has been raging against Net Neutrality and for higher Internet pricing for several years now.

Jenkins’ latest argument, just like his earlier ones on this subject, falls apart almost immediately:

This critique, which is common, could not more comprehensively miss the point. Another car on the roadway poses no additional cost on the road builder; it imposes a cost on other road users. Likewise, network operators don’t use overage penalties to collect their marginal costs but to shape user behavior so a shared resource won’t be overtaxed.

Jenkins needs to spend less time supporting his friends at companies like AT&T and Bell and more time exploring road construction costs.  If you are going to try and make an analogy about traffic, at least get your premise straight.

Before debunking his usage-based billing meme, let’s talk about road construction for a moment.  In fact, the kind of traffic volume on a roadway has everything to do with what kind of road is constructed.  In the appropriately named “Idiots’ Guide to Highway Maintenance,” C.J.Summers explores different types of road surfaces for different kinds of traffic.  Light duty roads in rural areas can get results with oil and stone.  Medium duty side streets and avenues are frequently paved with asphalt, and heavy duty interstates routinely use concrete.  Traffic studies are performed routinely to assist engineers in choosing the right material to get the job done.

Digital information doesn’t wear down cables or airwaves.  If broadband traffic occupies 5 or 95 percent of a digital pipeline, it makes no difference to the pipeline.  Jenkins is right when he says Internet Overcharging schemes are all about shaping user behavior, but for the wrong reasons.

Jenkins thinks Netflix and other high bandwidth applications face usage-based pricing to allow providers to keep their broadband pipes from getting overcongested:

Netflix is one of the companies most threatened by usage-based pricing, and it has quickly geared up a lobbying team in Washington. In a recent letter to shareholders, CEO Reed Hastings downplayed the challenge to Netflix’s video-streaming business. In the long run, he’s probably right—the market will settle on flat-rate pricing once the video-intensive user has become the average user.

In the meantime, however, Netflix shareholders had better look out.

In fact, providers are reaping the rewards of their popular broadband services, but almost uniformly are less interested in investing in them to match capacity.  It is as if the AT&Ts of this world assumed broadband users would consume    T H I S    M U C H   and that’s it — time to collect profits.  When upgrade investments don’t even keep up as a percentage of revenue earned over past years, the inevitable result will be a custom-made excuse to impose usage limits and consumption billing to manage the “data tsunami.”

Canadian providers did not slap usage caps on broadband users because Netflix arrived — they lowered them. Telling users they cannot consume the same amount of bandwidth they used a month earlier has nothing to do with managing traffic, it’s about protecting their video businesses by discouraging consumers from even contemplating using the competition.  Jenkins works for a company that understands that perfectly well.  News Corp., has a major interest in Hulu as well as satellite television services in Europe and Oceania.

The rest of Jenkins’ piece is as smug as it is wrong.  In attacking Net Neutrality supporters as “crazies” trying to defend their “hobby horse,” Jenkins claims public interest groups are pouting about usage-based billing, too:

All along, what the net neut crazies have lacked in intellectual consistency they’ve made up in fealty to the business interests of companies that fear their services would become unattractive if users had one eye on a bandwidth meter. That’s why opposition to “Internet censorship” morphed into opposition to anything that might price or allocate broadband capacity rationally. But such a stance is rapidly becoming untenable, whether the beneficiary is Google, with its advertising-based business model, or Netflix, Apple, Amazon and others who hope to capitalize on the entertainment-streaming opportunity.

All are betting heavily on the cloud. All need to start dealing realistically with the question of how the necessary bandwidth will be paid for.

Part of Jenkins’ theory calls back on his usual Google bashing — he perceives the company as a parasite stealing the resources bandwidth providers paid for, while forgetting the success of their businesses ultimately depends on content producers (who indeed pay billions for their own bandwidth) making the service interesting enough for consumers to buy.

But there is nothing rational about Jenkins’ support for Internet Overcharging.  North Americans already pay some of the highest prices in the world for the slowest service.  While providers attempt to lick the last drop of profits out of increasingly outdated networks (hello DSL!), their future strategy is less about expanding those networks and more about constraining the use of them.

Jenkins is ignorant of the fact several of Net Neutrality’s strongest proponents, Public Knowledge being a classic example, have not historically opposed usage-based pricing, much to my personal consternation.  As we’ve argued (and I submit proved), Net Neutrality and Internet Overcharging go hand in hand for revenue hungry providers.  If they cannot discriminate, throttle, or block traffic they consider to be costly to their networks, they can simply cap demand on the customer side with usage limits or confiscatory pricing designed to discourage use.  That is precisely what Canadians are fighting against.

It’s all made possible by a broken free market.  Instead of hearty competition, most North Americans endure a duopoly — a phone company and a cable company.  Both, particularly in Canada, have vested interests in video entertainment, television and cable networks, and other entertainment properties.  As long as these interests exist, companies will always resist challenges to their core business models, such as cable TV cord cutting.  It’s as simple as that.

The “realistic” way bandwidth will be paid for escapes Jenkins because his quest for condescension takes precedence over actual facts.  Content producers already pay enormous sums to bandwidth providers like Akamai, Amazon, and other cloud-based distribution centers.  Consumers pay handsomely for their broadband connections, part of which covers the costs of delivering that content to their homes and businesses.  AT&T and other providers don’t deserve to get paid twice for the same content.  Indeed, they should be investing some of their enormous profits in building a new generation of fiber-based broadband pipelines to keep their customers happy.  Because no matter how much data you cram down a glass fiber, the ‘data friction’ will never cause those cables to go down in flames, unlike Jenkins’ lapsed-from-reality arguments.

 

 

Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Time Warner Cable) is living up to her much-deserved reputation as a shill for North Carolina’s largest cable company as she continues her campaign to wreak havoc on community-owned broadband networks and services.

Well-placed sources tell Stop the Cap! either Avila has an evil twin running around impersonating her, or she is saying one thing to a public audience while doing something completely different in private.

In a closely coordinated effort with the state’s top cable lobbyists, Avila met last Friday to negotiate promised protections for existing community-owned broadband networks that would otherwise be destroyed by her bill, H129, written by the state’s Big Telecom companies.

Both Reps. Avila and Julia Howard told us their word was their bond.  “The last thing that we want to do as a state is to harm one of our cities after they entered into the business,” Avila said to members of the Public Utilities Committee.

Howard expanded on her own promise: “The objective is to protect the cities that have already gone into the business.  It is our intent to carve out these cities and hold them harmless.  My word is my bond, and I don’t hear anybody snickering.  But when I say it I mean it, as the senior chair of finance, that is my pledge.  Before it heads into finance there will be a PCS that is satisfactory to everybody.”

Apparently those bonds were issued by Lehman Brothers, because they have lost all of their value to the people of North Carolina.  Nobody feels like snickering over such a serious betrayal of trust, especially when Howard’s definition of “everybody” is limited to lobbyists for the telecommunications industry.  Your consumer needs are irrelevant.

Last Friday’s meeting was once again a stage play from Time Warner Cable and their sidekick, the much-smaller CenturyLink.  After the cable company laid down the law to a stunned audience of representatives from communities across the state, fooled into thinking they were there to discuss an honest compromise, things went from bad to worse.

“It literally got down to the point where the cable company was dictating terms about what cities can and cannot do with their networks, even discussing which streets the networks would be allowed to serve,” our source tells us.

Avila’s stubborn streak was on full display, as she rejected proposal after proposal.

What about public private partnerships with full exemptions for pre-existing networks?

Not on Big Telecom’s approved list, so rejected out of hand, even after offering that she agreed with the concept.  Her reasoning?  She wants to go with her original bill.

The result of the one-sided discussion was two pages of legislative word jumbling in the form of a substitute amendment.  The word salad delivers substantially no real change to Avila’s original bill.  It contains virtually all of the same onerous provisions guaranteed to destroy community broadband networks, taking the state’s reputation for being a good credit risk with it.  It also delivers red meat to an industry meme “community broadband networks are business failures.”  Now you know why.

We predict Avila will use the farcical affair to claim her substitute amendment was the product of a “hard-fought compromise” with cities and providers.

In fact, it represents nothing more than a shameful broken promise to the citizens of North Carolina.  Their interests are completely secondary to Avila and her legislative allies, willing to listen to a telecommunications industry prepared to hand out campaign contributions to enact their agenda.

The collateral damage of Avila’s struggle to eliminate better broadband and keep competition to a bare minimum cannot even be measured yet. Should Avila’s bill become law, the clear message sent to would-be entrepreneurs is that North Carolina values their cable and phone companies over the needs of entrepreneurs contemplating the next generation of digital economy businesses.  Ms. Avila’s message to them, and to residents who want better broadband: live with what you’re getting from my friends or go without.

Many will choose a third option — avoiding setting up shop in a state where a handful of providers maintain a comfortable duopoly delivering the least amount of service for the highest possible price.

 

Suddenlink, one of America’s smaller cable operators, has been undergoing a transformation as it tries to meet expectations of today’s cable subscribers and match whatever phone company competition comes their way.  While some of the upgrades are customer-friendly, others pose ominous signs for the future — particularly with respect to Internet Overcharging broadband customers.

Let’s explore:

The Good — New Broadband Speeds, New DVR, New Investments

In parts of Suddenlink’s service area, particularly in Texas, the company is moving most of its cable service to a digital platform.  This transition is designed to open up additional space for more HD channels, keep up with broadband demands, and open the door for additional on-demand programming.

In Nacogdoches, Suddenlink announced it was adopting an all-digital TV lineup.  Starting this week, the company is offering subscribers free digital adapters — also known as “DigitaLinks,” to enable continued viewing on analog television sets that do not have a set top box or digital tuning capability.  Every subscriber purchasing more than the broadcast basic package (that only includes local stations and a handful of cable networks) will either need a digital tuner-ready television, a set top box, or a DigitaLink device to continue watching.

What is good about this transition is that Suddenlink is not charging customers a monthly fee for the adapters, either now or in the future.  That contrasts with other cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable that have handed customers a set top box or a digital adapter they will begin charging for after a year or two.

Suddenlink expects to invest nearly $120 million this year in Texas, and by the end of the year will have invested nearly a half-billion dollars in the state since 2006.

Texas is extremely important to Suddenlink.  The third largest cable company in Texas serves about 450,000 households and approximately 27,000 business customers in Amarillo, Lubbock, Abilene, Bryan-College Station, Midland, San Angelo, Georgetown, Tyler, Victoria, Conroe, Kingwood and Nacogdoches.

The company has also lit new fiber connections to handle data communications, primarily for business customers, and is upgrading its broadband service to fully support DOCSIS 3, which will deliver faster speeds and less congested service.

Customers in the state are also among the first to get access to a new and improved DVR box built on a TiVo software platform.  Suddenlink’s “Premiere DVR” service ($17/mo) is now available in Midland, Floydada, Plainview, Amarillo, Canyon, and Tulia.

The Bad — “Suddenlink Residential Internet Service is for Entertainment” Purposes Only

Do you take your broadband service seriously, or is it simply another entertainment option in your home?  If you answered the latter, this story may not be so surprising.

In Humboldt County, Calif., broadband users started noticing their favorite web pages stopped updating on a regular basis.  At one point, a blogger in McKinleyville noticed he couldn’t manage to post comments on his own website.  But things got much worse when several web pages started reaching customers with other users’ names (and occasionally e-mail addresses) already filled in on login screens and comment forms.

It seems Suddenlink started to cache web content in the far northern coastal county of California, meaning the first customer to visit a particular website triggered Suddenlink’s local servers to store a copy of the page, so that future customers headed to the same website received the locally-stored copy, not the actual live page.

But the caching software went haywire.

Web visitors began to receive mobile versions of web sites even though they were using home computers at the time.  Some were asked if they wanted to download a copy of a web page instead of viewing it.  And many others discovered websites were customized for earlier visitors.

While the caching problem was irritating, the privacy breaches Suddenlink enabled were disturbing, as was the initial total lack of response from Suddenlink officials when the problem first started in late January.

The Journal finally reached a representative who provided this explanation:

Suddenlink Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications Pete Abel knew that a cache system had recently been installed in Humboldt County, but was unaware of the particular problems reported by users. After speaking with the Journal and other Suddenlink employees, though, he released a statement explaining what appeared to have happened.

According to the release, the cache system was installed in Humboldt County on Thursday, Jan. 27 — the very day that users began experiencing problems — and was intended as an interim solution to relatively low Internet speeds in Humboldt County. The system, it said, was able to cache only unsecure websites — those which, unlike almost all reputable banking or commerce systems — do not encrypt communications. But the company eventually discovered the problems that its customers had been reporting and, having fruitlessly worked with its vendor to find a solution, turned the system off on Monday.

“The good news is that secure Web site pages will not have been cached,” Abel said in a follow-up call to the Journal. “And I have been assured 100 ways from Sunday that never would have happened.”

Andrew Jones, who runs a blog with his Suddenlink broadband account, tried to opt out of the web caching and received an interesting response, in writing, from a Suddenlink representative.  He was told he could not opt out of cached web pages with a residential account because, “the residential service is for entertainment only.”

Jones was told he would have to upgrade to a business account to escape the cache.

“If a small local radio station intermittently went off air for multiple days, the radio host would be apologizing and explaining the situation,” Jones wrote the Journal. “If a large utility company experienced sporadic power outages, people could hear a recording on a toll-free number to learn the cause and about ongoing repairs. What does an Internet provider do when web access becomes spotty and begins serving customers old copies of web pages? The company gets back to you in a couple days and suggests you pay more if you don’t like its recently degraded services.”

The Ugly — Suddenlink’s New Usage Meter Suggests 43GB is An Appropriate Amount of Usage for Standard Internet, 87GB is Plenty for Their $60 Premium Package

Although Suddenlink has not formally adopted an Internet Overcharging scheme of usage caps or metered billing, the company is sending automated e-mail messages to customers who exceed what they call “typical monthly usage for customers in your package.”  The e-mail tells customers they may be infected with a virus or someone else could be using your connection without your permission.  Boo!  For the uninitiated, this kind of message can bring fear that their computer has been invaded, either with malicious malware or the neighbor next door.

Customers have also received letters in the mail from the company telling them to check out their new “usage meter.”  Several have been sharing how much they’ve racked up in usage during the month on Broadband Reports.  One customer managed 243GB while another looking at the company’s super premium 107/5Mbps package managed a whopping 786GB.

Although the wording of the message has strenuously avoided telling customers they are wrong for this amount of usage, the implication is clear to many: they are counting your gigabytes and identifying the outliers.  One customer called it Suddenlink’s “You’re actually using your connection, and we really wish you wouldn’t”-message.

“No one with an ounce of sense would pay for a 20/3Mbps connection and only use 78 GB in a month. Let’s hope they’re just making cute suggestions, not easing us into a cap, because that just won’t fly,” wrote one West Virginia customer.

Another in Georgetown, Texas did the math and made it clear 43GB better not turn out to be a cap because it means customers can barely use the service they are paying for.

“It’s way too low. I got 10Mbps [service] because of price/value and not because I use less than 43GB,” he writes. “[Even] if I downloaded at 1.25MB/s for 30 days straight (1.25 * 2592000 seconds) I could [still] grab 3.164TB.”

Meanwhile, some controversy over the quality of Suddenlink’s service during the upgrade process had some residents in Cushing, Okla., up in arms at a recent city meeting.  Lorene Clyde complained Suddenlink’s “new and improved” service is worse than ever.

“I’m tired of paying for a service I’m not getting,” Clyde said.  “And the Suddenlink commercials – they are like rubbing salt in a wound.”

KUSH-AM reporters were on hand to cover the event, noting Clyde was not the only one complaining.  The radio station noted that “the buzz around town echoes her sentiments – from the ‘mildly irritated’ to the ‘downright mad’ – citizens have been complaining.  Not only have they been complaining to Suddenlink – as difficult as that may be (the call center is in Tyler, Texas) – but to city leaders.”

What Clyde and others may not have realized is that Suddenlink officials were in attendance and were able to apologize for the problems, but a growing consensus among consumers and city leaders is that a broad-based refund for the poor service was warranted.

Commissioner Joe Manning said while he appreciated the promise to figure out the problem, it wasn’t good enough to just apologize and promise – that subscribers’ bills should be adjusted to reflect the poor service.

Commissioners Carey Seigle and Tommy Johnson agreed with Manning.  Seigle pointed out it would be “good P.R.” to give some sort of rebate across the board to subscribers while Johnson complained that the original “upgrade” was only going to take a few weeks and now 8 months later – things are not better, but worse, noted the radio station.

Suddenlink officials on hand said they did not have that kind of authority, but continued to promise things are going to get better.  “I pledge to you,” one said, “We will find it [the problem] and fix it.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KJTV Lubbock Borrowing Wi-Fi 2-7-11.flv[/flv]

KJTV-TV in Lubbock, Texas talked with Suddenlink about the growing trend of neighbors “borrowing” neighbors’ unsecured Wi-Fi networks.  Other than the accidental recommendation that consumers should “invest in Internet spyware” to keep your computer safe, the report does a fair job of shining a light on a practice that could have financial consequences if the provider implements an Internet Overcharging scheme.  (2 minutes)

Time Warner Cable’s custom-written bill banning community-owned broadband networks in North Carolina this afternoon received a favorable vote in the Public Utilities Committee — the first to consider the bill.

Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Time Warner Cable) decided that openly distorting the record of success community broadband has had would be a good way to proceed.  In comments before a jam-packed room this afternoon, Avila claimed fiber optic broadband systems have a long history of “failures,” which is ironic considering her promise to exempt these so-called failures from her bill’s anti-competitive regulatory regime.

Honestly, it was the first time we can recall a sitting legislator openly trashing her own state’s advanced broadband network successes.  (You can’t fault her for going all out for her friends at Time Warner Cable, but you can hold her accountable at the next election.)

Avila would never and could never admit the truth after wading this far in: these state of the art fiber networks are successful enough to have waiting lists from time to time just to get service installed.  Even those who don’t subscribe are benefiting. Just look at GreenLight, operated by the community of Wilson.  While GreenLight subscribers benefit from broadband far superior to what the cable company offers, those staying with Time Warner have seen an end to relentless annual rate increases.  Apparently Ms. Avila wants you to pay higher cable bills now and forever.

Republicans and Democrats from rural districts harshly criticized the proposed legislation for bringing no answers to the perennial problem of inadequate broadband in rural North Carolina communities, as well as the fact this bill contains customized exemptions to protect Time Warner and other Big Telecom companies from regulatory requirements dumped on community networks like a ton of bricks.

That’s favorable treatment for the cable company Ms. Avila seeks to protect at all costs.

Despite the important arguments raised by those objecting to the bill, the Committee Chair gaveled the debate to a sudden close, held a perfunctory voice vote and adjourned the session without a recorded vote.  That leaves citizens of the state with no idea how individual members voted.  Apparently they do not want to hear from unhappy constituents.

The Time Warner Cable Legislative Railroad next stops at the Finance Committee.

Although Rep. Julia Howard (R-Davie, Iredell), senior chair of that committee and Avila promise changes in the bill to protect existing community broadband operations, we are more than a little skeptical.

Last week, Avila called a meeting of city officials and several Big Telecom companies, including Time Warner and CenturyLink, partly to discuss exemption issues.  To give readers an idea of just how far Avila is in Time Warner’s corner, minutes into the meeting, she turned it over to the lobbyist from Time Warner Cable for the duration.

That’s a public-private partnership any voter in North Carolina should take a dim view about.  If Ms. Avila finds her work in the legislature too difficult to handle, perhaps she can find another line of work.  The only good thing about turning over your legislative responsibilities to the cable company is it cuts out the middleman.

The fact is, Time Warner has no interest in protecting -your- interests in North Carolina, much less those of the cutting edge fiber networks now up and running in the state.  They want them gone… or better yet, available for their acquisition at fire sale prices.  Yes, they even made sure of that in their bill, which guarantees a city can sell a fiber network hounded out of business to a Big Telecom company without a vote.

Exempting existing networks has turned out to be a highly subjective notion for Ms. Avila anyway.  She originally claimed to exempt them in her bill when it was introduced, but then subjected them to crushing regulation the cable companies do not face.  Any community contemplating starting a new network for their citizens can forget it either way.  Time Warner will not hear of it.

Although a growing number of Republicans and Democrats see Avila’s bill as a classic example of corporate overreach, without your voice demanding this bill be dropped, there still may be enough members of the state legislature willing to do the cable industry’s bidding.  If you make it clear that may cost them your support in the next election, they can be persuaded to do the right thing and vote NO.

But time is running out.  Your job is to begin melting down the phone lines of the Finance Committee members starting this afternoon.  Call and e-mail them and make it absolutely clear you expect them to vote NO on H129 and that you are closely watching this issue.  Ask each legislator for a commitment on how they plan to vote.

Finance Committee Members

Senior Chairman	Rep. Howard
Chairman	Rep. Folwell
Chairman	Rep. Setzer
Chairman	Rep. Starnes
Vice Chairman	Rep. Lewis
Vice Chairman	Rep. McComas
Vice Chairman	Rep. Wainwright
Members	Rep. K. Alexander, Rep. Brandon, Rep. Brawley, Rep. Carney, Rep. Collins, Rep. Cotham, Rep. Faison, Rep. Gibson, Rep. Hackney, Rep. Hall, Rep. Hill, Rep. Jordan, Rep. Luebke, Rep. McCormick, Rep. McGee, Rep. Moffitt, Rep. T. Moore, Rep. Rhyne, Rep. Ross, Rep. Samuelson, Rep. Stam, Rep. Stone, Rep. H. Warren, Rep. Weiss, Rep. Womble