Your cable company has a problem.  Collectively, the cable industry has lost more than 2 million video customers over the past year, and the problem may be getting worse.  Some of the largest cable companies in the United States are making excuses for the historic losses:

• The bad economy
• Housing and foreclosure crisis
• High unemployment
• Family budget-cutting

But cable companies should be rethinking their excuses, according to a new report from Strategy Analytics.

“Throughout the past seven consecutive quarters of subscriber losses, the inclination of cable has been to point the finger at various external factors,” said Ben Piper, Director of the Strategy Analytics Multiplay Market Dynamics service. “Our analysis shows that neither the economy nor the housing market is to blame for these subscriber defections. The problem is one of value perception.”

Value perception.  That’s a measurement of whether or not one feels they are getting good value for the money they pay for a product or service.  Value comes in several different forms, starting with emotional — do I feel good, safe, secure, or nostalgic using the service?  Can I imagine life without it?  What about my friends and family — will I stand out if I am not buying this product?  It’s also practical — Can I afford this?  Can I find a cheaper or better alternative?  Do I really need this service anymore?

Tied into value perception is customer goodwill.  If you have an excellent experience with a company, letting go of their products comes much harder.  If you feel forced to deal with a company that has delivered poor and expensive service for years, pent up frustration will make it much easier (and satisfying) to cut them loose at the first opportunity.

In the telecommunications industry, value perception is a proven fact of life.  It began with phone companies.  Formerly a monopoly, landline providers have been forced to try and reinvent themselves and become more customer-friendly.  First long distance companies like Sprint and MCI moved in to deliver cheaper (and often better quality) long distance service.  Sprint even got into the landline business themselves, forming EMBARQ, which at its peak was the largest independent phone company in the United States.  When Voice Over IP providers like Vonage and the cable industry’s “digital phone” products arrived, they promised phone bills cut in half, and introduced the concept of unlimited long distance calling.

The value perception among consumers became clear as they began disconnecting their landlines.  The alternative providers offered cheaper, unlimited calling services, often bundled with phone features the local phone company charged considerably more to receive.  Even though VOIP is technically inferior in call quality in many instances, the value the services provided made the decision to cut the phone cord easier.

But local phone company landline losses would only accelerate with the ubiquity of the cell phone, but for different reasons.  What began with high per-minute charges for wireless calls evolved into larger packages of calling allowances, with plenty of free minutes during nights and weekends, and often free calling to those called the most.  Most Americans end the month with unused calling minutes.  As smartphones gradually take a larger share of the cell phone market, the accompanying higher bills have forced a value perception of a different kind — ‘I can’t afford to keep my landline –and– my cell phone, so I’ll disconnect the landline.’

The cable industry has traditionally faced fewer competitive threats and regularly alienates a considerable number of customers, but still keep their business despite annual rate increases and unwanted channels shoveled into ever-growing packages few people want.

This pent up frustration with the cable company has led to perennial calls for additional competition.  That originally came from satellite television, which involved hardware customers didn’t necessarily like, and no option for a triple play package of phone and broadband service.  The cable industry offers both, and by effectively repricing their products to discourage defections from bundled packages, customers soon discovered the resulting savings from satellite TV were often less than toughing it out with the cable company.

As a result, satellite television has never achieved a share of more than 1/3rd of the video market.  Many satellite customers are in non-cable areas, signed up because of a deeply discounted price promotion, were annoyed with the cable company, or didn’t care about the availability of broadband or phone service.  When the price promotion ends or technical issues arise, many customers switch back to cable.

More recently, researchers like Strategy Analytics have discovered some potential game-changers in the paid video marketplace:

• The impact of broadband-delivered video content
• The Redbox phenomena
• Competition from Telco TV
• The digital television conversion

Strategy Analytics studied consumer perceptions and found customers braver than ever before about their plans to cut cable’s cord.  According to the consumers surveyed, nobody scores lower in value perception than cable companies.  Citing “low value for money,” over half of the cable subscribers surveyed told the research firm they intended to disconnect their cable TV package in the near future.

While other researchers dismiss those high numbers as bravado, there are clear warnings for the industry.

“Much ink has been spilled on the topic of cord cutting and even skeptics are now admitting that it can’t be ignored,” said Piper.

Indeed, Craig Moffett, an analyst with Sanford Bernstein who almost never says a discouraging word about his beloved cable industry, told Ad Age Mediaworks the issue of cord-cutting was real.

“It’s hard to pretend that cord cutting simply isn’t happening,” Moffett said.

The most dramatic impact on the cable industry has been in the ongoing erosion of the number of premium channel subscribers, those willing to pay up to $14 a month for HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, or Starz!.  The reason?  Low value for money.  As HBO loses subscribers, Netflix and Redbox gain many of them.  Netflix still delivers a considerable number of movies by mail, but has an increasingly large library of instant viewing options over broadband connections.  Strategically placed Redbox kiosks deliver a convenient, and budget-minded alternative.

The loss of real wage growth, the housing collapse, and the down-turned economy do put pricing pressures on the industry, but some cable executives hope the time-honored tradition of customers howling about rate increases without ever actually dropping cable service continues.

But as new platforms emerge, some delivering actual pricing competition to the cable TV package, increasing numbers of customers are willing to take their video business somewhere else.  Some are stopped at the last minute with a heavily discounted customer retention pricing package, but that doesn’t keep them from sampling alternative online video options.  Among those who actually do leave, some are satisfied with the increased number of channels they get for free over-the-air after America’s digital television conversion.

Many others are switching to new offerings from telephone companies.  Both AT&T and Verizon deliver video packages to many of their customers, often at introductory prices dramatically lower than their current cable TV bill.  When considering a bill for $160 for phone, video, and broadband from the cable company or $99 for the same services from the phone company, $60 a month in savings for the first year or two is quite a value perception, and the inevitable disconnect order is placed with the cable company.

Ad Age‘s own survey, more skeptical about cord-cutting, confirmed that many former cable TV customers left for budgetary reasons, but many also kept their triple play packages.  They just bought them from someone else.

Also confirmed: a dramatic upswing in online viewing, sometimes paid but often ad-supported or free.

Strategy Analysts concludes in its report, available for $1,999, that the ongoing erosion of cable TV subscribers isn’t irreversible, but it requires urgency among providers to become more customer-friendly and increase the all-important value perception.

In other words: respecting the needs and wishes of your customers.

Thankfully, the cable industry is dealing with competitors like AT&T, who are willing to assassinate their current lead in value perception by slapping Internet Overcharging pricing schemes on their broadband service.  That will certainly raise the ire of their DSL and U-verse customers, many who are treating the customer unfriendly usage limits as an invitation to leave.  Their former cable companies are waiting to welcome them back.  The real question remains, will cable customers now be treated better?

After passing through the Republican-dominated Finance Committee, Rep. Marilyn Avila’s (R-Time Warner Cable) cable company-written, anti-consumer legislation arrived in the North Carolina Senate this afternoon, where it was promptly, if temporarily, derailed over whether residents have the right to watch adult entertainment on community-owned broadband/cable networks.

That’s right… porn has thrown the state legislature into such silliness, the entire bill had to be pulled from consideration until Monday.

Here’s a quick rundown how things played out today:

♥ — H.129, Avila’s anti-broadband bill, has proved to be the first serious piece of legislation that has divided the normally lock-step Republican-controlled legislature this session.  That is entirely because YOU are putting the pressure on with your calls and e-mails to Senate members.  We have it on good authority the overwhelming amount of response to this bill from constituents has been downright hostile to the idea it should ever pass.  Consumers in North Carolina want more choices for broadband, not less.  They want increased competition, lower prices, and most importantly — better service (or at least s0me service from someone).  H.129 does none of those things.  It doesn’t deliver a single new broadband connection anywhere in the state.

♥ — Several amendments helpful to broadband development managed to win a place in the bill.  The communities of Wilson and Salisbury will get to expand their systems to cover larger areas, including the town of Faith Stop the Cap! covered earlier.  We also won a victory changing the terms of the “mandatory referendum” provision to strip away the loaded, misleading ballot question about whether cities should ‘take on more public debt’ to finance the construction of community broadband, replacing it with a fairer alternative — do you favor your community building its own broadband system. 

↓ — But we also lost a few battles. Yesterday, the industry covertly changed the definition of an unserved area from “an area where 50% don’t receive FCC basic broadband service” to a Census block, where 50% of the households don’t receive 768/200Kbps. That change annihilates the unserved area exemption. As confirmed by the highly credible e-NC authority, the industry provides its broadband data by Census block, not by household, and if a census block has just one home that receives Internet service, the entire census block is labelled as having Internet service.

Today, Senator Atwater (D-Chatham) tried to modify that definition with a much better measurement standard: “homes per square mile.”  The federal government has established that the least dense areas of the country are the most costly to serve, which explains why these areas traditionally lack broadband service or receive low speed DSL.  Atwater’s amendment targeted the 38% of the most rural areas in North Carolina to keep the door open for community broadband, but Senator Tom Apodaca (R-Hendersonville) would have none of it, despite the fact his district covers the rural expanse of the western mountains of North Carolina.  Stop the Cap! readers have shared stories with us about hanging out in parking lots using motel Wi-Fi to pay their bills online or complete homework.  In Apodaca’s world-view, that means those areas have broadband.

Now our readers will understand why we have stressed it is so important to have accurate, in-depth broadband map data.  Instead, industry-connected groups like Connected Nation conjure up maps created by unverified, provider-supplied data.  This map data is a critical part of H.129’s tragic terms and conditions.  If the maps say service exists, industry lobbyists use that to browbeat elected officials into believing there is no broadband problem, and there is no reason to allow communities to build their own broadband services.

Of course, the reality is very different.  We’ve received hundreds of messages from Americans who say these maps show broadband as being widely available in their communities, but in reality is not.  Some legislators in North Carolina have confronted this reality personally. For those that haven’t, it’s easy to accept provider arguments, cash those campaign contribution checks, and throw constituents under the bus.

We Saved the Most Ridiculous Part of Today’s Events for Last

When the city of Fayetteville wanted protection for their investment in fiber optics, at risk from H.129, the aforementioned Sen. Apodaca lost his mind.  Instead of protecting city funds already spent on next generation fiber, he substituted his own new amendment — to strip adult programming off community-owned broadband/cable systems instead.

You read that right. In case you didn’t, here it is again:

Sen. Apodaca would rather be the arbiter of what you can watch in the privacy of your own home than protecting community investments in broadband improvements.

So much for the “level playing field” title of Avila’s original bill.  Apodaca’s anti-porn crusade does not apply to Time Warner Cable or other private providers, so he has no problem at all if you want to pop some popcorn and settle down to some movies like “Suck It Sunrise,” “Boning Black Beauty 8” (to answer those lingering questions that went unanswered in part 7), or “Dripping Wet Lesbians,” all currently running on TWC’s adult channels.

No matter that Apodaca’s amendment is completely against federal law, which should signal how clueless some legislators are about these issues.  The Cable Act provides settled law on this subject.  Government cannot engage in cable content regulation — particularly the state and federal government.  The cable industry lobbied hard for that protection in the 1980s in part because of controversy over MTV and other “explicit” programming.  Only the local franchising authority can make decisions about the content they carry — and that means local communities get to make those decisions for themselves (47 USC 544(d)(1)).  That means Sen. Apodaca should worry about his own television viewing habits and stay out other peoples’ lives.

We’re helpers here at Stop the Cap!, so we’d point the senator to 47 USC 544(f)(1):

(f) Limitation on regulatory powers of Federal agencies, States, or franchising authorities

(1) Any Federal agency, State, or franchising authority may not impose requirements regarding the provision or content of cable services, except as expressly provided in this subchapter.

Those exceptions, by the way, have to do with changes in federal law, not the individual whims of one state senator.

Sen. Mansfield, who introduced the original amendment to protect Fayetteville, was naturally disturbed to find Apodaca’s non-germane substitute.  That promoted Apodaca to suggest Mansfield allowed his children to watch pornography, and from there the debate spiraled out of control.  After a brief recess, Apodaca returned to apologize to Mansfield, before killing the amendment to protect Fayetteville’s fiber investment for a second time.

Reviewing today’s events provides us with another edition of Legislators Out of Their League.  Apodaca’s naive amendment was not the only telling example (we know more about telecommunications law than he does.)  Yesterday in the Senate Finance Committee, Ms. Avila was utterly lost at sea as discussion ensued on amendments to the bill with her name on it.  Reduced to muttering at times, confused about the discussions dealing with the definition of underserved, her usual reaction was to oppose what she didn’t understand.  None of this is surprising considering the cable industry wrote the majority of her bill she introduced as her own.  She continues to protect their interests while ignoring yours.

This is why we continue to oppose H.129 and you should too.  We have until Monday to continue to drive the message home to state senators.  If you called or wrote before, it’s time to write and call again.  Tell your state senator H.129 is a bill written by and for the cable and phone companies.  It does not deliver any new broadband service to anyone, risks the investments communities across the state have already made, and allows a handful of big telecom companies to control North Carolina’s broadband destiny.  Considering the state achieves dead last ratings in broadband, that is the kind of control they should never be allowed to have.

Senate Representation By County

2011-2012 Session

(click on your member’s name for contact information)

County	District: Members
Alamance	24: Rick Gunn;
Alexander	45: Dan Soucek;
Alleghany	30: Don East;
Anson	25: William R. Purcell;
Ashe	45: Dan Soucek;
Avery	47: Ralph Hise;
Beaufort	1: Stan White;
Bertie	4: Ed Jones;
Bladen	19: Wesley Meredith;
Brunswick	8: Bill Rabon;
Buncombe	49: Martin L. Nesbitt, Jr.; 48: Tom Apodaca;
Burke	44: Warren Daniel;
Cabarrus	36: Fletcher L. Hartsell, Jr.;
Caldwell	44: Warren Daniel;
Camden	1: Stan White;
Carteret	2: Jean Preston;
Caswell	24: Rick Gunn;
Catawba	42: Austin M. Allran;
Chatham	18: Bob Atwater;
Cherokee	50: Jim Davis;
Chowan	4: Ed Jones;
Clay	50: Jim Davis;
Cleveland	46: Debbie A. Clary;
Columbus	8: Bill Rabon;
Craven	2: Jean Preston;
Cumberland	19: Wesley Meredith; 21: Eric Mansfield;
Currituck	1: Stan White;
Dare	1: Stan White;
Davidson	33: Stan Bingham;
Davie	34: Andrew C. Brock;
Duplin	10: Brent Jackson;
Durham	20: Floyd B. McKissick, Jr.; 18: Bob Atwater;
Edgecombe	3: Clark Jenkins;
Forsyth	31: Peter S. Brunstetter; 32: Linda Garrou;
Franklin	7: Doug Berger;
Gaston	41: James Forrester; 43: Kathy Harrington;
Gates	4: Ed Jones;
Graham	50: Jim Davis;
Granville	7: Doug Berger;
Greene	5: Louis Pate;
Guilford	33: Stan Bingham; 26: Phil Berger; 27: Don Vaughan; 28: Gladys A. Robinson;
Halifax	4: Ed Jones;
Harnett	22: Harris Blake;
Haywood	50: Jim Davis; 47: Ralph Hise;
Henderson	48: Tom Apodaca;
Hertford	4: Ed Jones;
Hoke	13: Michael P. Walters;
Hyde	1: Stan White;
Iredell	41: James Forrester; 42: Austin M. Allran; 36: Fletcher L. Hartsell, Jr.;
Jackson	50: Jim Davis;
Johnston	12: David Rouzer;
Jones	6: Harry Brown;
Lee	18: Bob Atwater;
Lenoir	10: Brent Jackson;
Lincoln	41: James Forrester;
Macon	50: Jim Davis;
Madison	47: Ralph Hise;
Martin	3: Clark Jenkins;
McDowell	47: Ralph Hise;
Mecklenburg	37: Daniel G. Clodfelter; 38: Charlie Smith Dannelly; 39: Bob Rucho; 40: Malcolm Graham; 35: Tommy Tucker;
Mitchell	47: Ralph Hise;
Montgomery	29: Jerry W. Tillman;
Moore	22: Harris Blake;
Nash	11: E. S. (Buck) Newton;
New Hanover	9: Thom Goolsby;
Northampton	4: Ed Jones;
Onslow	6: Harry Brown;
Orange	23: Eleanor Kinnaird;
Pamlico	2: Jean Preston;
Pasquotank	1: Stan White;
Pender	8: Bill Rabon;
Perquimans	4: Ed Jones;
Person	23: Eleanor Kinnaird;
Pitt	3: Clark Jenkins; 5: Louis Pate;
Polk	48: Tom Apodaca;
Randolph	29: Jerry W. Tillman;
Richmond	25: William R. Purcell;
Robeson	13: Michael P. Walters;
Rockingham	26: Phil Berger;
Rowan	34: Andrew C. Brock;
Rutherford	46: Debbie A. Clary;
Sampson	10: Brent Jackson;
Scotland	25: William R. Purcell;
Stanly	25: William R. Purcell;
Stokes	30: Don East;
Surry	30: Don East;
Swain	50: Jim Davis;
Transylvania	50: Jim Davis;
Tyrrell	1: Stan White;
Union	35: Tommy Tucker;
Vance	7: Doug Berger;
Wake	14: Dan Blue; 15: Neal Hunt; 16: Josh Stein; 17: Richard Stevens;
Warren	7: Doug Berger;
Washington	1: Stan White;
Watauga	45: Dan Soucek;
Wayne	5: Louis Pate; 12: David Rouzer;
Wilkes	45: Dan Soucek;
Wilson	11: E. S. (Buck) Newton;
Yadkin	30: Don East;
Yancey	47: Ralph Hise;

Federal Communications Chairman Julius Genachowski is racking up those frequent flier miles as he travels from one telecom industry trade show to another.  In addition to less-than-thrilling appearances at industry events run by the wireless industry and broadcasters, the chairman is now scheduled to be the headline act at the cable industry trade show to be held June 15 in Chicago.

Instead of devoting time and attention to provider profiteering and the ongoing concentration of the wireless marketplace, Genachowski will be shaking hands with big cable executives, sharing the stage with former FCC chairman Michael Powell, who now runs the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.  (Powell is a classic example of Revolving Door Syndrome: Start a career in public service and finish it using your government connections to cash in with a six figure salary working for the industry you used to oversee.)

While the current FCC chairman gets to bloat his expense account, his performance on behalf of the American people leaves plenty to be desired:

1. His vision of our broadband future is all talk and little action, with National Broadband Plan goals seen as increasingly anemic when contrasted with broadband development abroad;
2. Genachowski has caved on important consumer protections for broadband consumers, most notably with a very-industry-friendly Net Neutrality policy that won him little thanks (Verizon sued anyway);
3. His “white space” broadband plan to carve up UHF broadcast spectrum for mobile broadband comes poorly conceived, infuriating broadcasters who promise to spend millions in a lobbying death match;

At the NCTA convention, Genachowski is likely to deal with the hot potato retransmission consent issue — the one that pits you in the middle of million-dollar squabbles over what pay TV provider gets to carry what networks (and how much you will pay for them).  Also on the agenda: CableCARD 2: Electric Boogaloo, also known as AllVid, the almost certainly Dead on Arrival replacement for the first generation CableCARD set top box replacement that practically nob0dy uses.

Although Google loves AllVid, the powerful entertainment and cable industry is less impressed.  The Motion Picture Association of America considers it a piracy gateway because it lacks sufficient copyright protection mechanisms, and the cable industry has always been wary of standardized set top equipment that could tie down on-demand programming, signal theft protection, and future innovations.

Genachowski is sure to get a warmer reception at the cable show than he got from broadcasters earlier this month, who were downright hostile over his proposal to carve up the UHF TV dial (channels 14-51), selling off “extra” channels for wireless broadband.

The National Association of Broadcasters is starting to get a little worried, not feeling the love the Commission has bestowed on big cable and phone companies who got their lobbying wish-lists largely granted.  Instead, a year after being dragged into an expensive digital TV conversion, the FCC is back for more from television broadcasters, taking back perhaps a dozen or more channels for “white space broadband,” a vaguely-explained plan to enhance the amount of space available for wireless data.

Unfortunately, with thousands of television stations, the FCC will have to find enough channels for everyone to share without interfering with each other.  The FCC still hasn’t released a definitive plan about how to accomplish this, and with big wireless interests suggesting TV stations should slash their transmitter power and share the same or adjacent channels, a lot of stations fear they will be crammed together like a Japanese train at rush hour.

But the wireless industry wants it, even if it drives some stations in densely populated areas off the air completely.  In many other areas, especially in the northeast and southern California, stations might have to cut their signal coverage areas to avoid interfering with stations sharing the same channel in an adjacent city.  Rural residents relying on over the air television could be out of luck, even with a rooftop antenna.

In a bidding war, who would likely win the spectrum up for sale?  AT&T, Verizon, and perhaps some large cable companies looking for enhanced wireless services to sell.  No wonder the NAB is worried.  The FCC could favor selling spectrum out from under your local stations and sell it to their biggest competitors in the pay television business.

Consumers should be concerned as well.  Should today’s biggest wireless carriers scoop up “white space” frequencies, it will do nothing to bring enhanced competition or lower prices.  It will just lock up even more spectrum for a wireless industry that threatens to become a duopoly.

Instead of flying all over the country to attend trade shows and shake hands with industry leaders, Chairman Genachowski should be spending more of his time looking for creative, effective solutions to enhance competition and protect consumers, not simply throw them under the bus for the benefit of a handful of industry players already too large for the common good.

 

Despite claims from some in the state legislature that restricting fiber optic broadband development in communities like Salisbury is good for consumers and businesses, an increasing number of both are telling reporters a different story.

Faith Baptist Church, in the aptly-named community of Faith, N.C., can’t wait to sign up for Salisbury’s community fiber network — Fibrant.  They believe in a faster broadband experience the local phone company cannot deliver.

Casey Mahoney, a church member, told the Salisbury Post the church wants to ditch its slow speed DSL service from Windstream and cannot afford the $20,000 installation fee Time Warner Cable wants to charge the congregation to extend its broadband service to the church building.

If some in the state legislature have their way, the church will have a long, perhaps infinite wait for a fiber optic future.  A large number of legislators in the Republican-controlled state Senate are leaning towards voting for a bill custom-written by and for the state’s largest cable company — Time Warner Cable.  The legislation would micromanage community-owned broadband networks right down to the streets they would be allowed to deliver service.  Those terms, perhaps unsurprisingly, would not apply to the state’s largest cable and phone companies.

H.129, moving towards a hearing in the Senate Finance Committee Wednesday, would cement today’s marketplace for years to come — a duopoly Mahoney thinks makes Time Warner Cable’s $20,000 installation fee feasible.

He told the Post, “When you only have one company available in an area, that’s when they can say, ‘It will cost you $20,000 — take it or leave it.’ ”

Not everyone supports the cable industry’s efforts to lock down competition from community-owned providers.  Several local officials who represent underserved communities across the state are upset the legislation is being railroaded through the legislature with almost no discussion.

“I am disappointed that the General Assembly is giving consideration to taking this right away from us without a single conversation taking place,” Kannapolis Mayor Bob Misenheimer complained to Sen. Andrew Brock (R), who serves Davie and Rowan counties.

Misenheimer is particularly upset cable operators want the right to restrict the service areas Fibrant can serve, and not allow the fiber network to expand service into Kannapolis.  In fact, Brock’s office has received similar communications from the Faith town board and mayors from Rockwell, Landis, China Grove, Granite Quarry, Spencer, Cleveland, and Concord — all who want to be included in the Fibrant service area.

“Isn’t it simply amazing that Fibrant is being bashed as a failure-waiting-to-happen by the sponsors of this bill while mayors across two counties are absolutely clamoring to get the service to their residents,” said Stop the Cap! reader Andy Brown who lives near Landis.  “How can Marilyn Avila and Tom Apodaca have the slightest bit of credibility on this issue when you see town leaders literally falling all over each coveting a service that these legislative-Friends-of-Time-Warner-Cable have predicted is a certain failure?”

“I want Fibrant in Landis myself, if only for the competition,” Andy shares.  “You know, the kind of competition legislators are supposed to support.”

Andy describes efforts underway to distort the record on H.129 in hopes of whipping up consumer support for it.

“There are some silly stories being told attacking community networks like Fibrant on local media websites, including the ridiculous claim communities will be required to sign up for the service if it comes to town,” Andy reports.  “These come from some of the same people who also claim fiber optic cables suffer from rot problems, wireless broadband is faster than fiber optics, and that Fibrant is part of the Obama Administration’s plan to socialize the Internet.”

“If these people want Windstream DSL or are happy paying annual rate increases far beyond the rate of inflation year after year, don’t sign up for Fibrant — but don’t dictate away that option for me,” Andy said.  “The only ‘takeover of the Internet’ I see is by Time Warner and CenturyLink.”

Rep. Julia Howard (R-Davie, Iredell) threatened to get up and leave an interview with a Raleigh television reporter if the NBC station didn’t “switch the camera off” after she was questioned about her support of an anti-consumer, anti-broadband bill written by the same telecommunications companies that donated more than $7,200 to her political campaign.

Howard was being interviewed by WNCN-TV in Raleigh about her strong support for legislation that would likely end community-owned broadband in one of America’s least-wired states.  The reporter asked Howard to explain her support for H.129, the so-called “Level Playing Field” bill that has received a considerable push from the state’s largest telecommunications companies, including Time Warner Cable, AT&T, and CenturyLink.

At first, Howard tried to defend her support for the bill, despite claims from the watchdog group Democracy North Carolina that the legislation raises ethical questions about the influence of money in state politics.

“I don’t care what they say. That’s not who I am,” she said. “As long as I’m here, I’m going to do what I feel like is right for the people of the state.”

But moments after being confronted with the fact she has received considerable financial support from all three companies, Howard demanded the reporter turn the cameras off.

“I wish you’d turn the camera off now because I am going to get up and leave if you don’t,” Howard told the reporter.

Bob Hall, director of Democracy North Carolina called the bill a classic example of “pay to play” politics — where large companies pay to get legislation favoring their businesses before the state legislature.

“The relationships that are built because of money that’s given, that then warps the whole discussion,” Hall said.

Howard chairs the Finance Committee that will hear the bill tomorrow morning after a week’s delay.  Surprise amendments that would help hold existing networks exempt from the onerous provisions of the legislation and an easing of the bill’s requirements for unserved areas upset cable industry lobbyists.  In the interim, a growing number of media reports have called attention to the corporate contributions that seem to be helping drive the bill forward.

“There are a handful of politicians in the legislature that are either on the take or wear blinders when it comes to the real interests of voters like myself,” writes Raleigh resident Susan, who follows Stop the Cap! “Watching Julia Howard squirm in her chair when being asked pointed questions serves her right.”

Susan, who notified us of tonight’s news report, doesn’t believe for a moment Howard’s “feigned shock” over questions being asked by the reporter.

“Anyone pushing H.129 is a shill for Time Warner Cable, because there is not one single part of this bill that brings one new Internet connection, it just guarantees we will all pay higher rates so the cable company can donate more money to Howard’s campaign.”

Stop the Cap! continues to recommend North Carolina residents contact members of the Finance Committee and tell them to vote NO on H.129.  Tell Rep. Howard and others it is not too late to do the right thing and withdraw this bill from further consideration.  Explain to her that if her word is her bond, she can prove her honorable intentions by asking Rep. Avila to pull the bill because it is a mistake and won’t bring better broadband to anyone.  We want Rep. Howard to retain the goodwill of the people of North Carolina, but that becomes increasingly difficult if she can’t even defend what she is doing to a reporter asking if there is a connection between her support and the thousands of dollars of campaign contributions she has received from the industry that wrote the bill.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

WNCN-TV caught Rep. Julia Howard off guard when she was confronted with thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from large telecommunications companies and asked if this played a role in her support for their custom-written proposal to abolish community-owned networks in the state.  (2 minutes)

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