Alito

Justice Samuel Alito was forced to recuse himself from nearly six dozen cases brought to the Supreme Court in the last 10 months because the Alito family owns stock in many of the corporations involved in litigation.

When Alito’s wife Martha Ann’s father died last year, the Alito family inherited a wealth of stock worth up to $1.25 million in some of America’s largest companies, including AT&T and Verizon Communications.

The Associated Press reports Alito’s tardy financial disclosure for 2012 revealed the justice’s reasons for recusal: his sudden ownership of shares in large telecom, pharmaceutical, oil and gas, and tobacco companies.

Federal law requires justices to step away from cases where there is a financial conflict of interest. Alito’s inherited stock represents just such a conflict.

In one case, however, Alito found himself holding Comcast Corp. stock after hearing arguments in a massive class action antitrust case representing two million customers the plaintiffs argued were being overcharged by an illegitimate cable monopoly.

Alito’s Comcast stock was purchased and sold last December. The Court’s 5-4 decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, was announced March 27. Alito’s deciding vote fundamentally raised the bar on future lawsuits, making it much more difficult for class action cases to be brought before the courts.

The Comcast suit, in the courts since 2003, argued that cable subscribers in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware were overcharged at least $875 million because of Comcast’s efforts to monopolize cable service in the Philadelphia area. Comcast amassed its dominant position by buying or swapping cable systems in the region to create a single large cable provider serving the majority of southern New Jersey, Delaware, and southeastern Pennsylvania. By 2002, the lawsuit claimed, Comcast had achieved a 77.8 percent market share.

Comcast argued the lawsuit was too complicated and its proposed method of calculating damages was faulty. The Court’s conservative justices agreed with Comcast, finding the lawsuit fell “far short of establishing that damages are capable of measurement.”

• Voting for Comcast’s position: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
• Voting against Comcast: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

A study recently published in the Minnesota Law Review found the current Supreme Court is by far the most corporate-friendly of any court in at least 65 years, noting “the Roberts court is indeed highly pro-business — the conservatives extremely so and the liberals only moderately liberal.”

The top two most likely to vote in favor of big business among all justices seated since 1946 are Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

“There was a time when being ‘business-friendly’ meant giving corporations a leg-up and a level playing field because doing so creates jobs and bolsters the economy,” wrote Supreme Court reporter Jonathan Valania. “Today, ‘business-friendly’ means letting corporations socialize their costs while privatizing their profits. It means letting corporation literally write the laws that govern them. It means rolling back regulations and de-fanging oversight [….] What we are really talking about is corporatism.”

Phillip “Friends Can Agree to Disagree” Dampier

Are we being unnecessarily pessimistic and cynical when we oppose the likely nomination of Thomas Wheeler to replace Julius Genachowski as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission?

Some of our colleagues in the consumer-focused public policy arena suspect we might be.

Stop the Cap! is very skeptical that appointing a former cable and wireless industry lobbyist with 30+ years of experience is the best choice for consumers at the FCC.

Our friend Harold Feld from Public Knowledge, which has announced cautious support for Wheeler’s appointment, has a more optimistic view about his potential:

I understand where my friends are coming from when they look at Wheeler’s resume and think “oh God, another Washington insider, why can’t we ever get a real progressive!” But I cannot agree with Senator Rockefeller’s statement that “a lobbyist, is a lobbyist,” or the view of some that the taint of industry clings insidiously forever and corrodes the soul. It’s been ten years since Wheeler left CTIA, longer than that since he left NTCA. Had he really been interested in advancing the agendas of these industries, he was in an excellent position to do so when he headed up the Obama transition team. He did not. Indeed, Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach, long-time stalwarts of the public interest who worked for Wheeler on the transition team, have joined other public interest luminaries as Wheelers strongest public supporters. Had Wheeler been working behind the scenes in the transition to promote the incumbents, I expect Susan and Kevin would have known.

I also recognize that support from public interest friends is also not conclusive. But it should surely weigh in the evaluation of Wheeler as much as any blog post. And I recognize I’m also a “Washington insider” and as likely to be led astray by my personal friendships and the whole “Washington Bubble” culture as any other human being. That’s why I’m glad people in the community are asking the right questions and putting Wheeler on notice that, like any Chairman, he needs to prove himself as a champion of the public interest. We at PK have also made it clear we expect Wheeler to not just talk a good game, but to get his hands dirty and make tough decisions that will piss off incumbents. And when we disagree, as we expect we will, have no doubt we will make our displeasure known.

Harold specifically commented on our piece reviewing Wheeler’s personal blog, in which Wheeler fell all over himself praising AT&T’s chief lobbyist Jim Cicconi, and seemed resigned to approving a proposed AT&T/T-Mobile merger with some preconditions:

It is certainly true that behavioral conditions often fall short, are short lived, and that companies generally find ways to work around them (and the FCC’s track record for enforcement is pathetic). Indeed, we at PK made these arguments in the context of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger for why no set of merger remedies could adequately address the harms such a merger would cause. But there is a huge difference between my belief that Wheeler was wrong about the best strategy to advance the public interest and accepting that he was motivated by a covert desire to support consolidation and deregulation.

It is more than likely we will have to do business with Tom Wheeler, and we can certainly understand efforts to paint a more optimistic and hopeful picture of the likely new chairman. But we would be dishonest if we said we have high hopes Wheeler will think first about ordinary Americans before steering the country’s telecommunications future. We have learned from the past.

Remember Your History: Catering to Big Special Interests is Bipartisan

Having covered the telecommunications industry since the 1980s when Dr. John Malone of Tele-Communications, Inc., was the American consumers’ worst nightmare, confronting today’s increasingly consolidated and expensive telecommunications marketplace is a case of “Back to the Future.” The deregulation and industry consolidation abuses in the 1980s riled up both Republicans and Democrats — wherever constituents flooded offices with complaints about the local cable monopoly. The “problem politicians” that reflexively defended the abusers were just as bipartisan. Sen. Tim Wirth (D-Colo.) primarily represented the interests of the cable companies that were headquartered in his state. Current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also defended the cable companies. Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.) was outraged at the abuses cable operators like TCI heaped on Missouri consumers and not only introduced legislation to stop the abuse in 1992, he also was instrumental in overriding a presidential veto of the measure.

The first mistake one can make in this fight is characterizing this as “progressive” vs. “conservative.” Real conservatives want all-out competition to manage winners and losers. Progressives want to make sure in the absence of that competition, someone — anyone can act to check the power of concentrated markets that suppress competition, raise prices, and deliver less than compelling service. Five years ago, Barack Obama promised change and a D.C. reset that would have ended “politics as usual.”

The art of the possible — changing the perception that consumer interests take a back seat to the whims of professional lobbyists at the FCC has proved less than successful after four years with Julius Genachowski. President Obama is not completely responsible, but it would be dishonest not to hold him to a promise he would deliver “change we can believe in.”

Instead, at the FCC, we got “change we think we might be able to get away with, maybe, or not.”

Julius Genachowski remained silent on the AT&T/T-Mobile merger until the Department of Justice provided him with political cover to oppose it. He caved on strongly enforcing Net Neutrality, refused to make important regulatory declarations that would have satisfied federal courts the FCC has a right to oversee broadband policy, and near the end of his tenure, hobnobbed with the cable industry and declared his support for usage billing and capped Internet.

Where Does Mr. Wheeler Stand?

(Image: MuniNetworks)

So we must ask ourselves, where does Mr. Wheeler, a man who spent most of his career as a consummate cable and wireless industry lobbyist, fall on these issues?

The best place those of us who have not shared lunch with him can make that determination is in his personal blog. Harold wants us to downplay some of Wheeler’s words written during his six years of blogging:

But in the ten years I’ve been blogging, I know that I’ve said many things that do not necessary reflect what I would have done if I had been the ultimate decisionmaker – as I have said on more than one occasion (noting that actual decisionmakers are not advocates). Certainly anyone who reads ten years worth of Tales of the Sausage Factory (has it really been ten years?) will have an excellent sense of my overall priorities and approach. But I can’t swear that all approximately 500 or so blog posts could hold up today as being either accurate predictions (like Wheeler, I too was a big believer in WiMax) or final expressions of what I would have done as Chair of the FCC.

We certainly agree that Wheeler’s predictions of industry trends like WiMAX, in hindsight, are not deal breakers (although they should serve as reminders that one should avoid picking too many winners and losers). But at the same time, Wheeler’s words on policy matters in nearly 60 articles since 2007 should not be ignored, rationalized away, or dismissed either. In some sense, this is comparable to the vetting process for an appointee to the Supreme Court. To get a feel for the philosophy of an individual, both the White House and Congress pour over one’s writings and public opinions. Being asked to accept someone who can reshape public policy for years based on the personal recommendation of others only goes so far.

Many of Wheeler’s views are profoundly concerning, because they seem to betray a telecom industry conventional wisdom about the state of technology, wireless spectrum, regulation, and competition. His familiarity and comfort working within the paradigm of big cable and wireless is strongly contrasted with his suspicions and surprise regarding interlopers like Google and Apple — dubbed by Wheeler as part of a “Silicon Mafia.” We sense Wheeler seems most comfortable expecting to oversee business as usual, while advocating and accommodating some minor innovation here and there.

What is almost completely absent in most of Wheeler’s writings is the perspective of, or concern for ordinary consumers. What would Mr. and Mrs. Joe Average think about yet another consolidating merger between AT&T and one of its smaller competitors? What impact would another cable merger have on the bills paid by ordinary people in Colorado, Nebraska, or Pennsylvania? Is it good for consumers to advocate eliminating wireless network redundancy, as Wheeler does, after major events from 9/11 to Hurricane Sandy to the recent Boston Marathon attack all reveal wireless networks are susceptible to call volume clogging and extended service outages?

Tom Wheeler is an admirer of AT&T’s top-lobbyist Jim Cicconi.

More importantly, we are disturbed by Wheeler’s perspective about wired infrastructure that could have a major impact on the near future of rural telecommunications. Wheeler comes dangerously close to AT&T’s sentiments about its yesteryear rural landline network and its wish to switch those customers to wireless (with all the added costs, usage caps, and coverage issues). We cannot help but notice Wheeler frames the general issue much like AT&T does: an “evolution” that represents “weaning ourselves” from “the old wireline.” Ask yourself if AT&T is more or less comfortable knowing Mr. Wheeler’s attitudes about its wired telephone network. AT&T considers it an outdated money-loser and a nuisance in its rural service areas. Wireless is a license to print money, just as soon as the FCC and state regulators give the green light to go ahead. Is Wheeler to be the deciding vote?

We Don’t Believe Wheeler is an ‘Industry Plant’

Harold writes:

But while it is important to ask the right questions and give no one a free pass, it is equally important to evaluate the answers and the evidence fairly and accept their logical conclusions. The evidence that Wheeler would have approved the AT&T/T-Mobile merger had he actually been Chairman (rather than playing pundit) is pretty weak. To take that a step further and say that Wheeler’s justification for approving the merger as a means of reregulating the wireless industry was mere sham to hide his true sympathies seems to me exceedingly unjustified.

That mischaracterizes our sentiments about Mr. Wheeler. We do not believe he is some secret industry plant that is itching to deregulate the agency into a stupor. Nor do we believe a theoretical vote in favor of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger is evidence he is in AT&T’s back pocket specifically. Let us be clear: he served as a professional lobbyist for these companies for nearly 30 years. His job was to absorb and reflect the views of the nation’s biggest cable and phone companies both to politicians and regulators. Some remain friends and colleagues.

It is a safe bet most of the industry will welcome and celebrate Wheeler’s appointment. Many know him personally. Many others will feel safe that he is a reachable industry insider already familiar with the issues that concern them. This is what makes the D.C. revolving door so insidious. When you move from the regulated to the regulator (and back again), the only real outsiders are average consumers.

Here is an example of Wheeler admiring AT&T’s prowess in the early days of its attempted merger with T-Mobile. Notice how he characterizes the deal’s opponents:

“The most important times in any merger approval process are the first two weeks when the acquiring company gets to define the discussion and the last four weeks when the concerns raised by others and the analysis by the government congeals to define the issues to be negotiated in the final outcome. AT&T shot out of the blocks brilliantly, framing their action in terms of the spectrum shortage and President Obama’s desire to provide wireless broadband to rural areas. Over the coming months those who were caught by surprise, as well as those who would use the review process to gain their own advantages, will have organized to present their messages.”

Wheeler shows no evidence of being the FCC’s version of a game-changer like Elizabeth Warren. Instead, he’s an avowed admirer of AT&T’s top lobbyist Jim Cicconi. What will that difference mean? The New York Times, reporting more broadly on the problem of D.C.’s revolving door, provides some valuable clues:

Government officials and lobbyists agree that former agency officials have a much easier time getting phone calls or e-mail messages returned from their old colleagues, and that access often extends to greater credibility in arguing their clients’ positions.

One corporate lobbyist who worked as a regulator, asked whether he believed he had an inside edge in lobbying his ex-colleagues, said: “The answer is yes, it does. If it didn’t, I wouldn’t be able to justify getting out of bed in the morning and charging the outrageous fees that we charge our clients, which they willingly pay.”

The lobbyist, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of concerns about alienating government officials, added that “you have to work at an agency to understand the culture and the pressure points, and it helps to know the senior staff.”

Not quite

The most likely outcome of a Wheeler nomination is that he will be quickly approved, maintain the agency’s relatively low profile, and avoid rocking the boat too much. Even he doubts the power of the FCC to effect regulatory change unless those regulated volunteer to submit to more regulation. That means more quid pro quo agreements attached to mergers, acquisitions, and other deals the industry brings the FCC for approval. But as this quote illustrates, the industry remains in the driving seat:

“[…] Jim Cicconi sits astride a process that could determine the future of wireless policy, first for AT&T and then by extension for everyone else. Quite possibly the result of this merger decision will be far wider than the merger itself. At the end of the day we may be talking about a new era of wireless policy based on the Cicconi Commitment.”

Wheeler argued that the inability of the FCC to muster the political will to deal effectively with net neutrality and other broadband regulation made a consent decree around AT&T/T-Mobile the best way to update consumer protection rather than leave these services essentially unregulated.

Wheeler’s recognition of the inability of the FCC to get virtually anything done comes with no assurance he will do any better. Harold himself admits that the FCC’s track record of enforcement is “pathetic.” Has Wheeler written on his blog that he would seek to change that?

Wheeler’s reflections on the failed T-Mobile/AT&T merger present a clear sign he considers it a missed opportunity, with the usual voluntary divestiture of certain assets here and there with time limited pre-conditions that carry all the impact of one of those class action settlements that nets consumers a coupon or a $2 refund. Everybody but consumers walk away winners.

The Justice Department’s antitrust division, in contrast, illustrated the usefulness of a backbone when it quickly declared the merger proposal monstrously anti-consumer and anti-competitive and announced it would sue to stop it. Deal over and dead. When is the last time the FCC issued such a clear-cut, high-profile decision all on its own? Why is it so hard for the FCC to see the same anti-competitive nightmare so visible at the Department of Justice? Public Knowledge and other consumer groups saw the dangers from day one. Does Mr. Wheeler agree with the Justice Department or does he think he can do business with that shrewd AT&T lobbyist Jim Cicconi to get such deals approved the ‘right way?’

Our view remains the country and the Obama Administration could do far better choosing someone to lead the FCC that has not made a career lobbying for big cable and phone companies. If we want to solve America’s rural broadband problems, enforce fair billing practices and Net Neutrality, find new creative ways to utilize and distribute wireless spectrum, and promote competition while restricting industry consolidation, would we do better choosing an ex-industry lobbyist or an engineer, network planner, professional regulator, or an antitrust attorney?

President Obama went with the ex-lobbyist.

Phillip “You Guys Need a Timeout” Dampier

AT&T and Time Warner Cable are complaining they have gotten a raw deal from Kansas City, Mo. and Kansas City, Ks., in comparison to the incentives Google was granted to wire both cities with gigabit fiber broadband.

“It’s time to modernize our industry’s rules and regulations…so all consumers benefit from fair and equal competition,” read a statement from AT&T.

“There are certain portions of the agreement between Google and Kansas City, Kan., that put them at a competitive advantage compared with not just us but also the other competitors in the field,” said Alex Dudley, a Time Warner Cable spokesman. “We’re happy to compete with Google, but we’d just like an even playing field.”

The Wall Street Journal seemed to suggest Google was getting the keys to both cities, with grants of free office space and free power for Google’s equipment, according to the agreement on file with the cities. The company also gets the use of all the cities’ “assets and infrastructure”—including fiber, buildings, land and computer tools, for no charge. Both cities are even providing Google a team of government employees “dedicated to the project,” says the Journal.

The Google Fiber project was so desired that the local governments rolled out the red carpet. In Kansas City, Mo., for instance, the city is allowing Google to construct “fiberhuts,” small buildings that house equipment on city land at no cost, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The cities are discounting other services, as well. For the right to attach its cables to city utility poles, Google is paying Kansas City, Kan., only $10 per pole per year—compared with the $18.95 Time Warner Cable pays. Both cities have also waived permit and inspection fees for Google.

The cities are even helping Google market its fiber build-out. And both are implementing city-managed marketing and education programs about the gigabit network that will, among other things, include direct mailings and community meetings.

Several cable executives complain that the cities also gave Google the unusual right to start its fiber project only in neighborhoods guaranteeing high demand for the service through pre-registrations. Most cable and phone companies were required by franchise agreements with regional governments to build out most of the markets they entered, regardless of demand.

But the Journal missed two key points:

1. Time Warner Cable has been granted the same concessions given to Google on the Missouri side, and AT&T presumably will also get them when it completes negotiations with city officials on the matter.
2. Both cable and phone companies have the benefit of incumbency, and the article ignores concessions each had secured when their operations first got started.

The Bell System enjoyed a monopoly on phone service for decades, with concessions on rights-of-way, telephone poles and placement. AT&T was a major beneficiary, and although the AT&T of today is not the same corporation that older Americans once knew, the company continues a century-long tradition of winning the benefit of the doubt in both the state and federal legislature. AT&T has won statewide video franchise agreements that give the company the power to determine where it will roll out its more advanced U-verse platform, and enjoys carefully crafted federal tax policies that helped them not only avoid paying any federal tax in 2011 — the company actually secured a $420 million “refund” subsidized by taxpayers.

Cable operators also won major concessions from local governments under pressure from citizens eager to buy cable television. At the time, cable companies were granted exclusive franchises — a cable monopoly — to operate, an important distinction for investors concerned about the value of their early investments. Local zoning and pole attachment matters were either negotiated or dealt with legislatively to allow cable companies the right to hang their wires on existing utility poles. Franchise agreements permitted the gradual roll-out of cable service in each franchise area, often allowing two, three, or more years to introduce service. It was not uncommon for neighborhoods on one side of town to have cable two years before the other side could sign up. That sounds awfully familiar to AT&T U-verse today.

Google’s proposal to build a revolutionary broadband network delivering 1Gbps deserved and got the same type of treatment then-revolutionary phone and cable service won back in the day.

Time Warner Cable also won much the same treatment Google is now getting, and the cable operator has gotten $27,000 in fees refunded and will avoid another $100,000 in permit fees going forward. Time Warner Cable and Google will both receive free traffic control services during network construction — not that Time Warner Cable plans much of a change for customers in either Missouri or Kansas.

AT&T will likely also receive the same treatment, although it would be hypocritical of them to complain that Google gets to pick and choose where it provides service. Large swaths of Kansas City and suburbs are still waiting for U-verse to arrive, and many areas will never get the service. Cable operators had to wire a little further, but also benefited from years of monopoly status and network construction expenses paid off years ago when there literally was no competition.

Those paragons of virtue at Goldman Sachs are appalled Google has such a good relationship with Kansas City officials more than happy to have the gigabit speeds neither AT&T or Time Warner Cable would even consider providing.

Google’s rights “appear to be significantly more favorable than those cable, Verizon or any other fiber overbuilders achieved when striking deals with local governments in the past,” Goldman Sachs analyst Jason Armstrong told the Journal. “We’re surprised Time Warner Cable hasn’t been more vocal in its opposition.”

But then the cable company has secured most of the same benefits Google has, so why complain at all?

In fact, city officials had to browbeat Time Warner to modernize its network in ways it would have not done otherwise without the new agreement.

Both AT&T and Time Warner have every right to be concerned. Their substandard networks and high prices (along with a lousy history of customer service, according to national surveys) put them at a competitive disadvantage if Google does not make any major mistakes. Neither cable or phone company has made any noise about upgrading service to compete, and should customers begin to leave in droves, then both companies may actually have something to cry about.

The Wall Street Journal’s report on the concessions granted to Google wanders off into the Net Neutrality debate for some reason, and misses several important facts reviewed above.  (3 minutes)

Green River, Rock Springs, and other communities served by Wyoming.com

Wyoming is one of America’s most broadband-challenged, least populated states.  With just over 560,000 residents spread across its often mountainous terrain, broadband service is nothing to take for granted.  Larger communities have limited access to Qwest DSL and cable broadband, but large sections of the state rely on independent wireless providers as their only choice, or they find no broadband service at all.

In this spartan digital world, many residents are surprised Wyoming is criss-crossed by national fiber-optic lines moving traffic across the country.  It’s just that in most instances, individuals are not allowed to access it.

Wyoming.com, a privately-owned Wireless ISP, wants to expand service to Farson and South Pass City — two communities further north that have no hope of getting anything beyond dial-up or satellite fraudband service.  The commercial provider, working with the administrators of the fiber network, has access to federal grant money to expand service to unserved communities, and improve it in underserved areas like Rock Springs.  But that cannot happen if the venture is refused access to a 48-strand “middle-mile” fiber-optic line financed by public dollars and managed by the Joint Powers Telecommunications Board — a partnership between the Green River City Council and Rock Springs local government.

The notion Wyoming.com could get access to a taxpayer-financed network ruffles Tom McCullough, the city’s liaison to the Joint Powers board.  He’s opposed to allowing any government resource to benefit the public at the expense of the local cable monopoly — Sweetwater Cable TV, which doesn’t even serve most of the areas that would benefit from enhanced Internet access.  McCullough argues it violates a 2007 Wyoming law that prohibits public broadband projects when private providers provide access to similar services anywhere within the boundaries of a city or town.  The law came in response to a public broadband project undertaken in Powell that upset the state’s cable and phone companies.

If residents want access to the fiber network they paid for, they have to visit Western Wyoming Community College or the Sweetwater County Library System and use public terminals there.

McCullough so dislikes the fiber project, he has tried to disband the Joint Powers Board that manages it twice, suggesting he has enough support to sell off the entire network to anyone interested (presumably at a substantial discount.)

Shea

Local residents who remain stuck with dial-up or who live outside of Sweetwater Cable’s service area are furious.

“There are some types around here who can’t see past Rush Limbaugh — anything the government does is automatically bad and must be taken down, even if taxpayers paid to build it in the first place,” complains Stop the Cap! reader Sue who lives in Farson.  “Farson has nothing to do with Sweetwater Cable, but because a handful of politicians are looking out for the cable company, worried Wyoming.com is going to get one-up on them, that means we can’t have broadband.”

Steve Shea, chairman of the telecommunications board, is unimpressed with McCullough’s arguments as well, and accused him of allowing his personal friendship with Sweetwater Cable TV’s owner — Al Carollo — to cloud his judgment.

Shea says Wyoming’s local governments are often fiercely protective of locally-owned businesses, and told the Green River Star the Board has historically faced the attitude that “local business deserves a monopoly, no matter what.”  Sweetwater Cable TV is locally owned and operated.

In fact, Shea says original designs for the fiber network were to provide fiber-to-the-home service in the area.  Since a national fiber optic cable was already running adjacent to the community, getting a connection to it was relatively simple.  Extending service to individual homeowners was another matter.  Political opposition to “government broadband” and demagoguery about its cost and implications from private providers ultimately killed the project.

Shea documented his experience as commercial providers and their dollar-a-holler industry-connected supporters fought the fiber project:

• Opposition comes from everyone in the Telecom business;
• Opposition will be in your face constantly;
• Opposition will never run out of lies;
• Opposition is ready to strike at any time and at any place;
• Opposition will engage in back-room politics against you;
• Opposition will try to get Power Brokers and Influentials on their side;
• Opposition will spend as much money as needed to defeat you.

Local cable and wireless providers engage in a tangle in southwestern Wyoming

As Wyoming’s broadband rankings slip further and further behind much of the rest of the country, Shea hopes attitudes about the fiber network have changed, especially when residents learn Sweetwater Cable was offered access to the network as well, and they declined.

Shea shared that the long history of opposition to the project started with suggestions wireless broadband was better than fiber, or that broadband over power lines could do the same or better than fiber networks.  He even battled contentions that existing broadband networks provided “fast enough” service for Wyoming.  Today, it has extended to allowing a private company to engage in a public-private partnership.  The other providers are still opposed.

“You have to refute these arguments over, and over, and over again. Your opposition will oppose you at every corner, and will call in all of their political favors to derail your fiber project,” Shea writes.

“It’s Wyoming’s version of North Carolina,” Sue writes from her Hughes Satellite address.  “Sweetwater Cable doesn’t want access to the fiber themselves, and they want to make sure you don’t access it either, even though the family I have down there tells me their cable Internet service sucks because the cable company can’t handle the traffic.”

Sweetwater Cable gets their access from Qwest.

What bothers Sue and some other local residents about the squabble is that it is inherently political and allows an existing, underutilized fiber line to sit mostly unused when expanded broadband is desperately needed in Wyoming.  In fact, some consider it a scandal among special interests.

“They don’t care about better broadband — they only care about their political and industry friends,” Sue complains.  “When will people wake up and realize that whether it is North Carolina or Wyoming, these policies and laws don’t give anyone broadband — they keep us from getting it.”

Shea’s observation that opponents’ use of backroom politics seems to have been right on point.  On Tuesday, as the Board met to discuss Wyoming.com’s proposal, Shea was effectively forced out and announced his resignation after the owner of Sweetwater Cable TV said he contacted an attorney to look at whether Shea’s tenure on the board was legal.