One of the rural groups fighting to keep funding for rural broadband networks.

The Republican platform on telecommunications and its criticism of the Obama Administration’s handling of broadband inspired a blogger at the Washington Post to ponder the question, “Whatever happened to Obama’s goal of universal broadband access?”

Brad Plumer sees the Republican criticism as valid, at least on the surface:

Does anyone remember when the Obama administration promised to bring “true broadband [to] every community in America”? The Republican Party definitely does, and its 2012 platform criticizes the president for not making any progress on this pledge:

“The current Administration has been frozen in the past…. It inherited from the previous Republican Administration 95 percent coverage of the nation with broadband. It will leave office with no progress toward the goal of universal coverage—after spending $7.2 billion more. That hurts rural America, where farmers, ranchers, and small business manufacturers need connectivity to expand their customer base and operate in real time with the world’s producers.

So whatever happened to the Obama administration’s plan to expand broadband access, anyway? In one sense, the Republican critics are right. Universal broadband is still far from a reality. According to the Federal Communications Commission’s annual broadband report, released in August, there are still 19 million Americans who lack access to wired broadband. Only about 94 percent of households have broadband access. Obama hasn’t achieved his goal.

Stop the Cap! has been watching the rural broadband debate since the summer of 2008, and believes the failure to do better isn’t primarily the fault of Republicans or Democrats — it lies with the nation’s phone companies — particularly AT&T and Verizon. But both political parties, to different degrees, have helped and hindered along the way.

Plumer slightly misstates the commitment of the Obama Administration at the outset. The Obama-Biden Plan never promised to successfully complete universal broadband access in the United States. Here is their actual pledge (emphasis ours):

Deploy Next-Generation Broadband: Work towards true broadband in every community in America through a combination of reform of the Universal Service Fund, better use of the nation’s wireless spectrum, promotion of next-generation facilities, technologies and applications, and new tax and loan incentives. America should lead the world in broadband penetration and Internet access.

Big Phone Companies Struggle to Abandon Landlines in Rural America

The Obama-Biden Plan for broadband never promised you a rose garden. It simply promised the administration would get to work planting one.

By far, AT&T and Verizon Communications are the most culpable for leaving rural Americans without broadband service. Over the last four years, both companies have diverted investment away from their landline networks into wireless. AT&T has also spent millions lobbying state governments to free itself from the requirement of serving as “the carrier of last resort,” a critical matter for rural landline customers, particularly because rural wireless coverage remains lacking.

In most states, the dominant phone company is still mandated to provide basic telephone service to every customer who wants it. Universal electric and telephone service goes all the way back to the Roosevelt Administration, who saw both as essential to the rural economy.

The Communications Act of 1934 that the Republicans today dismiss as outdated established the concept of universal telephone service: “making available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.”

The concept of universal service was reaffirmed, with the blessing of the telephone companies, under the sweeping deregulation of the landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996. Republicans call that law outdated as well.

Rural America Can’t Win Better Broadband If Their Providers Don’t Play

Decided not to participate in rural broadband funding programs.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) with $7.2 billion to expand access to broadband services in the United States. Of those funds, the Act provided $4.7 billion to NTIA to support the deployment of broadband infrastructure, enhance and expand public computer centers, encourage sustainable adoption of broadband service, and develop and maintain a nationwide public map of broadband service capability and availability.

This first round of serious broadband stimulus was designed to help defray the costs of bringing broadband to rural areas where “return on investment” formulas used by large phone companies deemed them insufficiently profitable to service.

Remarkably, America’s largest phone companies declined to participate. In March 2009, AT&T and Verizon delivered their response to the Obama Administration through Bloomberg News:

Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc. may have this response to the U.S. government’s offer of $7.2 billion for high-speed Internet projects: Keep it.

Unlike the businesses that welcomed the $787 billion stimulus package approved by Congress last month, the two biggest U.S. phone companies have reservations. They’re urging the government not to help other companies compete with them through broadband grants or to set new conditions on how Internet access should be provided.

The companies have remained noncommittal as they lobby to shape rules for the grants.

“We do not have our hand out seeking government funds,” James Cicconi, AT&T’s senior executive vice president, told reporters March 11. While the company is “open to considering things that might help the economy and might help our customers at the same time,” he said AT&T’s primary focus for broadband is its own investment program.

Also declined to participate.

AT&T’s own financial reports illustrate its “investment program” was largely focused on its wireless services division, not rural broadband. Many other phone companies filed objections to projects they deemed invasive to their service areas, whether they actually provided broadband in those places or not.

When the final NTIA grant recipients were announced, the overwhelming majority were middle-mile or institutional broadband networks that would not provide broadband to any home or business.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service managed the rest of the broadband grants and loans, and the majority went to exceptionally rural telephone companies, co-ops, and tribal telecommunications. AT&T did participate in one aspect of broadband stimulus — its legal team and lobbyists appealed to grant administrators to change the rules to be more flexible about how and where grant money was spent.

In the past year, both AT&T and Verizon have signaled their true intentions for rural landline service:

Verizon’s McAdam: Ready to pull the plug on rural landlines.

Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam: “In […] areas that are more rural and more sparsely populated, we have got [a wireless 4G] LTE built that will handle all of those services and so we are going to cut the copper off there,” McAdam said. “We are going to do it over wireless. So I am going to be really shrinking the amount of copper we have out there and then I can focus the investment on that to improve the performance of it.”

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson: “We have been apprehensive on moving, doing anything on rural access lines because the issue here is, do you have a broadband product for rural America?,” Stephenson told investors earlier this year. “And we’ve all been trying to find a broadband solution that was economically viable to get out to rural America and we’re not finding one to be quite candid.”

More recently, Verizon has nearly disinherited its DSL service, making it more difficult to purchase (impossible in FiOS fiber to the home service areas). In states like West Virginia, it effectively slashed expansion and infrastructure investment as it prepared to exit the state, selling its network to Frontier Communications. AT&T has shown almost no interest expanding the coverage of its DSL service either. If you don’t have access to it today, you likely won’t tomorrow.

A good portion of the broadband stimulus funding provided by the government is actually in the form of low-interest, repayable loans. Despite rhetoric in the Republican platform about supporting public-private partnerships to expand rural broadband, the Republicans in Congress launched coordinated attacks on the Broadband Access Loan Program offered by the USDA’s Rural Utilities Service in the spring of 2011. Various right-wing pundits and pressure groups joined forces with several Republican members of Congress attempting to permanently de-fund the program, starting with $700 million in federally-backed loans in April, 2011. The loans were targeted to public and private rural telecommunications companies attempting to expand or introduce broadband service.

Attacks on the effectiveness of President Obama’s broadband campaign pledges in the Republican platform ring a little hollow when Republican lawmakers actively blocked the administration’s efforts to keep those promises.

Killing Community Broadband: Priority #1 for Providers With the Help of Corporate-Backed ALEC and State Politicians

AT&T’s Stephenson: Doesn’t have a solution for the rural broadband problem, so why try?

Stop the Cap! has repeatedly reported on the challenges of community broadband in the United States. Launched by towns and villages to provide quality broadband service in areas where larger companies have either underserved or delivered no service at all, publicly-owned broadband is often the only chance a community has to stay competitive in the digital age.

That goal is shared by the GOP’s platform, which states how important it is to connect “rural areas so that every American can fully participate in the global economy.”

Unfortunately, unless your local phone or cable company is providing the service, all too often they would prefer communities continue to receive no service at all.

AT&T is among the most aggressive phone companies lobbying state officials, often through the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), to pass state laws hindering or banning community broadband development. ALEC supporters, overwhelmingly Republican, accept company-drafted legislation as their own and introduce it in state legislatures, hoping it will become law. Generous campaign contributions often follow.

In the past few years, AT&T and Time Warner Cable have been especially active in broadband backwater states like North and South Carolina and Georgia, where rural counties often receive nothing more than DSL service at speeds that no longer qualify as “broadband” under the Obama Administration’s National Broadband Plan. In North Carolina, Democratic state politicians well funded by Time Warner Cable helped push bills forward, but it took a Republican takeover of the North Carolina legislature to finally get those laws enacted. South Carolina presented fewer challenges for state lawmakers, despite protests from communities across the state bypassed by AT&T and other phone companies.

The efforts to de-fund broadband stimulus and tie the hands of communities seeking their own broadband solutions have done considerable damage to the rural broadband expansion effort.

Universal Service Fund Reform: Not Much Help If America’s Largest Phone Companies Remain Uninterested

The Obama Administration has also kept its pledge to reform the Universal Service Fund, recreating it as the Connect America Fund (CAF) to help wire rural America.

Hopes for rural broadband drowned in the cement pond.

In its first phase of broadband funding, $300 million dollars became available to help subsidize the cost of rural broadband construction. Deemed a “mild stimulus” effort that would test the CAF’s grant mechanisms, only $115 million of the available funding was accepted by the nation’s phone companies — all independent providers like Frontier, FairPoint, CenturyLink, Windstream, and smaller players. Once again, both AT&T and Verizon refused to participate. There is no word yet on whether the two largest phone companies in the country will also effectively boycott the second round of funding, estimated to allocate over $1.8 billion to expand rural broadband.

“Getting to 100 percent is going to be a very difficult long-term goal, given the size of the U.S. landmass and the huge expense to reach those final couple of percentage points,” John Horrigan of the Joint Center Media and Technology Institute told Brad Plumer.

Politics and provider intransigence seem to be getting in the way just as much as America’s vast expanse. Many conservative and provider-backed groups have called America’s claimed 94% broadband availability rate a success story, and don’t see a need to fuss over the remaining six percent that cannot buy the service (and pointing to a larger number that don’t want the service at today’s prices).

Beyond the partisan obstructionism and middle mile/institutional network “successes” that ordinary consumers cannot access, the real issue remains the providers themselves. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.

It seems as long as AT&T and Verizon treat their rural landline customers as hayseed relatives they (and Wall Street) could do without, the rural broadband picture for customers of AT&T and Verizon will remain bleak at current stimulus levels regardless of which party promises what in their respective platforms.

Otero

When a former labor leader suddenly starts advocating for the interests of AT&T and other super-sized telecommunications companies, even as AT&T’s unionized work force prepared to strike, the smell of Big Telecom money and influence permeates the air.

Jack Otero, identified in the Des Moines Register as “a former member of the AFL-CIO Executive Council and past national president of the AFL-CIO’s Labor Council for Latin American Advancement,” penned a particularly suspicious love letter to deregulation that might as well have been written by AT&T’s director of government relations:

[…]Industries — like broadband Internet — are thriving and creating innovations. Tossing a regulatory grenade into these businesses could wreck markets that create value for consumers and jobs for workers.

The United States is one of the most wired nations in the world. More than 95 percent of households have access to at least one wireline broadband provider, and the vast majority can connect at speeds exceeding 100 Mbps. And monthly packages start as low as $15. That means more families can go online to improve their job skills, look for work or help the kids with their school assignments.

More choices and higher speeds — the signs of a vibrant market — are the product of private investment, not public dollars. Internet service providers have invested over $250 billion in the last four years alone. This has created roughly half a million jobs laying fiber-optic and coaxial cable.

But some squeaky wheels are demanding heavy-handed regulations that would move our broadband Internet to the European model, where taxpayers have to subsidize outdated networks with slow speeds. Some want broadband providers to be required to lease their networks to competitors at discounted prices — as they do in Europe. But lawmakers in both parties agree that this policy, tried in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, failed miserably.

Others argue that broadband Internet providers should not be able to impose a small surcharge on the tiny percentage (less than 1 percent) of consumers who download hundreds of movies and tens of thousands of songs every month — effectively the data usage of a business. They say these fees discriminate against online video companies like Netflix. But that’s silly. More than 99 percent of users can watch plenty of Apple TV or Netflix without approaching the lowest data allotment. Without tiered pricing plans, the rest of us would have to underwrite these super-users.

Okay then.

Otero’s Fantasy World of Broadband sounds great, only it does not exist for the vast majority of Americans. Are most of us able to connect at speeds exceeding 100Mbps?

If you happen to live in a community served by a publicly-owned broadband provider Otero effectively dismisses, you can almost take this fact for granted.

Some of America’s most advanced telecommunications providers are actually owned by the public they serve in dozens of communities small and large. EPB Fiber, Greenlight, Fibrant, Lafayette’s LUS Fiber, among others, deliver super-fast upload and download speeds at very reasonable prices while the giant phone and cable companies offer less service for more money.

The only major telecommunications company with a wide deployment of fiber-to-the-home service is Verizon Communications.

You cannot easily buy residential 100Mbps service from Time Warner Cable, AT&T, CenturyLink, Frontier, FairPoint, or a myriad of other telecom companies at any price, unless you purchase an obscenely expensive business account. From the rest, 100Mbps service typically sets you back $100 a month.

Otero’s quote of affordable $15 broadband is not easy to come by either. It usually requires the customer to qualify for food stamps or certain welfare programs, have a family with school-age children, a perfect payment history, and no recent record of subscribing to broadband service at the regular price.

The only people who believe America is the home of a vibrant market for broadband service are paid employees of telecom companies, paid-off politicians, or their sock-puppet friends and organizations who more often than not receive substantial contributions from phone or cable companies. The fact is, the United States endures a home broadband duopoly in most communities — one cable and one phone company. They charge roughly the same rates for a level of service that Europe and Asia left behind years ago. Broadband prices keep going up here, going down there.

Simply put, Mr. Otero and actual reality have yet to meet. Consider his nonsensical diatribe about the impact of the “heavy-handed” 1996 Telecommunications Act, actually a festival of mindless deregulation that resulted in sweeping consolidation in the telecommunications and broadcasting business and higher prices for consumers.

Otero is upset that big companies like AT&T and Verizon originally had to open up their networks in the early 1990s to independent Internet Service Providers who purchased wholesale access at fair (yet profitable) prices. Those fledgling ISPs developed and marketed third-party Internet service based on those open network rates. Remember the days when you could choose your ISP from a whole host of providers? In some markets, this tradition carried forward with DSL service, but for most it would not last.

The telecommunications industry managed to successfully lobby the government and federal regulators to change the rules. Phone companies did not appreciate the fact they had to open their networks for fair access while cable operators did not. So in 2005, the FCC allowed both to control their broadband networks like third world despots. Competitors were effectively not allowed. Wholesale access, where available, was priced at rates that usually guaranteed few ISPs would ever undercut the cable or phone company’s own broadband product.

The lawmakers who believed open networks represented awful policy were almost entirely corporate-friendly or recipients of enormous campaign contributions from the telecom companies themselves.

So which market is actually on the road to failure?

The LCLAA couldn’t do enough to help AT&T swallow up competitor T-Mobile USA.

The American broadband business model is a firmly established duopoly that charges some of the world’s highest prices and has rapidly fallen behind those “failures” in Europe.

In the United Kingdom, BT — the national phone company, is required to sell access at the wholesale rates Otero dismisses as bad policy. As a result, UK consumers have a greater choice of service providers, and at speeds that are increasingly outpacing the United States. Nationally backed fiber to the home networks in eastern Europe and the Baltic states have already blown past the average speeds Americans can affordably buy from the cable company.

Even Canada requires Bell, the dominant phone company, to open its network to independent ISPs selling DSL service. Without this, Canadians would rarely have a chance to find a service provider offering unlimited, flat rate service.

Otero’s final, and most-tired argument is that data caps force “average” users to subsidize “heavy” users. In fact, as Stop the Cap! reported this week, that fallacy can be safely flushed away when you consider the largest ISPs pay, on average, just $1 per month per subscriber for usage, and that price is dropping fast. The only thing being subsidized here is the telecom “dollar-a-holler” fund, paid to various mouthpiece organizations who deliver the industry’s talking points without looking too obvious.

The Des Moines Register omitted the rest of Mr. Otero’s industry connections. We’re always here to help at Stop the Cap!, so here is what the newspaper forgot:

• Mr. Otero is a board member of Directors of the U.S. Hispanic Leadership Institute (USHLI), a group funded in part by AT&T and Verizon;
• He is the past president of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, a group that enthusiastically supported the anti-competitive merger of AT&T and T-Mobile USA;

Mr. Otero has a side hobby of penning nearly identical editorials with largely these same broadband talking points. One wonders what might motivate him into writing letters to the Des Moines Register, the Lexington Herald-Leader, the Gainesville Sun, the Star-Banner, and the Ledger-Inquirer.

Otero may have a case for plagiarism, if he chooses to pursue it, against Mr. Roger Campos, president of the Minority Business RoundTable (the top cable lobbyist, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association is labeled an MBRT “strategic partner” on their website). Campos uses some of the exact same talking points in his own “roundtable” of letters to the editor sent to newspapers all over the place, including the Ventura County Star, the Leaf Chronicle, and the Daily Herald.

Northern District Mississippi Public Service Commissioner Brandon Presley is unhappy with a new state law that will strip oversight over AT&T. Presley plans to personally file suit in Hinds County Circuit Court against the law, calling it unconstitutional.

“It violates the state constitution,” Presley said of the bill during an interview with the Daily Journal. “There’s no doubt AT&T is the biggest in the state, and this bill will allow them to raise rates without any oversight at all.”

House Bill 825 strips away rate regulation of Mississippi landline service and removes the oversight powers the PSC formerly had to request financial data and statistics dealing with service outages and consumer complaints. The law also permits AT&T to abandon rural Mississippi landline customers at will.

The bill’s author, Rep. Charles Jim Beckett (R-Bruce), told the newspaper he doubts the truth of Presley’s predictions that AT&T will raise landline rates in Mississippi and eventually abandon unprofitable rural sections of the state.

Unfortunately for Beckett, AT&T has a track record of raising rates on basic phone service about a year after winning deregulation in other midwestern and southern states. Beckett’s optimism about AT&T’s benevolence may be slightly colored by $2,500 in campaign contributions he received from the phone company and his extensive involvement with AT&T’s legislative agenda through participation in the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group with direct ties to AT&T:

Presley

It seems that Russell and AT&T picked up the food tab for Rep. Jim Beckett and his wife at the ALEC meeting in at the Westin Kierland Resort in Scottsdale, Ariz. from November 30 to December 2, 2011.  AT&T also paid for a few rounds of golf for Rep. Beckett while there.  All said and done, AT&T paid $565.39 to cover expenses for Rep. Beckett and his wife on their three day trip to Scottsdale.

But that’s not all.  AT&T also picked up the tab for $151.70 worth of food and tickets while Rep. Beckett and his wife were at the Spring ALEC meeting in Cincinnati, OH in late April of 2011. AT&T also paid $22.62 for food for Rep. Beckett and his wife while he attended the 2011 Summer ALEC meeting in New Orleans.

The total amount AT&T gave to Rep. Jim Beckett and his wife in 2011 through Randy Russell?  $876.85.  The names of the Becketts appear a total of 36 times in AT&T’s 2011 lobbying report, most of it while the Becketts are at ALEC retreats.

Beckett

Presley has also launched a populist campaign against AT&T, last week telling a fired-up crowd at the Jacinto Festival he will fight AT&T’s bought and paid for law that lets them “raise your rates to whatever they want to.”

Crowds cheered support for Presley as he detailed how AT&T has bought influence with Mississippi state legislators, “just because they pass around money or fly you on jets or buy those big ribeyes.”

Presley has a past history of chasing after utility companies that hire expensive lobbyists and hand out extravagant gifts including golf outings, trips, and even opera tickets to legislators willing to vote their way.

He claims it has gotten so bad, corporate deep-pockets are now shutting out the voices of citizens.

“We have a coin-operated government,” Presley said. “That’s wrong.”

AT&T's bill padding.

No other single corporation has spent more trying to influence legislators in the state of California than AT&T.

That conclusion was reached as part of a report by the Los Angeles Times documenting AT&T’s millions in political donations and an army of lobbyists that effectively kill just about every measure the company opposes.

Some of the biggest checks change hands at the two-day Speaker’s Cup, the Godzilla fundraising event for California state Democrats.

During last year’s outing, those who attended were handed goody bags worthy of a Hollywood event.  Free products included a brand new iPad that came with a thank you note co-signed by Assembly Speaker John A. Perez (D-Los Angeles) and AT&T’s top lobbyist — its chief of government relations.

This year’s event, to be held May 5-6, is priced at an average of $12,000 per ticket, but many legislators get free passes for a weekend that includes unlimited golf, wine, gourmet food, body wraps and hot-stone massages.

Come for the golf, but stay for the lobbyist-legislator hobnobbing.

At past events, AT&T’s state president bounded across the green shaking hands with every legislator he could find, and those he couldn’t just had to wait by the mailbox.  Every California legislator is the recipient of at least $1,000 in the form of a campaign contribution.  More important state lawmakers earn much more from the phone company, often tens of thousands of dollars.

But AT&T’s “concierge service” for lawmakers doesn’t stop with golf outings and campaign checks.

AT&T spends more than $14,000 a day on political advocacy in California, and when a lawmaker can’t get tickets to a premiere event, concert, or playoff game, one phone call to an AT&T lobbyist is usually all it takes to remedy the situation.  Hundreds of free tickets were dispensed, according to the Times, for everything from basketball playoffs to Disney on Ice.

Lawmakers deny AT&T’s iPads, cash, and tickets have any influence over their decisionmaking, a view scoffed at by watchdog group Common Cause.

“What these things do is create a sense of gratitude and indebtedness,” Derek Cressman, western states director for Common Cause said. “It’s basic human nature: If someone does something nice for you, you want to do something nice for them.”

The number of favors returned by lawmakers for AT&T’s benefit:

• Bill to force phone companies to be more transparent about cellphone fees: died in legislature;
• Bill to end monthly charges for unlisted numbers: died in legislature, and AT&T and since raised the rates on the service;
• State controls on landline pricing: eliminated
• A bill to help consumers stop unwanted delivery of the Yellow Pages: defeated
• A measure to deregulate cable TV franchising and move it to the state level for the benefit of AT&T U-verse: passed

“Every day I look at a case and I think, well, if they [AT&T] don’t care, we have a good chance,” Denise Mann from the Division of Ratepayer Advocates told the newspaper. But if AT&T’s corporate offices do care, she added, “all we can do is appeal to conscience, reason and the public interest.”

Wolk

That often isn’t enough.  Sen. Lois Wolk (D-Davis) learned that first-hand when she attempted to introduce a measure to curb phone cramming — placing unauthorized charges on consumer phone bills.  The negotiated measure was well on the way to passage in the state legislature until AT&T’s chief operative showed up.

Wolk was amazed to find AT&T’s Bill Devine taking a front row seat in the committee room reserved for legislators and staff to listen to her revised bill.  When she finished, Devine headed for the microphone and delivered his own version of how the bill should be written.

Wolk was out of her league.  A common-sense measure that had received early support from legislators suddenly was in deep trouble as fellow legislators quickly fell in behind Devine’s reinterpretation of the bill.  The bill was put on hold and died a quiet death one week later.

Nobody spends more than AT&T on influencing public officials in the state government.  In the past 13 years, the phone company has spent more than $47 million on lobbying, more than twice the second biggest corporate spender — Edison International — has spent in the state.  That doesn’t include the $1 million+ in political campaign contributions doled out each year.

AT&T takes care of the political advocates who take care of them, as well.

The Times reports that ex-lawmakers, regulators, and staff members of the legislature have all found work in lobbying and public relations firms that include AT&T as a client.

Even non-profit groups who advocate AT&T’s positions on telecommunications issues stand to win.  The company cuts checks to groups like United Way and the Boys and Girls Club who in turn write letters to legislators requesting they support AT&T’s agenda.

Stop the Cap! has written extensively about the American Legislative Exchange Council’s pervasive influence on state telecommunications policies long before Trayvon Martin and Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law put a spotlight on the shadowy corporate-backed group in the national media.

ALEC’s mission is clear.  It acts as a go-between between corporate interests who customize business-friendly state legislation in their favor and the legislators willing to introduce those bills as their own. ALEC provides the cover some legislators need to protect their image in the public eye.

A handful of legislators in safe districts are bold enough to openly admit introducing legislation written by a company like AT&T.  Take Kentucky Republican Sen. Paul Hornback.  He introduced a deregulation measure in Kentucky’s state Senate that would do away with universal landline service and almost entirely deregulate AT&T’s operations in Kentucky.  When the media found out Hornback introduced legislation AT&T actually wrote, he didn’t seem to mind one bit and doubled down on the apparent conflict of interest.

Sen. Paul Hornback (R-AT&T)

“You work with the authorities in any industry to figure out what they need to move that industry forward,” Hornback said, defending his bill that would do exactly that, at the expense of Kentucky consumers facing rate hikes AT&T has pushed in other states where similar measures were passed.

Hornback is the exception to the rule.  For more timid legislators concerned about their next election campaign, ALEC is only too happy to provide cover.

When ALEC’s connection to Florida’s controversial “Stand Your Ground” law was exposed, it swept the secretive group into the Martin media tornado.  When reports surfaced connecting the dots between ALEC and some of America’s largest corporations, Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, Intuit, and Pepsi fled ALEC’s membership roster.  No soft drink company wants to be connected to a controversial Florida gun law.

First Coca-Cola and Kraft Foods, Now AT&T

Today, Color of Change, a group dedicated to amplifying the voice of African-Americans to make government more responsive to minorities set its sights on AT&T, one of ALEC’s most prominent members.

They have a major fight on their hands.  Few corporations have used ALEC as effectively as the descendant of Ma Bell.  AT&T’s enormous lobbying machine has frequently used ALEC to help introduce deregulation measures in states across the country.

“Even after we wrote AT&T to let them know that more than 85,000 ColorOfChange members have asked that they disassociate themselves from ALEC, the company has remained silent,” says Color of Change. “It’s clear that they think we will just go away.”

Throwing away their membership in ALEC would be a major blow to AT&T’s lobbyists who are well-connected inside the group. AT&T has several leadership roles within ALEC’s various state chapters:

ALEC State Chairs Affiliated With AT&T

• Arkansas:
  — Ted Mullenix, AT&T
• California:
  — Pete Anderson, AT&T
• Connecticut:
  — John Emra, AT&T
• Louisiana:
  — Daniel Wilson, AT&T
• Mississippi:
  — Randal Russell, AT&T
• Texas:
  — Holly Reed, AT&T

How do these ALEC-involved lobbyists influence elected officials?  They wine and dine lawmakers and their families, encouraging them to introduce legislation favorable to AT&T.

Everyone Knows Randy Russell – AT&T’s Go-To-Guy in Mississippi

Beckett

AT&T lobbyist Randy Russell has been representing the interests of Big Telecom in Mississippi for more than a decade.  Originally registered as a lobbyist for AT&T predecessor BellSouth, Russell today also serves as ALEC’s state chairman in the Magnolia State.

When he isn’t spending his time in the state capital — Jackson — he’s wining and dining lawmakers who might be future supporters of AT&T’s business agenda in the legislature.

Lucky for AT&T Russell found Rep. Jim Beckett (R-Bruce).  And what a find.  Beckett is in the catbird seat, serving as chairman of the House Public Utilities Committee — the oversight committee responsible for ensuring that when someone in Mississippi picks up a phone, there is actually a dial tone.

Unfortunately for Mississippi consumers Beckett has AT&T’s Russell on his speed dial.

The Cottonmouth Blog discovered both men have spent a lot of time together:

It seems that Russell and AT&T picked up the food tab for Rep. Jim Beckett and his wife at the ALEC meeting in at the Westin Kierland Resort in Scottsdale, Ariz. from November 30 to December 2, 2011.  AT&T also paid for a few rounds of golf for Rep. Beckett while there.  All said and done, AT&T paid $565.39 to cover expenses for Rep. Beckett and his wife on their three day trip to Scottsdale.

But that’s not all.  AT&T also picked up the tab for $151.70 worth of food and tickets while Rep. Beckett and his wife were at the Spring ALEC meeting in Cincinnati, OH in late April of 2011. AT&T also paid $22.62 for food for Rep. Beckett and his wife while he attended the 2011 Summer ALEC meeting in New Orleans.

The total amount AT&T gave to Rep. Jim Beckett and his wife in 2011 through Randy Russell?  $876.85.  The names of the Becketts appear a total of 36 times in AT&T’s 2011 lobbying report, most of it while the Becketts are at ALEC retreats.

AT&T also helped more directly with $2,500 in campaign contributions to Beckett’s campaign fund.  What did all of AT&T’s money and travel vouchers buy them?

Dialing for Deregulation

House Bill 825 — ‘The AT&T Total Deregulation Act’: A bill introduced by none other than Rep. Beckett that would effectively strip what remaining oversight exists over AT&T’s operations in Mississippi.  It’s a bill very familiar to Stop the Cap!, because it includes all of the usual “bullet points” found in ALEC’s own legislative database — all of enormous interest and importance to AT&T.

Northern District Public Service Commissioner Brandon Presley, who deals with consumer complaints about AT&T’s service in the state, effectively called HB 825 an unmitigated disaster for ratepayers from Corinth in the north to Biloxi in the south:

[…] House Bill 825 would totally strip the PSC of any authority to hold AT&T accountable for rate increases and lousy landline and cell phone coverage. Presley said the bill was requested by AT&T as retaliation against the PSC for denying a rate increase and for complaining of poor cellular and residential phone service. The PSC won a case in the Mississippi Supreme Court to limit charges to customers after AT&T appealed the PSC’s ruling.

[…] Presley said the Legislature passed the first phase of deregulation in 2006 and since then complaints to the Commission about billing errors, poor service and the like have risen from 1,735 in 2006 to 4,361 in 2011 an increase of over 150%. “This is evidence enough of why this bill is bad for consumers.”

[…] Along with removing all of the Public Service Commission’s authority to investigate abuses, extortion and customer complaints, House Bill 825 also removes the Commission’s authority to designate conditions for AT&T’s receiving of millions in federal funds to promote rural cell phone service. Presley said the Commission’s authority to place conditions on those dollars has been the main tool to increase cell phone coverage in rural counties. “Rural Mississippi’s interests are gutted in this bill.” Presley said.

Cottonmouth reminds readers who may not be familiar with Mississippi that Beckett’s home district — Bruce — puts his AT&T ghost-written legislation at odds with his own constituents:

“Bruce [isn’t] exactly urban,” the blogger writes. “Matter of fact, anyone who has driven on Highway 7 right outside of Bruce and tried to make an AT&T cell phone call could tell you just how much this bill will hurt Rep. Beckett’s constituents.”

Even Beckett’s fellow Republicans serving the state PSC couldn’t stomach the legislation that guaranteed even more customer complaints.  Southern District Public Service Commissioner Leonard Bentz issued his own press release attacking the bill:

“This is a very bad bill for consumers in Mississippi,” Commissioner Bentz stated. “Even though AT&T will tell you that the oversight that we [PSC] have is limited, the little we do have is piece of mind for the consumers.”

“You don’t have to think very long to understand why this bill is bad. Think back to last time you called  in a problem to AT&T and the lack of customer service you received. This bill would make it worse. It is important to understand AT&T will lead you to believe this bill will affect only a small number of customers, but that is not so. As it stands right now, all customers with AT&T have the ability to file complaints with the Public Service Commission, and have the PSC on their side to help them navigate the system. The bill clearly states customer appeals will be removed from the PSC jurisdiction.

The third commissioner on the PSC, Republican Central District Public Service Commissioner Lynn Posey, hoped HB 825 would simply go away, seeking to bury it in a “study committee.”

Despite the universal opposition to the measure among those tasked with overseeing the state’s phone companies, Beckett decided AT&T knew better and quickly pushed HB 825 through his committee.  What makes Beckett an expert in telecommunications policy?  Not too much: He calls himself a lawyer on his biography page, but he’s also the owner of Beckett Oil & Gas.

Despite efforts by consumer advocates, a slightly-amended measure passed both the Republican-controlled state House and Senate and this week will be sent to the desk Gov. Phil Bryant for his signature.

“The small telephone companies in this state, many of them are opposed to this,” said Rep. Cecil Brown (D-Jackson). “If it hurts their business, it’s going to hurt your local communities. That’s all there is to it.”

The price the phone company paid to get Rep. Beckett on Team AT&T?: $2,500 + ALEC-sponsored free meals and travel.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KTTC Rochester ALEC 2-3-12.mp4[/flv]

KTTP in Rochester, Minn. explores the influence of state lobbyists working with ALEC who push lawmakers to introduce legislation corporations wrote themselves.  (4 minutes)