Commercial providers and their pals in the legislature will go to any length — even lie — to protect their cozy duopoly, charging high rates for poor quality service.

That fact of life has been proven once again in the state of Tennessee, where an effort to expand EPB Fiber — a community owned fiber network — to nearby communities outside of Chattanooga, was killed thanks to a lobbying blitzkrieg by Big Telecom interests.

The “Broadband Infrastructure for Regional Economic Development Act of 2011,” supported by chief sponsor House Majority Leader Gerald McCormick, (R-Chattanooga), is dead after telecom industry lobbyists unleashed a full court press to stop the legislation from passing into Tennessee law.

The bill would have permitted EPB and five other municipal electric services that have or are developing broadband infrastructure to expand service up to 30 miles outside of their service area, where appropriate, to meet the needs of businesses or consumers.

With the legislation, EPB could bring its 1 gigabit fiber broadband service to Bradley County, home to a future Amazon.com distribution center.  Amazon already operates a huge warehouse in Hamilton County, where it was able to obtain EPB’s super-fast broadband service.  According to Harold DePriest, EPB President and CEO, Chattanooga’s fiber network is helping sell the city as a high-tech mecca for business, where broadband connectivity is never a problem.

DePriest says EPB’s network has been a proven job-creator, and Amazon.com’s ongoing expansion in the region is just one example.

Chattanooga residents and businesses now have the fastest broadband service in the southern United States, at prices often far less than what the competition charges.  Expanding EPB’s success to other parts of Tennessee represents a major threat to the likes of Comcast and AT&T, the state’s dominant telecom companies.

EPB provides municipal power, broadband, television, and telephone service for residents in Chattanooga, Tennessee

Lobbyists fought the bill off with some whopper tall tales about the “horrors” of community broadband.

Some Republican lawmakers friendly to Comcast and AT&T’s point of view have bent their philosophical positions on government and regulation into logic pretzels.  One has even called for EPB to be regulated by Tennessee’s Regulatory Authority, a body many state Republicans feel is about as helpful as a tax increase.

Despite that, there was Rep. Curry Todd (R-Collierville) at a recent hearing telling fellow lawmakers EPB and other community providers should be regulated by the TRA to protect ratepayers from the “loss of tremendous amounts of money coming out of taxpayers’ pockets.”

Does Todd think Comcast and AT&T should also be regulated?  Of course not.  Nobody should protect consumers from AT&T’s and Comcast’s relentless rate hikes.  Todd cannot even get his facts straight.

After 19 months, EPB has 25,500 customers — far ahead of its projections, and is well ahead of its financial plan, according to DePriest.  So much for being a “financial failure.”

Rep. Curry Todd has trouble with the facts, but has no problem counting campaign contributions amounting to more than $12,000 from Comcast, AT&T, the state cable lobby and other telecom companies

On cue, the same cable industry that tried to sue EPB Fiber out of existence is now comparing the Chattanooga fiber network to Memphis Networx, a disastrous effort by that city to build a public-private wholesale fiber optic network only business and institutions could directly access.  It’s hard to earn critical revenue from consumers when you run a wholesale network.  Even harder when you build it just before the dot.com crash.

EPB sells its service directly to business and consumers, so it gets to keep the revenue it earns, paying back bondholders and delivering earning power.

Stop the Cap! reader John Lenoir notes some of the local tea party groups are also being encouraged to oppose EPB’s efforts to expand.

“Just as Americans for (Corporate) Prosperity is lying about North Carolina’s community broadband, these corporate front groups are also engaged in demagoguery over EPB in Tennessee,” Lenoir says.  “In addition to the usual claims EPB represents ‘socialism,’ the locals are also being told EPB wants to use their fiber network to run smart meters, which some of these people suspect are spying on them or will tell people when they can and can’t use their electric appliances.”

Lenoir in unimpressed with the telecom industry arguments.

“AT&T’s opposition is downright laughable, considering this company raised its rates on U-verse and will slap usage limits on every broadband customer in a few weeks,” Lenoir adds.  “We thank God EPB is here because it means we can tell AT&T to stick their usage limits and Comcast can take their overpriced (and usage limited) broadband somewhere else.”

Lenoir thinks EPB should embarrass both AT&T and Comcast, but since neither company feels any shame in his view, it’s more about business reality.

“Why do business with AT&T or Comcast and their gouging ways when you can sign up for something far better and support the local community,” Lenoir asks.

AT&T spokesman Chris Walker complains that the phone company is somehow faced with an unlevel playing field in Tennessee, despite the legislature’s repeated acquiescence to nearly every AT&T-sponsored deregulatory initiative brought before it.  The company wants a “level playing-field” statute like the very-provider-friendly (it should be — it was written by them) one currently before the North Carolina state Senate.

Comcast questions whether anyone needs 1 gigabit service, but the cable company’s Chattanooga vice president and general manager Jim Weigert told the Times Free Press it could deliver 1 gigabit service… to business customers… assuming any asked.

DePriest questions that, noting Comcast tops out its broadband service at 105Mbps, and only for downstream speeds.  Comcast upload speeds top out at 5Mbps.  EPB can deliver the same upstream and downstream speeds to customers and do it today.

The Faith Baptist Church was told to live with Windstream's slow speed DSL or pay Time Warner Cable a $20,000 installation fee.

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.

Misenheimer

“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.”

[Important Update — 7:53am ET 4/7 — Because of a technicality, it is important for everyone to reference H.129 when calling your state senators.  Members of the Senate Finance Committee are still evaluating the House version of the bill — H.129, so senators will more readily identify the bill we are opposing when we reference the House version (and not S.87).  You can also call it the “Level Playing Field” bill, but with disgust.  Include the fact you found the name highly ironic, since the only thing it will “level” are the state’s community broadband networks — right to the ground.  If you already called, why not just send a follow-up e-mail opposing H.129.]

Stop the Cap! has learned lobbyists for North Carolina’s cable and phone companies are growing concerned over increasing opposition to their custom-written duopoly protection bill that will ruin community broadband developments across the state and threaten ones already up and running.  Now they’re in a mad dash to push S.87 (the Senate version of H.129) through the Senate Tuesday before you have a chance to call and express outrage over this corporate protectionism.

Our sources tell us the bill has been yanked from the Senate Commerce Committee and is moving faster than North Carolina’s cable and DSL broadband to the Finance Committee, where bill sponsors hope for a quick voice vote and no public comment allowed.

The engineer of the legislative railroad in the Senate is Sen. Tom Apodaca (R) who serves the western North Carolina counties of Buncombe, Henderson, and Polk — areas with broadband challenges of their own.  Apodaca’s lead role pushing an anti-broadband bill is ironic considering his campaign website lists his priorities as:

• “Great schools for our children.” Western N.C. residents without broadband service at home are forced to resort to sitting in their cars in school parking lots or spend hours at overburdened public libraries to access Wi-Fi networks to complete homework assignments.  Great schools in a digital economy require great broadband – both in school and at home
• “Better paying jobs.” Digital economy jobs are always in demand and bring good salaries.  But those with inadequate broadband will find the kind of entrepreneurial experience and independent study required to excel in these fields hampered by satellite fraudband service or dial-up that limits possibilities and leaves North Carolina behind.
• “Let people keep more of the money they earn.” It’s a great idea, and competition for big cable and phone companies guarantees it.  In Wilson, consumers don’t face annual rate hikes for their cable service.  Can your community say that?  When their network is paid off, Wilson’s GreenLight will start paying off for local residents as well, keeping money in the community.
• “And access to quality health care.” As Google intends to prove in Kansas City, Kansas — great health care and excellent broadband go hand-in-hand to deliver better patient outcomes at a cheaper price.  Every health care provider wants faster broadband to increase efficiency and reduce costs and medical care errors.  S.87 delivers the equivalent of just another metal filing cabinet and fax machine to the back office.  Allowing communities to build fiber broadband changes everything.

What has proven so perplexing to consumers across the state is how a bill written by and for the cable and phone companies that does not deliver a single new broadband connection is getting such love and care from a legislature that is supposed to represent the interests of voters, not multi-billion dollar out of state corporations.  It confuses some of America’s high tech companies as well, including Google, Alcatel-Lucent, and Intel.  They’ve all signed a joint letter opposing H.129/S.87.

In fact, one of the reasons Google picked Kansas City, Kansas for its 1Gbps network is the friendly working relationship it has established with local utilities, which are all owned by the community of Kansas City.  It no doubt speaks volumes to Google that the North Carolina legislature would rather be at war with their towns and cities for the benefit of Time Warner Cable, AT&T and CenturyLink, than allowing communities to build their own broadband networks.  At a time when the FCC has ranked North Carolina worst in the nation, members of the Senate are being asked to guarantee that will remain so for years to come.

So What Should I Do?

Get on the phone -and- e-mail your state senator and demand a NO vote on S.87. If you are shy, you can call before or after business hours and leave a message on their voicemail. It takes less than five minutes.  Your calls make a huge difference because so few constituents ever call state legislators.  Here are your talking points:

Apodaca

1.  At a time when we need all the broadband improvements this state can muster, S.87 destroys those efforts for the benefit of a handful of out of state phone and cable companies. It’s classic protectionism — the same companies that helped write this bill are fully exempted from its onerous requirements.  The practical reality for rural North Carolina is either waiting for existing companies to deliver service they were always free to provide (and won’t), or allowing communities to do it themselves where appropriate.  Why should rural North Carolina have to depend on out of state corporations for basic broadband service many still don’t have?

2.  Not a single company has been harmed by community broadband projects in North Carolina.  In fact, it has created incentive to improve products and services while keeping prices stable, a welcome relief for consumers enduring annual rate increases far outpacing inflation.  Why is the state Senate trying to pass legislation that will guarantee higher bills and worse service?

3.  North Carolina’s fiber networks are not economic failures risking taxpayer dollars.  In fact, protections for taxpayers are already a part of the state code.  The General Assembly has already established: (1) rules governing Public Enterprises (NCGS Chapter 160A, Article 16); (2) strict rules in the Budget and Fiscal Control Act governing all municipal budgets and expenditures, including hearing and disclosure requirements (NCGS Chapter 159, Article 3); and (3) strict oversight of municipal borrowing by the Local Government Commission (NCGS Chapter 159).  S.87 attempts to micromanage public projects to the point where they simply cannot function and pay off bondholders and will, for future projects, ensure they never get off the ground.

4.  Now that the FCC ranks North Carolina dead last in broadband, isn’t it be time to allow new entrants to shake up the market and deliver some competition? Since when is legislating for less broadband better for this state?  The communities of Wilson and Salisbury now have the tools to compete with any wired city in America to attract new digital economy business and jobs.  S.87 sends exactly the wrong message — telling business the state wants to wait for the cable or phone company to eventually (if ever), deliver service other states now take for granted.  Businesses cannot wait.  We cannot wait.

5.  Provisions of this bill are unconstitutional.  By placing illegal regulatory burdens on only public providers of communications services (defined broadly) H.129/S.87 will harm municipal convention centers, public safety networks, smart grid systems, tower leasing contracts, and even make seemingly free public Wi-Fi networks vulnerable to lawsuits if the large incumbents want in on those services.

6.  The only real level playing field in broadband is the one that already exists without S.87.  Tell your senator you are tired of seeing these cable company-written bills come up in the Legislature year after year when the state has more important matters to worry about.  Time Warner Cable will do just fine without S.87, just as they do well in every other state where these kinds of bills would never get passed into law (or even proposed).

Senate Representation By County

2011-2012 Session

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

Phillip Dampier

In response to one of our pieces today about AT&T, I replied to a reader’s question about why providers are not subject to oversight when it comes to their traffic meters.  The answer is, providers want all of the benefits their monopoly/duopoly status deliver, with none of the oversight and regulation that is supposed to come along with the deal.

When I am asked by reporters if our group would support the concept of usage-based billing if prices were lower, I know some education is in order before answering.

Frankly, what providers define as “usage-based billing” isn’t really usage-based at all.  It’s simply a double-tiered pricing scheme.  Consumers already pay for broadband service based on speed, which informally includes a usage limit of sorts — your maximum amount of consumption is governed by the speed of the connection you purchase.  Not satisfied with the enormous profits already earned selling broadband that way, some companies want to monetize Internet use by inserting usage limits or inserting a new tier of service based on usage allowances, which generally increase with higher-priced levels of service.

When broadband providers attempt to use the argument consumers already pay for usage of essential services like water, gas, and electricity, they are trying to conflate broadband traffic much the same way.  But apart from the fact broadband carries no generation costs and represents a limitless resource, the “fairness” argument falls apart when you consider the provider is effectively double-charging customers by implementing a use-based pricing scheme on top of a speed-based pricing model.

The equivalent would be charging you today’s prices for gas, electric, or water service, but then adding a surcharge or tax based on how fast or when you are using the service. Here’s the kicker: they are not lowering the price of their speed-based tiers, they are simply layering a use tax on top.  In short, it extra-bills customers for what they already paid for.

A true usage-based billing scheme would carry a monthly minimum charge for infrastructure costs (maintenance of the delivery system, meter measurements, etc.) and a traffic cost.  In a regulated utility environment, most providers are required to sell service at a price verified by regulators to cover costs and a small profit.  No gouging.  No provider dares sell service under these terms because it would dramatically slash the cost most consumers pay for the service.  Instead, they sell “usage tiers” that include arbitrary “allowances” that provide no rollover or discount for unused traffic.

Imagine what would happen if AT&T or Comcast sold broadband like electricity?

CartelCountry Broadband & TV

From coast to coast, we put the cartel in cable!

• Monthly Minimum Charge: $9.95
• Broadband traffic delivery $0.05/GB
• Amount consumed 20GB = $1.00

• Payment Due: $10.95

Thank you for your prior payment of $9.95. We hope you enjoyed your vacation. No broadband traffic consumed equals no broadband traffic charges.

That is why there is no such thing as true usage-based billing. Providers wouldn’t dare because they would lose the enormous income they earn from those “98 percent” of “light users” they keep suggesting are in the majority.

Even “heavy users” probably would not object to this kind of pricing. A 500GB per month user would pay $34.95 at these prices, and providers would STILL be making a profit.