Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Time Warner Cable) is coming under increasing scrutiny across North Carolina as her cable lobbyist-written, anti-community broadband bill — H.129 — faces negative reviews in the media across the state.

Avila’s bill would set conditions under which community-owned broadband networks could operate, while specifically exempting existing cable and phone companies.  Most observers on the ground predict Avila’s bill would kill any further expansion of public broadband networks in the state and tie the hands of those already in operation, which would inevitably drive them out of business.  Avila’s bill, ghost-written by the state’s cable companies, even has the prescience to allow the fiber systems to be sold off to cable and phone companies at fire-sale prices for as little as pennies on the dollar, without a public vote.

Last week, the state legislature’s Finance Committee put Avila’s bill on a temporary hold “to allow public input” on the bill, but also to permit scrambling by lobbyists to deal with several surprise amendments that attempt to exempt existing community networks.

That time-out has given the press a chance to examine the proposed legislation and its impact on North Carolina’s efforts to improve its mediocre broadband rankings, now 41st in the country.  More than a few in the media do not like what they see in H.129.

The Associated Press notes the state legislature was finally allowing the public to weigh in on a matter that directly impacts their Internet experience:

North Carolina lawmakers aiming to stop cities from building their own broadband networks decided Thursday to allow public comments the next time they consider the latest effort by telecom companies to keep local governments out of the business.

The House Finance Committee will hear from the public next Wednesday as it reviews legislation that would sharply restrict the chances for municipalities to step in when cable and phone companies decide not to build high-speed Internet systems in lightly populated areas. Opponents say telecom companies aren’t extending super-fast Internet at reasonable prices, and that keeps smaller communities behind in the wired world of commerce.

“They don’t want to provide these services in a lot of areas because it’s expensive, and they don’t want municipalities to offer these services. That’s an unlevel playing field for our citizens,” said Rep. Deborah Ross, D-Wake.

Legislation unveiled Thursday was changed to ease the rules for communities in which at least half the households have no access to high-speed Internet except through a satellite provider. Another change ensures the new rules don’t affect the municipal networks already established in Wilson, Salisbury, Morganton and Iredell County, which have borrowed to build their systems.

Cable and phone companies have been urging the General Assembly to restrict municipal broadband services since a 2005 state appeals court ruling upheld the right of towns and cities to offer their residents broadband. Companies argue that local governments have an unfair advantage because they don’t have to pay taxes and can subsidize their rates by shifting profits from their electricity or gas customers, undercutting the corporate competitors.

Except community broadband providers in North Carolina are not doing any of those things.

In fact, smaller providers start at a competitive disadvantage because they cannot enjoy the savings larger providers get from their extensive buying power — winning lower costs on everything from programming to equipment and services.

Community providers are not winning most of their customers from “underpricing” their service — they are earning them by delivering better service, which was precisely the point.

The original argument communities like Wilson and Salisbury had with state cable and phone companies was with the quality and level of service offered in their communities.  They solved the problem themselves with the development of fiber optic service that provides ultra-fast broadband connections that residents and small businesses simply could not get from other providers.

Some lawmakers believe community networks get in the way of cable jobs and phone company investment, and they want to “clear the playing field for business.”  But for many communities in the state, the playing field is empty and will remain so indefinitely.

Broadband: Utility or Convenience

For some lawmakers, the debate is both generational and philosophical.  Ruth Samuelson (R-Mecklenburg), told the AP she doesn’t believe providing broadband is a core part of government.

Among the older population who have not grown up with the Internet, broadband can be seen more as a luxury and less of a utility.  A few generations earlier, a similar debate erupted over telephone and electric service, which faced identical controversy in regions underserved by private utilities.

A reminder of these earlier challenges was part of the Winston-Salem Journal’s argument against H.129’s adoption:

“The broadband battle is not being waged in the heavily populated portions of the state such as the Triad. Here, the for-profit companies moved in a long time ago. They can make a very nice profit here because the population density is adequate to provide a good return on the infrastructure needed for high-speed Internet service.

“Over the past decade, however, North Carolina’s smaller municipalities, such as Wilson, Salisbury and Morganton, have built their own systems because their leaders recognized that broadband Internet is now an essential utility, just as electricity and natural gas are. The Internet-service providers did not step up to provide that essential service, so the municipalities did. In doing so, the cities followed a path they took nearly a century ago when the biggest electrical power companies did not provide service to these areas.”

North Carolina blogger-activist Mark Turner wrote in the News & Observer broadband has the capacity to transform North Carolina’s economic future in much the same way power and phone service did a century earlier:

While farm life has never been easy, at one time it was significantly harder. In the mid-1930s, over 97 percent of North Carolina farms had no electricity, many because private electric companies couldn’t make enough money from them to justify running the lines.

Aware of the transformational effect of electrification and recognizing the need to do something, visionary North Carolina leaders created rural electric cooperatives, beating passage of FDR’s Rural Electrification Act by one month. Through the state’s granting local communities the power to provide for their own needs where others would not, over 98 percent of farms had electricity by 1963, and our state has prospered.

The Internet is no less transformational than electricity. Through this world-changing technology, lives are being shared, distance learning taking place and innovative new businesses springing up. Sadly just as in the days before electrification, many North Carolina communities (particularly rural ones) are being left behind, stuck in the Internet slow lane.

The Journal argues Internet Service Providers essentially want to keep these communities in the slow lane, with a powerful cartel that doesn’t deliver service, and does not want cities to provide it either.  The cable and phone companies can’t have it both ways, the paper says. “They can’t delay bringing high-speed service to North Carolina communities but then turn around and lobby the legislature to deny local governments the authority to establish municipal service if their residents want it,” the paper editorializes.

“The private providers are trying to make a big-government argument here, one that includes clichés about unfairness and Big Brother. But that is not the case. In this situation, residents and businesses are tired of waiting for Internet-service providers to arrive, so they’ve exercised their democratic rights to seek an alternative solution through their local governments.

“Had the private companies tried to make their argument 15 years ago, they might have deserved some sympathy. But not in 2011. The Internet and high-speed access to it have now been available in North Carolina homes for well more than a decade.

“They ignored a market, and local governments stepped in to provide a critical service. The legislature should kill this bill.”

Mark Turner in the News & Observer argues nothing about H.129 is really an ideological right or left-wing debate.  He reminds readers the Internet itself was a government invention delivered through public rights-of-way established by local and state government, or over airwaves that are literally owned by the public.

“Like the electric lines that were once strung by hand to all corners of our state, our cities should retain the right to bring Internet service to their communities – especially where the private providers will not,” Turner wrote.

The Rural-Urban Disconnect: Choices in Raleigh, Sneaking Onto Wi-Fi in Spruce Pine

The Journal points out North Carolina’s broadband debate is taking place in the state capital – Raleigh, a city much like the Triad region, served by both cable and phone companies.  Against that backdrop, legislators may assume ubiquitous urban and suburban broadband leaves local governments with few excuses for getting into the business in the first place — an argument the cable lobby is using to its advantage with some legislators.  But as soon as one ventures off Interstates 40, 77, or 95 — it does not take too long to find oneself in a broadband backwater.

“Here in Spruce Pine, broadband is a fabled, magical thing we read about, but don’t have — a big reason why my 17 year old son cannot wait to move out of here,” shares Stop the Cap! reader Morgan.  “Everything you see on television shows with people using the Internet for practically everything just does not happen here.”

Morgan shares one of the community’s broadband secrets: local hotels and other business establishments have parking lots filled with cars with people still in them sneaking online.

“They are hopping on board business and motel Wi-Fi connections to pay their bills, apply for jobs, or just complete homework assignments that require an Internet connection,” Morgan shares.  “Some businesses have locked down their Wi-Fi with passwords to stop the traffic, so there is an active underground trade of passwords of different wireless connections around the area.”

Morgan called the phone company wondering when DSL service might reach her house.

“Never, came the eventual reply — and the guy was laughing about it,” Morgan says.  “He told me if I want something better, I should probably move.”

“What burns me up is these state legislators on the other end of the state are spending their time and energy defending the companies in the broadband shortage business.  If they spent half as much time working for better broadband in western North Carolina, we would not be in this position today,” Morgan writes.  “I mean we’re at the point where people take Internet access for granted in this society and they treat places like Spruce Pine as an escape from that technology ‘to get away from it all,’ all while we live in that world perpetually.”

Morgan is hardly alone living a life without broadband.  In communities from Mars Hill to Marshall, large sections of the state simply go without.  Avila’s bill does nothing to help — it actually hurts.

The Public-Private Partnership: A Solution for North Carolina’s Unserved?

In some areas of the state, public-private partnerships (PPP’s) — also rejected in Avila’s bill — are making a difference getting broadband into rural North Carolina, reports Craig Settles, a broadband activist.

“Last year, North Carolina broadband advocates began formulating policy recommendations to make PPPs something of a standard in business models for communities that want better broadband,” Settles writes in a piece for Government Technology. “When legislation was introduced earlier this year that would effectively end further development of municipal networks in the state, this seemed like the right time to promote PPPs. Unfortunately the legislators pushing the bill effectively shut out these muni-network proponents from offering a compromise in separate negotiations.”

PPPs over some creative solutions to rural broadband challenges — especially in addressing return-on-investment concerns that keep private providers from building out networks to reach rural populations.  A community or non-profit collaborative finances and builds the infrastructure to supply the service with a much longer payback period.  While many commercial companies want a return within five years, co-ops have been comfortable paying off infrastructure projects over 10, 20, or even 25 years.  Then, the private company can hop on board the constructed network at a wholesale price that helps pay off construction costs, and allows the provider to market its services and run its own business.  The only requirement, and the one some private companies hate, is that the network is operated in the public interest and good, meaning -any- competitor can compete over the same facilities.

In the Finger Lakes Region of western New York, a hallmark PPP project has brought Ontario County a fiber network that can deliver faster broadband than anything available in nearby Rochester.  And it has the support of TW Telecom, Verizon, Frontier Communications and other companies who can use it as part of their business plans.

“This is a winning scenario,” said Ed Hemminger, CIO of Ontario County, N.Y., and CEO of Axcess Ontario, the county’s 180-mile fiber network project. “It’s the only way some communities may be able to get fiber broadband. They can finance the buildout with bond financing with a 25-year payback term. If a muni is going to partner in this manner, be extremely cautious and ensure that it’s a true open access model that not only benefits providers in the area, but also allows others to come in and compete.”

“The beauty of this scenario is that it enables private-sector companies to overcome one of their biggest hurdles to deploying networks in rural and low-income areas: the cost of laying fiber or building wireless infrastructure,” Settles writes. “Municipalities, if they’re able to swing the financing, can take up to 25 years to pay off the debt. Providers, on the other hand, have to make their money back in three to five years.”

Rebuilding America’s Economy: Investing in Infrastructure

Providing suitable broadband infrastructure is increasingly important in small cities that are afterthoughts for many cable and telephone company providers.  For Wilson, N.C.,  creating the infrastructure of a 21st century broadband network is part of an investment to attract future jobs for a city reinventing itself.

“The city council realized that it would be a very competitive world to attract and retain the best jobs in the future,” Grant Goings, Wilson city manager told The Sun News. “Well, you can’t talk about jobs without talking about the infrastructure that brings them and keeps them. Short and simple advanced broadband is critical infrastructure.”

The Sun News reports on the state’s broadband controversies from the epicenter — Wilson is the first city in the state to deliver a fiber optic-based broadband network that beats all the others on speed.

This year, Wilson signed on its first 100 megabits per second residential customers and is the first to have residents using the highest speeds available in North Carolina, said Brian Bowman, Wilson public affairs manager.

For Wilson and other communities building out better broadband networks, using fiber optics was a natural decision because of its capacity and future ease of upgrades. The cable industry has long argued broadband is a constantly-changing business and cities have a poor track record of keeping up, but Wilson’s GreenLight service has turned the tables on that argument, leaving Time Warner Cable — the state’s largest operator — well behind the municipal provider cable interests predicted would be a failure.

Wally Bowen, founder and executive director of the nonprofit Mountain Area Information Network (MAIN), which provides broadband services in and around Asheville, says this year’s anti-broadband bill, like the others, leaves cities vulnerable to political posturing and special interest legislation. He’s tried to outmaneuver legislators who work for the interests of Time Warner and CenturyLink by building non-profit or co-op ownership into the infrastructure, if only to protect networks from being forced to play defense year after year as private companies try to pick them off in the state legislature.

“Government-owned infrastructure creates political vulnerabilities given how incumbents are behaving,” Bowen said. “Our nonprofits are comprised of representatives from private-sector companies, private colleges, hospitals and so forth, in addition to local government. So there are limited legal grounds for attacking the nonprofit via laws passed in the legislature.” Some incumbent Internet service providers still will try these tactics anyway, but the makeup of these nonprofits can give them a stronger position from which to defend themselves.”

For many voters in the state, watching certain legislators toil on behalf of billion-dollar phone and cable companies while ignoring North Carolina’s broadband problems should bring consequences.

“My friends and I continue to watch these events with interest and will vote against those legislators who obviously would feel more comfortable working inside Time Warner Cable’s headquarters, because they are effectively on their payroll already,” Morgan says.

AT&T’s announcement that it is will impose usage limits on its DSL and U-verse (wireline) customers this May is just another case of overcharging consumers for Internet access.

Stop the Cap! has been reviewing AT&T’s financial reports looking for justification for imposing usage controls on the company’s customers.  Most providers who enact these kinds of pricing schemes claim they are about controlling heavy users, reducing congestion, and covering the costs to provide the service.

But after reviewing some of AT&T’s financial reports, the only explanation apparent for these limits is a quest for additional revenue and profits from subscribers.

AT&T continues to earn billions every quarter — $7 billion in the last three months alone — from its data products division, the vast majority of which comes from selling IP — Internet access — services to customers.  At the same time, the company continues to cut operations and support expenses, reducing its operating costs, and increasingly relies on its wireless and wireline divisions for the majority of the company’s revenue.

There is no evidence AT&T broadband usage costs are significantly impacting the company’s revenue in any way.  In fact, its U-verse platform, which can deliver higher speed, premium broadband service (at a correspondingly higher price) is actually delivering higher revenue from the “heavy users” the company is now complaining about.

In short, AT&T wants to reap the financial rewards of selling more costly, higher speed broadband service, but wants to limit customers’ use of those services.

We reviewed both the quarterly and annual results for AT&T’s wireline division and discovered what we routinely find true among every provider that wants to implement an Internet Overcharging scheme: the company wants to raise prices on broadband customers even as it enjoys ongoing cost reductions to manage broadband traffic and reduces the amount of investment made to manage it.

Some interesting facts from AT&T:

• AT&T earns $5 billion (annualized revenue stream) from its U-verse platform;
• AT&T saw 30 percent revenue growth from residential broadband alone;
• 45 percent of AT&T’s revenue in wireline services comes from broadband/IP services;
• In 2011, AT&T says it has a “focus on growth” — of revenue and profit, that is.  The company seeks increases in its “operating margins,” plans capital expenditures that will be focused on a “slight increase in wireless spending,” and ongoing cost-cutting where possible.

AT&T plans to continue to invest in U-verse expansion, critical for a company that is rapidly losing revenue from departing landline customers. In the 2010 Annual Report, AT&T noted the vast majority of cash used in investing activities went towards construction costs related to improved wireless network capacity, which is dramatically different than wired broadband service, and U-verse.  This does not cover ongoing expenses from providing the service.

It’s an important strategy for AT&T, which needs to replace revenue from lost landline customers:

We continue to lose access lines due to competitors (e.g., wireless, cable and VoIP providers) who can provide comparable services at lower prices because they are not subject to traditional telephone industry regulation (or the extent of regulation is in dispute), utilize different technologies, or promote a different business model (such as advertising based) and consequently have lower cost structures.

In response to these competitive pressures, for several years we have utilized a bundling strategy that rewards customers who consolidate their services (e.g., local and long-distance telephone, high-speed Internet, wireless and video) with us. We continue to focus on bundling wireline and wireless services, including combined packages of minutes and video service through our U-verse service and our relationships with satellite television providers. We will continue to develop innovative products that capitalize on our expanding fiber network.

Unfortunately, the benefits U-verse provides broadband users will be tempered by usage limits on it.

Considering AT&T’s U-verse pipeline is one giant broadband connection, the disturbing fact the company will not implement these overcharging schemes on its voice or video services cannot be ignored.  Only the broadband service, on which customers could entirely bypass AT&T’s TV and phone products for a competitor, is impacted.  The risk of that happening with the company’s usage cap is now diminished.

As Stop the Cap! has warned for nearly three years — this is the ultimate end run around Net Neutrality. Instead of actively blocking or throttling competing services, AT&T simply uses a usage limit to discourage customers from using the competitor, relying on unlimited AT&T TV and phone services instead.

Despite promises to protect North Carolina’s existing community-owned broadband providers, Reps. Julia “My Word is My Bond” Howard and Marilyn “I Do What Time Warner Tells Me” Avila have reneged and intend to ram through their anti-community-broadband bulldozer bill.

Stop the Cap! learned this evening that Avila has no intention of meeting with North Carolina communities again, even as resolutions continue to pile up in Raleigh condemning their special interest legislation.

Asheville and Rockingham County have joined the city of Raleigh issuing resolutions opposing H129 and are openly wondering why state legislators are so contemptuously overruling the interests of North Carolina communities for the benefit of out-of-state corporations.

The answer, clearly, is money.

Rep. Howard apparently answers to the interests of companies like AT&T, which has donated more than $1,500 to her campaign, CenturyLink — $4,000, and Time Warner Cable, which so far has shorted her with just $750.  It evidently doesn’t take much to influence a legislator these days, and we anticipate her telecommunications contributions will spike in the near future for a job well done.  That enormous contribution from CenturyLink is telling, considering they are not the primary phone company in Howard’s district.

As a result of the sellout, H129 will likely move to the Finance Committee as early as next Thursday, effectively unchanged from its original.  The implications for the state are staggering, particularly if it drives existing community networks out of business.  That will take the state’s bond rating with it.

The sad part of all this is that both representatives were elected to serve the interests of their districts, and instead they are paying more attention to the well being of big cable and phone companies who honestly don’t need their help to earn enormous profits in the state.

While unserved communities and those stuck with dismal, antiquated DSL service have their pleas for better broadband ignored, Avila and Howard are doing all they can to sabotage the networks that do provide 21st century broadband to their residents.

With this kind of hostility, don’t look for Google to bring Gigabit broadband to the Tar Heel State anytime soon.  With all of the impediments and roadblocks these two legislators have thrown up on behalf of their friends at the cable and phone company, can Google expect to be treated any better?  The search giant even signed a letter strongly opposing H129, to no avail.

It’s not too late for Rep. Howard to prove us wrong.  She can turn this around in a second by demanding real exemptions for existing municipal networks — and I mean real exemptions, not the fake passes contained in the so-called substitute amendment.  Better yet, she can distance herself altogether from this disaster.

North Carolina residents must get on the phone and call Finance Committee members and tell them this broadband train wreck needs to stop in their committee with a resounding NO vote.

Let them know H129 will not only deliver years of sub-standard broadband service in the state, it will also ruin two showcase fiber networks, harm the state’s bond rating, and make North Carolina an also-ran in broadband innovation.

At a time when the state needs to move towards digital economy jobs, thumbing your nose at the likes of Google, Alcatel-Lucent, and Intel is a giant mistake — adding insult to injury to the potential loss of community broadband networks the cable and phone companies will stop at nothing to eliminate.

Finance Committee Members

(click each name for contact information)

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

The Oregonian has been covering the plight of Frontier customers in the Pacific Northwest who signed up for Verizon’s fiber to the home service — FiOS — and are now facing down the new owners who want to raise the price by $30 a month.

Frontier has done itself no favors in the media with an ongoing series of reports of service problems, rate increases, and now the latest signs it wants out of the television delivery business altogether.

In a letter dated March 4th, Steven Crosby — senior vice president of government and regulatory affairs, told the city administrator in Dundee, Ore., Frontier FiOS TV has been a flop.

Since Frontier Communications Northwest, Inc., acquired Verizon’s operations on July 1, 2010, it has built on Verizon’s prior actions and continued to offer a robust and aggressively priced video product to attract Dundee subscribers.  Despite these efforts, however, customer growth has been disappointing and stagnant and Frontier has not achieved a commercially reasonable level of subscriber penetration.

Frontier also admits it has been under-pricing its video service to stay competitive and attract new customers, but those days are over.  The company earlier announced its intention to raise rates by $30 a month for its standard cable TV service, making it more costly than its nearest competitor, Comcast.

Frontier recognizes the impact its enormous rate increase will have on its subscriber base, soberly noting it is likely to “further depress subscriber penetration.”

With this in mind, Frontier is exercising its right under the franchise agreement it has in Dundee to provide notice it intends to terminate its video service at a future date, after providing subscribers with 90 days advance notification.

Similar letters went to city administrators in Newberg, McMinnville, and Wilsonville.  City officials had no reservations about interpreting the meaning of the letters and plans to implement a $500 installation fee for future FiOS TV installations.

“Looking at it, you expect there will be no new customers,” Dan Danicic, Newberg’s city manager told The Oregonian. “Getting this opt-out notice is not a huge surprise to me, but we are disappointed.”

Sources tell Stop the Cap! there was considerable debate inside Frontier’s offices last week on how to implement directives from executives to shut down FiOS installations as quickly as possible.  Initial efforts to quietly raise the installation price — without giving subscribers’ advance notice — were on track until Frontier’s legal department quashed the plan.  Concerns were also raised inside the customer support units responsible for taking orders and handling customer billing inquiries over how to deal with the inevitable subscriber backlash when the first bills arrived in the mail.

“Frontier hates dealing with FiOS and they can’t wait to be rid of it — they claim that the product is at least 10 years away from really returning any investment from its original deployment,” a well-placed source told Stop the Cap! late last week.

Frontier FiOS is an anomaly for the rural phone company, which delivers the vast majority of its broadband customers DSL service over copper wire phone lines, usually at speeds approaching 3Mbps.  Frontier FiOS “came along with the deal,” one Indiana Frontier official told local media there in response to rate hikes there.

Still, media reports that the company plans to ditch its TV customers created a small panic inside Frontier by the weekend.

“Getting customers switched over to satellite TV service in an orderly manner was the original plan, but reports the company was abandoning the service altogether risks we’ll lose our customers to Comcast, and many will take their phone lines to the cable company, too,” a second source informed Stop the Cap! this morning.  “We were told ‘orderly transition’ over and over again, so reassuring customers is today’s top priority.”

Evidence of this campaign was not difficult to find over the weekend, as The Oregonian amended its original story claiming Frontier does not have immediate plans to exit the video business.

Crosby told the newspaper: “Our actual implementation decisions will be business driven. At this time, there is no change in our FiOS video offerings or in our FiOS video service delivery to our customers. And this filing does not affect our FiOS high speed service.”

Stephanie Schifano, identifying herself as an employee of Frontier Communications, attempted to spin the letters sent to several Oregon communities as a simple matter of business and not a foreshadowed abandonment of television service.

“Frontier is exercising our right under the franchise agreements to terminate the franchises. The right to terminate soon expires, and if Frontier didn’t give notice now we may have been required to provide this service, with these franchises, for another 12 years. This notice offers Frontier the flexibility to continue to analyze the FiOS Video/TV business and continue to service our customers,” Schifano wrote.

But both of our sources well-familiar with Frontier FiOS say the company’s actions speak louder than its words.

“When you increase the installation fee to $500 and raise your prices nearly $30 higher than Comcast, you would be crazy not to interpret the message Frontier is trying to send — go get your satellite dish from us and get off FiOS,” our second source told us.

Telecompetitor read into some of the company’s comments about utilizing the acquired fiber network in a new way, perhaps for over-the-top Internet video content.

“That’s wishful thinking,” our second source says.  “Frontier’s only online video efforts surround its rebranded Hulu service, relabeled myfitv.”

“The company has no plans I am aware of for a grand video strategy — FiOS covers far too small a service area and there is no way Frontier will spend more money to increase that fiber footprint,” our source adds. “Frontier wants to meet its general obligations made as part of its deal with state regulators when it bought Verizon FiOS with the landline deal, and little else.”

Frontier will continue to offer FiOS to broadband customers for the time being, regardless of what it does with its video package.

“If it’s already there and not costing a lot of money to maintain for broadband, why not?” our source says.

One direct sales contractor for competitor Comcast suspects that train may have already left the station.

Calling Frontier’s customer service operation “a circus,” the salesman says Comcast is benefiting from Frontier’s ball-dropping.

“Many Frontier customers are unhappy with the customer service side while stating they do enjoy their phone, Internet, and video services provided by the FiOS network, but lose the business on the practically non-existing customer service side.”

The contractor says he hears stories from Frontier customers all day who are fed up with the frustration of extended hold times, inaccurate or missing bills, online account access problems, excessive call transfers to deal with service issues and high fees.

For regulators, the aggravation is much the same.

After being promised by CEO Maggie Wilderotter that Frontier would be an aggressive competitor in a barely competitive marketplace, Frontier has raised rates by 46 percent, irritated their customers with customer service problems and outages, and now has served notice it intends to flee the TV business at an undetermined point in the future.

Stop the Cap! has obtained the audio from Wednesday’s Public Utilities Committee meeting that quickly pushed through H129, Time Warner’s custom-written, anti-competition and community broadband destruction bill.

Listening to the 44 minute hearing will be disturbing to anyone who supports open government and the concept of voting for or against a complete bill, not one Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Time Warner Cable) openly admits is going to be changed.  For her, that represents no reason to delay the bill — her good friends at Time Warner need this legislation passed today, not tomorrow or next week.

As you listen, we’ve included a voter’s guide with time-indexed comments to help draw your attention to some critical points, and some much-needed fact checking.  It will also help you identify the members of the legislature that need to stay, and those that need to go.

Our apologies for the distorted audio at times.  When a member leans into the microphone, as some clearly do, it creates significant audio distortion.  It gets worse in the last 10 minutes, so watch your volume.

North Carolina’s House Public Utilities Committee Meeting on H129 – Wednesday, March 2, 2011. (44 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Your Audio Guide to The Committee Meeting

2:50	Apparently Rep. Avila gets her research straight from the cable industry that wants to destroy community broadband.  Avila is factually wrong about citizens being on the hook for “high debt” for North Carolina’s fiber networks, all of which are financed by bonds that leave bondholders at risk, not taxpayers.  The only interests Avila wants to protect are her good friends at the cable company.
3:30	Rep. Avila is dreaming if she really believes the providers that have refused to provide service thus far are going to suddenly do so if her bill passes.  These communities were ignored before and they will be ignored after.  The only difference is that her legislation will guarantee no local community can do anything to fix it.  Avila admits openly her bill will stop competition between providers.
6:00	Rep. Julia Howard is more than willing to hold meetings with those already in the business, but there is no room for actual North Carolina consumers to make their needs known.
8:50	Rep. Avila pays lip service to the ongoing problem of lack of broadband availability in large areas of the state by saying it’s unfair, but ignores the reality that if communities don’t deliver the service, nobody else will.  The red herring of a “public vote” always carries with it loads of fine print.  For example, while the industry can spend unlimited amounts on lobbying and advertising campaigns to demagogue networks, local communities are almost always banned from spending one dime to share their views with the public, or respond to the propaganda the industry sends out.  In fact, Avila’s bill bans networks from advertising their services or advocating for them.  It’s like holding a public debate, but gagging one side so they cannot speak.
12:50	John Goodman, North Carolina Chamber of Commerce presents the pre-written talking points provided by the cable industry.  As you listen, ask yourself whether Mr. Goodman is aware of the details of community broadband, or simply the information handed to him on some sheets of paper from the cable lobby.  Then ponder how many times a community provider has forced a private player out of business with so-called unfair pricing and subsidies.
17:30	Catharine Rice is one of just a handful of speakers that talk about the real-world problems of actual North Carolina citizens.  She’s concerned about them, not the bottom line of Time Warner and AT&T.  Some examples:  Parents of schoolchildren have to drive their kids to a school parking lot so their children can access the school’s Wi-Fi network to complete their homework; A neighborhood of more than a dozen homes can’t get decent broadband because Time Warner demanded $50,000 to wire up cable service.  Meanwhile, just a mile away, a wealthy golf community got their service without a 9 iron to their wallets.
8:30	Jack Stanley from Time Warner Cable delivers the day’s ironic moment when he congratulates his cable colleagues and friend from the Chamber for the “eloquence” of their prepared remarks. And why not, when you consider who wrote them.  His brief remarks consist mostly of empty promises to find a “fair resolution.”  This, from the people who wrote the very unfair bill.
19:30	The North Carolina League of Municipalities delivers an important fact: Community broadband networks are not created on a whim.  They are launched where communities face inadequate or non-existent broadband service.  Most of the cities launching their own services tried the public-private partnership route by approaching companies about broadband problems.  They were shown the door out.  This is why networks like Fibrant and GreenLight exist today.  Community broadband disturbs Big Telecom because it represents competition Wall Street and shareholders never expected they would have.  Anything that challenges the enormous profits cable and phone companies earn must be eliminated.
21:30	Mr. Trathen opens his remarks with a distortion, claiming cities are jumping into community broadband because they just want to compete with existing providers.  In fact, the record tells a very different story in North Carolina.  Cities and communities to this day are trying to get providers from Time Warner Cable, CenturyLink, AT&T, and even Clearwire to deliver service to their citizens and they are being turned down, or delivered DSL service at speeds that will not even qualify as true broadband under the definition established in the National Broadband Plan.  That’s a simple fact.  How many community networks are competing against Verizon FiOS or other cutting edge broadband networks?  The reality is, anemic or non-existent broadband service has been the topic of complaints in local communities across the state for years and years.  Also, Trathen’s desire to “have a conversation” about serving unserved parts of North Carolina reminds me of the saying — talk is cheap.  Time Warner has been a part of North Carolina for years and years, and the cable company routinely bypasses any customers who do not live in a dense, populated area to this day. Trathen’s comments that there is nothing in the law today prohibiting public-private partnerships is very true, but as residents have seen, those are far and few between.  Trathen is also flat wrong when he claims nothing in the bill prevents a city from moving into an unserved area to provide service.  In fact, Avila’s bill prohibits cities from extending service outside of their boundaries.
24:00	Rep. Paul Luebke wonders why this bill is necessary, because local governments proposing these networks are already answerable to their citizens and to an oversight committee.  Leubke correctly points out the legislation is all about letting existing telecom companies decide for the people of North Carolina when/if they will get broadband service, at what speeds, and using what technology.  With no new competition on the horizon, H129 effectively delivers all of the state’s broadband interests into the hands of a cable and phone company cartel.  Leubke also expressed concerns that he (and others) are being asked to vote on a bill that has not been finalized yet.  Should negotiations between existing providers trying to extinguish community networks and the cities that run them fail to find a solution, the bill’s original language will guarantee financial disaster to existing community broadband services.
29:00	Rep. Alexander notes that the legislation establishes onerous conditions on community broadband networks that the private sector is completely exempt from.  Alexander notes these networks came about because communities were faced with last century broadband — the virtual equivalent of two cans with string between them.  This legislation assures those underserved communities will continue to be underserved.
32:00	Rep. Womble has serious concerns about how this bill is being rammed through the committee.  Just minutes before the hearing, Womble was handed a summary of the bill for the first time.  Womble is especially upset he is being asked by the bill sponsors to “trust us” when they say they will work out exemptions for existing providers.
37:00	Rep. Hager goes fishing and catches a number of red herrings about cities expanding their networks outside of their service areas and cross-subsidizing them with pilfered funds from city resources, “unfairly harming” their cable and phone company competitors. He presents no evidence to substantiate this claim.
38:30	Rep. Hastings falls into the trap of conflating middle-mile fiber backbone projects with delivering broadband to individual homes and businesses as he brings up the Golden Leaf Project, a very worthwhile fiber backbone, but one that will never extend to last mile homes and businesses.  Like so many middle-mile projects, this one will deliver service to institutions like schools, libraries and local government.  While all very noble, no funds are provided to directly wire service to individual homes that need broadband the most.  Private providers would have howled had this been the case. Instead, vague promises like “private providers are interested in leasing capacity” on the network leave consumers with the hope of better days, but they should not hold their breath.  Cable operators will not deploy service in rural areas, period, and phone company DSL’s largest impediment remains distance between the central office and individual subscribers.  While Golden Leaf may prove beneficial in incrementally moving residential broadband forward, it is not going to provide service to individuals.  In fact, H129 will ensure none of these communities can tap into Golden Leaf and directly deliver service to those that continue to be broadband-disadvantaged.
40:00	Rep. Warren doesn’t like voting on a bill just to find out what it will eventually contain later on.  “It gives me chills,” he told the committee.  He also dismisses claims the bill is about a “level playing field.”  He then directs several pointed questions to Ms. Avila about the financial implications her bill will have on state finances, its bond rating, and other considerations.  She dodges all of them with non-answer answers.
43:00	In less than 30 seconds, the bill is rushed to a committee vote by a motion from Rep. Brubaker, at which point Rep. Steen cuts off discussion (despite the fact more committee members were raising their hands to speak).  A voice vote clearly delivers a majority to the NO side, but not in the eyes of the committee chair, who claims the AYES have it, the bill is reported favorably out of the committee, and the meeting is adjourned before anyone has a chance to demand a recorded vote.

The shocking conclusion of this legislative travesty is the chairman adjourning before a recorded vote can be taken.  Without it, constituents can’t identify how their member voted and hold them accountable at the next election.

[Update 3:05pm Monday — Stop the Cap! misidentified Rep. Warren as Rep. Rowan at the 40:00 mark.  We have corrected the audio log above and regret the error.]