An Australian Internet Service Provider that caps customer usage and charges extra if you want to exceed your allowance has taken to the company’s blog to argue that usage caps are fair, even as their customers start departing for competitors offering unlimited service.

iiNet chief technology officer John Lindsay defends the company’s usage-based billing scheme, which charges more than $30 a month for DSL service with a 20GB usage cap.

“Service providers in favour of a two-speed Internet argue that there is limited capacity on the Internet and that those using the most bandwidth by delivering rich content or transferring large files should pay more,” wrote Lindsay. “In Australia, we have a different business model for the Internet. ISPs operate on a pay-as-you-go model, which also shapes the consumer market. Here, consumers can choose a plan with upload and download quotas to fit their usage and pay according to their needs – the more you use, the more you pay.”

Lindsay

Unfortunately for Lindsay, an increasing number of Australians don’t agree and are switching to providers like TPG and Dodo, which have become enormously popular selling flat rate, unlimited broadband service.

Lindsay warns that if Australia adopts the flat rate service model popular in the United States, a Net Neutrality debate will be sparked as customers discover ISPs are unable to handle the traffic and start prioritizing their own content.

“Operating a quota based business model ensures we’re not responsible for policing activity online – our customers pay a fair price for the services they receive and we can focus on more important issues than where their traffic is coming from,” Lindsay argues. “While US providers argue about a two-tier system, our priority is to provide awesome customer service and ensure our customers enjoy a seamless experience online, whatever it is their Internet connection means to them.”

Of course, Lindsay’s characterization of the American broadband landscape is fact-challenged, because most broadband providers have plenty of capacity to deliver content. Some simply want to earn a new revenue stream from content producers for managing that traffic, even though paying customers already compensate them for that service.

Australia’s data caps have traditionally been onerous because of the higher costs and limited capacity of underseas cables that handle traffic inside and out of the Pacific Basin. But Australians have complained about the low caps for years — so loudly that the Australian government has made construction of a super-capacity fiber to the home network a national priority for the country as international capacity also increases.

Customers were not fooled by Lindsay’s rhetoric.

“This is nonsense,” wrote Lachlan Hunt. “Australia’s model of capped usage limits with higher prices for higher caps, and of ISPs including yourself offering free zones where such data doesn’t count towards the monthly quota is exactly the problem that Net Neutrality advocates aim to deal with. It treats data from companies who choose to partner with you to get their content in the free zone as privileged compared with everyone else, and similarly with other ISPs.”

Hunt complains iiNet’s caps were “ridiculously low” and interfered with his career in the web development industry. Today he lives and works in Europe, where usage caps are increasingly a thing of the past.

“I’m really hoping that you will eventually wake up and realize that usage caps go together with Non-Neutral internet, and with the introduction of the [national fiber to the home network], which brings both higher speeds and capacities, you should be able to lower prices, abolish usage caps and offer a fair model with pricing tiers based on the chosen speeds.”

Stop the Cap! also addressed Lindsay:

[…] We have learned dealing with this issue for several years that ISPs are terrified of their own argument if carried to its fullest extension. If iiNet wants customers to fairly pay for only what they use, they should be billing them on exactly that basis. A flat charge per gigabyte — no allowances/quotas, no penalty overage fees or speed throttles, no wasted, unused quota at the end of the month.

But they don’t dare. If you charged $1/GB (still a crime-gouge compared to the wholesale price), those customers currently paying $30 for up to 20GB service might suddenly be paying $5-15 instead.

[…] If you asked your customers whether they prefer unlimited service or your current cap system, most will clamor for unlimited, even if it costs them a bit more, just for the peace of mind of never facing overage charges or speed throttles.

This argument has never been about capacity. It’s about what it always is about: money.

Four of the nation’s largest phone companies — two former Baby Bells, two independents — have very different ideas about solving the rural broadband problem in the country. Which company serves your area could make all the difference between having basic DSL service or nothing at all.

Some blame Wall Street for the problem, others criticize the leadership at companies that only see dollars, not solutions. Some attack the federal government for interfering in the natural order of the private market, and some even hold rural residents at fault for expecting too much while choosing to live out in the country.

This four-part series will examine the attitudes of the four largest phone companies you may be doing business with in your small town.

AT&T’s real priorities are to satisfy Wall Street demands for regular revenue growth. Rural wired broadband just cannot compete with the margins the company earns on its enormously profitable wireless and ARPU-raising U-verse services. (Graphic adapted from original work of Mark Fiore)

Today: AT&T — More Rural Broadband? Don’t Call Us, We’ll Call You

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson earlier this year declared expansion of its U-verse fiber to the neighborhood service “largely complete,” despite the fact almost half of AT&T’s customers only have access to much slower DSL service, or cannot receive any broadband service at all.

For those living in AT&T’s service areas, which include a large portion of the midwest, southern states east of the Mississippi, Connecticut, and parts of California and Texas, Stephenson has not inspired confidence the company is rethinking what is possible in rural broadband.

“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.”

AT&T’s lack of confidence this year is in contrast with their bombastic rural broadband lobbying campaign of 2011, launched as part of an effort to win approval for its aborted merger with T-Mobile USA. The company sent slick talking points promoting the deal to community groups it supported with contributions, politicians it bought with contributions, and astroturf efforts it bankrolled with contributions.

The result was declarations like this from former Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), who swept through Washington’s revolving door and came out on the other side working for AT&T-backed lobbyist-law firm Sidley Austin and serving as an “honorary chairman” of the industry-backed Internet Innovation Alliance:

Thousands of the smallest communities outside of urban areas either lack broadband service or have just one option that can be pricey for a relatively low connection speed, inadequate for modern business demands. The joining of AT&T’s and T-Mobile’s wireless spectrum will largely fill the gap and bring robust Internet connectivity to rural localities where wired infrastructure is cost prohibitive.

With the merger now nothing more than a bad memory, Stephenson’s interest in the innovation of Internet access quickly faded.

Last week, AT&T customers learned the company isn’t even interested in taking free money from the federal government and ratepayers to do better. Offered access to $115 million in broadband subsidies from the reform of the Universal Service Fund (USF), AT&T officials shrugged their shoulders and indicated they were not interested because they are not yet “ready” to participate.

Quinn

“AT&T is in the midst of evaluating its options for further rural broadband deployment,” said Robert Quinn, AT&T’s senior vice president of regulatory affairs wrote in a letter to the commission. “As our chairman stated last month, we are optimistic about AT&T’s ability to get more broadband into rural areas, particularly as the technology continues to advance. However, until AT&T finalizes that strategy, it cannot commit to participating in the incremental support program. ”

For communities like Orangeburg, S.C., that answer is not good enough. The community received an $18.65 million federal grant of broadband stimulus funds to develop high-speed broadband in an area where only 20-40 percent of residents have Internet service today. AT&T is the dominant phone company and offered the same non-committal response to Orangeburg’s pleas for better service that the  company gives to customers elsewhere.

While AT&T reports it is not yet ready to do better in rural South Carolina, it is very motivated to make sure nobody else does either, funding a massive lobbying effort in coordination with its friends at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to pass a virtual ban on community broadband development across South Carolina.

Christopher Mitchell at Community Broadband Networks calls it “monetizing scarcity.” Orangeburg officials call it a big headache and are working around AT&T, frustrated with the phone company’s disinterest while it also helps build barriers to impede the community’s efforts to build its own network.

“If some of these other providers had a desire to serve these rural areas, they would have already been doing it,” said county administrator Bill Clark. “We are entering the broadband business because third-party providers are reluctant to provide the service.”

AT&T’s reluctance to accept USF money may have a lot to do with the company’s focus on its wireless network which is seen as a much more lucrative investment. Profit margins for barely-competitive wireless service remain sky high, and are growing higher as AT&T raises prices and the industry works to cut costs.

Even the company’s urban-focused U-verse network delivers opportunities for greater revenues from AT&T customers likely to buy additional services. Investing in DSL just does not pull in the same level of profits, and companies like AT&T will remain reluctant to expand rural broadband unless the government delivers a much larger government subsidy, according to Benjamin Lennett, a policy director at the New America Foundation.

“It underscores how flawed it is to rely on private companies to serve these rural areas where their margins are not going to be that high,” Lennett said.

Unfortunately for communities trying to work around AT&T’s roadblock, the company has made sure towns and villages building their own networks soon discover that road remains closed in more than dozen states thanks to  AT&T with the help from corporate groups like ALEC, who feed willing legislators bills often drafted by the corporations they are designed to protect.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation today shut down more than 600 analog television transmitters primarily serving rural viewers, forcing most to either go without television to sign up for commercial satellite or cable television service.

Because of Canada’s great expanse, the country’s public broadcaster has relied on hundreds of terrestrial low-power television transmitters to cover smaller communities and rural areas outside of the reach of CBC stations in larger cities. These transmitters provide relays of 27 regional English and French stations and have allowed rural residents to enjoy free over-the-air television.

While larger communities are now able to watch digital television signals in place of older analog service, the CBC has decided not to replace existing analog repeater transmitters with digital ones, effectively ending service for many rural Canadians who will now receive no over the air signals at all. Budget challenges and a decision from the CRTC that declared the CBC has no obligation to broadcast its programming has been met with resistance across rural Canada, particularly because taxpayers in cities large and small finance the CBC’s operations.

As of today, the CBC will rely entirely on the 27 digital television stations it will continue to operate over the public airwaves nationwide. Critics say that is contrary to the CBC’s mandate in the Broadcasting Act, which declares the CBC is Canada’s “national public broadcaster.”

 “The TV transmitter infrastructure is worth millions and was paid for by Canadian taxpayers,” says Catherine Edwards of the Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations. “More than 2000 Canadians protested the shutdown in letters to the CRTC last month. They asked that the infrastructure be offered to communities to maintain for themselves. The federal government seems to be doing everything it can to cripple the national broadcaster and turn it into a pay specialty service, available to well-heeled Canadians in big cities.”

“The CBC-TV and Radio-Canada analog transmitter shutdown is a sad chapter in Canada’s digital transition,” says Karen Wirsig of the Canadian Media Guild. “We understand that CBC is in a financial bind with $155 million in cuts required by 2015. Something had to give. Evidently infrastructure outside of major cities is not a priority for the federal government, despite rhetoric about the digital economy.”

The CBC says the change will impact only 2 percent of Canadians that do not already receive digital television service or have signed up with a pay television provider. But the concept of “free TV” has changed forever for rural viewers.

For some cable viewers, the CBC’s digital solution is also presenting problems, especially in the Maritimes. In rural Newfoundland and Labrador, EastLink viewers may lose their closest local CBC station and be forced to watch programming from a CBC station is Halifax, Nova Scotia instead, at least until Shaw begins carrying additional CBC stations on satellite.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation today shut down more than 600 relay transmitters providing rural Canada with over-the-air access to the public broadcaster with a mandate to serve all of Canada. Now, viewers in rural Newfoundland and Labrador are going to be stuck watching “local” news and weather intended for Halifax, Nova Scotia. CBC Radio in Newfoundland and Labrador talks with the CBC about the reason for the disruption. (July 30, 2012) (8 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Shaw’s “Local Television Satellite Solution”

In 2010, Shaw Communications, which owns Shaw Cable and Shaw Direct — a major satellite TV provider, announced its intention to buy Global TV — a major Canadian television network. For Americans, this would be the equivalent of Comcast owning your local cable company, NBC, and DirecTV. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), Canada’s telecommunications regulator, agreed to a deal offered by Shaw to acquire Global in return for offering Canadians who have not had satellite or cable service in the last 90 days a temporary free satellite solution for receiving “local stations.”

This customer ran out of luck when he needed Shaw to install just over 250 feet of cable from the nearest clear spot for the satellite to his home. Shaw limits installers to 250 feet, no more. The installer packed up and left shortly after learning an exception would have to be made. (Photo: PGM/Dude, ‘Where’s My TV?’ blog)

Shaw’s Local Television Satellite Solution (LTSS) offers qualified Canadians free satellite service with a handful of over-the-air stations, assuming they apply by November 2012.

Assuming your postal code is within a “qualified reception zone,” and you somehow know about the barely promoted service, Shaw will provide a satellite dish, receiver, and reasonable installation at no charge.

Unfortunately, many Canadians have no idea Shaw is offering the service, and are opting to purchase a regular Shaw Direct package, signing up with another satellite provider, or subscribing to cable where available. Very little about the service is found on Shaw Direct’s website, and those interested are required to call the company for further information. Even those made aware of Shaw’s offer have found challenges signing up.

Steven James May, who runs the “Dude, Where is My TV?” blog reports his parents, who live in rural Denbigh, Ontario were first made aware of Shaw’s LTSS when he told them about it. Several initial attempts to sign up for the service were dashed when Shaw responded Denbigh residents were not qualified for LTSS based on the postal code provided. When May’s parents eventually did qualify, they were sent a well-used and scuffed Star Choice satellite receiver retired from the days Shaw Direct was known as Star Choice.

After installation, the Ontario residents ended up with a dozen primarily over-the-air channels from across Canada:

• 2 Shaw Direct’s home channel
• 9 Knowledge Network
• 23 CTV 2 Alberta
• 37 CBC Toronto
• 39 Global Toronto
• 40 CityTV Toronto
• 41 CHCH Hamilton
• 42 OMNI
• 44 CTV Toronto
• 50 MCTV Sudbury (CTV)
• 52 Global Thunder Bay
• 55 TVOntario (Educational)

While enticing, Denbigh residents have effectively lost “local service” because the community is forced to watch local news for Toronto, Hamilton, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, and Calgary — all much further away than the nearest large city for them — Ottawa. Residents that used to watch CJOH (CTV Ottawa) and CBOT (CBC Ottawa) over-the-air now must get accustomed to news and weather for Toronto, a considerable distance to the west.

“This is a major public policy failure,” adds Edwards. “Everyone has known that the digital transition was coming for two decades. It’s supposed to increase our communications services, yet no one would step up to the plate and take leadership to make sure that neither rural Canada nor our national public broadcaster would be crippled: not Heritage, not the CRTC, not the CBC, and certainly not the federal government.”

The wireless industry is in transition. Increasing capacity also means decreasing the number of customers trying to share a traditional cell tower. The future will bring a combination of shorter-range cellular and Wi-Fi antennas that can sustain traffic loads much easier than overburdened traditional cell towers.

The President’s Council of Advisors on Policy and Technology’s recommendation that the growing demand for wireless spectrum be met by sharing frequencies with the federal government is getting a cold reception from the wireless industry.

AT&T, other wireless operators, and their lobbying trade association have been embarked on a fierce campaign in Washington to free up additional spectrum they can use to meet growing demands for wireless data. Unfortunately, clearing spectrum that can be re-purposed for wireless phone companies requires complicated, and often expensive frequency reassignments as existing users relocate elsewhere. With the federal government holding a large swath of spectrum for the use of a range of public safety, research, and military applications, the best source for new frequencies comes from Washington.

PCAST’s final 200-page report urges the Commerce Department prioritize locating 1000MHz of frequencies that could be re-purposed for private wireless communications. But the council also recommended that frequencies could be more quickly made available by asking wireless telecom companies to share them with existing users.

Today’s “exclusive use” licenses all too often are being underutilized and, in fact, are sometimes used as a valuable investment tool to buy, trade, or sell. Issuing exclusive licenses guarantees that no other players can use those frequencies. That is a valuable tool for wireless companies protecting their market share from potential competitors.

PCAST declared the concept of a “spectrum shortage” to be largely a myth:

Although there is a general perception of spectrum scarcity, most spectrum capacity is not used. An assigned primary user may occupy a band, preventing any other user from gaining access, yet consume only a fraction of the potential spectrum capacity. Unique among natural resources owned by the public, spectrum capacity is infinitely renewable from second to second—that is, any spectrum vacated by one user is immediately available for any other user.

Measurements of actual spectrum use show that less than 20 percent of the capacity of the prime spec­trum bands (below 3.7 GHz) is in use even in the most congested urban areas.

This spectrum inefficiency is not just a problem for the wireless industry, it also afflicts government use as well. But it is a problem that can be solved by modernizing spectrum allocation policy in the United States.

“Exclusive frequency assign­ments should not be interpreted as a reason to preclude other productive uses of spectrum capacity in areas or at times where the primary use is dormant or where underutilized capacity can be shared,” the report concludes.

If implemented, the wireless industry could begin accessing hundreds of megahertz of new spectrum, with the understanding there may be other users sharing certain frequencies in different areas at different times. For example, AT&T could use spectrum assigned to forest rangers in federal parks for wireless data in Manhattan or other urban areas, where neither user will create interference for the other. Verizon could use spectrum allocated for naval communications at seaside ports in land-locked Nebraska, Utah, Kansas, or West Virginia.

The proposal identifies these frequency bands as ideal for shared use between private and government users.

As technology progresses, shared spectrum users will easily afford equipment that dynamically locates open frequencies for communications with little or no interference even if two users are located right next door to each other.

The benefits to taxpayers, governmental users, and private industry are notable:

1. The cost to relocate existing government users to other bands is prohibitively time-consuming, complicated, and expensive. Taxpayers often foot the bill for the frequency changes;
2. Government use of spectrum is not particularly efficient either. Identifying under-utilized spectrum for shared-use can bring pressure to government users to consolidate operations and increase operating efficiency;
3. Private industry gets much faster access to new spectrum, which suddenly becomes plentiful and potentially affordable for new entrants in the wireless marketplace.

Despite the benefits, the wireless industry had a frosty reception to the new report:

Joan Marsh, AT&T Vice President of Federal Regulatory:

“While we are still reviewing the PCAST report, we are encouraged by the sustained interest in exploring ways to free up underutilized government spectrum for mobile Internet use.  However, we are concerned with the report’s primary conclusion that ‘the norm for spectrum use should be sharing, not exclusivity.’  The report fails to recognize the benefits of exclusive use licenses, which are well known.  Those licenses enabled the creation of the mobile Internet and all of the ensuing innovation, investment and job creation that followed.

“While we should be considering all options to meet the country’s spectrum goals, including the sharing of federal spectrum with government users, it is imperative that we clear and reallocate government spectrum where practical.  We fully support the NTIA effort of determining which government bands can be cleared for commercial use, and we look forward to continuing to work with NTIA and other stakeholders to make more spectrum available for American consumers and businesses.”

CTIA – The Wireless Association:

The CTIA is the wireless industry’s lobbying group

“We thank the Administration and PCAST for focusing on the need to make more efficient use of spectrum currently assigned to federal government users. As the PCAST report notes, it is sensible to investigate creative approaches for making federal government spectrum commercially available, including the development of certain sharing capabilities. At the same time, and as Congress recognized in the recently-passed spectrum legislation, the gold standard for deployment of ubiquitous mobile broadband networks remains cleared spectrum.

“Cleared spectrum and an exclusive-use approach has enabled the U.S. wireless industry to invest hundreds of billions of dollars, deploying world-leading mobile broadband networks and resulting in tremendous economic benefits for U.S. consumers and businesses. Not surprisingly, that is the very same approach that has been used by the countries that we compete with in the global marketplace, who have brought hundreds of megahertz of cleared spectrum to market in recent years.

“Policymakers on a bipartisan basis have grasped the importance of making more spectrum available to meet the growing demand for mobile Internet services, and this report highlights a range of forward-looking options, some of which are not yet commercially available, that may be considered to meet this important national goal. We look forward to continuing to work with the Administration, the FCC, NTIA, Congress and other interested parties to increase access to federal government spectrum and to continue to assist our nation in its economic recovery.”

Wireless carriers will continue to lobby Washington lawmakers to leave the current “exclusive use” spectrum policies in place, even if it delays opening up “badly-needed” spectrum for years.

In short, the major players in the wireless industry are hostile to the idea of losing exclusive-use spectrum. That comes as little surprise because shared spectrum cannot be controlled by the wireless industry. Spectrum squatting, where large phone companies or investment groups hang on to unused spectrum either to keep competitors out or as an investment tool until it eventually can be resold at a major profit, is a significant problem in the industry. Wall Street analysts routinely assign value to the spectrum holdings of wireless carriers, whether they are used or not. Since most spectrum is now sold to the industry at “highest bidder wins” auctions, only the largest players are frequently serious contenders. Auctioning off shared spectrum, if practical, will bring lower bids — but could potentially bring new bidders like start-up ventures that have some new ideas on how to use wireless frequencies to compete.

Therefore, it has been in the wireless industry’s best interests to keep the idea of sharing frequencies with other players out of the minds of Washington regulators and legislators. Their technical objections and claims that shared spectrum would somehow destroy innovation and investment ring hollow, and are weak deflections from the more obvious agenda: to maintain their status quo control of wireless frequencies, well-utilized or not.

AT&T and other wireless players will no doubt lobby their case to Washington politicians, many who will rush to the industry’s defense. The shadow argument most likely to be used to defend the current “exclusive use” auction system is the auction proceeds collected by the federal government. Billions have been raised from past auctions, and shared use frequencies would never net that level of return. But PCAST’s report exposes the rest of the story. The cost to reallocate existing users to other frequencies, hand out new radios, raise new antennas and purchase new transmitters is often so costly, the government’s net gain, post-auction, is likely to be minimal.

Abroad, many governments have already adopted shared use, discarding the focus on spectrum earnings and refocusing spectrum allocation on delivering the best bang for the buck — whether that dollar belongs to the consumer, the wireless industry, or the government.

Attempts by AT&T and others to kill PCAST’s recommendations should also be considered proof the industry’s dire claim of a spectrum shortage emergency is vastly overblown. In a true crisis, everyone makes compromises.  That does not appear to be the case here. Congress and regulators should receive that message loud and clear.

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.”