Stop the Cap! has developed a sample e-mail message Georgia residents can use to petition the state legislature to vote NO on H.B. 282, the latest Big Telecom corporate welfare bill to kill competition from publicly-owned broadband networks. With thanks to Mark Creekmore, one of many rural Georgians suffering with DSL “service” from Windstream Communications, we have jointly created this letter to illustrate the folly of this bad bill. We may need to send this to members of the state Senate as well.

We realize many of you are served by AT&T, Comcast, or other rural providers, so this letter should be tailored to include the horror stories that you have experienced with your own provider. Make sure you change the relevant sections, including references to your local town’s provider (things that should be changed in your letter are highlighted in blue below) before sending your e-mail to House members today:

Dear Rep. -or- Sen.  [insert name]

I am writing to tell you that I do not support H.B. 282 — the Broadband Municipalities Act, and neither should you.

This proposed legislation is a solution in search of a problem. No community I know of gets interested in entering the broadband business on a whim. But when you live in a rural area served by a single provider that delivers poor service, as I do, it becomes understandable why some communities seek a public broadband solution as a last resort.

At its core, this is a bill designed to protect the broadband status quo at the cost of Georgia’s economic development and its citizens’ need for quality broadband service.

[Share several sentences here detailing the problems you have with your provider.]

Georgia has a long way to go to meet the broadband speeds available in cities like Chattanooga, Tenn. That city’s municipal power company offers 1,000Mbps service to residents that cannot buy those speeds from any other provider. That has attracted companies in this state to move to get the kind of service they just cannot get from our providers. Comcast and AT&T are hardly going out of business in Chattanooga and actually claim to welcome the competition. But things are much worse here in rural Georgia, where just getting 12Mbps service is a real challenge. That is because the local phone company has oversold its network and is too crowded, slowing speeds to a crawl. I’d welcome competition even more, but there just isn’t any.

Consider this: While Dawsonville suffers with Windstream’s oversubscribed DSL service as our only practical option, Thomasville residents can get 22Mbps of service over a fiber to the home network owned by the local community. Rose.net is hardly a financial failure either. It has been so successful, the city eliminated the local property tax. If you pass H.B. 282, Dawsonville will never have a chance, because no other provider is interested in serving us and the local community will never be able to because Windstream arguably already does.

If you believe H.B. 282 will stimulate rural broadband investment, you need to read Windstream CEO Jeff Gardner’s own statements during a February 2013 conference call to investors. He noted Windstream plans to cut capital expenses and investments this year and even more the next, including those made right here in Georgia. Gardner noted that Windstream’s rural customers are largely captive with no competitive alternatives, making extra investment unnecessary. That means we have to live with the service we are lucky enough to get at the high prices we are forced to pay. In effect, we are told to live with what we have or go without. This is an embarrassment to our state which boasts of its high-tech communications capability and is home to several major data centers.

The bill’s logic is also lacking. Private telecom companies enjoy the benefits of state taxpayer dollars in several ways, ranging from access to public rights of way to receiving federal stimulus dollars to incentivize rural broadband expansion. To date, Windstream’s only help for Georgia seems to be wiring 250 homes in Blue Ridge. If local communities decide they need a better broadband solution, allowing out-of-state corporations like Windstream to tie their hands and dictate terms is an outrage. We have been here before in the last century when giant electric utilities refused to provide adequate service in rural Georgia, so those communities managed it themselves with municipal utilities.

It is clear to me, despite a few inadequate revisions to the bill since its introduction, H.B. 282 is a disaster for Georgia’s telecommunications future. It is little more than protectionism for incumbent providers who will continue to treat rural Georgians like second class citizens, delivering service that falls far below what was advertised, yet costing the same as big city folks pay. If my community decides it is essential for our future to do better than what Windstream is willing to offer, making the town work through an expensive qualification process analyzing census blocks is nothing more than a deterrent to keep them from even trying.

With all the problems we face in Georgia today, spending time protecting Windstream from competition is not on my list and it certainly should not be on yours.

I respectfully ask you reject H.B. 282 in full, regardless of current or future revisions. The next time a telecommunications company comes by your office to lobby you on bills like this, let them know the best way they can protect themselves from municipal broadband is to deliver the good service Georgians deserve at a fair price. If they manage that, there would be no demand to build these alternative networks in the first place.

I look forward to hearing your views on this critical matter to me.

Respectfully,

// signature

A handful of Georgia state legislators have introduced a bill to ban community-owned broadband anywhere Internet service is available at speeds of at least 1.5Mbps — so slow it does not even meet the FCC’s new definition of “broadband.”

The so-called “Municipal Broadband Investment Act,” introduced Feb. 8 is just the latest in a series of anti-competition, corporate welfare bills designed to protect existing telecom monopolies and duopolies from facing any additional competition.

Introduced and co-sponsored by Reps. Mark Hamilton (R-Cumming), Don Parsons (R-Marietta), Ron Stephens (R-Savannah), Jay Roberts (R-Ocilla), Ben Harbin (R-Evans), and Jon Burns (R-Newington), H.B. 282 would only allow community providers to offer service where broadband is not available within a census block, a requirement that makes virtually all public broadband efforts untenable because of the patchwork of DSL service throughout the state.

Hamilton

Remarkably, the legislation also includes a penalty clause that will leave community providers liable for damages payable to corporate-owned Internet Service Providers if they dare compete with the state’s largest phone and cable companies. Local communities could even be on the hook for attorney fees paid by companies like Comcast, Windstream, and AT&T to make sure publicly owned ISPs never get off the ground.

Phone companies like Windstream are seeking federal funding from the FCC Connect America Fund that will defray up to $775 per home for new broadband hookups delivering at least 4/1Mbps service. But Georgia’s legislation will set a new standard for minimum broadband at a much slower 1.5Mbps, benefiting telephone companies like AT&T, CenturyLink and Windstream. All can claim their existing 1.5Mbps DSL lines are good enough for Georgia to consider an area “served” by broadband. That certification would make it impossible for a publicly owned provider to establish far faster service.

Stop the Cap! strongly urges Georgia residents to contact their state representative and ask that he or she vote no on H.B. 282, which is nothing more than another corporate-written and backed protectionism bill that will guarantee rural Georgia remains mired in a slow speed broadband swamp. The best way corporate ISPs can guarantee no community will rise up to compete is by providing 21st century broadband speeds and service to local residents.

The proposed bill is scheduled for its first hearing tomorrow afternoon at 4pm.

The Kentucky Resources Council is appealing to Kentucky residents and elected officials to stop AT&T’s plan to abandon rural landline service in the state with the passage of a bill now before Kentucky lawmakers the company effectively wrote itself.

Tom FitzGerald, director of the non-profit group, has been bringing attention to AT&T’s agenda in the Kentucky media and through the organization’s website.

FitzGerald explains AT&T’s long term agenda is deregulation and eventual abdication of its basic responsibility to provide affordable, essential basic telephone service to every resident in the state who wants it.

In 2006, AT&T won deregulation of all services other than basic telephone service. The company promptly raised prices after the deregulation became law. Now the company is back asking the government to walk away from its oversight of basic telephone service. But even more concerning, in FitzGerald’s view, is that AT&T is prepared to walk away from their rural customers in the process:

In requiring that access to basic telephone service continue to be regulated, the General Assembly recognized that stand-alone basic telephone service is, for many Kentuckians, an essential service.

AT&T may believe, as it told the Federal Communications Commission in 2009, that “plain-old telephone service” is a “relic of a bygone era,” yet basic reliable wireline local exchange telephone service remains a lifeline for those who use it to convey medical monitoring information, for smoke and security alarms, and for voice service.

Basic local service is more than just “voice” service — it includes, by state law, reliable unlimited local exchange calling, 911 service, directory and operator assistance, and the ability to connect with other carriers.

AT&T is circulating a proposed bill that would deregulate basic local telephone services in the service areas of AT&T, Windstream and Cincinnati Bell in Kentucky. What would the bill do?

Unless you currently live in a household with fewer than 5,000 housing units in the telephone exchange, you will no longer be guaranteed access to basic local service as a stand-alone option.

For those smaller exchanges, AT&T could immediately cease providing the service if it offers an “alternative voice service.” Or, it could petition the state Public Service Commission to be relieved of the obligation by meeting certain criteria regarding other providers of voice service in the area. No new houses built in the service areas would have a right to a landline offering basic phone services on a stand-alone basis.

There is nothing in the draft bill that would require AT&T to seek PSC approval prior to ending the stand-alone landline phone service in exchanges where it or another provider offers wireless alternative voice service.

In addition, there is no requirement that AT&T demonstrate that the wireless service is of comparable reliability and consistent signal quality.

Deregulating basic local phone service based on the mere existence of a wireless “alternative voice service” provider that can be an affiliate, does not assure access for all customers to voice and other basic exchange services that are functionally equivalent, competitively priced and comparable to the currently regulated landline basic telephone services.

FitzGerald

AT&T’s characterization of its proposed legislation is that it will help shepherd in the transformation of the company’s old telephone network to a new modern network that can deliver broadband, telephone and television service. But AT&T’s network upgrades are reserved for urban areas only. Should AT&T have its way, it can simply abandon wired service in rural areas and tell those customers to purchase AT&T wireless phone service instead, at significantly higher prices and with no guarantee of service quality or reliability.

Customers in rural areas who have cellphones can already share stories about poor reception, dead spots, and garbled phone calls. Should AT&T win approval of its deregulation bill in Kentucky, rural residents may find that cellphone their only link to 911 and the outside world. FitzGerald wonders if that is sufficient for rural Kentucky.

“Before an telephone company is relieved of the obligation to offer reliable stand-alone basic service under regulations that guarantee nondiscriminatory access, the PSC must be empowered to determine whether there is sufficient competition in the provision of the full array of reliable basic phone services from other carriers on a stand-alone basis,” FitzGerald writes.

“It must also ensure that it will remain available to low-and fixed-income Kentuckians and those more costly to serve because of their location. Ending the obligation in Kentucky, without an assurance that comparable services will be available in a deregulated marketplace for those who are most in need of and least able to afford such services, is not in the public’s interest.”

Eshoo

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), the ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce Communications Subcommittee, will shortly reintroduce legislation that will require wireless companies to disclose more information about the anticipated speeds of their 4G wireless networks.

Eshoo announced her legislative intentions Tuesday at the Broadband Breakfast Club, telling attendees it was important for consumers to know what they are getting before signing a two-year contract.

The anticipated legislation is expected to mirror Eshoo’s 2011 bill — the Next Generation Wireless Disclosure Act (HR 2281), which never made it out of the Republican-dominated House committee.

Eshoo said consumers need clear and concise explanations of data limits, caps, or network management policies that can turn a fast 4G connection into a very slow or expensive one.

Many of the former bill’s supporters echoed carriers use “4G” as a marketing tool which can lead to consumer confusion. Networks ranging from Clearwire’s WiMAX service to T-Mobile’s HSPA+ to Verizon Wireless’ LTE network have all been dubbed “4G,” despite offering widely varying maximum speeds.

Consumers have also faced bill shock when they do not understand their monthly data limits.

Like the last bill, Eshoo’s newest effort is expected to face stiff opposition from wireless carriers and House Republicans, but may raise the temperature on data caps at the Federal Communications Commission, which has faced increasing pressure to become more involved in the issue of usage limits and consumption pricing.

The inauguration of President Barack Obama for a second term in the White House is brought to you by generous financial contributions from AT&T, Microsoft, and a handful of big health care and pharmaceutical companies that all do business with the federal government.

AT&T, which donated generously to the Romney campaign, has been making amends with the administration remaining in office by underwriting the lavish festivities, despite earlier promises from the Obama Administration not to accept corporate money for the inauguration.

The telecom giant is among seven corporations that have found their way around federal laws that bar contractors from spending money to influence elections. No law stops them from writing big checks for inaugural events or political conventions (see here, here, here, and here for our earlier reports).

AT&T is among the most powerful special interests in Washington, with more than $14 million spent lobbying Congress and federal agencies like the FCC in just the first nine months of 2012, according to The Center for Responsive Politics’ website, Open Secrets.

AT&T handed out nearly $2 million to political action committees, parties, and secretive independent groups that run campaign ads without disclosing who pays for them. Candidates did not suffer for money either. Direct AT&T contributions totaling $3,297,096 were handed to members and would-be members of Congress, with the company heavily favoring Republicans.

Among those winning AT&T checks valued at $10,000 or more were 65 Republicans and 16 Democrats:

But the Money Party doesn’t end there. At least 49 members of the House and Senate that vote on legislation that directly affects AT&T’s bottom line also happen to be shareholders of the company:

Akin, Todd (R-MO)
Berkley, Shelley (D-NV)
Berman, Howard L (D-CA)
Bingaman, Jeff (D-NM)
Boehner, John (R-OH)
Bonner, Jo (R-AL)
Buchanan, Vernon (R-FL)
Burgess, Michael (R-TX)
Cassidy, Bill (R-LA)
Coats, Dan (R-IN)
Coble, Howard (R-NC)
Coburn, Tom (R-OK)
Cohen, Steve (D-TN)
Cole, Tom (R-OK)
Conaway, Mike (R-TX)
Conrad, Kent (D-ND)
Cooper, Jim (D-TN)
Doggett, Lloyd (D-TX)
Frelinghuysen, Rodney (R-NJ)
Gibbs, Bob (R-OH)
Hagan, Kay R (D-NC)
Hanna, Richard (R-NY)
Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R-TX)
Inhofe, James M (R-OK)
Isakson, Johnny (R-GA)
Johnson, Ron (R-WI)
Keating, Bill (D-MA)
Kerry, John (D-MA)
Kingston, Jack (R-GA)
Lance, Leonard (R-NJ)
Marchant, Kenny (R-TX)
McCarthy, Carolyn (D-NY)
McCaskill, Claire (D-MO)
McCaul, Michael (R-TX)
McKinley, David (R-WV)
Perlmutter, Edwin G (D-CO)
Peters, Gary (D-MI)
Renacci, Jim (R-OH)
Rogers, Hal (R-KY)
Sensenbrenner, F James Jr (R-WI)
Sessions, Pete (R-TX)
Smith, Lamar (R-TX)
Tipton, Scott (R-CO)
Upton, Fred (R-MI)
Vitter, David (R-LA)
Webb, James (D-VA)
Welch, Peter (D-VT)
Whitehouse, Sheldon (D-RI)
Whitfield, Ed (R-KY)

AT&T, which Open Secrets deems a “heavy hitter,” also benefits from Washington’s revolving door between public service and private sector lobbying. The group notes at least 63 out of 86 AT&T lobbyists have previously held government jobs, often at the agencies that oversee and regulate the company.

Public Citizen says it is disturbed by revelations companies like AT&T, Microsoft, and various pharmaceutical and health care interests like Centene and Genentech-Roche Pharmaceuticals have been allowed to contribute because all of them are in business with the federal government. AT&T has been awarded more than $101 million in federal contracts this fiscal year. Microsoft, which spent $5.7 million lobbying Washington has earned most of that back with $4.6 million in contracts with the Department of Homeland Security, the White House, and other federal agencies.

Almost none of the companies contacted by USA Today were willing to return calls or comment on the contributions. But Public Citizen did go on the record with the newspaper.

“Such donations are more troubling when they come from companies that have significant ongoing business with the federal government,” said Robert Weissman, the group’s president. “They will expect a very good hearing regarding any concerns, complaints or aspirations they might have.”