Federico Consulting has the Kansas Cable Lobby as a paying client and works behind the scenes in the state legislature to push their agenda.

A cable industry lobbying group wrote the bill introduced last week in the Kansas Senate that could dramatically restrict municipal broadband networks from launching and hamper Google Fiber from expanding its gigabit broadband network outside of Kansas City.

A Kansas Senate employee told Ars Technica the proposed bill – SB 304 was submitted for introduction in the state legislature by John Federico, president of Topeka-based lobbying firm Federico Consulting, on behalf of the Kansas Cable Telecommunications Association (KCTA). The cable industry trade association counts among its members: Cable ONE, Comcast, Cox Communications, and Time Warner Cable — the largest cable operators in the state.

Joshua Montgomery, a Kansan directly affected by the possible passage of SB 304, notes the legislation could also impact Google’s efforts to expand its gigabit broadband network outside of Kansas City, Kan., because the project relies on a close working relationship between local city officials and Google that would be prohibited under the bill.

“Even joint partnerships like the one between Google and Kansas City would be illegal under this bill.” Google Fiber, he pointed out, came to Kansas City after Google received what the Competitive Enterprise Institute called “stunning regulatory concessions and incentives from local governments, including free access to virtually everything the city owns or controls: rights of way, central office space, power, interconnections with anchor institutions, marketing and direct mail, and office space for Google employees.”

Federico denied the proposed legislation has anything to do with Google, telling Ars Technica Google never came up during KCTA board meetings. But Federico did admit the current bill’s definition of “unserved” is “overly broad.”

Federico evidently had enough sway with the Kansas Senate Committee to postpone a hearing on the bill scheduled for Tuesday until the bill can be “tweaked.”

“I don’t know about you, but I think we should all be concerned that the cable lobby is writing our telecommunications policy,” Montgomery said on his group’s Facebook page now organizing to oppose the bill.

Milwaukee’s Public, Educational, and Government (PEG) channels will soon be off Time Warner Cable’s analog basic cable lineup with little recourse for city officials upset about the channel losses.

Time Warner Cable is notifying analog cable subscribers in several Wisconsin cities about an upcoming digital conversion that will cut an average of a dozen channels from the analog lineup this fall. In Wisconsin, Time Warner is targeting several well-known cable networks like The Weather Channel and CNBC for the digital switch, as well as Ion TV over the air affiliates and several independent/religious broadcast stations.

The loss of PEG channels without any discussion with local officials has some Wisconsin community leaders upset, fearing significant viewing losses. Communities across Wisconsin lost their right to compel the carriage of the public interest channels after a 2007 deregulation bill essentially written by AT&T became law.

“It has been brought to our attention that a number of channels in the local Time Warner Cable ‘basic’ package will be shifted to the digital tier next month, meaning that most Milwaukeeans without a newer model television will need to obtain a digital to analog converter box in order to continue to view the entire basic cable package. We are both frustrated and perturbed by this news,” said Milwaukee Council members Jim Bohl, Robert Bauman, and Tony Zielinski. “Let’s not minimize who it is that will be most impacted by this move on Time Warner’s part either — people with older model televisions who only subscribe to a basic cable package. In short, this cut in service will have a disproportionate effect on residents within the city of Milwaukee.”

Time Warner Cable spokesman Michael Hogan made it clear the transition is something subscribers will have to get used to, because Time Warner is gradually moving all of its cable systems to digital only service.

“We are moving towards a higher-quality, digital-only experience by making channels that had been available in both analog and digital formats available in a digital format only,” said Hogan. “Delivering channels digitally frees up capacity in our network to deliver faster Internet speeds, more HD channels and On Demand choices, and other new services in the future. We began the process several years ago of moving towards a digital-only experience. All of our direct video competitors – including direct broadcast satellite providers and phone companies – already take advantage of the efficiencies of digital delivery and deliver all of their programming solely in digital format.”

The Sordid History of “Video Competition” in Wisconsin

The race to digital service to keep up with satellite providers and AT&T U-verse is not exactly the type of competition Wisconsin residents thought they would get from the passage of a 2007 statewide video franchise law advocated by AT&T.

According to the Center for Media and Democracy, the Wisconsin law is modeled on the American Legislative Exchange Council’s “Cable and Video Competition Act,” a model bill ghostwritten by AT&T for use in statehouses around the country. AT&T provided more funding for ALEC’s activities in Wisconsin from 2008-2012 ($55,735) than any other corporation. Supporters of the legislation promised it would lead to more competition, better customer service and lower cable rates.

Bohl

Instead, it leaves Wisconsin communities with no recourse when cable operators decide to digitize or encrypt cable channels that city officials believe should be widely available to the public. Provisions in the law no longer permit local communities to have any say in a provider’s channel lineup, placement, or technology used to deliver the service.

Milwaukee Alderman Jim Bohl called the channel conversion a Time Warner bait-and-switch maneuver that will cut off residents’ access to city government. As for those promises of lower cable rates, Bohl rolled his eyes.

“I can only tell you it’s gotten worse,” Bohl told the Milwaukee Express. “This change would not have been looked at real happily by the council. I don’t think they ever would have done that if they were still accountable for their franchise agreement with the city of Milwaukee.”

Time Warner Cable subscribers without converter boxes who directly attach coaxial cable to the back of older television sets will be affected by the switch and will need to pay extra for a standard set-top box on each affected television in the home (roughly $7 a month each), or take advantage of a temporary offer from the cable company to supply a small digital to analog converter box that will be available for free for one year. After that, the smaller converter boxes will cost $0.99 a month each with no purchase option.

Without the boxes, Time Warner Cable subscribers will find themselves increasingly out of luck as the company gradually eliminates analog channels from the lineup.

Being AT&T’s Best Friend Can Be Rewarding

Montgomery

Supporters of AT&T’s video competition bill have been luckier than most Wisconsin cable subscribers.

Former Republican state Rep. Phil Montgomery, lead sponsor and claimed author of the 2007 video competition bill, was well compensated with a sudden $2,250 campaign contribution from AT&T the year the bill was introduced. Another $1,500 arrived from AT&T executives and one of their spouses in Texas and $1,500 from a senior AT&T executive in Wisconsin.

Before AT&T’s bill was written, the company barely knew Montgomery existed, donating a total of only $300 to his campaigns from 1998-2005.

After the bill became law, Montgomery spent his remaining years in the Wisconsin Assembly building a solid record avidly supporting AT&T’s public policy maneuvers, including a measure to deregulate basic phone rates and end oversight of telephone service quality by the state’s Public Service Commission.

Despite revelations Montgomery served as an ALEC board member and received contributions amounting to $10,800 from telecom companies, in 2011 Gov. Scott Walker appointed him to chair the PSC — very same agency Montgomery worked for years to disempower.

“He was very friendly to industry when he was a legislator, and was seen as carrying water for the telecommunications industry and the utilities,” said Mike McCabe, executive director of the Democracy Campaign. “Consumer advocates would naturally have concerns about somebody who seemed so supportive of industry now being in a position of overseeing those industries.”

Sen. Jeff Plale Takes Marching Orders from AT&T, His Chief of Staff’s Rap Sheet, a Freezer Full of Steaks and a Country Club for Cronies

Plale

AT&T’s biggest ally in the Wisconsin Senate was Jeff Plale, one of only a handful of Democrats — all pro-business conservatives — belonging to ALEC.

The patience of his district was tested after Plale began openly advocating for his corporate donors and claimed he could not understand why questions about his integrity were being raised by his opponents. Plale, after introducing AT&T’s companion video franchising bill in the Senate expressed he was shocked, shocked to discover he received more campaign contributions from AT&T and the cable industry than any other legislative Democrat. He added he did not know why AT&T’s Political Action Committee had suddenly maxed out on its campaign contribution two years before the next election.

Plale’s close working relationship with AT&T evolved inside of his office.

In 2003, Plale hired Katy Venskus, a charged felon, to raise funds for his election campaign. Despite pleading no contest to siphoning off more than $12,000 from an abortion rights organization and being caught up in a scandal over illegal campaign work for another Democrat, Venskus was appointed Plale’s chief of staff and would quickly become the point person for AT&T’s video competition bill in Plale’s office, working closely with AT&T to adjust the bill’s language to the company’s liking and help coordinate its movement through the Senate.

The successful passage of the bill would prove personally lucrative to Venskus when she left Plale’s office to join lobbying firm Public Affairs Co., of Minneapolis just one month after AT&T’s bill was signed into law. One year later, she took on AT&T as a lobbying client.

Venskus

In 2009, Plale and AT&T closely collaborated to write another deregulation measure to be introduced in the Wisconsin legislature, this time deregulating phone rates, making provision of landline service optional, and gutting service oversight. By then, AT&T Wisconsin considered Venskus an on-contract lobbyist.

The irony of a felon serving as the chief of staff for a Wisconsin state senator or as a registered lobbyist was not lost on the Milwaukee Express’ Lisa Kaiser.

“Despite being a felon, Venskus can affect public policy at the highest levels as a registered lobbyist,” observed Kaiser. “Yet she couldn’t be licensed to become a day care provider.”

According to e-mails and draft copies of the telephone deregulation bill obtained from the Legislative Reference Bureau and interviews conducted by The Capital Times, a number of meetings —  “too numerous to count,” according to Plale’s chief of staff, Summer Shannon-Bradley — occurred with AT&T lawyers and executives and several other key industry stakeholders to work on the bill.

One important meeting in November 2009 included this attendance list: Andrew Petersen, director of external affairs and communications with telephone company TDS; William Esbeck, executive director of the Wisconsin State Telecommunications Association (WSTA) – a telecom industry lobbying group; that group’s attorney, Judd Genda; and AT&T attorney David Chorzempa.

E-mails and other correspondence between those at the meeting and Plale’s staff show slashes or check marks next to sections of the proposal that attorneys for AT&T and the WSTA suggested should be changed.

“It’s like lawmakers looked around and said, ‘These are the companies affected. So sit down with the drafters and make a bill,’ ” Barry Orton, a UW-Madison telecommunications professor told the Times. “The public interest isn’t represented. How could it be? Nobody was there to represent them.”

Life got tougher for Ms. Venskus a few months later when she was charged with felony theft and felony identity theft on suspicion of making $11,451 in improper purchases with her Public Affairs credit card, including a freezer full of steaks, according to the criminal complaint filed in Dane County court. She repaid the charges, but her contract to work for AT&T’s interests was suspended.

That September, Plale wore out his welcome in the 7th District serving southern Milwaukee and lost to primary challenger Chris Larson, who contended Plale was far too conservative and cozy with AT&T for his district.

Gov. Scott Walker is also a close friend of ALEC, supporting a number of corporate-sponsored initiatives to deregulate the telecommunications industry. (Source: ALEC Exposed)

Plale would land on his feet when, after siding with Republicans on a lame duck session vote to stick it to the state’s unions, he joined the administration of Republican Gov. Scott Walker as the administrator of the Division of State Facilities — a $90,000 a year job.

“Instead of seeking out the best and brightest, this governor is busy creating a country club for cronies,” Marty Beil, executive director of the Wisconsin State Employees Union, told the Wisconsin State Journal. “When he says ‘open for business’ and then appoints people like Plale, he’s obviously saying that he doesn’t draw the line at the world’s oldest profession.”

Dampier

One of the most frustrating things about covering the public policy issues surrounding broadband is an-often lazy mainstream media that cannot tell the difference between an industry sock puppet and a consumer broadband advocate. One expects that the New York Times will do better than most.

It certainly did not this morning in a sloppy front page piece on Google’s privacy invasion concession.

New York Times reporter David Streitfeld seemed utterly out of his league from the lede paragraph in the story, where he suggested Google “casually scooped up passwords, e-mail and other personal information from unsuspecting computer users.”

That is a bit histrionic considering any “data theft” would have only occurred for the 5-15 seconds Google’s Street View vehicle was in range of an entirely unprotected home Wi-Fi network, and that you were actively using it at the time of Google’s “drive-by.” If you enabled any wireless network security, Google would have captured nothing beyond the name of your Wi-Fi network (assuming you had not hidden it with another setting) — something anyone could capture with a Wi-Fi sniffer.

Even more concerning was the sudden appearance in the piece of paid Google critic Scott Cleland, who runs a suburban Washington, D.C. corporate public strategy lobbying firm called Precursor LLC that has as its chief mission:

Help companies anticipate change to better exploit emerging opportunities and guard against emerging risks.

Attacking Google and broadband advocacy groups is Cleland’s bread and butter.

The New York Times called him a “consumer watchdog.”

At this point I coughed up my peppermint patty.

Cleland, whose rhetoric about Google ranges from alarmist to lugubrious — America must worry about being on the cusp of a Google-run online dystopia — is well-known to those of us who encounter his various paid-for campaigns. Cleland is best known for his anti-Google rhetoric and his reflexive defense of all-things-Big Telecom, hardly surprising considering his client list.

What is disturbing is that I know this and the reporters at the New York Times apparently do not:

“Google puts innovation ahead of everything and resists asking permission,” said Scott Cleland, a consultant for Google’s competitors and a consumer watchdog whose blog maintains a close watch on Google’s privacy issues. “But the states are throwing down a marker that they are watching and there is a line the company shouldn’t cross.”

At least the Times casually disclosed he was a “consultant for Google’s competitors.” But consumer watchdog? That is a line the Times shouldn’t cross because it is reality only in a world where Goldman Sachs is considered a model for altruistic investment banking.

The Internet Innovation Alliance this week unveiled its 2013 Broadband Guide to the 113th Congress, outlining recommendations for a better broadband future that just so happen to fall in step with AT&T’s lobbying action agenda, guaranteeing near-total telecom deregulation and abandoning rural America’s wired telecommunications networks.

That should come as no surprise, because the IIA’s principal backer is AT&T, along with a host of public interest and non-profit groups that have received significant contributions and backing from the phone giant.

The IIA’s chief recommendation: allow phone companies to abandon wired landline networks in favor of all-IP-based technologies that escape most regulatory requirements and are not subject to much oversight by local, state, or federal officials.

The IIA guide unintentionally illustrates that AT&T’s largest service area in the central and southern U.S. has some of the lowest broadband rankings in the country.

In order for consumers to enjoy the speed and bandwidth capacity of IP networks and to take advantage of the programs and services (including education, gaming, entertainment, social media) that require fast and robust data transmission, the United States should encourage the upgrade to a digital, all-Internet Protocol (IP) broadband infrastructure. Current legacy wired networks fail to meet the FCC’s definition of broadband, yet outdated laws essentially assume that incumbent telephone companies continue to maintain and operate these slow, antiquated networks, even as incumbents invest and deploy separate IP infrastructure and fewer and fewer consumers rely on the outdated voice-only networks.

Requiring incumbent telephone providers to maintain costly antiquated networks siphons investment away from deployment of advanced, high-speed next-generation IP-based networks that consumers prefer. Reforming antiquated 1930s regulations designed for monopoly providers in a copper-wire, analog era will encourage the private sector investment needed to upgrade non-IP-based facilities with newer and faster broadband infrastructure, creating jobs and growing our economy.

In addition, today’s 4G LTE wireless networks are IP-based, but the spectrum required to fuel consumers’ advanced wireless devices on these networks is becoming severely congested. Releasing more spectrum, the radio waves that carry everything from television to texts to mobile video, is necessary to maintain and improve service quality on wireless networks. The government controls the allocation of spectrum and should reallocate more of it for consumer use in order to sustain the increasing public demand for data and continue the benefits offered by the mobile revolution.

Nowhere in IIA’s guide does the “Alliance” disclose its largest backer is AT&T, one of the “telephone providers” IIA talks about as if it was a third party that had no direct connection to the group.

IIA’s guide takes care not to come down too hard on its benefactor for not upgrading rural telecommunications networks to support next generation broadband. In fact, AT&T has dragged its feet providing even ordinary DSL service in many of its rural service areas. The IIA is also careful not to disclose AT&T’s real plan: not to upgrade existing networks to fiber but rather abandon them altogether in favor of its high-profit, high revenue wireless service. That assures everyone deemed unworthy of wired broadband investment will be relegated to the company’s high-cost wireless platform with paltry usage caps and speed throttles.

At the start of 2013, we are witnessing exciting changes enabled by mobile broadband: an app economy that didn’t even exist five years ago now employs more than 500,000 Americans, according to Economist Michael Mandel; the inexorable shift to the cloud and its more efficient information storage; proliferating creative tools that are transforming consumers’ business and personal lives; rapacious appetite for faster speeds, greater bandwidth opportunity and more capacious storage; overwhelming competition with 90 percent of consumers able to choose from at least five different providers, as reported by the FCC; and accelerating innovation cycles where tomorrow’s technology is invented today. The future of broadband is bright and the benefits to consumers and our nation could be boundless. To realize these benefits we need only to let our innovators innovate, our entrepreneurs compete, and ensure our consumers have the knowledge and freedom to make the most of the technology available to them.

…and let AT&T do whatever and charge whatever it wants, while depriving rural America of a wired broadband future.

The IIA hopes its message gets through to members of Congress. Helping make that happen are two former Washington, D.C. insiders that have bipartisan support for AT&T’s agenda.

“We love technology here and believe in its power to change the country, the world, and that it’s a non-partisan issue,” gushes Bruce Mehlman, IIA’s founding co-chairman and former assistant secretary of commerce for technology policy in the George W. Bush Administration.

Mehlman was recognized by Washingtonian Magazine as one of the city’s top lobbyists and is a founding partner of his own lobbying firm. Mehlman is considered an expert in running issue campaigns and “developing advanced lobbying strategies that achieve impactful policy outcomes.” At least AT&T hopes so.

Mehlman’s D.C. lobbying firm promises “we get things done in Washington.”

“It’s critical that policymakers be well-informed as they make decisions affecting the Internet in order to promote and encourage the expansion of Internet investment, access and adoption,” echoed IIA honorary chairman Rick Boucher, a former Democratic member of Congress from the state of Virginia.

Boucher has never strayed too far from AT&T money either. AT&T was his third largest contributor overall from 1989 until he lost re-election in 2010. Today, Boucher is a partner in the law firm of Sidley Austin, which has represented AT&T’s interests for over 100 years.

The taxpayers of Ohio spent $13 million to fund a new 100 gigabit institutional fiber network average Ohio residents cannot access.

The upgraded Ohio Academic Resources Network (OARnet) delivers 10 times the speed of its immediate predecessor and is the first statewide network to achieve 100Gbps.

Gov. John Kasich was on hand to light the network, telling attendees at the ribbon-cutting ceremony it will provide research opportunities and help some of the state’s largest corporations manage manufacturing, data mining and analytics, alternative energy development, consumer products and medicine. He, among others, downplayed the fact the network offers little to average businesses and consumers in Ohio who helped pay for it. Large businesses can sign agreements with educational institutions around the state to gain access to the super-speed network.

While institutional broadband networks for education and research are important, and there is nothing inherently wrong with OARnet or its mission, it does very little to solve Ohio’s stubbornly poor broadband landscape, especially in rural areas.

Advocacy groups affiliated with AT&T are back asking for more regulatory relief in return for promising a better broadband future for Ohio.

Ohio ranked a dismal 39th in TechNet’s broadband rankings published this month. Ohio’s Republican-dominated state government has been willing to devote state’s resources to enhance institutional broadband, but relies almost entirely on the private sector for broadband expansion to small businesses and residential customers.

TechNet notes Ohio has a history of cutting deals with providers like AT&T, among others, for “alternative” regulatory arrangements to encourage broadband expansion in exchange for approval of telecom company mergers.

The results have been meager in rural areas of the state. Despite provider promises to do more, fewer than 2% of Ohio residents have access to fiber broadband, and many smaller communities are forced to use slow speed DSL from AT&T, if they can get the service at all. AT&T has some more bad news for rural Ohio. The company’s idea of improvement is to dismantle its rural wired network and force customers to use AT&T’s expensive, bottom-rated wireless service, complete with extremely low usage caps.

As part of that process, AT&T and their friends and partners are back with more promises.

This time, it comes from research-for-hire reports like, “Incentive to Invest in Ohio Broadband & The Carrier of Last Resort Obligation,” which argues if Ohio releases AT&T from its obligation to provide phone service, investors will magically pour money into the state on broadband improvements. Just like last time. Only it never really happened for wired broadband customers.

The “report” was paid for by “Technology for Ohio’s Tomorrow,” a non-profit organization that claims it “advocates for public policies that inspire and encourage innovation in technology while informing and educating technology consumers about legislative and regulatory issues that impact their lives.”

While those things may be true, even more insight can be gleaned from who actually operates the group.

Stop the Cap! learned:

• Technology for Ohio’s Tomorrow is the Ohio project of Midwest Consumers for Choice and Competition;
• Midwest Consumers for Choice and Competition is also related to Mobile Consumers for Choice and Competition;
• Mobile Consumers for Choice and Competition is a registered lobbying group in the state of Wisconsin, doing business as Wired Wisconsin;
• Wired Wisconsin’s chief partner and benefactor? AT&T It’s chief lobbyist and executive director? Thad Nation;
• Nation has run a whole assortment of “consumer” groups out of his lobbying firm Nation Consulting, including: Illinois Technology Partnership, TV4Us, and Technology for Ohio’s Tomorrow. His work coincides closely with AT&T’s corporate agenda. When AT&T wanted statewide franchising of U-verse, TV4Us arrived on scene advocating exactly that. When AT&T wants to promote deregulation of its wired and wireless efforts and win government assistance with no strings attached, Wired Wisconsin, the Illinois Technology Partnership and Technology for Ohio’s Tomorrow were ready to go to bat for AT&T.
• AT&T’s core involvement in all of these groups goes undisclosed.

Nation calls it an “advocacy agenda,” (we call it Astroturf backed by bought-and-paid for research) and Nation’s firm claims to specialize in it:

At Nation Consulting, Nation focuses on assisting corporate clients with strategic planning in government and public relations, and managing crisis communications.

Our team has worked on the “inside” of the offices of Governors, Congressional members, and state agencies. We’ve worked at every level of government, and we have the relationships necessary to help you navigate state and federal bureaucracies to accomplish your goals. We know how government works – and we know what government can do for you.

Getting government officials or bodies to do what you want isn’t easy. Government is inherently a slow, bureaucratic entity. When you want elected or appointed officials to change policy, you need a comprehensive plan – and the resources, relationships and quick-thinking to implement that plan.

We come to you with decades of experience in advocacy, moving legislators and engaging state agency leaders to action. Let us help you build and drive an aggressive advocacy agenda.

Regardless of your industry, the internet has a role to play in achieving your public relations goals – and we have the experience and the expertise to implement a plan suited to your needs. Whether you need to effectively use social networking sites, manage a blog, conduct email campaigns or use Web 2.0 tools, Nation Consulting can help you maximize your online presence in a way that is both cost-effective and beneficial to your business or organization.