Cable operators and publicly owned utilities in Tennessee are battling for control over the prices companies pay to use utility poles, with facts among the early casualties.

The subject of “pole attachment fees” has been of interest to cable companies for decades. In return for permission to hang cable wires on existing electric or telephone poles owned by utility companies, cable operators are asked to contribute towards their upkeep and eventual replacement. Cable operators want the fees to be as low as possible, while utility companies have sought leeway to defray rising utility pole costs and deal with ongoing wear and tear.

Little progress has been made in efforts to compromise, so this year two competing bills have been introduced by Republicans in the state legislature to define “fairness.” One is promoted by a group of municipal utilities and the other by the cable industry and several corporate-backed, conservative front groups claiming to represent the interests of state taxpayers and consumers.

Some background: Tennessee is unique in the pole attachment fee fight, because privately owned power companies bypassed a lot of the state (and much of the rest of the Tennessee Valley and Appalachian region) during the electrification movement of the early 20th century. Much of Tennessee is served by publicly owned power companies, which also own and maintain a large percentage of utility poles in the state.

Some of Tennessee’s largest telecom companies believe they can guarantee themselves low rates by pitching a case of private companies vs. big government utilities, with local municipalities accused of profiteering from artificially high pole attachment rates. Hoping to capitalize on anti-government sentiment, “small government” conservatives and telecom companies want to tie the hands of the pole owners indefinitely by taking away their right to set pole attachment rates.

The battle includes fact-warped editorials that distort the issues, misleading video ads, and an effort to conflate a utility fee with a tax. With millions at stake from pole attachment fees on tens of thousands of power poles throughout the state, the companies involved have launched a full-scale astroturf assault.

Grover Norquist’s Incendiary “Pole Tax”

Conservative Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform wrote that the pole attachment fee legislation promoted by public utilities would represent a $20 million dollar “tax increase” from higher cable and phone bills. Even worse, Norquist says, the new tax will delay telecom companies from rushing new investments on rural broadband.

Norquist

In reality, Americans for Tax Reform should be rebranded Special Interests for Tax Reform, because the group is funded by a variety of large tobacco corporations, former clients of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and several wealthy conservative activists with their own foundations.

Norquist’s pole “tax increase” does not exist.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) provides guidelines and a formula for determining pole attachment rates for privately owned utilities, but permits states to adopt their own regulations. Municipal utilities are exempted for an important reason — their rates and operations are often already well-regulated.

Stop the Cap! found that pole attachment revenue ends up in the hands of the utility companies that own and keep up the poles, not the government. Municipal utilities stand on their own — revenue earned by a utility stays with the utility. Should a municipal utility attempt to gouge other companies that hang wires on those poles, mechanisms kick in that guarantee it cannot profit from doing so.

A 2007 study by the state government in Tennessee effectively undercut the cable industry’s argument that publicly owned utilities are overcharging cable and phone companies that share space on their poles. The report found that “pole attachment revenues do not increase pole owners’ revenue in the long run.”¹

The Tennessee Valley Authority, which supplies electricity across Tennessee, regularly audits the revenues and costs of its municipal utility distributors and sets end-user rates accordingly. The goal is to guarantee that municipal distributors “break even.” Any new revenue sources, like pole attachment fees, are considered when setting wholesale electric rates. If a municipal utility overcharged for access to its poles, it will ultimately gain nothing because the TVA will set prices that take that revenue into account.

Freedom to Distort: The Cable Lobby’s Astroturf Efforts

Freedom to distort

Another “citizens group” jumping into the battle is called “Freedom to Connect,” actually run by the Tennessee Cable Telecommunications Association (TCTA). Most consumers won’t recognize TCTA as the state cable lobby. Almost all will have forgotten TCTA was the same group that filed a lawsuit to shut down EPB’s Fiber division, which today delivers 1,000Mbps broadband service across the city and competes against cable operators like Comcast and Charter Cable.

One TCTA advertisement claims that some utilities are planning “to double the fees broadband providers pay to the state’s government utilities.”

In reality, cable companies have gone incognito, hiding their identity by rebranding themselves as “broadband providers.” No utility has announced it plans to “double” pole attachment fees either.

TCTA members came under fire at a recent hearing attended by state lawmakers when Rep. Charles Curtiss (D-Sparta) spoke up about irritating robocalls directed at his constituents making similar claims.

“What was said was false,” Curtiss told the cable representatives at the hearing. “You’ve lost your integrity with me. Whoever made up your mind to do that, you’re in the wrong line of work.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/TCTA Pole Attachment Fees Ad 3-13.flv[/flv]

TCTA — Tennessee’s cable industry lobbying group, released this distorted advertisement opposing pole attachment fee increases.  (1 minute)

The Chattanooga Free-Press’ Drew Johnson: Independent Opinion Page Editor or Well-connected Activist with a Conflict of Interest?

Johnson (Times Free Press)

In its ad campaign, the TCTA gave prominent mention to an article in Chattanooga’s Times-Free Press from Feb. 27: “Bill Harms Consumers, Kills Competition.”

What the advertisement did not say is it originated in an editorial published by Drew Johnson, who serves as the paper’s conservative opinion editor. Johnson has had a bone to pick with Chattanooga’s public utility EPB since it got into the cable television and broadband business.

That may not be surprising, since Johnson is still listed as a “senior fellow” at the “Taxpayers Protection Alliance,” yet another corporate and conservative-backed astroturf group founded by former Texas congressman Dick Armey of FreedomWorks fame.

Johnson’s journalism credentials? He wrote a weekly column for the conservative online screed NewsMax, founded and funded by super-wealthy Richard Mellon Scaife and Christopher Ruddy, both frequent donors to conservative, pro-business causes.

TPA has plenty to hide — particularly the sources of their funding. When asked if private industry backs TPA’s efforts, president David Williams refused to come clean.

“It comes from private sources, and I don’t reveal who my donors are,” he told Environmental Building News in January.

Ironically, Johnson is best known for aggressively using Tennessee’s open records “Sunshine” law to get state employee e-mails and other records looking for conflicts of interest or scandal.

Newspaper readers may want to ask whether Johnson represents the newspaper, an industry-funded sock puppet group, or both.  They also deserve full disclosure if the TPA receives any funding from companies that directly compete with EPB.

The Institute from ALEC: The Institute for Policy Innovation’s Innovative Way to Funnel AT&T and Comcast Money Into the Fight

Provider-backed ALEC advocates for the corporate interests that fund its operations.

Another group fighting on the side of the cable and phone companies against municipal utilities is the Institute for Policy Innovation. Policy counsel Bartlett D. Cleland claimed the government is out to get private companies that want space on utility poles.

“The proposed new system in HB1111 and SB1222 is fervently supported by the electric cooperatives and the government-owned utilities for good reason – they are merely seeking a way to use the force of government against their private sector competitors,” Cleland said. “The proposal would allow them to radically raise their rates for pole attachments to multiples of the national average.”

The facts don’t match Cleland’s rhetoric.

In reality, the state of Tennessee found in their report on the matter in 2007 that Tennessee’s pole attachment fees are “not necessarily out of line with those in other states.”²

In fact, some of the state’s telecom companies seemed to agree:

• EMBARQ (now CenturyLink) provided data on fees received from other service providers in Tennessee, Virginia, South and North Carolina. In these data, Tennessee’s rates ($36.02 – $47.41) are similar to those in North Carolina ($23.12-$52.85) and Virginia ($28.94 – $35.77). Rates were lower in South Carolina.
• Cable operators, who have less infrastructure on poles than telephone and electric utilities, paid even less. Time Warner Cable provided mean rates per state showing Tennessee ($7.70) in the middle of the pack compared to Florida ($9.83) and North Carolina ($4.86 – $13.64).

In addition to his role as policy counsel, Cleland also happens to be co-chair of the Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Members of that committee include Comcast and AT&T — Tennessee’s largest telecom companies, both competing with municipal telecommunications providers like EPB.

¹ Analysis of Pole Attachment Rate Issues in Tennessee, State of Tennessee. 2007. p.23

² Analysis of Pole Attachment Rate Issues in Tennessee, State of Tennessee. 2007. p.12

United to grow AT&T’s revenue at the expense of rural America.

The National Farmers Union has a long tradition of protecting rural farmers and defending the rural economy, but has been completely taken in by AT&T’s proposal to abandon rural wired service.

In addition to AT&T appearing in fine print as a sponsor of the National Farmers Union’s 111th Anniversary Convention, the phone company won prominent placement at the group’s annual convention to deliver a speech about AT&T’s lobbying agenda on rural broadband courtesy of Ramona Carlow, AT&T’s vice president of public policy.

AT&T sends its lobbying forces to rural agriculture events with scare stories about impending wireless shortages and doom if the Federal Communications Commission does not hand over more spectrum. In an interview with Beth Canuteson, AT&T regional vice president of external affairs, she tells Brownfield – Ag News for America AT&T will run out of spectrum in seven years. (June 26, 2012) (6 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

The National Farmers Union joined several other rural farm groups in comments (never mentioned on the organization’s website) to the Federal Communications Commission applauding AT&T’s plan to abandon its rural “TDM” landline network:

The United States is poised for a historic transition in communications. Completing the transformation from legacy TDM-based network technology designed in the 20th century to the all-IP networks of the 21st century will allow every computer, laptop, smartphone, machine and tablet to communicate with each another and work seamlessly around the clock. These devices, connected with each other and with a host of other machines ranging from cars to thermostats via these IP-enabled networks, are changing almost every aspect of our lives in areas well beyond traditional communications. If the FCC grants AT&T’s Petition, the full build out of 21st century IP-based networks can being to spur growth, create jobs, and stimulate new opportunity across America, but especially in rural communities that are often handicapped by distance and other opportunity-limiting barriers.

AT&T has the money to upgrade its rural wireline networks.

Unfortunately for the rural farm members of the National Farmers Union, the future proposed by AT&T isn’t as rosy as the NFU would have you believe:

1. AT&T has neglected its rural landline network for years. Whether the technology is wired or wireless, the bean counters at AT&T are clear: there is no Return on Investment formula that works for the company at the current low prices charged for traditional rural landline and DSL service. AT&T has poured billions into a half-measure upgrade, a fiber-copper wire compromise called U-verse, but only in urban areas where it can justify that  investment to hungry shareholders. AT&T has no plans to deploy U-verse in rural areas. Instead, Wall Street’s economic expectation is that fixed wireless is the best solution for rural areas, because it delivers dramatically higher prices that accelerate return on investment and future enhanced earnings;
2. AT&T continues to be America’s lowest-rated wireless carrier — worst for dropped calls and worst for customer service. If you live in a rural area, you already know what AT&T wireless cell service is like. Do you want to depend on that network for all of your telecommunications needs, including emergency calls to 911?
3. AT&T’s DSL service starts at $15 a month on commonly available pricing promotions and has a barely enforced usage cap of 150GB a month. AT&T’s wireless smartphone plans start at $20 a month with a usage cap of 200MB a month. A 5GB plan costs $50 a month. On AT&T’s heavily marketed Family Share plan, 1GB of usage costs $40 a month. A typical broadband customer using between 15-20GB a month, now considered the national average, would pay $15 a month for AT&T’s DSL or $200 a month on AT&T’s wireless network, based on a plan designed to avoid overlimit fees;¹
4. AT&T’s plan also includes fringe benefits for itself: a transition to technology not subject to consumer protection and oversight laws, rate regulation, quality of service guarantees, and “carrier of last resort” obligations. In short, it means AT&T is not responsible if your wireless reception is unsuitable for voice or data use.

AT&T’s cash on hand. Q.: Where will they spend it, on their networks or on their shareholders? A.: “AT&T generated best-ever cash from operations and free cash flow in 2012, which let us return a record $23 billion in cash to shareholders, including dividends and share buybacks.” — AT&T 2012 Annual Report.

The National Farmers Union needs to consider whether AT&T’s proposal meets the terms the organization lays out in its own policy statement on rural telecommunications:

We support:

a) Efforts to ensure competitively priced, high-speed broadband access to the Internet for rural America, which should remain free of censorship and not interfere with other frequencies;

b) Collaborative efforts and public/private initiatives that leverage internet-based technology and use the internet to improve communications, reduce costs, increase access and grow farm business for producers and their cooperatives; and

c) Legislative action and efforts by the administration to encourage robust broadband and wireless deployment in rural America to drive economic development, better serve farmers and ranchers and to prevent a digital divide between rural and urban citizens.

Strong earnings growth.

Let’s consider how AT&T will manage with these tests:

• Wireless competition in rural America exists even less than in urban America. For most, there are one or two choices, typically AT&T and Verizon Wireless, which charge nearly identical, expensive prices;
• AT&T and its various front groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) lobby state lawmakers to prohibit public initiatives that would enhance rural broadband, particularly community-owned broadband networks. Advocating for AT&T’s imposed rural solution is a far cry from the NFU’s past. In 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt requested the group lead the charge for rural utilities cooperatives, owned and operated by the communities they served. In 2013, the group seems satisfied with whatever scraps AT&T is willing to throw the way of rural America;
• A digital divide can exist in many ways. The NFU proposes to cut the digital divide by introducing a pricing divide. Can most rural Americans afford $200 a month for AT&T’s wireless service, assuming they can get a good signal? AT&T returned $23 billion in excess cash to shareholders in 2o12². Imagine what half of that would offer rural America if the company chose to upgrade its existing landline network for the same 21st century service it proposes to offer urban customers.

¹-AT&T’s Mobile Share with Unlimited Talk & Text 20GB package, not including a $30 additional device fee for each smartphone on the account.

²- AT&T Annual Report 2012.

The corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) took a hit in the Georgia legislature last week as the clock ran out on several initiatives backed by its members and supporters on behalf of the group’s corporate clients.

While H.B. 282, a municipal broadband ban introduced by Rep. Mark Hamilton (R-Cumming) was soundly defeated in an unusual, bipartisan 94-70 vote, two other measures supported by Hamilton never came up for votes, including one that would have placed restrictions on city employees speaking out against corporate-ghostwritten bills like the public broadband ban he introduced.

Hamilton is no stranger at ALEC. He received $3,527.80 in ALEC “scholarships” in 2008 alone, according to the Center for Media and Democracy. Those payments covered certain travel expenses, wining and dining, and entertainment for state lawmakers (and often their families) bought and paid for by ALEC’s corporate members which include large telecom companies. After 2008, ALEC no longer had to disclose their scholarships and neither do many politicians who receive them.

In the last cycle, Hamilton cashed checks well into the thousands of dollars from AT&T, Charter Communications, Comcast and Verizon. That doesn’t include $1,000 from the Georgia Cable TV Association.

Rep. Don Parsons, another bill supporter, happens to be an active member of the ALEC Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force. He has received $5,735.48 during his first three years in that role.

ALEC’s principle role is to get corporate-backed legislative ideas written into state laws. The group maintains a large database of pre-approved legislation ready-made for introduction in any statehouse. Simply change a few words here and there and suddenly it isn’t AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner Cable or Comcast introducing the bills they helped draft, it is Reps. Hamilton and Parsons.

In 2013, these two representatives went over the top for their corporate friends at ALEC.

Mark Hamilton’s H.B. 228: The “Keep Your Mouth Shut Else or Else” Act

Hamilton

Among the most overreaching bills introduced in the 2013 session was Rep. Hamilton’s H.B. 228 – an untitled bill that would prohibit local government employees from using government computers, fax machines or email to promote or oppose legislation by the General Assembly. It would also prohibit employees from contacting members of the General Assembly or the governor to discuss the impact of pending legislation on local governments, unless the employee is registered as a lobbyist or information is requested directly by a member of the General Assembly.

The greatest wish-come-true of ALEC is introducing legislation supported by unshackled corporate interests while muzzling local governments from objecting to the legislation.

In the community broadband battle, large cable and phone companies have limitless budgets to spend opposing public broadband with scare mailers, push polling, newspaper, radio and even television ads. Local officials fighting to defend their interests in better broadband do not. Hamilton’s bill would have taken this imbalance even further, making it a crime for any agencies, authorities, bureaus, departments, offices, and commissions of the state or any political subdivision of the state to provide members of the General Assembly with information about their broadband problems. Communities could not correct misinformation, explain a bill’s unintended consequences, or request changes to the bill.

“HB 228 is utterly ridiculous,” said Conyers City Manager Tony Lucas. “When did a local government, contacting one of our representatives or our governor, become professional lobbying? It’s respective governments conducting business for or on behalf of our citizens.”

Don Parsons’ H.B. 176: AT&T’s “Put Your Cell Tower Wherever You Want” Act

Rep. Parsons had trouble coming up with a good name for his latest legislative gift to AT&T. Originally entitled the “Advanced Broadband Colocation Act,” that title was eventually scrapped because it was not snappy enough. In its place, the “Mobile Broadband Infrastructure Leads to Development (BILD) Act” was suddenly born.

Parsons

But after reading both it and a substitute amendment, we call it the “Put It Anywhere Act,” because the bill’s real intent is to largely strip away cell tower location authority from Georgia’s local governments.

Parsons does not host an AT&T cell tower in his backyard in Marietta, but other Georgian homeowners might had the bill passed.

H.B. 176 allowed cell towers to be placed anywhere a wireless company wanted with very limited local input. Companies were under no obligation to prove that the new towers were needed. Local governments could no longer veto their choices, much less limit additions to existing towers or suggest more suitable alternative locations.  Parsons’ bill even removed authority from local governments to insist that companies remove abandoned towers before constructing new ones.

Parsons went all-out for AT&T. Knowing that resource-strapped local governments often have bigger priorities, he set a deadline on cell tower applications at 90 days for existing towers, five months for new ones. Unless the community rejects a proposal showing good cause, it would be deemed automatically approved.

Amy Henderson, director of communications for the Georgia Municipal Association, scoffed at claims the bill was designed to streamline the cell tower application process.

“Dictatorship is just streamlined government,” she told the Rockdale Citizen. “It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s in the best interest of the public.”

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Youtube – Rep Parsons on HB176 3-2-13.flv[/flv]

Rep. Parsons’ rambling YouTube video featuring a laundry list of AT&T talking points about the need for cell companies to throw up cell towers wherever they please because it is good for business (even if it isn’t so good for you or your neighbors). Parsons’ video then launches into a hissyfit directed at the Georgia Municipal Association, unhappy with Parsons’ sweeping transfer of authority away from local communities in favor of AT&T and others. Al Gore never sighed this much. It garnered a whopping 41 views on YouTube to date and in the spirit of open dialogue, Parsons disabled comments on the video.  (17 minutes)

Private vs. Public: A Phone-y Debate

At the heart of most of ALEC’s legislative initiatives is a sense that public institutions are somehow hampering private enterprise. Community broadband is considered an especially dangerous threat because incumbent providers claim public broadband represents unfair competition.

But as ALEC itself demonstrates, corporate welfare is alive and well in the statehouses of even the reddest states. The idea that taxpayers should not be footing the bill for things the private sector can do without costing taxpayers a nickel just doesn’t fly with reality.

As Free Press reports, phone and cable companies have been on federal welfare since their inception. A 2011 Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy study shows AT&T and Verizon receiving more than $26 billion in tax subsidies from 2008–2010.

The FCC’s 2012 report on Universal Service Fund subsidies shows nearly $3 billion in federal payments to AT&T, Verizon and Windstream. In 2010, Windstream — a telecommunications company with services across the South — applied for $238 million in federal stimulus grants to improve its service in 16 states. More than 16 million taxpayer dollars went to upgrade the company’s services in Georgia.

“Phone and cable companies would not be recording the soaring profit margins that they do, if there were truly a free market,’” said Free Press Research Director S. Derek Turner. “They have created an unlevel playing field that gives them massive first-mover advantages. The real-dollar benefits of that can’t be quantified.”

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.

Comcast’s David Cohen

Comcast is an American success story, but Americans that do business with the cable giant are getting slighted by overpriced, too-slow broadband service.

In a commentary piece in the Financial Times, Edward Luce indicts the company that bought NBC-Universal for pay-for-play campaign contributions that have kept the company from much  regulatory scrutiny and free to charge whatever it likes for a service now increasingly considered a necessity.

Comcast’s key employee as far as Washington is concerned is its senior vice-president, David Cohen, who also happens to be one of President Barack Obama’s largest fundraisers.

The revolving door between Comcast in Philadelphia and the federal government in Washington is always spinning.

Of Comcast’s 121 lobbyists, 85 are former government employees, according to Open Secrets, which monitors money and politics.

“Comcast employs the royalty of K Street [lobbyists],” says Sheila Krumholz, head of Open Secrets.

In 2011, the year the FCC approved Comcast’s merger with NBCU, the company spent more than $14 million on lobbying – the ninth-highest of any US company (it ranks 49th on the Fortune 100 list).

Luce adds Meredith Atwell-Baker, a former Republican FCC commissioner, took an executive position at Comcast shortly after voting to approve the merger-buyout between the cable operator and NBC.

This month Comcast acquired the 49 percent of NBC-Universal it did not already own in a $16.7 billion transaction that got less attention at the FCC than the lunch menu at the Chinese takeout down the street.

So while Comcast enriches itself, customers are left with Internet service that is nothing to brag about.

While only 7% of the U.S. is wired for fiber broadband, more than half of South Korea and Japan can buy fiber-fast broadband service from a range of broadband suppliers. Back home, Comcast and the local phone company have built a comfortable duopoly:

The company’s meteoric rise in the past decade parallels the relative decline of Internet service in the US. In the late 1990s the US had the fastest speeds and widest penetration of almost anywhere – unsurprisingly given that it invented the platform. Today the US comes 16th, according to the OECD, with an average of 27 megabits per second, compared with up to quadruple that in countries such as Japan and the Netherlands.

The contrast on price is just as unflattering. The average US cost for 1 Mbps is $1.10 compared with $0.42 in the UK, $0.34 in France and $0.21 in South Korea. It is not only places such as Hong Kong that put the US into the shade. Countries such as Estonia, Portugal and Hungary offer a significantly better Internet service. South Koreans joke that when they visit the US they are taking an Internet vacation. Yet bringing the US up to speed appears to be low on Mr Obama’s list of priorities (it did not even get a mention in his State of the Union address last month).