Phillip "Break Free from 'What's In It For Me'-AT&T" Dampier

[We are reprinting this because it succinctly and persuasively proves a point we’ve been making at Stop the Cap! since 2008.  Broadband is not just a “nice thing to have.” It is as important as a phone line, electricity, and safe drinking water.  News, education, commerce, and culture increasingly utilize the Internet to share information and entertain us. Essential utility services can either be provided by a private company operating as a monopoly with oversight and regulation, or operate strictly in the public interest in the form of a customer-owned cooperative, a direct service of local government, or a quasi-public independent non-profit.

In North America, broadband was originally considered a non-essential service, and private providers in the United States lobbied heavily to maintain absolute control of their broadband networks, free to open them to share with other providers, or not.  They also won sweeping deregulation and are still fighting today for decreased oversight.  The results have been uneven service.  Large, compact cities enjoy modern and fast broadband while smaller communities are forced to live with a fraction of the speeds offered elsewhere, if they have access to the service at all.

With broadband now deemed “essential,” local governments have increasingly sought to end the same old excuses with the “don’t care”-cable company or “what’s in it for me”-AT&T and provide 21st century service themselves, especially where local commercial providers simply won’t step up to the plate at all.  Suddenly, big cable and phone companies are more possessive than your last boy/girlfriend. The companies that for years couldn’t care less about your broadband needs suddenly obsess when someone else moves in on “their territory.” They want special laws (that apply only to the competition) to make sure your broadband future lies exclusively in their hands.

Susan P. Crawford understand how this dysfunctional, controlling relationship comes at the expense of rural America.  She’s a visiting professor at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Law School. In 2009, she was a special assistant to President Barack Obama for science, technology and innovation policy. Her opinions were originally shared with readers of Bloomberg News.]

In cities and towns across the U.S., a familiar story is replaying itself: Powerful companies are preventing local governments from providing an essential service to their citizens. More than 100 years ago, it was electricity. Today, it is the public provision of communications services.

Susan Crawford

The Georgia legislature is currently considering a bill that would effectively make it impossible for any city in the state to provide for high-speed Internet access networks — even in areas in which the private sector cannot or will not. Nebraska, North Carolina, Louisiana, Arkansas and Tennessee already have similar laws in place. South Carolina is considering one, as is Florida.

Mayors across the U.S. are desperate to attract good jobs and provide residents with educational opportunities, access to affordable health care, and other benefits that depend on affordable, fast connectivity — something that people in other industrialized countries take for granted. But powerful incumbent providers such as AT&T Inc. and Time Warner Cable Inc. are hamstringing municipalities.

At the beginning of the 20th century, private power companies electrified only the most lucrative population centers and ignored most of America, particularly rural America. By the mid-1920s, 15 holding companies controlled 85 percent of the nation’s electricity distribution, and the Federal Trade Commission found that the power trusts routinely gouged consumers.

Costly and Dangerous

In response, and recognizing that cheap, plentiful electricity was essential to economic development and quality of life, thousands of communities formed electric utilities of their own. Predictably, the private utilities claimed that public ownership of electrical utilities was “costly and dangerous” and “always a failure,” according to the November 1906 issue of Moody’s Magazine. Now more than 2,000 communities in the U.S., including Seattle, San Antonio and Los Angeles, provide their own electricity.

Today, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, which advocates for community broadband initiatives, is tracking more than 60 municipal governments that have built or are building successful fiber networks, just as they created electric systems during the 20th century. In Chattanooga, Tennessee, for example, the city’s publicly owned electric company provides fast, affordable and reliable fiber Internet access. Some businesses based in Knoxville — 100 miles to the northeast — are adding jobs in Chattanooga, where connectivity can cost an eighth as much.

Meanwhile, less than 8 percent of Americans currently receive fiber service to their homes, compared with more than 50 percent of households in South Korea, and almost 40 percent in Japan. Where it’s available, Americans pay five or six times as much for their fiber access as people in other countries do. Fully a third of Americans don’t subscribe to high-speed Internet access at all, and AT&T Chief Executive Officer Randall Stephenson said last month that the company was “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.” America is rapidly losing the global race for high-speed connectivity.

Tamping Down Enthusiasm

We've done something like this once before.

Like the power trusts of the 20th century, the enormous consolidated providers of wired Internet access want to tamp down any enthusiasm for municipal networks. Last year, telecom lobbyists spent more than $300,000 in a failed effort to block a referendum in Longmont, Colorado, to allow that city to provide Internet access. Time Warner Cable managed to get a North Carolina law enacted last year that makes launching municipal networks there extraordinarily difficult. The pending measures in Georgia and South Carolina are modeled on the North Carolina bill.

The Georgia bill is chock-full of sand traps and areas of deep statutory fog from which no local public network is likely ever to emerge. In addition to the ordinary public hearings that any municipality would hold on the subject, a town looking to build a public network would have to hold a referendum. It wouldn’t be allowed to spend any money in support of its position (there would be no such prohibition on the deep-pocketed incumbents). The community wouldn’t be allowed to support its network with local taxes or surplus revenues from any other services (although incumbents routinely and massively subsidize their networks with revenue from other businesses).

Most pernicious of all, the public operator would have to include in the costs of its service the phantom, imputed “capital costs” and “taxes” of a private provider. This is a fertile area for disputes, litigation and delay, as no one knows what precise costs and taxes are at issue, much less how to calculate these amounts. The public provider would also have to comply with all laws and “requirements” applicable to “the communications service,” if it were made available by “a private provider,” although again the law doesn’t specify which service is involved or which provider is relevant.

The end result of all this vague language will be to make it all but impossible for a city to obtain financing to build its network. Although the proponents of Georgia’s bill claim that they are merely trying to create a level playing field, these are terms and conditions that no new entrant, public or private, can meet — and that the incumbents themselves do not live by. You can almost hear the drafters laughing about how impossible the entire enterprise will be.

Globally Competitive Networks

Right now, state legislatures — where the incumbents wield great power — are keeping towns and cities in the U.S. from making their own choices about their communications networks. Meanwhile, municipalities, cooperatives and small independent companies are practically the only entities building globally competitive networks these days. Both AT&T and Verizon have ceased the expansion of next-generation fiber installations across the U.S., and the cable companies’ services greatly favor downloads over uploads.

Congress needs to intervene. One way it could help is by preempting state laws that erect barriers to the ability of local jurisdictions to provide communications services to their citizens.

Running for president in 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt emphasized the right of communities to provide their own electricity. “I might call the right of the people to own and operate their own utility a birch rod in the cupboard,” he said, “to be taken out and used only when the child gets beyond the point where more scolding does any good.” It’s time to take out that birch rod.

Campbell

A commissioner on the Louisiana Public Service Commission accused Gov. Bobby Jindal of sabotaging a now-rescinded $80 million dollar broadband improvement grant for the benefit of the state’s largest telecommunications companies.

Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell publicly berated the Republican governor for intentionally interfering with the project until time ran out and the government withdrew its funding.

The cancellation of the project has proved embarrassing because it is the first and only time a state has lost federal broadband grant money.

“We want to know what the heck happened; we’re the only ones in the country that dropped the ball,” Campbell said. “I meet with people in every parish, and the number one priority by far is high-speed Internet, and how do you lose $80 million coming from the federal government to do that. How do you drop the ball, and if they did drop the ball was it because someone whispered in their ears, ‘it’s going interfere with big companies?'”

Campbell suspects the state’s largest phone and cable companies lobbied the governor’s office for changes in what was originally proposed as a public broadband network reaching large sections of rural Louisiana that do not have broadband access.

The state’s Division of Administration eventually scrapped plans for the public broadband network and replaced it with a proposal to use grant dollars to purchase long term institutional broadband contracts from private providers.  AT&T is the dominant local phone company in Louisiana — the same company that has steadfastly refused to provide DSL service across rural Louisiana. The new proposal would have not delivered any broadband access to individual Louisiana homes, only to institutions like schools, libraries, and local government agencies.

In Campbell’s eyes, the grant represented a competitive threat and seeing it dead and buried was the governor’s special favor to Big Telecom.

“I think they threw a little dirt on this one or a lot of dirt on it,” Campbell told the Tulane Hullabaloo.

Jindal himself admits his administration did get directly involved in changing the project’s course.

The governor called the revised private provider-focused project “a reasonable approach that would have expanded broadband access and not hurt private providers.” Jindal attacked the public broadband network originally planned by the Louisiana Broadband Alliance as “a heavy-handed approach from the federal government that would have undermined and taken over private businesses.”

With the $80 million dollars back in the hands of the federal treasury, Jindal is now blaming the Obama Administration for taking the money back.

The Louisiana Broadband Alliance, a collaboration among six state agencies, would have deployed more than 900 miles of fiber-optic network to expand broadband Internet service in some of the most economically distressed regions of Louisiana. The new network intends to provide direct connections for more than 80 community anchor institutions including universities, K-12 schools, libraries, and healthcare facilities. The 3,488-square-mile service area includes 12 impoverished parishes targeted by the state’s Louisiana Delta Initiative and a separate five-parish area that is home to four federally-recognized American Indian Tribes.

New Englandia. Upstate New York. Northern California. Carolina. Missipiana.

None of these are actual states, but based on the people we communicate with who share our interests, perhaps they should be.

Researchers at MIT’s Senseable City Lab, AT&T Labs-Research and IBM Research are revealing new research that redefines regional boundaries in the United States, using patterns of social connectedness across the country derived from anonymous and aggregated cell phone data.

The results, based on numbers called and the geographic destinations or text messages, are predictable in some places, surprising in others.

The Connected States of America (click to enlarge)

Take New Jersey for example.  The state is remarkably divided between the northern half, whose people are socially linked with metropolitan New York City, and the southern half which almost entirely ignores the Big Apple and Long Island, maintaining closer connections with southeastern Pennsylvania and Delaware.

Some other highlights:

• Socially, most of North and South Carolina are indistinguishable from one-another.
• Chattanooga has more in common with Alabama and Georgia than the rest of Tennessee.
• Southern California’s sprawl is to the east, not to the north.  The influence from Los Angeles and San Diego now extends into Arizona, Nevada and even Utah.  Northern California sticks to itself with one exception — it has connections towards Reno, Nevada.
• Upstate New York, mostly above the Hudson Valley, is socially similar all the way west to Lake Erie, with the exception of Chautauqua County, which is culturally closer to Appalachian areas in western Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
• New England maintains close ties with the exception of northern Maine and New Hampshire, which may be closer to Atlantic Canada.
• Standalone states that mostly keep to themselves include Florida, Texas, Colorado, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio.  With interest, many of those states are also politically defined as “swing states.”

The “Connected States of America” provides a more natural delineation of regions that follows relationships between family, friends and business partners.

“Sister states” emerge, such as Georgia and Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana, and Tennessee and Kentucky, among others.

Metropolitan areas often form pockets of influence that extend into neighboring states or communities; for example, Chattanooga, Tenn., is more closely linked to communities in Georgia and Alabama than to the rest of Tennessee. Pittsburgh, Penn., and West Virginia form a new “state,” while St. Louis, Mo., exhibits an expanded reach that splits Illinois into two regions.

New Jersey and California also divide into two distinct regions due to large cities. In contrast, Texas remains whole: Despite the potentially splitting influence of cities such as Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Austin, the researchers found that there is enough inter-city communication to hold the state together.

After declining formal hearings and conducting their own investigations, the states of Louisiana, Arizona, and West Virginia approved the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile after briefly reviewing documentation promoting the merger, mostly supplied by the companies themselves.

The most controversial approval came from the Louisiana Public Service Commission, overseen by Gov. Bobby Jindal.  Jindal has strongly supported the merger, and his wife’s charity — the Supriya Jindal Foundation — receives substantial economic support from AT&T.  The Commission voted 4-1 for the merger, citing “overriding support locally, as is evidence by the diverse number of groups and officials who are in support.”

More accurately, AT&T contributed to a diverse number of groups that soon sent letters to the FCC supporting the merger.  Most notably, the Urban League of New Orleans, which touted the merger without disclosing the fact AT&T Louisiana president Sonia Perez is a member of the group’s governing board and their 2011 Annual Gala Chairperson.

In Arizona, AT&T won approval from state officials without any hearings, investigation, or much consideration, period.  In fact, less than two weeks ago Arizona officials issued subpoenas to Sprint/Nextel, demanding documentation from them regarding their opposition to the merger.

West Virginia’s Public Service Commission also gave a cursory review to the merger, quickly deciding it posed little impact on the state, since T-Mobile has ignored West Virginia all along, owning just three cellular towers and equipment on 27 others in the state.  T-Mobile also has no West Virginian employees.

State officials believe AT&T’s promise to deliver 4G upgrades inside West Virginia if the merger deal is approved.  But since T-Mobile has no presence in the state, the company’s argument of combining forces for better service doesn’t make much sense.

The PSC relied heavily on Attorney General Darrell McGraw’s pronouncement that the merger would not harm wireless competition in the Mountain State.  Besides, if it did, federal authorities would stop it.

“Any possible implications from this transaction on competition nationwide will be considered by federal authorities,” the PSC wrote.

West Virginia officials denied requests for a hearing before making their decision.

Attorneys General from 11 states not well-known for strong consumer protection have signed letters encouraging the approval of the merger.  Among them:  Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Attorneys General in New York, California, and Hawaii are taking a much closer, and some say more critical look at the merger.  At the lead is New York’s Eric Schneiderman:

“Cell phones are no longer a luxury for a few among us, but a basic necessity. The last thing New Yorkers need during these difficult economic times is to see cell phone prices rise,” said Schneiderman. “Affordable wireless service and technology, including smart phones and next generation handheld devices, are the bridge to the digital broadband future. We want to ensure all New Yorkers benefit from these important innovations that improve lives.”

Attorney General Schneiderman stressed that some market conditions may differ across the state and highlighted the potential impact of the merger in areas like Rochester, Albany, Buffalo and Syracuse, where there are already fewer wireless options. He is also concerned about the impact on consumers throughout the state, where T-Mobile is a low-cost option.

LUS Fiber is a municipally-owned provider competing in Lafayette, Louisiana

Lafayette Utility Systems’ LUS Fiber has filed a formal complaint with the Federal Communications Commission accusing the cable industry co-op of blocking the company from getting the favorable discounts and access to cable networks its competitor Cox Cable receives.

LUS Fiber Director Terry Huval said the blockade against LUS Fiber could ultimately cost the city millions and deny subscribers access to popular cable networks.  Huval accused its rival, Cox Cable, of being behind the repeated denials of membership for the Louisiana municipal cable system.

The municipal provider issued a news release stating that its complaint to the FCC originally was joined by municipal providers in Wilson, N.C., and Chattanooga, Tenn., but the National Cable Television Cooperative has since admitted those systems, while keeping LUS Fiber out.

“The NCTC opened membership to two other municipally-owned telecommunications companies that are very similar to our own Lafayette operation and in the same week refused to admit us on the same terms and conditions,” Huval said. “The only difference among the three systems is that our major cable competitor is NCTC’s largest member as well as a member of NCTC’s board of directors.”

LUS Fiber's primary competitor is Cox Cable

The NCTC is critically important to many medium and small sized cable companies who together collectively bargain access and the best possible volume discounts for hundreds of cable networks and broadcasters.  Those discounts are substantial, considering only Comcast gets larger discounts than the NCTC’s group membership.  NCTC membership also frees members from the tedious one on one negotiations cable systems would otherwise be required to conduct to obtain and maintain agreements with cable programmers.

Keeping LUS Fiber out means the municipal provider could be left charging higher prices than Cox charges for cable-TV in Lafayette.

Federal law appears to be on the side of LUS Fiber as part of the 1992 Cable Act that consumer groups fought for:

It shall be unlawful for a cable operator, a satellite cable programming vendor in which a cable operator has an attributable interest, or a satellite broadcast programming vendor to engage in unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices, the purpose or effect of which is to hinder significantly or to prevent any multichannel video programming distributor from providing satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast programming to subscribers or consumers.

The NCTC operates a spartan website at nctconline.org

As someone who personally was involved in the passage of that legislation, the ironic part is we were fighting -for- the NCTC back then.  Of course, those days the cooperative was made up of wireless cable providers, utility co-ops, municipal co-ops, and other independent cable systems that were constantly facing outright refusals for access to cable programming or discriminatory pricing.  Satellite dish-owners were also regularly targeted.  NCTC was a friendly group in the early 1990s but has since become dominated with larger corporate cable operators, especially Cox Cable and Charter Communications.

LUS builds a compelling case:

NCTC and its dominant members have not only grown significantly in size and power, but they have become increasingly anti-competitive themselves. They are now undermining Congress’s pro-competitive intent by using denial of membership in NCTC as an anticompetitive device to insulate NCTC’s existing members from competition by new entrants.

Specifically, in 2007 and 2008, NCTC imposed a “moratorium” on new members, claiming that it needed time to review its membership policies. In late 2008, NCTC supposedly lifted the moratorium, posting new application procedures on its website. These procedures, NCTC stated, would ordinarily result in admissions within 60-120 days. LUS promptly applied for membership, furnishing all of the information that NCTC required. In reality, NCTC only lifted the moratorium for private-sector cable operators, including Cox and Charter. For LUS and other municipal cable operators, NCTC’s claim to be open to new memberships turned out to be little more than a deceptive sham.

In short, as of April 2010, despite publishing procedures suggesting that new members would be admitted within 120 days, NCTC had not admitted a single new public communications provider during the year and a half since it supposedly lifted its moratorium.

Without access to programming at competitive prices, no one would consider switching to a municipal provider that charged higher prices than the incumbent.  The NCTC’s increasingly secretive and erratic admission of new municipal members provides ample ammunition for those on the outside looking in to accuse the group of unfair practices.