A law establishing a voluntary, national emergency alert system to give localized text warning messages to cell phone users about severe weather, terrorist attacks, natural disasters and missing children has generated conspiracy theories and complaints from some on the political right who suspect the system is designed to help President Obama promote his political agenda.

At issue are “Presidential Alert” text messages disseminated to cell phone users. For the Daily Caller, this was all too much:

To be fair, Obama’s texts are for big emergencies and stuff, like this:

“There is a big meteor hurtling to Earth that will kill us all!”

And this:

“Some folks in Washington are trying to stop me from saving helpless children with common sense gun control legislation, and also from giving you more free stuff. Help!”

Stop the Cap! has received more than 75 e-mail messages from concerned citizens that the “Obama Alerts” are the next stage of the “Kenyan Muslim Socialist Takeover of the U.S.,” to quote one message.

Why the alarm? This snarky article from Engadget did not help and riled up some on the right:

AT&T has begun rolling out Wireless Emergency Alerts updates for iPhone 4S and 5, so you won’t be the last folks to know if the entire northern hemisphere is about to be covered in ice à la Day After Tomorrow. You’ll receive a notification from the carrier when your update is ready, but only if you’re using iOS 6.1 or higher. Once installed, AMBER and Emergency alerts are automatically sent to your phone unless you switch them off via Settings, but you can’t disable Presidential alerts. WEA messages are always free of charge, so you don’t have to worry about going over your texting limit when notified that you need to get the hell out of dodge.

Missing from this week’s discussion was the total cost to taxpayers to enable the text alerts. The Warning, Alert and Response Network Act of 2006 allocated $106 million to study, develop, and enable the text message warnings now sent by almost every cell phone provider in the U.S.

Some cell phone customers may have already received warning messages, typically during severe weather events. The messages are sent free of charge and do not eat into your texting allowance.

Although the law could have better labeled “Presidential Alerts” as something less eyebrow-raising, such as “critical public service warnings,” the WARN Act does not enable the Obama Administration to begin sending short messages lobbying Americans for gun control.

They have Twitter accounts for that.

One more fact to consider: the WARN Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2006.

Phillip “I don’t have $1 million in AT&T and Verizon stock” Dampier

Before Tom Wheeler, President Obama’s pick to head the Federal Communications Commission, can find his seat at the federal agency overseeing the nation’s telecommunications industry, he will need time to sever the extensive ties he maintains as an ex-lobbyist and investor in the companies he will soon oversee.

To avoid an even bigger appearance of a conflict of interest, Wheeler has agreed to dump at least $1 million in personal stock in AT&T and Verizon, as well as divest himself of holdings in 76 other media and tech companies including Time Warner, Comcast, Google, Sprint, Deutsche Telekom and News Corp.

Wheeler is also submitting his resignation from the board of Earthlink, an Internet Service Provider, and will also sell off his shares in that company. He will also have to step down from Core Capital, a venture capitalist investor firm with extensive holdings in the telecom industry.

In our view, Wheeler has shown he couldn’t be more of a telecom industry insider unless he also served on the board of AT&T. Wheeler’s extensive holdings depict someone who has maintained a direct financial interest in the industry for years, even after ending his leadership at the National Cable Television Association and leading the nation’s biggest wireless industry lobbying group, the CTIA.

These kinds of deep industry ties are a serious concern for the average consumer. As we’ve reported before, Tom Wheeler has said almost nothing on his blog about consumer interests, writing views from the perspective of an industry lobbyist and investor. Watching him disgorge well over a million dollars in direct investments in AT&T and Verizon — companies he’d oversee in his new role — does not ease our concern he remains a consummate insider. He is well-positioned to move back through the D.C. revolving door at the end of the Obama Administration to reinvest in the companies his tenure at the FCC could potentially make or break.

Wheeler’s appointment represents another broken promise from the Obama Administration:

“No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.”

Not allowing Wheeler to oversee regulations or contracts with the companies who helped pay his salary and earn him a fortune from his investments would leave the new FCC chairman little to do beyond opening the mail. But of course, that campaign promise from the Obama-Biden campaign has long since been broken and forgotten by most.

Despite the clear conflicts of interest, President Obama remains fully behind his new FCC chairman pick.

“Tom knows this stuff inside and out,” Obama said.

No doubt.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Real News Obama Nominates Cable Industry Lobbyist and Campaign Bundler New Head of FCC 5-12-13.mp4[/flv]

Former FCC commissioner Nicholas Johnson blasts the nomination of Tom Wheeler, an ex-industry lobbyist and insider, for the role of new chairman of the FCC. (From: TheRealNews) (16 minutes)

Phillip “Friends Can Agree to Disagree” Dampier

Are we being unnecessarily pessimistic and cynical when we oppose the likely nomination of Thomas Wheeler to replace Julius Genachowski as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission?

Some of our colleagues in the consumer-focused public policy arena suspect we might be.

Stop the Cap! is very skeptical that appointing a former cable and wireless industry lobbyist with 30+ years of experience is the best choice for consumers at the FCC.

Our friend Harold Feld from Public Knowledge, which has announced cautious support for Wheeler’s appointment, has a more optimistic view about his potential:

I understand where my friends are coming from when they look at Wheeler’s resume and think “oh God, another Washington insider, why can’t we ever get a real progressive!” But I cannot agree with Senator Rockefeller’s statement that “a lobbyist, is a lobbyist,” or the view of some that the taint of industry clings insidiously forever and corrodes the soul. It’s been ten years since Wheeler left CTIA, longer than that since he left NTCA. Had he really been interested in advancing the agendas of these industries, he was in an excellent position to do so when he headed up the Obama transition team. He did not. Indeed, Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach, long-time stalwarts of the public interest who worked for Wheeler on the transition team, have joined other public interest luminaries as Wheelers strongest public supporters. Had Wheeler been working behind the scenes in the transition to promote the incumbents, I expect Susan and Kevin would have known.

I also recognize that support from public interest friends is also not conclusive. But it should surely weigh in the evaluation of Wheeler as much as any blog post. And I recognize I’m also a “Washington insider” and as likely to be led astray by my personal friendships and the whole “Washington Bubble” culture as any other human being. That’s why I’m glad people in the community are asking the right questions and putting Wheeler on notice that, like any Chairman, he needs to prove himself as a champion of the public interest. We at PK have also made it clear we expect Wheeler to not just talk a good game, but to get his hands dirty and make tough decisions that will piss off incumbents. And when we disagree, as we expect we will, have no doubt we will make our displeasure known.

Harold specifically commented on our piece reviewing Wheeler’s personal blog, in which Wheeler fell all over himself praising AT&T’s chief lobbyist Jim Cicconi, and seemed resigned to approving a proposed AT&T/T-Mobile merger with some preconditions:

It is certainly true that behavioral conditions often fall short, are short lived, and that companies generally find ways to work around them (and the FCC’s track record for enforcement is pathetic). Indeed, we at PK made these arguments in the context of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger for why no set of merger remedies could adequately address the harms such a merger would cause. But there is a huge difference between my belief that Wheeler was wrong about the best strategy to advance the public interest and accepting that he was motivated by a covert desire to support consolidation and deregulation.

It is more than likely we will have to do business with Tom Wheeler, and we can certainly understand efforts to paint a more optimistic and hopeful picture of the likely new chairman. But we would be dishonest if we said we have high hopes Wheeler will think first about ordinary Americans before steering the country’s telecommunications future. We have learned from the past.

Remember Your History: Catering to Big Special Interests is Bipartisan

Having covered the telecommunications industry since the 1980s when Dr. John Malone of Tele-Communications, Inc., was the American consumers’ worst nightmare, confronting today’s increasingly consolidated and expensive telecommunications marketplace is a case of “Back to the Future.” The deregulation and industry consolidation abuses in the 1980s riled up both Republicans and Democrats — wherever constituents flooded offices with complaints about the local cable monopoly. The “problem politicians” that reflexively defended the abusers were just as bipartisan. Sen. Tim Wirth (D-Colo.) primarily represented the interests of the cable companies that were headquartered in his state. Current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also defended the cable companies. Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.) was outraged at the abuses cable operators like TCI heaped on Missouri consumers and not only introduced legislation to stop the abuse in 1992, he also was instrumental in overriding a presidential veto of the measure.

The first mistake one can make in this fight is characterizing this as “progressive” vs. “conservative.” Real conservatives want all-out competition to manage winners and losers. Progressives want to make sure in the absence of that competition, someone — anyone can act to check the power of concentrated markets that suppress competition, raise prices, and deliver less than compelling service. Five years ago, Barack Obama promised change and a D.C. reset that would have ended “politics as usual.”

The art of the possible — changing the perception that consumer interests take a back seat to the whims of professional lobbyists at the FCC has proved less than successful after four years with Julius Genachowski. President Obama is not completely responsible, but it would be dishonest not to hold him to a promise he would deliver “change we can believe in.”

Instead, at the FCC, we got “change we think we might be able to get away with, maybe, or not.”

Julius Genachowski remained silent on the AT&T/T-Mobile merger until the Department of Justice provided him with political cover to oppose it. He caved on strongly enforcing Net Neutrality, refused to make important regulatory declarations that would have satisfied federal courts the FCC has a right to oversee broadband policy, and near the end of his tenure, hobnobbed with the cable industry and declared his support for usage billing and capped Internet.

Where Does Mr. Wheeler Stand?

(Image: MuniNetworks)

So we must ask ourselves, where does Mr. Wheeler, a man who spent most of his career as a consummate cable and wireless industry lobbyist, fall on these issues?

The best place those of us who have not shared lunch with him can make that determination is in his personal blog. Harold wants us to downplay some of Wheeler’s words written during his six years of blogging:

But in the ten years I’ve been blogging, I know that I’ve said many things that do not necessary reflect what I would have done if I had been the ultimate decisionmaker – as I have said on more than one occasion (noting that actual decisionmakers are not advocates). Certainly anyone who reads ten years worth of Tales of the Sausage Factory (has it really been ten years?) will have an excellent sense of my overall priorities and approach. But I can’t swear that all approximately 500 or so blog posts could hold up today as being either accurate predictions (like Wheeler, I too was a big believer in WiMax) or final expressions of what I would have done as Chair of the FCC.

We certainly agree that Wheeler’s predictions of industry trends like WiMAX, in hindsight, are not deal breakers (although they should serve as reminders that one should avoid picking too many winners and losers). But at the same time, Wheeler’s words on policy matters in nearly 60 articles since 2007 should not be ignored, rationalized away, or dismissed either. In some sense, this is comparable to the vetting process for an appointee to the Supreme Court. To get a feel for the philosophy of an individual, both the White House and Congress pour over one’s writings and public opinions. Being asked to accept someone who can reshape public policy for years based on the personal recommendation of others only goes so far.

Many of Wheeler’s views are profoundly concerning, because they seem to betray a telecom industry conventional wisdom about the state of technology, wireless spectrum, regulation, and competition. His familiarity and comfort working within the paradigm of big cable and wireless is strongly contrasted with his suspicions and surprise regarding interlopers like Google and Apple — dubbed by Wheeler as part of a “Silicon Mafia.” We sense Wheeler seems most comfortable expecting to oversee business as usual, while advocating and accommodating some minor innovation here and there.

What is almost completely absent in most of Wheeler’s writings is the perspective of, or concern for ordinary consumers. What would Mr. and Mrs. Joe Average think about yet another consolidating merger between AT&T and one of its smaller competitors? What impact would another cable merger have on the bills paid by ordinary people in Colorado, Nebraska, or Pennsylvania? Is it good for consumers to advocate eliminating wireless network redundancy, as Wheeler does, after major events from 9/11 to Hurricane Sandy to the recent Boston Marathon attack all reveal wireless networks are susceptible to call volume clogging and extended service outages?

Tom Wheeler is an admirer of AT&T’s top-lobbyist Jim Cicconi.

More importantly, we are disturbed by Wheeler’s perspective about wired infrastructure that could have a major impact on the near future of rural telecommunications. Wheeler comes dangerously close to AT&T’s sentiments about its yesteryear rural landline network and its wish to switch those customers to wireless (with all the added costs, usage caps, and coverage issues). We cannot help but notice Wheeler frames the general issue much like AT&T does: an “evolution” that represents “weaning ourselves” from “the old wireline.” Ask yourself if AT&T is more or less comfortable knowing Mr. Wheeler’s attitudes about its wired telephone network. AT&T considers it an outdated money-loser and a nuisance in its rural service areas. Wireless is a license to print money, just as soon as the FCC and state regulators give the green light to go ahead. Is Wheeler to be the deciding vote?

We Don’t Believe Wheeler is an ‘Industry Plant’

Harold writes:

But while it is important to ask the right questions and give no one a free pass, it is equally important to evaluate the answers and the evidence fairly and accept their logical conclusions. The evidence that Wheeler would have approved the AT&T/T-Mobile merger had he actually been Chairman (rather than playing pundit) is pretty weak. To take that a step further and say that Wheeler’s justification for approving the merger as a means of reregulating the wireless industry was mere sham to hide his true sympathies seems to me exceedingly unjustified.

That mischaracterizes our sentiments about Mr. Wheeler. We do not believe he is some secret industry plant that is itching to deregulate the agency into a stupor. Nor do we believe a theoretical vote in favor of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger is evidence he is in AT&T’s back pocket specifically. Let us be clear: he served as a professional lobbyist for these companies for nearly 30 years. His job was to absorb and reflect the views of the nation’s biggest cable and phone companies both to politicians and regulators. Some remain friends and colleagues.

It is a safe bet most of the industry will welcome and celebrate Wheeler’s appointment. Many know him personally. Many others will feel safe that he is a reachable industry insider already familiar with the issues that concern them. This is what makes the D.C. revolving door so insidious. When you move from the regulated to the regulator (and back again), the only real outsiders are average consumers.

Here is an example of Wheeler admiring AT&T’s prowess in the early days of its attempted merger with T-Mobile. Notice how he characterizes the deal’s opponents:

“The most important times in any merger approval process are the first two weeks when the acquiring company gets to define the discussion and the last four weeks when the concerns raised by others and the analysis by the government congeals to define the issues to be negotiated in the final outcome. AT&T shot out of the blocks brilliantly, framing their action in terms of the spectrum shortage and President Obama’s desire to provide wireless broadband to rural areas. Over the coming months those who were caught by surprise, as well as those who would use the review process to gain their own advantages, will have organized to present their messages.”

Wheeler shows no evidence of being the FCC’s version of a game-changer like Elizabeth Warren. Instead, he’s an avowed admirer of AT&T’s top lobbyist Jim Cicconi. What will that difference mean? The New York Times, reporting more broadly on the problem of D.C.’s revolving door, provides some valuable clues:

Government officials and lobbyists agree that former agency officials have a much easier time getting phone calls or e-mail messages returned from their old colleagues, and that access often extends to greater credibility in arguing their clients’ positions.

One corporate lobbyist who worked as a regulator, asked whether he believed he had an inside edge in lobbying his ex-colleagues, said: “The answer is yes, it does. If it didn’t, I wouldn’t be able to justify getting out of bed in the morning and charging the outrageous fees that we charge our clients, which they willingly pay.”

The lobbyist, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of concerns about alienating government officials, added that “you have to work at an agency to understand the culture and the pressure points, and it helps to know the senior staff.”

Not quite

The most likely outcome of a Wheeler nomination is that he will be quickly approved, maintain the agency’s relatively low profile, and avoid rocking the boat too much. Even he doubts the power of the FCC to effect regulatory change unless those regulated volunteer to submit to more regulation. That means more quid pro quo agreements attached to mergers, acquisitions, and other deals the industry brings the FCC for approval. But as this quote illustrates, the industry remains in the driving seat:

“[…] Jim Cicconi sits astride a process that could determine the future of wireless policy, first for AT&T and then by extension for everyone else. Quite possibly the result of this merger decision will be far wider than the merger itself. At the end of the day we may be talking about a new era of wireless policy based on the Cicconi Commitment.”

Wheeler argued that the inability of the FCC to muster the political will to deal effectively with net neutrality and other broadband regulation made a consent decree around AT&T/T-Mobile the best way to update consumer protection rather than leave these services essentially unregulated.

Wheeler’s recognition of the inability of the FCC to get virtually anything done comes with no assurance he will do any better. Harold himself admits that the FCC’s track record of enforcement is “pathetic.” Has Wheeler written on his blog that he would seek to change that?

Wheeler’s reflections on the failed T-Mobile/AT&T merger present a clear sign he considers it a missed opportunity, with the usual voluntary divestiture of certain assets here and there with time limited pre-conditions that carry all the impact of one of those class action settlements that nets consumers a coupon or a $2 refund. Everybody but consumers walk away winners.

The Justice Department’s antitrust division, in contrast, illustrated the usefulness of a backbone when it quickly declared the merger proposal monstrously anti-consumer and anti-competitive and announced it would sue to stop it. Deal over and dead. When is the last time the FCC issued such a clear-cut, high-profile decision all on its own? Why is it so hard for the FCC to see the same anti-competitive nightmare so visible at the Department of Justice? Public Knowledge and other consumer groups saw the dangers from day one. Does Mr. Wheeler agree with the Justice Department or does he think he can do business with that shrewd AT&T lobbyist Jim Cicconi to get such deals approved the ‘right way?’

Our view remains the country and the Obama Administration could do far better choosing someone to lead the FCC that has not made a career lobbying for big cable and phone companies. If we want to solve America’s rural broadband problems, enforce fair billing practices and Net Neutrality, find new creative ways to utilize and distribute wireless spectrum, and promote competition while restricting industry consolidation, would we do better choosing an ex-industry lobbyist or an engineer, network planner, professional regulator, or an antitrust attorney?

President Obama went with the ex-lobbyist.

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.”

Still keeping their fingers on the pulse of West Virginia’s broadband.

The state of West Virginia has a money problem.

In 2009, the state applied for and won a $126 million federal Broadband Technologies Opportunity Program (BTOP) grant to expand broadband service in a state plagued with some of the worst Internet access around. That grant will expire Jan. 31, without all of the money spent and equipment in place.

Whatever money is left unspent will be returned to the federal treasury and lost for good. That represents the absolute worst-case nightmare scenario for government officials loathe to leave money on the table. As a result, the state continues to hurry depleting the remaining grant funds before the clock runs out, even if it results in controversial spending decisions.

Last week, the chairman of the West Virginia Broadband Deployment Council openly admitted the state does not have a unified, coherent broadband deployment plan and has been running the broadband expansion effort on an ad hoc basis. That’s a big mistake in the eyes of Dan O’Hanlon, a retired Cabell County circuit judge who leads the Council.

It should not be this difficult. Ask virtually any consumer in rural West Virginia about what needs to be done and the answer is always the same: expand access in unserved areas and raise speeds for those who already have the service.

Unfortunately, $126 million of consumers’ tax dollars will be spent without really doing either.

The Obama Administration’s efforts to expand rural broadband came with lofty rhetoric, but far too often failed to directly address the problem. Consumers and small businesses want Internet access, and the local phone company simply won’t deliver it. Forget about cable broadband — most rural areas without Internet access are not served by any cable operator.

Phillip “Verizon and Frontier have built West Virginia’s taxpayer-funded broadband network in their own image” Dampier

That leaves the federal government in the position of trying to fund rural Internet connections in ways that don’t appear as blatant corporate welfare — paying off phone companies to provide service where they have simply refused for revenue and cost reasons. Competitors are also outraged at the precedent of directly subsidizing certain players but not others, and a lot of taxpayers might question why their tax dollars are going to the phone company.

As a result, the government has discovered a politically palatable alternative: throwing money at non-controversial “institutional” networks built to serve local governments, hospitals, public safety agencies, libraries, and schools. They also have political cover funding obscure “middle mile” networks that interconnect telecommunications company offices, but don’t directly serve any homes or businesses.

Since most people don’t understand the differences between these types of networks and the services they actually provide, broadband expansion projects offer politicians headache-free ribbon cutting ceremonies, applause, and positive publicity from local media reports that mistake institutional and middle mile networks with broadband finally coming to rural towns and villages. Long after the cartoon-sized ribbon-cutting scissors are put away, rural residents still find themselves stuck with dial-up or satellite fraudband.

Last week, the Joint Committee on Technology overseeing the BTOP grant learned the state lacks a plan to get the most broadband bang for the buck, despite hiring some big dollar Verizon subcontractor-consultants that are supposed to be experts at this kind of thing.

As Stop the Cap! reported in May, the state decided to spend $24 million of taxpayer money to buy 1,064 overpowered Cisco routers built (and priced) for big city university use. Imagine the surprise of rural schools and libraries when routers valued at $22,000 each arrived to serve a handful of concurrent users that would have been just as well-served with equipment you can find at Best Buy. Those routers were coincidentally supplied by a familiar vendor: Verizon Network Integration.

Two years later, more than 300 of those routers were in storage, unused. As of this week, 175 are still there.

This $22,000 router, paid for at taxpayer expense…

Two rural librarians in May told Stop the Cap! they were in a quandary over the equipment installed in their tiny libraries because they had no idea how to switch them on, much less maintain them over the long term. Even worse, both told us, they cannot begin to afford the ongoing monthly service fees that are required to participate in the new broadband network.

“We are getting a Hummer network on a Kia operating budget,” one librarian told Stop the Cap! last spring. “The network sounds great, but in our case we have to find the money to pay the bill to run it every month, and that money is hard to find in a library with five outdated public terminals.”

Seven months later and not a lot has changed.

“We have complained to our local leaders this has created more problems for us than it solved,” that same librarian, who could not use his name because of local politics, told Stop the Cap! “If you have worked in government or community service as long as I have, you cringe whenever you have one of these grants because you have to follow the federal government’s rules and you end up spending the money where it least needs to be spent.”

…will provide service for this rural library’s four public terminals. (Image: West Virginia Gazette)

Committee members echoed that sentiment, observing facilities are ending up with equipment they don’t know how to use or cannot afford because monthly service charges for upgraded broadband from Frontier Communications, the state’s largest phone company, are unaffordable.

One proposed solution to cut further taxpayer expense would be to sell the excess network capacity, deemed significant in many communities, to third party Internet Service Providers to directly resell to individual homes and businesses. After all, taxpayers are footing the bill for the $126 million grant that largely paid for the network and independent ISPs would help solve the problem of extending broadband to the unserved.

No deal. Frontier claims it is selling the project broadband access far below normal commercial rates, offering high capacity speeds at an unspecified “entry-level” price. Allowing third party companies to resell that service would put independent ISPs in direct competition with Frontier.

Unfortunately, well-intentioned members the West Virginia Broadband Deployment Council, the Joint Committee on Technology, and other government officials are in over their heads and increasingly appear captive to the design, recommendations, and implementation of a network plan heavily influenced by high-paid Verizon consultants and implemented on a broadband network owned and operated by Frontier Communications.

That left Gale Given, the state’s chief technology officer claiming critics of earlier spending decisions were engaged in “second guessing.” With the expensive routers mostly already in place, Given offered it was better for schools and other institutions to have more capacity than they need now so they won’t be hamstrung if they ever want to expand.

“Only one problem: Ms. Given assumes we can afford to turn the key on the network they are building us now,” said one librarian this week. “Only we can’t. Worrying about what we can do tomorrow is pointless when we can’t even afford to do it today.”