In Wisconsin, one protest after another as state legislators deliver results for corporate interests, often at the expense of the public interest. Broadband was the latest close call.

Imagine if you drove down to your local credit union this morning to find the doors padlocked and an ominous sign taped across the front door: “Closed for Anti-Competitive Business Practices.”  Then you return your books on loan from the public library, but find the same padlock and sign on that building, too.  Scratching your head, you then drive home vowing to get to the bottom of this only to be greeted by the mailman, who hands you a letter from your daughter’s school announcing steep and immediate tuition increases required to cover surprising new expenses.

As you try and understand what exactly has happened, it all becomes clear when you switch on the evening news — the Republicans in Wisconsin have launched their version of a “revolution,” — one that originally promised to “restore fiscal sanity,” but instead looks more and more like a statewide pilot project run by the Ayn Rand Institute, with the financial backing of AT&T.

In the fight for better broadband, normally the bad actors can be easily identified and called out from both political parties.  Democrats and Republicans turn campaign contributions and promises of power and influence into favorable, often custom-dictated legislative proposals that come straight from the companies that will benefit the most.  But the last six months of Republican rule in Wisconsin cannot be compared with anything else that has come before.  It’s a wholesale sellout to AT&T, and even statewide protests and media coverage on a massive scale appears to have only delivered a temporary reprieve, with strings attached.  What’s worse, even after the massive call-out against the telecom overreach, some of the proponents of broadband slash and burn politics are completely unrepentant, vowing to try again, perhaps when the public isn’t paying attention.

While some educational institutions believe any deal is better than no deal with the state’s ideologues, they will do themselves no favor if they drop the issue after the “compromise” is reached.  This all-out “war on broadband” cannot be appeased while AT&T’s true believers remain in office.

Let’s catch up.

In the last 48 hours, an ongoing series of “discussions” about the ultimate fate of WiscNet, Wisconsin’s institutional broadband cooperative network, have brought some assurances the network will not have to close its doors, at least not yet.  Yesterday, AT&T’s meddling to make changes to the “compromise” was on display, and one should never underestimate the cleverness of this company at finding ways to tie the hands of its targets with innocuous-looking legislative language.  Those stealthy last-minute additions can deliver a powerful sting only realized later, after the bill becomes law.

Angry phone calls pounded legislators in Madison, as did many newspaper editorials, TV news coverage (which we will review below), and a lobbying counterattack by librarians and educators all working to stop AT&T from winning an all out victory.  But make no mistake, this battle is by no means over.

For at least two years, WiscNet appears to have won the basic right to continue to exist, but only under a form of big government supervision.

The provision to ban award recipients from accepting broadband stimulus money from the federal government has been dropped.  Telecom industry lobbyists fought hard to get Wisconsin to virtually return federal stimulus money awarded to public broadband projects by trying to prohibit winners from accepting the checks.  Tens of millions already allocated to the University of Wisconsin would have had to be forfeit.  Instead, the changes worked out this week allow the university to use those funds to build and expand WiscNet to more state schools, libraries and public buildings.

WiscNet Coverage

Few legislators would openly admit trying to utterly destroy WiscNet, instead preferring “death by a thousand cuts,” writing rules and regulations that threaten the viability of the network’s ability to conduct operations.  While most of the onerous provisions were turned back, including those that would ban participation in Internet2 and limit WiscNet’s expansion, the compromise forces the network to face additional auditing and scrutiny by committed opponents to public broadband.

WiscNet put on a brave face, releasing the following statement:

We welcome an objective review of the relationship between the University of Wisconsin and WiscNet, a nonprofit cooperative.  The amendment allows the University of Wisconsin to continue as full members of WiscNet for the next two years, while the review helps everyone understand these issues better.  We look forward to a healthy dialogue with legislators, telecommunications providers, community partners, and others.  We are confident that those open lines of communication will be fruitful.

Don’t count on it.  Having followed these legislative battles for the past several years, one thing is certain: AT&T and their industry friends like Access Wisconsin will be back to try again and again and again.  As long as the current legislature includes members who are not only amenable to AT&T’s world views, but openly espouse them (and occasionally exceed them), WiscNet and public broadband in general is hardly safe.

Let’s remember who and what we are dealing with here:

The War on Broadband: At the core of the Republicans’ argument against public or institutional broadband is that it competes unfairly (somehow) against private corporate providers.  That argument ignores the fact WiscNet, among many other public and institutional networks, is essentially a cooperative, and one that existed long before phone and cable companies got into the Internet Service Provider business themselves.  Members pool resources to sustain a service that first and foremost delivers benefits to its users, not to external banks or investors.  Many institutional networks like WiscNet might even be compared to credit unions, delivering service to a pre-determined constituency that also happens to have a voice in how that network is run.

There are big banks and their supporters who detest credit unions because they represent “unfair competition” for them, because they can afford to deliver more service for less money.  It’s a familiar argument when you listen to some Republican senators in Wisconsin argue that the very existence of WiscNet represents anti-competitive behavior, harming fellow networks like Badgernet (another state institutional network).  It should not be a surprise to our readers to learn Badgernet is a network largely serviced by AT&T, and charges radically higher prices for its service because of what the phone company charges them for access.

The conservative movement in Wisconsin has been largely content dismissing broadband support in Wisconsin as a luxury perk, despite the fact the state scores 43rd out of the 50 best-wired states.  In addition to the purposeful distortions coming from those opposing networks like WiscNet, some have been reduced to arguing academia simply wants these networks for fast access to porn and copyrighted content.

Can Wisconsin afford their asking price?

“Help” from Dollar-A-Holler Mouthpieces like Access Wisconsin: This group, funded by the commercial telecommunications companies it represents at the expense of ordinary consumers, claims it is a helper in delivering an improved broadband experience in Wisconsin.  So helpful, in fact, it joined with AT&T and the state Republicans in calling for federal broadband stimulus money to be returned and not spent in the state for improved service.  While Access Wisconsin attacks government subsidies it doesn’t like, its member companies run to the bank with over $90 million annually in federally-mandated Universal Service payments.  The group is even upset the University of Wisconsin didn’t use state-based providers and contractors to build their expanded fiber network.  That comes as little surprise considering the University reached out to several of Access Wisconsin’s member companies (and AT&T) and found none interested in helping out.

The War on Libraries, Schools, and Taxpayers: The proposed cuts in library spending are deemed so dire by many patrons, they have begun to suspect the Republican majority would rather see people buy books at Wal-Mart than check them out for free at the town library.  On top of the budget cuts, broadband costs for schools and libraries would explode if these institutions were forced to buy access from Badgernet.

The party of “fiscal sanity” supported killing off cost-effective, money-saving broadband from WiscNet to fulfill a rigid ideological framework that would ultimately deliver less service for a lot more money.

Let’s compare prices for a moment.  Badgernet, which gets wholesale access from AT&T, charges prices that are far higher than WiscNet charges.  Badgernet itself is not the problem, its wholesale supplier is.  To defray the costs, the state of Wisconsin subsidizes Badgernet to the tune of nearly $17 million annually, to keep prices affordable for libraries and schools.  That $17 million effectively goes straight into AT&T’s bank account.  But that subsidy only gets you so far.  Badgernet charges $6,000 a month for 100Mbps service because that is the price required to recover costs charged by AT&T.  Many institutions rapidly outgrow this level of service and can upgrade to 1,000Mbps service, so long as they have a spare $49,500 a month laying around for broadband.

In contrast, clients on WiscNet can purchase 1,000Mbps service for about $10,000 a year.  Is that price disparity worth raising a ruckus over?  Apparently so.

The AT&T Dilemma: While AT&T did not win everything it wanted this year, prior evidence shows the company will be back to try again, just as it did with its statewide video franchising legislation that was supposed to deliver a competitive market for cable in the state.  In fact, it delivered higher prices instead.  Negotiating defensively with companies like this assures a war of attrition, as public providers find themselves compromising away core features of their network to protect whatever is left.

A much better idea for Wisconsin broadband is to launch an all-out counteroffensive.  Instead of stalemate compromises that constrain public networks, let’s demand they expand.  If there can be a co-op for dairy products and a credit union for banking, there certainly can be a community broadband cooperative that delivers service not just to institutions, but to members of the public and any independent provider who wants access — publicly owned for the public good.  That may not be WiscNet, designed under an institutional model, but it certainly need not be yet another overpriced offering from AT&T.

Before that can happen, Wisconsin residents need a cleanup — an upgrade — of the caliber of elected officials working on their behalf.  Thus far, a good percentage of Wisconsin’s current majority party seems far more interested in turning the state into a corporate lab experiment of their version of the free market done their way — for their benefit, at your expense.  The proof was at hand this week when the state nearly adopted a “cost saving” measure for broadband that would have cost Wisconsin taxpayers considerably more, all for the benefit of a handful of telecom companies.  Let’s help those legislators find a new day job sooner rather than later.

After that, WiscNet needs a legislative advocate of its own to introduce measures that undo the damage and then build on WiscNet’s success by expanding its reach and keeping it affordable.

Timeline: Tracking Wisconsin’s Awakening of the Wisconsin Republicans’ Broadband Agenda

Too often, broadband policy debates are too arcane for the general public to grasp.  Most people in the state probably never heard of WiscNet, and don’t realize when they might be using it.  But what they do understand is pay-for-play politics that hits them in the pocketbook.  As state residents learned the Republican majority wanted to ban the provider that delivers the most service for the least amount of money in favor of AT&T, they got involved and helped temporarily defeat the plan.

[flv width=”512″ height=”298″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WISC Madison UW Schools Voice Concerns About Budget Measure Affecting Internet 6-7-11.m4v[/flv]

June 7th: WISC-TV in Madison explains to viewers the plan to kill WiscNet would carry a pricetag of at least $70,000 in Madison alone, with potentially millions more at stake, all for the industry’s claim of a “level playing field.” (2 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WAOW Wausau Library Internet 6-08-11.mp4[/flv]

June 8th: WAOW-TV in Wausau discovers what the war on WiscNet would do to Internet access in area libraries.  (2 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WFRV Green Bay WiscNet Deleted 6-12-11.mp4[/flv]

June 12th: WFRV-TV in Green Bay tells its viewers the cost to procure Internet access in area universities could increase from $70,000 to more than $400,000, all to benefit private providers who want to compete at much higher price points.  (1 minute)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WXOW LaCrosse Pulling the Plug on WiscNet 6-13-11.mp4[/flv]

June 13th: LaCrosse residents are told they’ll pay more for less if large telecommunications companies get their wish to knock out inexpensive broadband through WiscNet.  WXOW-TV lead the 5pm evening news with news the bill was a last minute addition that received full support from state Republicans.  (2 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WEAU Eau Claire WiscNet 6-14-11.mp4[/flv]

June 14th: WEAU-TV in Eau Claire reports Sen. Terry Moulton (R-23rd District) got an earful from area hospitals about the terrible impact the shutdown of WiscNet would have there, which concerned him.  The station also reports on the threat to broadband funding in rural Chippewa Valley.  (Loud Volume Warning) (2 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WQOW Eau Claire WiscNet Targeted 6-14-11.mp4[/flv]

June 14th: Eau Claire station WQOW-TV reports university students and academia generally faced the end of unlimited bandwidth if the state proposal to do away with WiscNet were to pass into law.  A telecom industry lobbyist claims the bill would allow private providers to deliver comparable service to institutions, but one local institution found an amazing price disparity: $2,500/yr with WiscNet or $1,000,000/yr with a private provider.  (2 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WXOW La Crosse New Amendments 6-15-11.mp4[/flv]

June 15th: Newly elected Rep. Steve Doyle introduces amendments to turn back Republican proposals in the legislature that would harm statewide broadband networks, reports WXOW-TV in La Crosse.  (2 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WKOW Madison WiscNet will stay the same in budget 6-16-11.mp4[/flv]

June 16th: WKOW-TV in Madison reports a compromise deal which will keep service running as-is for now, but subject WiscNet to government approval of any expansion efforts.  (1 minute)

Vincent, one of our regular Stop the Cap! readers sent along a link to a story about the decrepit state of American broadband: it’s a real mess for those who can’t get it, can’t get enough of it, and compare it against what other people abroad are getting.

Cracked delivers the top five reasons why American broadband sucks.  Be sure and read their take (adult language), but we have some thoughts of our own to share:

#5 Some of Us Just Plain Can’t Get It

Large sections of the prairie states, the mountain states, and the desert states can’t get broadband no matter how much they want it.  That’s because they are a hundred miles or more from the nearest cable system and depend on the phone companies — especially AT&T, Frontier, CenturyLink, and Windstream to deliver basic DSL.  AT&T is trying as hard as possible to win the right to abandon rural America altogether with the elimination of their basic service obligation.  Verizon has sold off some of their most rural territories, including the entire states of Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, and West Virginia.  CenturyLink has absorbed Qwest in the least populated part of America — the mountain and desert west.

Frontier and Windstream are betting their business models on rural DSL, and while some are grateful to have anything resembling broadband, neither company earns spectacular customer ratings.

So long as rural broadband is not an instant profit winner for the phone companies selling it, rural America will remain dependent on dial-up or [shudder] satellite fraudband.

#4 Often There are No Real Options for Service (and No Competition)

Cracked has discovered the wonderfully inaccurate world of broadband mapping, where the map shows you have plentiful broadband all around, but phone calls to the providers on the list bring nothing but gales of laughter.  As if you are getting service at your house.  Ever.  Stop the Cap! hears regularly from the broadband-deprived, some who have had to be more innovative than the local phone company ever was looking for ways to get service.  Some have paid to bury their own phone cable to get DSL the phone company was reluctant to install, others have created super-powered Wi-Fi networks to share a neighbor’s connection.  The rest live with broadband envy, watching for any glimpse of phone trucks running new wires up and down the road.

Competition is a concept foreign to most Americans confronted with one cable company and one phone company charging around the same price for service.  The most aggressive competition comes when a community broadband provider throws a monkey wrench into the duopoly.  Magically, rate hikes are few and fleeting and speeds are suddenly much better.  Hmmm.

#3 Those Who Have Access Still Lag Behind the Rest of the World

We're #35!

This is an unnerving problem, especially when countries like Lithuania are now kicking the United States into the broadband corner.  You wouldn’t believe we’re that bad off listening to providers, who talk about the innovative and robust broadband economy — the one that is independent of their lousy service.  In fact, the biggest impediment to more innovation may be those same providers.  Some have an insatiable appetite for money — money from you, money from content producers, money from taxpayers, more money from you, and by the way there better be a big fat check from Netflix in the mail this week for using our pipes!

Where is the real innovation?  Community providers like Greenlight, Fibrant, and EPB that deliver their respective communities kick-butt broadband — service other providers would like to shut down at all costs.  Not every commercial provider is an innovation vacuum.  Verizon FiOS and Google’s new Gigabit fiber network in Kansas City represent innovation through investment.  Unfortunately Wall Street doesn’t approve.

Still not convinced?  Visit Japan or Korea and then tell us how American broadband resembles NetZero or AOL dial-up in comparison.

#2 Bad Internet = Shi**y Economy

The demagoguery of corporate-financed dollar-a-holler groups like “FreedomWorks” and “Americans for Prosperity” is without bounds.  Whether it was attacking broadband stimulus funding, community broadband endeavors, or Net Neutrality, these provider shills turned broadband expansion into something as worthwhile as a welfare benefit for Cadillac drivers.  Why are we spending precious tax dollars on Internet access so people can steal movies and download porn they asked.  Why are we letting communities solve their own broadband problems building their own networks when it should be commercial providers being the final arbiter of who deserves access and who does not?  Net Neutrality?  Why that’s a socialist government takeover, it surely is.

It’s like watching railroad robber barons finance protest movements against public road construction.  We can’t have free roads paved by the government unfairly competing with monopoly railway companies, can we?  That’s anti-American!

The cost of inadequate broadband in an economy that has jettisoned manufacturing jobs to Mexico and the Far East is greater than we realize.  Will America sacrifice its leadership in the Internet economy to China the same way we did with our textile, electronics, appliances, furniture, and housewares industries?  China, Japan and Korea are building fiber optic broadband networks for their citizens and businesses.  We’re still trying to figure out how to wire West Virginia for 3Mbps DSL.

#1 At This Point, Internet Access is Kind of a Necessity

The United Nations this week declared the Internet to be a basic human right.  Conservatives scoffed at that, ridiculing the declaration for a variety of reasons ranging from disgust over any body that admits Hugo Chavez, to the lack of a similar declaration for gun ownership, and the usual interpretation of broadband as a high tech play-toy.  Some folks probably thought the same way about the telephone and electricity around 1911.

Yes, the Internet can be frivolous, but then so can a phone call.  Cursed by the U.S. Post Office for destroying their first class mail business, by telephone directory publishers, and those bill payment envelope manufacturers, the Internet does have its detractors.  But should we go back to picking out commemorative stamps at the post office?  Your local phone and cable company sure doesn’t think so.  We don’t either.

Sharing your Netflix account with your spouse or your son at college? Under a new Tennessee law, both you and the other party could spend up to a year in jail for “theft of entertainment services” if Netflix, or any other entertainment service says that is not okay.

Eyebrows were raised in Tennessee this week as Republican Gov. Bill Haslam admitted he signed the new copyright protection bill into law while telling reporters “he wasn’t familiar with the details of the legislation.”

Rep. Gerald McCormick (R-Chattanooga), who worked last summer to completely deregulate AT&T’s phone service in Tennessee spent this spring pushing for adoption of a bill sponsored by Nashville record labels to up-end state copyright law in favor of content producers.

The entertainment industry, having failed to win wholesale support of its copyright protection agenda in Congress has now taken to lobbying individual statehouses for new state copyright laws.  Tennessee is the first among 50 states to extend its long-standing cable-TV theft statute to include content over the Internet.

Under the law, anyone other than the account owner who uses their account name and password, even with permission, is a violator and subject to a criminal misdemeanor charge punishable by up to a year in jail and a fine of $2,500. If the username and password opens access to content collectively worth more than $500, the charge becomes a felony with correspondingly harsher penalites and fines.

Some reporters questioned whether the law could mean sharing your Netflix, iTunes or Rhapsody account with an immediate family member meant you were breaking the law.  The answer is, you might, although bill supporters doubt it would be prosecuted.

“What becomes not legal is if you send your user name and password to all your friends so they can get free subscriptions,” McCormick told the Associated Press.

Currently, most online content providers don’t have a problem with immediate family members sharing accounts.  Netflix allows at least two concurrent video streams of its online content.  Music services often recognize three or more “authorized devices” on which content can be shared and accessed.

But if attitudes change, content providers can file complaints when they realize their service is being accessed by multiple parties at the same time or in multiple places.

"Gerald McCormick will support anything if you staple a big check to your cover letter."

The music industry in Nashville openly admits it strongly advocated for passage of the bill, claiming the music business loses millions from account sharing.  But critics of the new law attack it as overly broad.  One defense lawyer suggested it is so broad, it could be used to prosecute people who share magazines.

Proving a case to hard-working law enforcement officials could also present a problem says Jeff Polock, a Knoxville-based law enforcement and consumer advocate.

“We have enough trouble fighting crime on the streets,” Polock tells Stop the Cap! “While law enforcement officials appreciate the dilemma of copyright theft, many officers are not going to be technically skilled in building a case over who shared what password in the dorms at the University of Tennessee.”

Polock suspects the new law will be wielded against larger wholesale copyright offenses, if only to avoid the threat of negative publicity.

“Can you imagine what the local evening news would do if they arrested some father in Chattanooga for sharing his iTunes account with his daughter at school here in Knoxville?,” Polock wonders.  “It’s not like these people are downloading stolen copies of content they are not paying for — they are running a single iTunes account so the parents can monitor what their kids are buying, watching, or listening to while away from home.”

As for McCormick, Polock has choice words.

“Gerald McCormick will support anything if you staple a big check to your cover letter,” Polock says. “The man is never too far away from corporate interests trying to win favorable legislation in the state legislature.”

Phillip Dampier

Stop the Cap! reader Kimon discovered the debate over Net Neutrality is far from over when alerting us to a strong rebuke of the net policy in a number of newspapers published regionally by GateHouse Media.

Macedon, N.Y. resident Cheryl Miller doesn’t like the federal government involving itself in the Internet, and considers the “physical part of the Internet” the private property of Internet Service Providers:

When a progressive liberal takes up a cause, you can bet he’s found another way to undermine someone else’s liberty. The issue of “net neutrality” is a prime example of this rule.

The concept of net neutrality has piggybacked into recent public interest stories about groups with high-minded names like Free Press and Public Knowledge — stories about Internet-assisted food, clothing and book drives for the needy around the world, and other such humanitarian and environmental endeavors. It is sneakily implied that the success of such undertakings are the result of net neutrality principles, but they are not.

[…] Proposed net neutrality legislation would prohibit ISPs from charging different rates for various types of content or services, such as is done with cable and satellite television (think pay-per-view and premium channels). Restricting ISPs from operating in profitable ways is a disincentive to invest in more bandwidth to better serve customers, and likewise discourages innovations that could benefit consumers. More regulation will result in less profit, less competition, higher prices and a stunted Internet.

For Miller, any government policy that interferes with AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast’s view of how the Internet should be ordered amounts to a government takeover of the Internet, especially when the government can tell providers they cannot prioritize traffic or charge customers different prices to access different content.

Here at Stop the Cap!, we were unimpressed with Miller’s arguments and partisan cheap shots, especially at the expense of public policy groups like Free Press and Public Knowledge.  Perhaps she does not realize conservative groups like the Christian Coalition of America are also supporters of Net Neutrality.  But we don’t necessarily blame her either, considering all of the money being spent by corporate-funded groups to distort Net Neutrality’s ultimate goal: to ensure the same formula that made the Internet a runaway success is kept firmly in place.

Our formal response appeared in the same newspapers this afternoon:

Phillip Dampier

Stop the Cap! reader Angela sent us a print-out, by mail, of a recent guest editorial published by the online news site, the Lincoln Tribune.  White, who is 89 and lives in North Carolina was irritated by the piece, written by Kinston, N.C. mayor B.J. Murphy.

“B.J., who was all of 29 when he was elected in 2009, is the first Republican mayor in Kinston since Reconstruction, and after writing pro-cable company nonsense like he did in that [online] paper, he better be the last,” White wrote.  “My mother and father grew up with the same kind of monopoly these cable companies have today, only then it was the damn railroads.  How we ended up electing a mayor who wants us back in that era is beyond me.”

What caught my attention early on skimming the mayor’s views was a single passage early on in his piece:

Municipal broadband, also known as Government Owned Broadband Networks (GONs) is quickly becoming our state’s new enterprise service of choice for cities and towns.

Really?  GONs?  Now I’ve been editing Stop the Cap! since mid-2008, and we’ve covered North Carolina’s broadband landscape extensively, and this is the first time I’ve ever seen community-owned broadband referred to as “Government Owned Broadband Networks.”  A quick Google search reveals why: it’s a loaded term conjured up by corporate-funded, dollar-a-holler groups that oppose public involvement in broadband.  People don’t like “government” they surmise, so let’s relabel these networks accordingly.  Besides, bin Laden is dead and we can’t use him.

In this case, the acronym ‘GONs’ doesn’t even make sense — shouldn’t it be GOBN?  But that wouldn’t sound as demagogic as “gones,” would it?

Your cable dollars pay for consultants who cook up these silly labels, which are not even accurate.  Community-owned broadband need not be a “government-owned” enterprise it all.  Some are public-private partnerships, others are co-ops or run on a not-for-profit basis independent of government.  What they do have in common is the ability to offer better broadband than the “take it or leave it” service many cable and phone companies provide, if they deliver it at all.

After getting past the pretzel-twisted acronym, it’s clear Mayor Murphy is no fan of community broadband.

I believe we should refrain from the temptation to compete with private communications providers on services and infrastructure that we are not equipped to properly manage.

Kinston, N.C.

Who is “we” exactly?  The city of Kinston?  Mayor Murphy must not believe in the talents and abilities of his employees.  Is Mayor Murphy confessing he is in the ironic position of attacking local government while also being an integral part of it?

Most of Murphy’s editorial is a rehash of talking points already delivered by dollar-a-holler groups like the Heartland Institute or something called the Coalition for the New Economy.  The hypocrisy of both “small government” groups calling for more government regulation on certain broadband providers while exempting their corporate friends and backers is lost on them.

Murphy suggests municipal utilities are not well run, and the locals evidently complain regularly about the one serving Kinston.  Are the complaints about service in other towns about companies like Duke Energy and CP&L — private providers — any fewer in number?  Who exactly loves their local gas and electric company?

Murphy concedes “many cities and towns throughout the years have seen voids in service or infrastructure, not easily duplicated by the private sector.  Those areas of service tend to be water, sewer, and sometimes electricity.”

Our rural grandparents lived that life, waiting for electricity and telephone service that private companies refused to provide because it was simply not profitable enough for them to do so.  In fact, NC Public Power was created precisely because private companies wouldn’t deliver electric service in rural North Carolina.  Just 30 years ago, the state allowed municipal construction of generating plants because there were fears private companies lacked the resources to handle the growth in electricity demand.  The Three Musketeers: Mayor Murphy, the Heartland Institute, and the “Coalition” would prefer cities go dark waiting for private capital to show up?  And at what rate of return would they demand from a state in desperate circumstances?  Imagine the complaints rolling in over that.

And so it goes with rural broadband — a service still not reliably available throughout rural communities in Murphy’s state and 49 others.  The problem of rural North Carolina’s pervasive lack of consistent service is so bad, the Golden LEAF Foundation targeted rural broadband development in 69 North Carolina counties, most lacking more than the slowest speed DSL.  Lenoir County, which includes Kinston is not among them.  Perhaps Murphy’s myopic views apply in his local community, but they certainly don’t in large parts of the rest of the state.  Nobody is forcing the mayor to build Kinston a broadband network.  It would be nice if he didn’t advocate away that right for other less fortunate areas.

Golden LEAF Broadband Project (click to enlarge)

Golden LEAF’s initiative, which is just one of several projects in the state, has garnered more than 130 letters of support including approximately 70 from state, county and municipal officials and 12 from middle-mile and last-mile service providers interested in using the fiber network to reach consumers and small businesses.  Part of the project is being funded by federal tax dollars.  Many of the providers eager to connect to that network are private companies, who seem to have no problem hopping on board a fiber backbone paid for, in part, by taxpayer dollars.

Other projects are community fiber to the home networks, designed to support high bandwidth requirements of the digital, knowledge-based economy.  These community providers didn’t appear out of nowhere.  Communities built these networks after incumbent providers refused upgrade requests, repeatedly.  Some communities even open up their existing municipal fiber networks to residential use.

The hue and cry among those opposing community broadband usually begins when these new providers start selling service to the public.  Private providers don’t complain when public networks provide service only to schools, health care facilities, and public buildings.  But when anyone can sign up, the complaints rage from corporate-funded dollar-a-holler groups, the companies themselves, and certain politicians, some who take campaign contributions from the other two.  The talking points are remarkably similar.  Too similar.

Murphy

Mayor Murphy makes an unfortunate comparison in his editorial — to those railroads which made Angela’s hair stand on end.

“His only experience with that monopoly and the barons who ran it came from his American History class and he wasn’t paying attention,” she says.

Government better serves the people by creating the framework for private business to thrive, not by actually owning or competing with private, tax-paying businesses.  Rarely, if ever, will one see two railroad tracks side by side owned by different companies.  Yet, that is what would happen with broadband service in many communities. In many cases, GONs would essentially use taxpayer dollars to build Internet infrastructure on top of that which has already been put in place by private providers.

Uh…

Is the mayor actually promoting a monopoly for broadband?  I suggest the mayor read our earlier piece about the historical plight of Danville, Virginia — a community on the border with North Carolina.  He will learn that those one-railroad-towns desperately wanted a second or third railway serving their community, if only to escape the horrible and expensive service monopolies and duopolies provided in places without sufficient competition.  It took decades to break the railway monopolies up, and consumers and businesses overpaid millions of dollars to robber barons who fixed prices and the type of service communities would receive.  That kind of control could make or break the economy of a town or city.  So it will be with broadband.

Of course, the mayor could suggest we liberalize access to existing broadband infrastructure and allow competitors to sell services on every available network, or allow a community to build one giant fiber optic pipeline on which every provider can deliver service, but we know what his free market friends would say about that.

Boiled down, Murphy’s arguments come from a position of already having access to the broadband resources he needs, wants, and can afford.  That’s a classic example of “I have mine, too bad you don’t have yours”-politics.

That seals the fate of rural North Carolina to an indefinite future of never getting broadband service.