Net Neutrality = Socialism?

The four leading candidates in North Carolina’s Republican U.S. Senate primary, including one heavily backed by the state’s largest telecom companies, all said Monday they oppose Net Neutrality and would not allow the federal government to intervene in the business interests of cable and phone companies.

Dr. Greg Brannon, Heather Grant, Rev. Mark Harris, and current state House Speaker Thom Tillis all agreed during an hour-long televised debate that the government had no business telling companies like Time Warner Cable and AT&T how to manage Internet traffic.

Thom Tillis, who became speaker of the house in 2011, is heavily backed with financial contributions from AT&T, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon. While speaker, Tillis supported the Time Warner Cable-backed bill to ban community-owned broadband networks in the state and helped shepherd the legislation through the General Assembly.

Tillis told viewers that North Carolina customers already have a choice of Internet Service Providers so there is no reason for the government to interfere.

“The last thing we need is the government to tell cable providers and Internet providers how fast or slow the content needs to be,” Tillis said.

Tillis was honored in 2011 as ALEC’s “Legislator of the Year” and received an undisclosed cash reward.

Last year, Tillis was accused of having a secret business relationship with Time Warner Cable by Rep. Robert Brawley (R-Iredell), who resigned his chairmanship of the Finance Committee over the matter.

Brawley’s district is served in part by MI-Connection, a community-owned cable company that was prevented from expanding by a state law restricting municipal broadband.

“You slamming my office door shut, standing in front of me and stating that you have a business relationship with Time Warner,” Brawley wrote in his resignation letter. “MI-Connection is being operated just as any other free enterprise system and should be allowed to do so without the restrictions placed on them by the proponents of Time Warner.”

Dr. Brannon said without the Constitution giving direct authority for the federal government to regulate broadband, it cannot legally get involved. There was no broadband service to regulate when the Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787.

“The worst thing in the world we could do is for the federal government to put in barriers to make things fair,” Brannon said. Any attempt to impose fairness on Internet traffic would be a clear-cut case of socialism, Brannon added.

Grant and Harris both agreed with the others.

The four candidates are vying for the Senate seat held by Democrat Kay Hagan. She holds a different view.

“I support Net Neutrality because it speaks to the values central to our American Democracy – free speech and equal opportunity,” Hagan said in 2008. “With an open Internet, we can ensure communities throughout the state of North Carolina and the nation receive equal access to the Internet as well as the information contained there, to help ensure our country can compete on a global level.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/UNC-TV NC GOP Senate Debate 2014 – Net Neutrality – Free Market or Socialism 4-30-14.flv[/flv]

Watch occasionally incoherent remarks from four Republican candidates debating the Internet and Net Neutrality as part of the North Carolina Senate primary. (4:31)

Meredith Attwell Baker is moving on up…

Meredith Attwell-Baker, former FCC commissioner and high-level Comcast lobbyist has been named the new president of the CTIA – the wireless industry’s chief lobbying group and trade association.

“I am thrilled to have this opportunity to use my experience in both the public and private sectors to help the vital and fast-growing wireless communications industry,” Baker said in a press release. “CTIA should be in the center of discussions about how wireless is reshaping our economy, our society and our culture.”

Baker has cashed in on her two-year stint as a Republican commissioner at the FCC after resigning in the middle of her term to accept a high-paying lobbying job at Comcast only months after voting in favor of Comcast’s merger deal with NBCUniversal. Criticism of her hiring by one Seattle youth advocacy group almost cost it financial support when Comcast initially threatened to yank its funding.

The revolving door between the private sector and those that regulate it has rarely been as clear than at the Federal Communications Commission. Baker will assume a position once held by current FCC chairman Thomas Wheeler. Another former chairman of the FCC, Michael Powell, now runs the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the cable industry’s lobbying group.

Baker will be well-compensated at the CTIA with a salary likely to approach $3 million a year. Baker is the daughter-in-law of former secretary of state James A. Baker.

The Kansas State Legislature website makes it very difficult to find exactly who wrote and introduced Senate Bill 304, the laughingly titled, “Municipal Communication’s Network and Private Telecommunications Investment Safeguards Act.”

In fact, the bill should be titled, “The Big Telecom Duopoly Protection Act,” because it makes it almost impossible for any publicly owned network to get off the ground and compete in the state of Kansas, even in places where the nearest cable or DSL connection is dozens of miles away.

Instead of naming names, the legislature’s website prefers to show the bill introduced by the Committee on Commerce, sponsored by the Committee on Commerce, and referred to the Committee on Commerce for further consideration. Since they apparently wrote and co-sponsored the bill, we don’t expect it will take them too long to rubber stamp their approval.

The Republican-dominated members of the committee are already well-acquainted with the state’s largest cable and phone companies, as their campaign donations from 2012 illustrate:

• Sen. Julia Lynn (R), Chairperson: AT&T ($1,750), Comcast ($1,500), CenturyLink ($1,000);
• Sen. Susan Wagle (R), Vice-Chair: Cox Communications ($1,750), AT&T ($1,500), Kansas Cable Telecommunication Association ($1,250), Comcast ($1,000), CenturyLink ($1,000);
• Sen. Tom Holland (D), Ranking Member: AT&T ($1,000);
• Sen. Pat Apple (R): AT&T ($1,000), Comcast ($1,000), Kansas Cable Telecommunication Association ($250), Time Warner Cable ($250), Verizon ($250), CenturyLink ($250);
• Sen. Jim Denning (R): CenturyLink ($250);
• Sen. Oletha Faust-Goudeau (D): AT&T ($1,000), Cox Communications ($1000), Kansas Cable Telecommunication Association ($250);
• Sen. Jeff Longbine (R): AT&T ($2,000), CenturyLink ($1,750), Cox Communications ($500);
• Sen. Jeff Melcher (R): CenturyLink ($1,000);
• Sen. Robert Olson (R): AT&T ($1,750), Comcast ($1,500), CenturyLink ($1,250), Cox Communications ($750);
• Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook (R): Comcast ($1,000).

Data: Project Vote Smart, 1/30/2014

One of the chairs of the North Carolina House Finance Committee abruptly resigned his chairmanship on the House floor Wednesday, submitting a letter read aloud in the chamber that accused fellow Republican House Speaker Thom Tillis (R-Mecklenburg) of having an unexplained business relationship with Time Warner Cable.

Rep. Robert Brawley (R-Iredell) wrote Tillis burst into his office demanding to know about a bill Brawley introduced that would have weakened the 2011 law Tillis strongly supported that severely restricted publicly owned broadband networks in the state.

“You slamming my office door shut, standing in front of me and stating that you have a business relationship with Time Warner and wanting to know what the bill was about,” Brawley wrote in his resignation letter. “You and I both know the bill stifles the competition with MI Connections in Mooresville. MI Connections is being operated just as any other free enterprise system and should be allowed to do so without the restrictions placed on them by the proponents of Time Warner.”

Tillis’ office described the resignation of Brawley’s chairmanship as “a mutual decision.”

Tillis was honored in 2011 as ALEC’s “Legislator of the Year” and received an undisclosed cash reward. Time Warner Cable is a corporate member of ALEC.

House Bill 557, introduced by Brawley, would have permitted an exception under state law for the community-owned MI Connection cable system to expand its area of service to include economic development sites, public safety facilities, governmental facilities, and schools and colleges located in and near the city of Statesville. It would also allow the provider to extend service based on the approval of the Board of County Commissioners and, with respect to schools, the Iredell County School Board.

The bill died in the Committee on Government earlier this month.

MI Connection is the publicly owned and operated cable and Internet system serving the towns of Mooresville, Davidson and Cornelius in the counties of Mecklenburg and Iredell. It was originally a former Adelphia-owned cable system that fell into disrepair before it was sold in a bankruptcy proceeding. MI Connection has proved financially challenging to the local communities it serves because the antiquated cable system required significant and costly upgrades, faces fierce competition from AT&T and Time Warner Cable, and lacks the technological advantage fiber to the home offers other public networks like Greenlight in Wilson and Fibrant in Salisbury. Despite the challenges, MI Connection has successfully upgraded its broadband infrastructure with the fastest speeds available in the area — up to 60/10Mbps.

Tillis helped shepherd into law the 2011 bill that Time Warner Cable helped write and sponsor designed to stop public networks like MI Connection from expanding and new public networks ever seeing the light of day. The legislation places strict limits on public broadband network deployment and financing. The bill Brawley introduced would have chipped away at the law’s limits on network expansion. Brawley’s letter suggests Tillis had direct involvement stopping his bill from getting further consideration.

Brawley

Both Brawley and Tillis represent portions of the MI Connection service area.

Time Warner Cable has a long history pushing for community broadband bans in North Carolina, but the bills never became law when the legislature was still in the hands of Democrats. But in late 2010, Republicans took control of the state house for the first time in more than a century. Time Warner Cable’s fortunes brightened considerably under Republicans like Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Wake). Avila willingly met with Time Warner Cable’s top lobbyist to coordinate movement on the community broadband ban legislation she introduced and after it became law was honored by the state cable lobby at a retreat in Asheville.

Tillis, who became speaker of the house in 2011 under the new GOP majority, received $37,000 in telecom contributions in 2010–2011 (despite running unopposed in 2010), which is more than any other state lawmaker and significantly more than the $4,250 he received 2006–2008 combined. AT&T, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon each gave Tillis $1,000 in early-mid January, just before he was sworn in as speaker on January 26. Tillis was in a key position to make sure the anti-competitive bill moved along the legislative pipeline.

Last summer, Time Warner Cable returned the favor inviting Tillis to serve a prominent role at a media event inaugurating its Wi-Fi network in time for last year’s Democratic National Convention, held at the Time Warner Cable Arena.

Despite all that, newspapers in the state are having trouble determining exactly what ties Tillis has to Time Warner Cable. The Raleigh News & Observer noted, “It’s unclear what relationship Tillis might have to Time Warner. His financial disclosure lists no connection.”

The Greensboro News & Record published a non-denial denial from Tillis spokesman Jordan Shaw: “Shaw said he doesn’t know of any business relationship between Tillis and Time Warner.” The paper added, “a regional Time-Warner spokesman said Tillis has no ties to the company.”

“Not knowing” is not a total denial and a legislator need not have direct ties to a company to be influenced by their agenda through lobbyists like the North Carolina Cable Telecommunications Association, the statewide cable trade association that includes Time Warner Cable as its largest member. Then there are third-party groups.

A May 7 editorial in the News & Observer pointed out Tillis does have close ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group financed in part by Time Warner Cable and cited by CEO Glenn Britt as a useful asset to the cable operator because it was “particularly focused on telecom matters.” The commentary, “ALEC’s Guy is Thom Tillis,” reminded readers Tillis wasn’t just a casual member of the corporate-funded group, he’s a national board member. In fact, Stop the Cap! has learned he was ALEC’s 2011 Legislator of the Year. On hand at the 2011 New Orleans ALEC event to applaud Tillis were more than two dozen fellow North Carolina Republican legislators, including Reps. Marilyn Avila and Julia Howard.

Among the model, corporate ghost-written bills ALEC maintains in its extensive database is one that restricts or bans publicly owned broadband networks, similar to what passed in North Carolina in 2011.

The fortunes of ALEC (and the corporations that underwrite its operations) have continued to improve in North Carolina this year. The News & Observer notes:

ALEC, as it’s known, has provided language for bills that [have been] used this session in North Carolina, ranging from creating an independent board to take charter school governance away from the State Board of Education to protecting a Philadelphia-based company from lawsuits involving asbestos exposure to installing an anti-union amendment in the state constitution. Closer to home, the Civitas Institute, a conservative group, used ALEC literature in an indoctrination…er, training…session for freshman lawmakers.

“I wish you’d turn the camera off now because I am going to get up and leave if you don’t,” said Rep. Julia Howard

Uncovering the corporate influence and pay to play politics pervasive in North Carolina’s legislature on broadband matters has proved historically scandalous for members and ex-members alike, as Stop the Cap! has reported for more than four years:

• In 2009, Rep. Ty Harrell (D-Wake) ran away from his own bill to ban community broadband after he admitted he ran into a hornet’s nest of controversy over the legislation, which was introduced because Time Warner approached him and asked for it. Later that same year he ran into another hornet’s nest over allegations of misused campaign funds and resigned his office;
• In 2010, Sen. David Hoyle admitted he introduced a community broadband ban in the North Carolina Senate that the cable industry wrote with his help. When asked about criticism that he was “carrying water” for the cable companies, Hoyle replied, “I’ve carried more water than Gunga Din for the business community – the people who pay the taxes.” He decided not to run for re-election;
• In 2011, life became uncomfortable for Rep. Julia Howard (R-Davie, Iredell), who became so upset over scrutiny she received from Raleigh’s NBC affiliate over the bill to ban community broadband, she threatened to flee the interview if the cameras were not shut off.

Tillis is following in others’ footsteps and is suspected of having even bigger political ambitions for 2014 — challenging the U.S. Senate seat now held by Democrat Kay Hagan.

The News & Observer thinks Tillis is forgetting about the people who elected him to office:

For North Carolinians of any political philosophy, however, the larger concern here is that laws are being written by those outside the state with only an ideological interest. ALEC, except for advancing its agenda, likely could care less about issues specific to North Carolina, things of intense, day-to-day concern to North Carolinians.

And not only are bills being influenced by ALEC, the speaker of the House is on the group’s board.

Thom Tillis and his Republican mates on Jones Street weren’t elected to march to orders issued by some national organization. Perhaps if they kept their eyes and ears open for constituents, their legislative agenda might be more about them and less about doing ALEC’s bidding.

Brawley himself is not free from controversy. In addition to attending the aforementioned ALEC event in New Orleans with Tillis, Avila, and Howard, earlier this year Brawley introduced House Bill 640, legislation that would roll back ethics reforms and allow lobbyists to once again give gifts to state lawmakers without any public disclosure.

Brawley told WRAL-TV that required ethics classes on gifts and disclosure requirements “are useless for anyone without internal ethics anyway. They only tell you the law. They do not guarantee integrity. What makes you think a person without ethics is going to obey a law anyway?”

The laws were enacted after a major 2006 scandal involving then-House Speaker Jim Black.

Corrections: In the original article, we mistakenly identified the News & Observer as a Charlotte newspaper. It is actually published in Raleigh. We also wrote that House Bill 557 died without being assigned to any committee for consideration. We received word the bill was actually referred to the Committee on Government on Apr. 4, 2013 where no further action was apparently taken. We regret the errors.

Tomorrow is election day in the United States. Stop the Cap! has reviewed both presidential candidates’ positions (or the lack thereof) as well as the past voting records and platforms of members of both major political parties. With this in mind, it is time for our election guide for broadband enthusiasts. Regardless of what candidate you support, please get out and vote!

Neither political party or candidate has been perfect on broadband advocacy or consumer protection.

We’ve been disappointed by the Obama Administration, whose FCC chairman has major problems standing up to large telecom companies and their friends in the Republican-led House of Representatives. Julius Genachowski promised a lot and delivered very little on broadband reform policies that protect both consumers and the open Internet. Both President Obama and Genachowski’s rhetoric simply have not matched the results.

Bitterly disappointing moments included Genachowski’s cave-in on Net Neutrality, leaving watered down net protections challenged in court by some of the same companies that praised Genachowski’s willingness to compromise. Genachowski’s thank you card arrived in the form of a lawsuit. His unwillingness to take the common sense approach of defining broadband as a “telecommunications service” has left Internet policies hanging by a tenuous thread, waiting to be snipped by the first D.C. federal judge with a pair of sharp scissors. But even worse, the FCC chairman’s blinders on usage caps and usage billing have left him unbelievably naive about this pricing scheme. No, Mr. Genachowski, usage pricing is not about innovation, it’s about monetizing broadband usage for even fatter profits at the expense of average consumers already overpaying for Internet access.

Obama

Unfortunately, the alternative choice may be worse. Let’s compare the two parties and their candidates:

The Obama Administration treats broadband comparably to alternative energy. Both deliver promise, but not if we wait for private companies to do all of the heavy lifting. The Obama Administration believes Internet expansion needs government assistance to overcome the current blockade of access for anyone failing to meet private Return On Investment requirements.

While this sober business analysis has kept private providers from upsetting investors with expensive capital investments, it has also allowed millions of Americans to go without service. The “incremental growth” argument advocated by private providers has allowed the United States’ leadership role on broadband to falter. In both Europe and Asia, even small nations now outpace the United States deploying advanced broadband networks which offer far higher capacity, usually at dramatically lower prices. Usually, other nations one-upping the United States is treated like a threat to national security. This time, the argument is that those other countries don’t actually need the broadband networks they have, nor do we.

The Obama Administration bows to the reality that private companies simply will not invest in unprofitable service areas unless the government helps pick up the tab. But those companies also want the government to spend the money with as little oversight over their networks as possible.

That sets up the classic conflict between the two political parties — Democrats who want to see broadband treated like a critically-important utility that deserves some government oversight in its current state and Republicans who want to leave matters entirely in the hands of private providers who they claim know best, and keep the government out of it.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s regular cave-ins for the benefit of Big Telecom brought heavy criticism from us for his “cowardly lion” act.

Just about the only thing the two parties agree on is reforming the Universal Service Fund, which had until recently been directing millions to keeping traditional phone service up and running even as Americans increasingly abandon landlines.

But differences quickly emerge from there.

The Obama Administration believes broadband is increasingly a service every American must be able to access if sought. The Romney-Ryan campaign hasn’t spoken to the issue much beyond the general Republican platform that market forces will resolve virtually any problem when sufficient demand arises.

Republicans almost uniformly vociferously oppose Net Neutrality, believing broadband networks are the sole property of the providers that offer the service. Many Republicans characterize Net Neutrality as a “government takeover” of the Internet and a government policy that would “micromanage broadband” like it was a railroad. Somehow, they seem to have forgotten railroad monopolies used to be a problem for the United States in the early 20th century. Robber barons, anyone?

President Obama pushed for strong Net Neutrality protections for Americans, but his FCC chairman Julius Genachowski caved to the demands of AT&T, Verizon, and the cable industry by managing Net Neutrality with a disappointing “light touch” for those providers. (We’d call it “fondling” ourselves.)

Democrats favor wireless auctions and spectrum expansion, but many favor limits that reserve certain spectrum for emerging competitors and for unlicensed wireless use. Republicans trend towards “winner take all” auctions which probably will favor deep-pocketed incumbents like AT&T and Verizon. The GOP also does not support holding back as much spectrum for unlicensed use.

Republicans have been strongly supporting the deregulation of “special access” service, critical to competitors who need backhaul access to the Internet sold by large phone companies like AT&T. Critics contend the pricing deregulation has allowed a handful of phone companies to lock out competitors, particularly on the wireless side, with extremely high prices for access without any pricing oversight. The FCC under the Obama Administration suspended that deregulation last summer, a clear sign it thinks current pricing is suspect.

Romney

Opponents of usage-based pricing of Internet access have gotten shabby treatment from both parties. Republicans have shown no interest in involving themselves in a debate about the fairness of usage pricing, but neither have many Democrats.

As for publicly-owned broadband networks, sometimes called municipal broadband, the Republican record on the state and federal level is pretty clear — they actively oppose community broadband networks and many have worked with corporate front groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to ban them on the state level. Democrats tend to be more favorable, but not always.

The biggest problem broadband advocates face on the federal and state level is the ongoing pervasive influence of Big Telecom campaign contributions. While politicians uniformly deny that corporate money holds any influence over their voting, the record clearly indicates otherwise. Nothing else explains the signatures from Democrats that received healthy injections of campaign cash from companies like AT&T, and then used the company’s own talking points to oppose Net Neutrality.

But in a story of the lesser of two-evils, we cannot forget AT&T spends even more to promote Republican interests, because often those interests are shared by AT&T:

• AT&T has spent nearly $900,000 on self-identified “tea party” candidates pledged to AT&T’s deregulation policies;
• AT&T gave nearly $2 million to the Republican Governors Association — a key part of their ALEC agenda;
• AT&T gave $100,000 to everyone’s favorite dollar-a-holler Astroturf group — The Heartland Institute, which opposes Net Neutrality and community broadband.