Martin

While thousands of West Virginians continue to struggle without any broadband service, the state government is having trouble finding a way to spend up to $40 million in broadband stimulus money on institutional broadband projects that often already have cutting edge fiber networks.

State officials won $126 million in federal stimulus grant money last year, from which the state announced it would lay more than 2,400 miles of fiber optic cable to wire government offices, schools, and libraries.  Now, a vocal critic says a combination of government waste, preferential treatment for the state’s largest phone company — Frontier Communications, and bad planning could leave up to $40 million of the grant money on the table, unspent for better broadband.

Jim Martin, president of business broadband provider Citynet, says the state overestimated the number of public facilities that need broadband improvements.  Many of the facilities involved already have high speed service, and do not require additional infrastructure.  As the grant expires, Martin says he would not be surprised if the state only managed to fund the installation of 300 miles of fiber.

Martin believes funds should be redirected to bolstering the state’s “middle mile” network — fiber infrastructure that would serve as an open network backbone to ensure capacity exists to support growing broadband demands in the state.  Instead, Martin told the Charleston Gazette, the state has been spending money providing fiber broadband to small libraries with fewer than a dozen computers that are unlikely to have the resources to pay the monthly fees Frontier Communications will charge for the service.

“There’s no value to any of this to anyone but Frontier,” Martin said.

In fact, Martin believes many of the current projects funded by taxpayer dollars deliver enormous benefits to Frontier’s bottom line, but only incremental improvement to some institutional users.

Martin claims Frontier has, in some cases, only spent enough money to install fiber from the pole to the building. That assures Frontier of being the only provider that can deliver ongoing service to institutional users.  Martin has a dog in this fight — his company competes with Frontier for business service contracts.

West Virginia's current broadband map shows large areas of the state have access to no broadband at all. (Olive color = No broadband.) (Click to enlarge)

Before the grant expires in February 2013, the state is hurrying to bolster its list of would-be recipients.

Jimmy Gianato, the state’s homeland security chief, said his office recently identified 330 additional “replacement locations” — higher education facilities, schools, health departments and state-owned hospitals — that could be eligible for the project, according to the newspaper.

Not on the list are individual consumers and small businesses who currently do not have access to any broadband service.  One of the ongoing problems of broadband stimulus funding is that public funds are often available to bolster broadband for state and locally-owned institutions, such as government offices, health care facilities, schools and libraries, but no funding to improve infrastructure for individual broadband service for “last mile” users.  This can result in Cadillac-style installations for small schools and libraries who win superb quality networks they ultimately cannot afford to operate on an ongoing basis.  For most, that service would come from Frontier Communications.

Martin already accused the state of investing in more than 1,000 routers without being certain if they were needed or where they would be installed.  At $20,000 each, Martin called the routers “Lamborghinis” and suggested they were largely unnecessary.

Christopher Mitchell at Community Broadband Networks has been doing some excellent reporting on a story we covered earlier this year.  Where AT&T is concerned, there is never enough time for just one group to uncover all of their anti-consumer endeavors, so we appreciate Mitchell’s very detailed analysis of the latest ripoff in the making.

The Wisconsin state legislature, vying for most corrupt body this side of Huey Long’s Louisiana, is trying to kill WiscNet, the state’s public institutional broadband network.  In its place, they propose to pay AT&T more money to run a far inferior service.  Would you spend $13 million more in taxpayer dollars for a network that delivers less service than the existing network?  You do when the company behind the proposal hands out enormous campaign contributions.

The rhetoric from AT&T’s supporters borders on hysterical, with the usual memes about the government not being able to run anything correctly — despite the fact WiscNet delivers better service for less money than AT&T wants, and the claim that government shouldn’t be involved in broadband because it is the domain of the free market and private enterprise (free to charge top dollar).

Now, AT&T and their dollar-a-holler friends want Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to approve the budget-busting change, even though many of AT&T’s best friends in the legislature are the same ones screaming about the need to cut state spending.  It’s Big Telecom-sponsored corruption on the highest level, and Wisconsin taxpayers will pay the price.  If you live in Wisconsin, take a few minutes to read Mitchell’s stories and then get on the phone to Madison and let them know if they vote for this, they are next in line to be disconnected.

Coverage:

• AT&T Tells Wisconsin: All Your Tax Dollars Belong to Us
• Wisconsin Superintendent: No Really, Broadband is Essential for Education
• Resolution and Statement In Support of WiscNet
• Does AT&T Really Own the Wisconsin Legislature? Battle Over WiscNet Continues
• Access Wisconsin Supported Broadband Stimulus Before They Opposed It
• Internet2 President Says Wisconsin Legislation is an Unnecessary Disaster

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.

For the first time, a state has announced it is returning stimulus funding made available by the Obama Administration to improve broadband service.

Wisconsin governor Scott Walker said thanks, but no thanks to the U.S. Department of Congress, returning $23 million in broadband stimulus funds allocated to build a fiber-optic “middle mile” network to 380 Wisconsin communities — including 385 libraries. 82 schools, and numerous public safety offices in rural areas.

The decision to reject the money came in concert with a public relations push by Republicans in Washington this week calling on governors to curtail “wasteful spending” and reject stimulus projects.  Walker’s timing of the rejection has political watchers suspicious of an orchestrated campaign by state and national Republicans to call out the president’s economic programs.  Critics of the Walker administration are also accusing the governor of doing AT&T’s bidding in rejecting the public money.

AT&T has plenty of good friends in the state government, which has historically granted most of AT&T’s legislative checklist in the past ten years.  Wisconsin has taken a “hands-off” approach to cable and phone companies.  Statewide video franchising makes AT&T’s efforts to expand its U-verse IPTV system easy, without having to answer to local communities.  Rural commitments to landline phone service have also been eased for AT&T, thanks to a large lobbying effort.  Publicly-owned municipal broadband networks open to ordinary consumers are few and far between in the state, thanks to heavy opposition from the phone giant.

Walker’s track record of being extremely pro-business, and the fact he accepted more than $20,000 in campaign contributions from AT&T made it easy to claim Walker was delivering another favor to the state’s largest phone company.

But is Walker’s rejection of the state’s broadband stimulus money a help or a hindrance to AT&T?  Is Wisconsin’s governor correct when he says federal government bureaucracy was at fault?

Stop the Cap! decided to investigate.

BadgerNet: An Introduction

Governor Walker

Wisconsin’s institutional broadband network, which delivers broadband connections to large educational facilities, public libraries, and government users, is named BadgerNet — which makes perfect sense for the Badger State.  State law limits who can utilize the service — ordinary residential customers cannot — so the network is not well known outside of the circle of groups authorized to access it.

Currently BadgerNet largely exists as an extension of AT&T’s network in Wisconsin.  That is a critical point.  Had BadgerNet initially been created as an independent entity, today’s stimulus rejection might never have happened.  Wisconsin, no doubt at the behest of AT&T, built its network with a leasing arrangement, signing five-year term contracts to rent space on AT&T’s fiber-copper wire facilities.  That kept initial construction costs down, and allows the state to theoretically “walk away” from part of the network if something better comes along — a highly unlikely proposition in a state like Wisconsin.  It’s not an economic leader and has large numbers of rural counties competitors would be unlikely to serve.

Wisconsin Republicans call this arrangement with AT&T a “public-private partnership.”  Democrats call it a giveaway to AT&T, and BadgerNet officials call it one big fat headache.

Wisconsin's BadgerNet

Obama’s Broadband Stimulus

President Obama

When the Obama Administration unveiled its broadband stimulus program, it not only promised to deliver new broadband projects, but also the employment prospects for an army of consultants hired to navigate through the terms and conditions that always accompany money from Washington.

The control measures established by the Department of Commerce, which administers the money from the federal government, are designed to protect against waste, fraud, and abuse.  Unfortunately, they are often more impenetrable than software licensing agreements.  If you want the money, you must follow every requirement, or risk forfeiting it back to the government.

Wisconsin’s proposal to expand BadgerNet with broadband stimulus funding would mean discarding slower speed data connections for super-fast fiber optics.  Some 203 new miles of optical fiber were to be laid, serving 385 school districts, 74 libraries, and eight community colleges.

The federal government liked what it saw and awarded nearly $24 million in funds to launch the “middle-mile” project.  Along with the virtual check came pages of fine print — rules about how the money could and could not be spent.

As state officials and BadgerNet 2.0’s planners poured over the documents, they began reaching for the Tylenol.  AT&T’s ownership interests in the existing network turned out to be a major problem.

The ‘AT&T Problem’

“We, as a state, do not own our network. We purchase a managed service through the BadgerNet contract,” Diane Kohn, acting administrator for the Division of Enterprise Technology in the Department of Administration told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Most grant recipients either plan to build a new network from the ground up or build on an existing non-profit network.  Neither is the case in Wisconsin because of AT&T’s involvement.

“From a federal perspective, it was like we were some kind of unknown start-up firm with all of these risks attached to it,” said Robert Bocher, an information technology consultant for the Department of Public Instruction. “In fact, our network has been around since the mid-1990s.”

But it got even more difficult when BadgerNet discovered the federal government requires new fiber networks built with stimulus funds to be utilized for at least 20 years.  This important control measure protects taxpayers from fronting the costs to build state of the art fiber networks, only to be later sold off to private interests or discarded as a budget cutting move.

Wisconsin’s agreement with AT&T runs for five years, not 20.  Additionally, since AT&T largely administers the infrastructure, much of the $23 million could have ended up going straight to AT&T to cover construction costs.  BadgerNet lacks sufficient funding to completely sever ties with AT&T and build its own network, and Gov. Walker isn’t about the deliver the money required to start a new network from scratch.

BadgerNet learned a lesson most grant recipients discover after winning the money — spending it comes with plenty of wires attached, and none of them transport data.

The Davis-Bacon Act

A Depression-era law is also being blamed for supposedly creating major hurdles for broadband network construction.  The 1931 Davis-Bacon Act was enacted to require public works projects be built at local prevailing wages.  The Act became law after contractors began importing cheap labor (typically underpaid African-Americans from southern states) to work competitively bid public construction projects during the Roosevelt Administration.

Mikonowicz

Republicans currently suspect the Act of being little more than a union protection law, raising labor costs artificially and helping to bust budgets.  Wisconsin Republican senator Ron Johnson used complications in a Sauk County broadband project to bash the Act, accusing it of being responsible for wasting taxpayer dollars.

David Mikonowicz, the utility superintendent for Reedsburg, complained the Act would require him to pay more than double his anticipated labor costs for a fiber project in the community.  Mikonowicz claimed the Act didn’t provide a prevailing wage for fiber contractors, so he was forced to bid out the project at wages suitable for high voltage wiring projects — $40 an hour.

That false premise made it to the pages of the Journal Sentinel in an earlier piece — a bit of political theater to bash unions, the federal government, and play up local communities as the innocent victims of both.

Stop the Cap! had no problems finding a prevailing Davis-Bacon Act wage covering Sauk County fiber installers, so we are unsure why Mikonowicz could not:

Teledata System Installer/Technician $11.70-21.26/hr

Low voltage construction, installation, maintenance and removal of teledata facilities (voice, data, and video) including outside plant, telephone and data inside wire, interconnect, terminal equipment, central offices, PABX, fiber optic cable and equipment, micro waves, V-SAT, bypass, CATV, WAN (wide area networks), LAN (local area networks), and ISDN (integrated systems digital network)

The Loyal Opposition & Everyone Else

The loss of nearly two dozen million dollars in federal government money was catnip for the loyal opposition.

Rep. Pocan

State Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Madison) said Walker’s broadband money giveback was hurting the state.

“Not only is he turning away construction jobs that would have come with the federal grant to expand broadband fiber to schools and libraries across Wisconsin, but he’s closing off potential to business growth that comes with bridging the digital divide,” Pocan said. “What’s worse, the root of his decision wasn’t what was in the best interest of Wisconsin, rather the best interest of his big telecommunications campaign donors.”

Gov. Walker used the occasion to blame the federal government for unnecessary bureaucracy. Mike Huebsch, appointed by the governor to serve as secretary of the state Department of Administration, issued a memo warning if they didn’t return the money, state taxpayers could be on the hook for the entire amount if the federal government found the state didn’t comply with grant requirements.

Ordinary Wisconsin residents would never see improved broadband in their homes from the middle mile project, so much of their reaction comes from a reflexive dislike of the governor, taxes and spending, AT&T, or a combination of all three.

AT&T has kept quiet through the entire affair, only stating it wasn’t interested in becoming a formal grant recipient stuck with the federal government’s rules.

Republicans and “tea party” members are thrilled Wisconsin is a leader in throwing federal money for broadband, railways, and other public works projects back to Washington, in hopes it will set an example for the federal government to follow.

What Happens Next

The state says it is negotiating an extension of the existing AT&T contract for another five years, and points to advances in copper wire-delivered bandwidth and the fact AT&T already provides fiber connectivity for certain parts of BadgerNet.

While AT&T has been labeled the ultimate culprit for the broadband stimulus debacle, it’s not as guilty as some might think for these reasons:

1. The initial failure of the state to own and operate its own network, instead of leasing access from AT&T;
2. AT&T gets the money whether Wisconsin leases another five years of service from AT&T, or stimulus funding gets diverted to AT&T to bolster BadgerNet’s existing network;
3. AT&T is sitting pretty whether it has a five year lease or a 20-year stimulus-mandated contract.  In fact, AT&T could set its rates at today’s relatively high prices for network connectivity that Wisconsin would still be paying two decades from now.

That doesn’t mean AT&T is a good actor in Wisconsin.  While the company has steered clear of this debate, its lobbyists continue to fight off any potential competition from community-owned networks that threaten to deliver service to residential and business customers.  Few Big Telecom providers complain about institutional networks like BadgerNet, because heavy lobbying on their part several years ago won state laws that forever prohibit ordinary consumers from ever buying service from them.

Frontier Communications continues to alienate customers up and down the state of West Virginia with more service outages, billing problems, and emergency 911 service interruptions.

This time, it’s the community of Marmet that suffered an outage the company described as “temporary.”  Service to the area’s Metro 911 emergency operations center was interrupted Monday and residents knew what to do when Frontier could not deliver landline service that works — they grabbed their cell phones.

In Dunbar, the funeral director at Keller Funeral Home noticed he stopped getting calls from local area customers after Frontier took over operations July 1st.  Michael McCarty told a Charleston television station Frontier initially blamed him for the problems, but later discovered malfunctioning switching equipment was at fault and forked over a $344 refund.  McCarty’s business probably took a bigger financial hit than that when potential customers could not get through — for months.

“People would call, but it wasn’t ringing here,” McCarty told the Charleston Gazette. “There really wasn’t much we could do but wait it out.”

Two dozen complaints about Frontier’s performance are still pending at the West Virginia Public Service Commission.  The state’s consumer advocate says Frontier’s service quality in the state is not improving.  Frontier blames Verizon’s aging and poorly maintained network for most of the problems.

But many of Frontier’s complaints, not just in West Virginia, are about unfair early cancellation fees, inaccurate billing, lost service orders, and lousy customer service.  Here’s a sample:

• “The customer service representative was extremely rude and angry. We called in response to the unfair cancellation fee of $250.00. Last week we were told that we had until 9/30 to opt for other phone service without a cancellation fee. Each representative gives different information. Small business were treated horribly by Verizon and now Frontier. After the rudeness, I will never bring my business service back to Frontier!”
• “I have fought this company for six months because every month they cannot get billing right. They are the absolute WORST I have ever dealt with. They charge for services not wanted. They charge late fees when none should have been charged and then didn’t remove them after admitting their mistakes. If you have any other choice, avoid Frontier like it’s a plague, because it is.”
• “They never processed my order to transfer my service. I called back 4 times in a week to get them to do their job. On the last day, I was left on hold for 2 hours in the morning and then 1.5 hours in the afternoon, only to be told I would have to wait another 3 days for a servicemen to come out. The wait times were nothing less than abusive.”
• “Horrible folks to do business with. Verizon sold my FiOS/Phone account to Frontier and soon afterward mysterious charges for “ID protect” etc. started appearing on my bill. Whenever I call their service, it loops and hangs up. I tried the option for “we will call you back” – when it calls back , it will give another number to call back, where you have to wait again. Can’t wait to get rid of them.”
• “Frontier recently bought out Verizon’s service in my area. The automated phone tree system goes in loops and hangs up on you. Furthermore, once I finally figured out how to get someone on the line (responding to every question the automated system asked with “operator”) and moved up to a supervisor… the supervisor got very short with me when I tried to cancel my service and then hung up on me. When I called right back, I got an automated message saying the offices were closed.”

Some enterprising Frontier customers have learned their hold times will be much shorter if they opt to speak with a Spanish-speaking operator.  “Many of the call centers are in Florida anyway, so you may get a bilingual operator no matter which language you choose,” writes our reader Danielle.  “I cut my hold times from over an hour to less than five minutes this way.”

Meanwhile, one of Frontier’s primary competitors in the state, Citynet, accused Gov. Joe Manchin’s office of wasting $126 million in taxpayer money that will benefit Frontier Communications far more than state residents starved for broadband.

Citynet CEO Jim Martin urged federal officials Wednesday to suspend the grant after the state defended plans to allocate a large amount of the grant exclusively to connect state agencies.

“The state’s response clearly highlights why the federal government needs to suspend the award until there are major modifications to the plan,” Martin said. “It is clear from the state’s letter that little will be done with the federal taxpayer funds to increase the availability of adequate and competitively priced high-speed infrastructure in West Virginia. The current approach will cost the state future job growth.”

Martin is upset that more than half of the grant, $69 million dollars, will be spent on Frontier’s behalf to construct a broadband network for the state government.  The agencies who get access will still have to pay Frontier market rates for high speed broadband access, despite the fact taxpayer dollars were spent to construct the network Frontier will operate.

Manchin

Citynet wants stimulus funding diverted to construct a “middle mile” broadband network that every telecommunications company can access at wholesale rates to deliver improved broadband services to residents and businesses, not just government buildings.

Martin says the Manchin Administration is making “blatantly false” claims that the stimulus money would deliver high-speed Internet to 700,000 homes and 110,000 businesses.  Unless those homes and businesses are stuffed into government agency buildings, it won’t.

According to Martin, all of the benefits will go to only two places — state agencies and Frontier’s pockets.

“It’s a political favor to Frontier,” Martin charged.

“The citizens of West Virginia deserve transparency and accountability from their public servants, and this is even more true given the magnitude and importance of the need for broadband enablement in our state,” Martin said Wednesday. “I was born and raised in West Virginia, and I am aware of the consequences this program could have for West Virginia in terms of job growth and competing for high-paying 21st century jobs.”