Pelosi

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) is not impressed with the telecom industry effort to oppose Net Neutrality and broadband policy reform.  Pelosi was referring to two talking-point-infested letters sent to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski opposing Commission efforts to restore regulatory oversight of the broadband industry lost in a recent court decision.

Speaking for the Democratic majority, Pelosi told bloggers the effort was destined to fail unless Democrats suddenly develop a bipartisan streak, long absent in the House, to sign on Rep. Cliff Stearns’ (R-Florida) anti-oversight bill, something she considers unlikely.

“I don’t know how many options they have unless they choose to work with Republicans, but it’s not going to be a Democratic initiative,” she told bloggers on the conference call.  She added:

“Part of the innovation agenda I advocated for when I became Leader was universal broadband. We had hoped to get it done within five years. We just got the bill passed three years ago under President Bush, but we had no funding. Now we want to have the resources to take us to that place so we don’t have a disparity between urban and rural populations. Reclassification, net neutrality, universal access for every American, these are priorities for us. And we see it not in isolation but as part of a new prosperity, as a job creator, to make America healthier, smarter and an international leader.”

Firedoglake reports pro-consumer Net Neutrality advocates have a letter of their own thanks to Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Washington):

The PCCC has a petition to sign in support of Inslee’s letter, as well as a tool to contact your Representative in the House to tell them to get on board. Today, Speaker Pelosi spoke about the need to educate Representatives on why this is so important, so get to it! Pick up the phone and call, and tell your elected official that you want the Internet protected from greedy corporations.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Heath Shuler Campaign Ad.flv[/flv]

Congress doesn’t seem to know right from wrong, but we do.

It’s not right when big insurance companies write health care laws when millions can’t afford to see a doctor.

It’s not right when big oil companies write energy laws as gas prices skyrocket.

It’s not right when Congress passes trade bills that send our jobs overseas.

Congress won’t change until we change the people we’re sending to Washington.

–Rep. Heath Shuler’s 2006 campaign commercial

That was less than four years ago.  Apparently these days Rep. Heath Shuler (D-North Carolina) believes it -is- right for large telecommunications companies to censor online content, slow down Internet services they don’t want you to use, and allow the phone and cable industry to control broadband policies in this country.

Shuler’s abandonment of his mountain values was made easier with $23,000 in campaign contributions from a grateful industry.

Shuler

When those telecom checks cleared the bank, Shuler went to work for big telecom companies, becoming a leading opponent of consumer-friendly Net Neutrality.

For his supporters who once had high hopes for the Democratic congressman first elected in 2006, it’s been one disappointment after another.

Last fall, Shuler was a co-signer of a letter to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski opposing Net Neutrality.  To reiterate the point, many of the same co-signers of last fall’s letter were back on board with a second letter sent last month.

The latest letter was a godsend to AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and other Net Neutrality opponents who are using it to suggest there is considerable bipartisan opposition to broadband reform.

Many of his constituents are not impressed with Shuler’s legislative record these days.  One of them is Dave Houck:

I have long since had it with Mr. Shuler.  I admit it, I have no more patience for him.

[…]

I campaigned for you, and phone banked for you, and made cash contributions.  Today I find out that you are against net neutrality, that you signed a letter to the FCC Chairman supporting AT&T and other large corporations — choosing corporations over the people.

In 2010 I will be voting for anybody who runs against you, Democrat or Republican, as you have consistently demonstrated in the three years you have been in Congress that you are quite simply not up to the job of representing the people of Western North Carolina.  You and the “Blue Dog Coalition” are surrogates for corporate interests; you do not have the interests of the people of North Carolina at heart.  Or at least that’s the message you are sending to me.

I’m just fed up.

North Carolina's 11th District is currently served by Rep. Heath Shuler

Similar sentiments from upset residents in his district are voiced all over Shuler’s Facebook page.  Why not add yours?

Then give his office a call or drop him an e-mail.

Ask Rep. Shuler how standing with big phone and cable companies against consumer broadband protection could ever represent western North Carolina mountain values.

Tell him trusting AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable with our broadband future is like trusting BP to protect the Gulf Coast.

Let him know you were disappointed with his decision to sign the first letter opposing Net Neutrality last fall, but now you are simply appalled he’s done it again.

It’s not right when big phone and cable companies have the power to write their own legislation and stop pro-consumer protections like Net Neutrality.  Where is the Rep. Shuler who campaigned on doing the right thing in 2006?

If Shuler won’t change his mind on an issue as important as this, perhaps we need to take his own advice and change the person the 11th district sends to Congress.

The Denver Post this morning did a major disservice to its readers in a heavily slanted editorial objecting to the reclassification of broadband service to restore the FCC’s traditional oversight authority over Internet providers.

In their piece For Web and Broadband Regulation, Less is More, the editors at the Post delivered less facts and more industry talking points.  It even mislead readers by quoting from two Republican FCC commissioners, completely ignoring the Democratic majority that would likely prevail in a vote on the matter.

The editorial forgets to mention why this debate is taking place.  Readers should have been made aware the broadband industry the Post celebrates as successful under a light touch regulatory philosophy effectively-won total deregulation in a game changing court decision that stripped the FCC’s authority to provide checks and balances over today’s duopoly broadband market.

Ed Whitacre, AT&T

Comcast sued after the FCC punished the company for deliberately interfering with customers’ broadband speeds for certain Internet applications (despite Comcast’s initial denials).  The Post characterizes such behavior on the part of the nation’s largest cable company as “only a couple documented issues, which were quickly resolved.”  How does the Post think these were resolved?  The FCC used the authority it now no longer has to pressure Comcast to stop.  What stops the next “documented issue?”

AT&T’s former chairman and CEO Ed Whitacre gave Americans plenty to worry about in 2005 when the nation’s largest phone company infamously declared that popular web sites should not be expected to use AT&T’s “pipes for free.”  That attitude is still being defended today by millions of dollars in lobbying, fake grassroots astroturf campaigns, and industry bought-and-paid-for “research studies.”  Why spend all that money on a “resolved” issue?

But the most offensive part of the Post‘s piece was a completely dishonest attempt by the editors to imply there is widespread bipartisan opposition to common sense broadband regulation like Net Neutrality.

We had the opportunity Wednesday to talk with two FCC commissioners about the dual proposals for reform. They voiced concerns about an FCC move to redefine broadband networks as highly regulated telecommunications services.

Meredith Attwell Baker, who was nominated to the commission by President Obama, called the reclassification dangerous, adding it was a “brand new model.” FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell, nominated by President George W. Bush, worried about the unintended consequences that might come out of an additional layer of regulation.

On the right side of the Commission, the two Republican members Meredith Attwell Baker, a former telecom industry lobbyist and Robert M. McDowell.

How clever of the Denver Post to dangle the implication that Baker, being appointed by Obama, is somehow an ally.  She is not.  The Post only spoke with the two Republican minority commissioners for its editorial.  Atwell was appointed by Obama under long-standing FCC rules which require that only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party.  There is no practical difference between Atwell and McDowell.  Why didn’t the newspaper speak to at least one of the majority Democrats on the Commission, all of which are expected to support Chairman Genachowski?  Because that would have dramatically weakened the provider’s editor’s arguments and talking points.

Of course, there is nothing “brand new” about Title II authority.  It has been used successfully to oversee today’s increasingly deregulated landline marketplace to protect rural Americans who don’t have competitive choices should their phone company provide abysmal service.  What was new was the defective mechanism used by former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, under the Bush Administration, to oversee broadband using what the courts determined was phantom authority.

There is nothing about those regulations “ill-suited” to restoring the FCC’s lost authority, which is the ultimate game plan here.  Providers have fed talking points, which editors at the Denver Post apparently devoured, suggesting everything from unintended consequences to the sky falling down should the FCC be able to implement its National Broadband Plan on its terms.  Providers want the power to control and implement broadband deployment on their terms — the same ones that have left millions without any real broadband options at all, and the rest of us with slow service at high prices.

We hope that process ends with succinct and limited rules that apply to broadband providers, but leave them relatively unfettered so the Internet continues to be a place for entrepreneurs, thinkers and dreamers to pursue their ideas.

These are all noble goals, but they cannot be achieved if a handful of giant broadband providers start extorting fees from content producers and engaging in other abusive behaviors.  The Post seems to think America is a world-leader in broadband, yet we are not.  This country is now handily beaten by several Asian nations and even cities within the former Soviet Union and its east European bloc.  Just this week Ookla released a speed index report that tells the truth about America’s broadband experience:

Here are the top 10 U.S. cities and their corresponding 30-day average speeds:

1. San Jose, Calif. 15.02 Mbps
2. Saint Paul, Minn. 14.53 Mbps
3. Pittsburgh, Pa. 14.18 Mbps
4. Oklahoma City, Okla. 12.12 Mbps
5. Brooklyn, N.Y. 12.10 Mbps
6. Tampa, Fla. 12.05 Mbps
7. Bronx, N.Y. 12.01 Mbps
8. New York, N.Y. 11.85 Mbps
9. Denver, Colo. 11.68 Mbps
10. Sacramento, Calif. 11.34 Mbps

The global top 10:

1. Seoul, South Korea 34.49 Mbps
2. Riga, Latvia 27.88 Mbps
3. Hamburg, Germany 26.85 Mbps
4. Chisinau, Republic of Moldova 24.31 Mbps
5. Helsinki, Finland 20.58 Mbps Mbps
6. Stockholm, Sweden 19.97 Mbps
7. Bucharest, Romania 19.68 Mbps
8. Sofia, Bulgaria 18.99 Mbps
9. Kharkov, Ukraine 18.15 Mbps
10. Kaunas, Lithuania 17.46 Mbps

With evidence like this, the editors at the Post need to get out from behind those telecom talking points and visit today’s real broadband world.

Rep. Gene Green (D-AT&T)

The digital divide in broadband has never been just a rural issue.  Some of America’s largest cities are filled with families who cannot afford the prices some broadband providers charge for access.  So it came as quite a surprise that at least eight members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) decided to oppose the Obama Administration’s efforts to move forward on its telecom agenda of better broadband and Net Neutrality.

It also disturbed James Rucker, executive director of ColorOfChange.org, whose 600,000 members are part of America’s largest African-American online political organization.

Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas/AT&T) circulated a letter opposing regulatory intervention in broadband around Capitol Hill looking for additional signatures from members of Congress.  Green’s letter, directed to Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski, is the public policy equivalent of a biggie-sized series of lies, distortions, and misrepresentations.  Green is so proud of his efforts, constituents can’t find word one about it on his website. Instead, Green claims he is working “to expand Internet access and improve Internet competition, in order to reduce access prices and close the ‘Digital Divide’ between those online and those who are not.'”

Sure he is.

ColorOfChange urged members of Congress not to co-sign Green’s letter:

This letter is not the first time we’ve seen deceptive language or outright misinformation used to advocate against protecting network neutrality. In fact, the telecom industry has for years been engaged in a well-coordinated and massively funded campaign to intentionally misinform the public, Congress, and public interest groups about net neutrality, successfully confusing the issue to their advantage. The industry has spent millions of dollars on advertising, public relations, and lobbying efforts — using industry front groups, ads in Capitol Hill newspapers, and lobbyists. Sadly, the industry in recent years has also managed to enlist members of Congress and advocacy organizations rooted in communities of color to echo misleading and false arguments about net neutrality. This too has been a concern for many ColorOfChange members and has been the subject of our campaign work. While it has a right to engage in the public discourse about this issue, the telecommunications industry has demonstrated a disinterest in honest debate, spreading misinformation that plays on ignorance about the issue, and the somewhat confusing, technical language that surrounds it.

Several of the advocacy groups involved take substantial contributions from telecom companies — notably AT&T and Verizon, or have telecom interests serving on their board of directors.  When a minority advocacy group suddenly starts parroting AT&T, Verizon, or Comcast talking points, just follow the money.

Unfortunately, 74 Democrats, including eight members of the CBC aren’t listening to ColorOfChange or their constituents, and co-signed Green’s letter.  James Rucker notes:

Last week, I urged black members of Congress not to sign this letter. But we quickly learned that Representatives G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Lacy Clay (D-MO), Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Greg Meeks (D-NY), Bobby Rush (D-IL), and Bennie Thompson (D-MS) didn’t get the message.

Those wondering why these eight members were in such a hurry to disconnect their constituents’ interests need only consider the enormous campaign contributions sent to them by the phone and cable industry:

Source: Opensecrets.org

That’s only for this year — and we’re only five months into 2010.  Co-signing Green’s letter could add an extra zero to the amount on the next check.

Rep. Green himself is no stranger to campaign contributions from telecom companies.  So far in 2010, he’s accepted money from both AT&T, Verizon, and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.  Since 2000, every time a major public policy debate fires up over telecommunications issues, AT&T (and its predecessor SBC) increased the amount on Green’s check.  During the 2004-2006 cycle, when SBC sought a merger with AT&T, SBC contributed $11,500 to Rep. Green.  During the first round of the battle to secure Net Neutrality in 2006-2007, AT&T was Green’s top donor with a $15,000 contribution.

ColorOfChange.org today announced a new campaign directed towards the eight CBC members who co-signed Green’s letter.

“Our members are deeply concerned that by signing Green’s letter, black members of Congress are taking a stance that fails to secure our digital rights,” said James Rucker, executive director of ColorOfChange.org. “Some CBC members have perhaps signed Rep. Green’s letter without fully understanding what is at stake while others seem to know, but are serving other interests. There is a significant correlation between those leading the charge and those accepting significant contributions from the industry which stands to benefit from the FCC being rendered impotent. In either case, our members are eager to make clear how important this issue is to our community and to Americans in general, and to explain why they see this as a 21st century civil rights issue.”

The group is calling on members to place more than 1,750 phone calls to all eight representatives, urging they stop representing the interests of phone and cable companies and start representing the interests of their constituents.  ColorOfChange is asking everyone to ask these members to promptly remove their names from Rep. Green’s letter, which represents little more than propaganda talking points from big telecom.

Last month, a federal court removed the FCC’s authority to enact the most basic consumer protections over broadband given its current classification, which was decided upon by a previous set of commissioners. The court ruled that the agency did not have the authority to institute the desired protections while broadband was designated an information (or Title I) service, over which the FCC has limited jurisdiction. The ruling prevented the FCC from implementing proposed rules on network neutrality and cast a cloud of uncertainty over its authority to implement portions of the National Broadband Plan intended to close the digital divide.

Earlier this month, the FCC announced it would reassert its authority to enact limited regulation of broadband by reclassifying it as a communication (or Title II) service. In response, telecommunications industry lobbyists have stepped up their efforts to influence lawmakers. Rep. Green’s letter parrots long-debunked arguments that serve the interests of major industry players and threaten the FCC’s ability to make rulings that would expand broadband access.

A retiring state senator wants to throw North Carolina consumers under the bus with new legislation that could cost residents millions in savings on their cable, telephone, and broadband bills.

Senator David Hoyle (D-Gaston), has introduced S1209 — what Hoyle calls “The Nonvoted Local Debt for Competing System Act.”  We call it “The Anti-Consumer Muni-Killer Act,” representing little more than a lavish parting gift to telecommunications companies that have supported Hoyle for years.

As we have been reporting here, here, here and here for the past few months, the telecom industry has pulled out all the stops looking for friends in the state legislature to do their bidding.  This year, the industry is following the game plan it has used successfully in other states to kill potential community-based competition for their broadband duopoly.

The state’s cable and phone companies (and their legislator lackeys) argue that taxpayers should not be on the hook for municipally-owned networks.  In the guise of “protecting consumers,” Hoyle and his bill’s co-sponsors would compel municipalities to fund municipal broadband projects with General Obligation B0nds — a regulatory minefield that includes referendums held at taxpayers’ expense and direct taxpayer involvement in the funding process.

As we’ve discussed earlier, Hoyle’s proposal would compel endless referendums for everything from system construction and financing to basic system upgrades and repairs.  The implications of such legislation:

• It makes municipal broadband projects untenable. What local government would consider a municipal project that would require endless referendums?  The only thing Hoyle didn’t include in his bill was a mandatory public referendum about where the engineers should order lunch.
• Someone has to pay for the referendum process — North Carolina taxpayers.  So much for protecting the taxpayer!
• The legislative minefield Hoyle lays for local communities is tailor-made for well-financed telecom industry opposition campaigns that are designed to demagogue municipal competition while tying the hands of communities to fight back.

The irony is, the current system already in place in North Carolina protects state taxpayers.

Both proposed and operational municipal broadband systems rely on Revenue Bonds that have to be approved by the North Carolina Local Government Commission.  These Revenue Bonds are not taxpayer-funded, and local residents are not on the hook should something go wrong.  The financing agreements with investors are designed to pay off the costs of such systems over time and they then become self-supporting.  But even from day one, municipal broadband represents an asset to a community’s efforts to attract digital economy jobs.

They also save you money.  Just ask the residents of Wilson, who didn’t face a rate increase outpacing inflation and finally had an alternative for “good enough for you” broadband from current providers.

Unfortunately, the current system is no good for Senator Hoyle because it doesn’t protect his friends in the phone, cable, and broadband industry, threatened with competition that would derail their duopoly gravy trains for good.

Hoyle should be willing to admit as such, considering his friends in the cable industry already have.  Marcus Trahen, a lobbyist for the North Carolina Cable Telecommunications Association told legislators at a Revenue Laws Study Committee meeting, “We don’t care if cities have internal systems; what we are worried about is competition.”

Under the guise of “protecting” taxpayers, Hoyle only manages to guarantee fat profits for Time Warner Cable, AT&T, and CenturyLink (formerly Embarq) without better pricing and service for you.  Perhaps Hoyle forgot North Carolina is ranked 41st out of 50 states for its comparatively-mediocre broadband services, mostly provided by those three companies.

Hoyle also argues that publicly owned systems harm private industry, despite the fact many in private industry support municipal broadband.  Several letters of opposition to S1209 have been sent to legislators from companies like Google, Intel, Alcatel-Lucent, and five private provider trade associations.

Hoyle doesn’t plan to stick around and watch the damage his proposed bill would create for North Carolina’s economic and high tech future.  After he retires from public office, his bill would leave a legacy of tied hands among local communities from Asheville to Greenville, and all points in-between.  Doesn’t your community deserve a better option?  If you want a third option that could dramatically lower prices and offer better service, shouldn’t local officials have the right to offer it if current providers won’t?

The fact is, none of these municipal projects would even be proposed if the cable and phone companies delivered the service communities want at fair prices. Cable and phone companies don’t need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defeat these projects — they could simply lower their prices and offer the kind of service consumers demand.

For Hoyle’s part, he’s shocked…  shocked to discover consumers are offended by his telecom-friendly attitudes.  He told Indy Weekly, “the lobbyists don’t influence me; I’m in the pocket of the people that provide jobs for this state, and Time Warner Cable employs 8,500 — I can’t imagine anyone that would want to compete with that.”

Senator Hoyle weighed the interests of Time Warner Cable against 9.4 million North Carolina consumers and sided with the cable company.

Let’s push the scale in the other direction.

What You Need to Know

The author of S1209 is  Sen. David Hoyle (D-Gaston).

The bill currently lists five co-sponsors:

• Sen. Peter S. Brunstetter (R-Forsyth)
• Sen. Clark Jenkins (D-Edgecombe/Martin/Pitt)
• Sen. Jerry W. Tillman (R-Montgomery/Randolph)
• Sen. Dan Blue (D-Wake)
• Sen. Fletcher Hartsell (R-Cabarrus/Iredell)

The latter two, Sens. Blue and Hartsell were formerly on our supporters list, and we’re reaching out for clarification as to why they are listed as co-sponsors on this bill.  We’ll update our readers about whether they will stand with North Carolina consumers or the telecom industry as soon as we hear back from their offices.

Your Action Alert

You must immediately contact legislators on the Senate Finance Committee, set to consider Hoyle’s bill this week, most likely on Wednesday.  But don’t wait until then.  You should be making contact today, just in case the bill gets voted on earlier, before opposition has a chance to build.

Tell the senators to oppose S1209 for the benefit of North Carolina’s economic future:

• Make it clear voting for this bill is just another way to stop municipal broadband from delivering the kind of broadband service North Carolina wants and needs to grow its economy.
• S1209 was custom-crafted to protect the interests of incumbent phone and cable companies, not North Carolina consumers.
• The current system already protects taxpayers because they are not paying for municipal broadband projects.  S1209 forces local governments to spend taxpayer funds on endless referendums.
• Explain you are already empowered to stop unwanted municipal projects through organized vocal opposition at town meetings as well as at the ballot box.  But your town would not be empowered to offer services private providers refuse if S1209 becomes law, because the legislation forces such projects into miles of red tape.
• Worst of all, S1209 gives phone and cable companies plenty of time to demagogue such projects, spending ratepayer funds in a hopelessly mismatched fight.
• Let them know you see through S1209’s anti-competitive intent, and you’re prepared to vote for those who stand up for North Carolina consumers and oppose these types of telecom industry-friendly bills.

Important! When writing, -DO NOT- simply carbon copy everyone on a single e-mail message.  Those mass mailings are discarded, unread.  For maximum effectiveness, send an individual e-mail to each legislator and another to their legislative assistant. Calling the legislator’s office can be even more effective and immediate.

Here is the list: