North Carolina faces a moratorium on municipal broadband deployment.  On Wednesday, Senators David Hoyle and Daniel Clodfelter will introduce a bill expected to stall community broadband projects across the state.  The bill, which has yet to be seen by the public, should appear in the Revenue Laws Study Committee, co-chaired by Clodfelter.  We have heard the bill faces mere minutes of consideration before a quick vote, in hopes of moving it forward before the public finds out what elected officials are doing on their behalf.

Proponents of the moratorium argue that municipal broadband harms private industry and reduces tax revenue the state earns from those businesses.  But their argument lacks something — merit.  Missing from the debate are the actual numbers from the state’s largest telecommunications companies.  How much tax revenue does Time Warner Cable, AT&T and CenturyLink (formerly EMBARQ) generate?  We don’t know and the two senators (and the companies involved) aren’t saying.

Municipal broadband projects bring numerous benefits to North Carolina communities:

• jobs (taxpayers);
• high tech businesses moving into the state (taxpayers);
• entrepreneurial innovation that creates new small businesses (taxpayers); and
• benefits to the education and health care sectors (future taxpayers and keeping current taxpayers alive and healthy).

Make no mistake — a moratorium is just a stall tactic to protect current provider profits and avoid competition, all while giving them more time to organize a push for a permanent ban on such projects.

Why are Hoyle and Clodfelter only concerned with protecting incumbent telecom companies?  What about the rest of us?

Please join us tomorrow at the Legislative Office Building in Raleigh, and perhaps we can ask them.

Action Alert — We Need Your Attendance!

• Where: Legislative Office Building, Raleigh
• When: Wednesday May 5th at 9:30am, Room 544
• Why: Just having consumers in the room make elected officials nervous, especially when they are about to introduce a bill the public has never seen five minutes before a vote to move it forward in the short legislative session starting May 12th.

GOOGLE AND SEVEN INDUSTRY GROUPS OPPOSE NC MUNICIPAL BROADBAND MORATORIUM

Raleigh, NC – May 4, 2010   Google, Intel and six other private sector groups announced strong opposition today to a North Carolina municipal broadband moratorium being considered by the General Assembly’s Revenue Laws Study Committee, calling it “a step in the wrong direction,” “counterproductive” and “conspicuously in opposition to national broadband policy.” Legislation to prohibit municipal broadband deployments in the state is expected to be introduced and voted on tomorrow May 5. At least 45 individual communities in North Carolina, including Raleigh, Cary, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Greensboro, Asheville and Wilmington, recently applied to partner with Google on its announced plans to build ultra-high speed fiber to the home systems.

In a strongly-worded letter to North Carolina’s House and Senate leadership, Google, Intel, Alcatel-Lucent, the Fiber to the Home Council (FTTC), American Public Power Association (APPA), Atlantic Engineering, Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), and the United Telecom Council (UTC) stated that such a bill would harm both the public and private sectors. “It would thwart public broadband initiatives, stifle economic growth, prevent the creation or retention of thousands of jobs, and diminish quality of life in North Carolina. In particular, it would hurt the private sector in several ways: by undermining public-private partnerships; hamstringing the private sector’s ability to sell its goods and services; interfering with workforce development; and stifling creativity and innovation.”

“Enactment of a counterproductive municipal broadband moratorium would put North Carolina conspicuously in opposition to national broadband policy,” the letter states, and continues: “The Federal Communications Commission’s National Broadband Plan also admonishes states not to interfere with community broadband efforts where local officials do not believe that the private sector is acting quickly enough to meet community broadband needs.  Consistent with these expressions of national policy, communities across America are doing their share to contribute to the rapid deployment of broadband to all Americans.”

Those words echo a similar statement by FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn just last week in Asheville, NC. Commissioner Clyburn equated such a moratorium to denying citizens “the opportunity to connect with their nation and improve their lives” and called such a move “counterproductive,” one which could ” impede the nation from accomplishing the [National Broadband] Plan’s goal of providing broadband access to every American and every community anchor institution.”

A bill supported by Time Warner Cable and AT&T, the municipal broadband moratorium is being pushed by Senators Hoyle (D-Gaston) and Clodfelter (D-Charlotte Mecklenburg) for the alleged purpose of protecting the private sector and associated state tax revenues. But opponents to the bill argue the bill would hurt the private sector and even these representatives’ local constituents. Such a moratorium would terminate the City of Charlotte’s recent plans to build a multi-million dollar municipal network to provide broadband service to its public safety, educational, government institutions and the unemployed through the use of federal ARRA broadband funds. The bill also has the potential to make both Gaston and Gaston County less attractive to Google with whom they submitted an application to partner for a fiber to the home network.

“North Carolina should be lowering barriers to public broadband initiatives rather than establishing new ones, so that we and other high technology companies can spread and prosper across this beautiful state,” the letter states. At least 45 individual communities in North Carolina, including Raleigh, Cary, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Greensboro, Asheville and Wilmington, recently applied to be partners with Google on its announced plans to bring  fiber to the home to between 50,000 to 500,000 households in an effort to unleash advanced scientific, educational, medical and environmental applications through these ultra-high speed networks, now being deployed throughout the world and in China. North Carolina already has two municipalities, Wilson and Salisbury, deploying these fiber systems to their residents.

Jay Ovittore, co-Director at Communities United for Broadband says, “A moratorium or any other barriers to “real” next generation broadband deployment would be a leap in the wrong direction for North Carolina’s citizens and for North Carolina’s economy.”  Communities United for Broadband is a citizen run advocacy group that promotes the exchange of ideas between communities, both rural and urban, to find the best solutions for their broadband needs.  You can find Communities United for Broadband on Facebook at http://bit.ly/aW6skP and on Twitter at http://twitter.com/CUFB

For more information:

www.broadband4everyonenc.com

http://groups.google.com/group/nc-public-broadband

http://stopthecap.com/2010/04/28/fcc-commissioner-mignon-clyburn-speaks-in-favor-of-municipal-broadband-projects-at-seatoa-conference/

http://www.muninetworks.org/

The Fiber to the Home Council also sent a separate letter to North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue.

You can continue to write the legislators who are pushing this industry written legislation.  Trust me they are hearing you. Be nice, but let them know you do not want a moratorium on muni-broadband, it will hurt economic development in our state and you want what the rest of the world enjoys for broadband access.

• Sen. Daniel Gray Clodfelter (Co-Chair) Mecklenberg [email protected] (919) 715-8331 Democrat (704) 331-1041 Attorney
• Sen. Peter Samuel Brunstetter Forsyth [email protected] (919) 733-7850 Republican (336) 747-6604 Attorney
• Sen. David W. Hoyle Gaston [email protected] (919) 733-5734 Democrat (704) 867-0822 Real Estate Developer/Investor
• Sen. Samuel Clark Jenkins Edgecomb, Martin, Pitt [email protected] (919) 715-3040 Democrat (252) 823-7029 W.S. Clark Farms
• Sen. Jerry W. Tillman Montgomery, Randolph [email protected] (919) 733-5870 Republican (336) 431-5325 Ret’d school teacher
• Rep. Harold J. Brubaker Randolph [email protected] 919-715-4946 Republican 336-629-5128 Real Estate Appraiser
• Rep. Becky Carney Mecklenberg [email protected] 919-733-5827 Democrat 919-733-5827 Homemaker
• Rep. Pryor Allan Gibson, III Anson, Union [email protected] 919-715-3007 Democrat 704-694-5957 Builder/TWC contractor
• Rep. Dewey Lewis Hill Brunswick, Columbus [email protected] 919-733-5830 Democrat 910-642-6044 Business Exec (Navy)
• Rep. Julia Craven Howard Davie, Iredell [email protected] 919-733-5904 Republican 336-751-3538 Appraiser, Realtor
• Rep. Daniel Francis McComas New Hanover [email protected] 919-733-5786 Republican 910-343-8372 Business Executive
• Rep. William C. McGee Forsyth [email protected] 919-733-5747 Republican 336-766-4481 Retired (Army)
• Rep. William L. Wainwright Craven, Lenoir [email protected] 919-733-5995 Democrat 252-447-7379 Presiding Elder

Don’t forget to thank those we have identified as on our side of the issue, for being forward thinking and truly representing the people:

• Sen. Daniel T. Blue, Jr. Wake [email protected] (919) 733-5752 Democrat (919) 833-1931 Attorney
• Sen. Fletcher Lee Hartsell, Jr. Cabarrus, Iredell [email protected] (919) 733-7223 Republican (704) 786-5161 Attorney
• Sen. Josh Stein Wake [email protected] (919)715-6400 Democrat (919)715-6400 Lawyer
• Rep. Paul Luebke (Co-Chair) Durham [email protected] 919-733-7663 Democrat 919-286-0269 College Teacher
• Rep. Jennifer Weiss Wake [email protected] 919-715-3010 Democrat 919-715-3010 Lawyer-Mom

Back in May of 2009, I started a series called Follow the Money to illustrate the large amounts of money the telecommunications companies spend on legislators to push their agendas for them.  You can always tell how most legislators will vote if you simply follow the money.

Through the wonders of public records searches at the North Carolina State Board of Elections, I am able to see the PAC contributions that legislators have received.  I can also cross reference this information with the dates the legislators are in session and the Secretary of State’s online lobbyist database.  In North Carolina you can take PAC money from a PAC who has a registered lobbyist so long as the General Assembly is not in session. If you take the contribution while in session, the state’s General Statute says it must be forfeited to the state’s General Forfeiture fund.

In this Moratorium Watch 2010 edition I want to focus on two North Carolina legislators leading the charge to ban or restrict municipal broadband projects — Sen. Daniel Clodfelter (D-Mecklenburg) and Sen. David Hoyle (D-Gaston).

Clodfelter is the co-chair of the Revenue Laws Study Committee.  In just 24 months, he took in a total of $16,000 in PAC contributions from big telecom companies and their friends:

• $1500 from North Carolina Cable PAC
• $1000 from Sprint/Nextel
• $1500 from Embarq
• $500 from the NC Association of Broadcasters
• $5500 from Time Warner Cable
• $5000 from AT&T
• $1000 from North Carolina Broadcast PAC

Senator “Obsolete Fiber” Hoyle dwarfed Clodfelter over the past 24 months:

• $3500 from Sprint/Nextel
• $4500 from Embarq
• $8250 from Time Warner Cable
• $4000 from AT&T
• $2000 from Electricities (Drew Saunders is a lobbyist with Electricities and was a primary sponsor on the Level Playing Field bill for big telco a few years back)
• $1500 from North Carolina Broadcast PAC
• $1500 from North Carolina Cable PAC

That’s $25,250 for Hoyle from companies with an active interest in the telecommunications debate in this state.

When you consider more than $40,000 was spent to boost the campaign coffers of just two state legislators, it’s not hard to see big money is involved statewide.  It doesn’t even have to arrive in the form of a PAC contribution.  Clodfelter just had a $29 million Time Warner Cable headquarters building placed in Mecklenburg County.  Hoyle helped procure the Apple Data Center, located 22.5 miles north of his district in Maiden, NC.

When cross-referencing Hoyle’s PAC contributions with the state lobbyist database, I found several possible conflicts that warrant investigation, and I will bring my concerns to the North Carolina State Board of Elections.  If my complaint is upheld, perhaps Hoyle’s concerns about the need for additional state revenue could be eased knowing some potentially improper contributions made to his campaign were turned over to the General Forfeiture fund.  Hoyle has already announced he is not running for re-election so he doesn’t need the money anyway.

Once you count that money, it’s easy to discover why some of our state legislators are actively working against our own best interests here in North Carolina.  The corporate campaign contribution, which can be likened to legalized bribery, makes it difficult to convince legislators to always vote with their constituents’ best interests at heart.  Whenever legislators are willing to cash corporate contributions and vote against consumer interests, we’ll be here to call them on it.  Until this country gets corporate money out of government, it’s all we’ve got.

Windstream Corporation has agreed to acquire Newton, Iowa-based Iowa Telecom for $530 million in stock and cash, making it the fourth acquisition for the rural-focused Windstream in 2009.  It will also take on $600 million of Iowa Telecom’s debt as part of the transaction, which caused Standard & Poors to reduce Windstream’s credit rating to junk status – BB.

Like Frontier Communications, Windstream is engaged in aggressive expansion to stake out its position serving rural America.  The company has spent $1.3 billion on acquisitions in just the last six months, trying to keep up with other large independent providers like Frontier and CenturyLink.

“Our whole investment thesis was to grow scale in rural America,” Windstream Chief Executive Jeff Gardner told the Wall Street Journal. “I still think there’s a great deal of consolidation left with smaller players, where the pressure is the most obvious.”

Windstream, based in Little Rock, Arkansas, serves customers in 16 states, mostly in the midwest and south.  Iowa Telecom serves former GTE service areas in Iowa and Minnesota.

For employees in Newton, east of Des Moines, the purchase brings fear of significant job reductions.  Iowa Telecom has 800 employees, and comments by Windstream’s Gardner suggest downsizing is forthcoming.  Windstream expects $35 million in cost savings annually, and some of that will be achieved by dispensing with unneeded Iowa Telecom workers post-merger.  Windstream has only promised to maintain a call center in Iowa.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WHO Des Moines Iowa Telecom Bought 11-25-09.flv[/flv]

WHO-TV Des Moines reported Windstream’s buyout of Iowa Telecom was like “lightning striking twice” for Newton residents, leaving an economically-challenged community in fear. (11/25/09 – 2 minutes)

Iowa Telecom provides customers with a familiar bundle of services common among independent phone companies.  As well as providing traditional wired phone lines, Iowa Telecom markets Xstream DSL at speeds up to 15Mbps in some areas, and resells DISH Network satellite service for customers looking for a video option.

Lexcom's DSL price chart shows budget-busting prices for relatively slow DSL service

Windstream provides DSL service up to 12Mbps in some areas.

Before Iowa Telecom, Windstream’s earlier acquisitions included:

• D&E Communications of Pennsylvania — Windstream fetched the independent provider in a stock and cash transaction that added about 150,000 additional telephone lines to Windstream’s portfolio in Pennsylvania.
• Lexcom — Windstream picked up this Davidson County, North Carolina independent for $141 million.  Lexcom needs serious technology upgrades to improve service.
• NuVox — A Greenville, South Carolina-based business services provider.

Windstream has hinted they’re not done with acquisitions yet, fueling some speculation their next targets may be Consolidated Communications, which provides service in Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Texas or Alaska Communications Systems, another business service provider.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCCI Des Moines Will $1.1B Iowa Telecom Sale Mean Job Losses 11-24-09.flv[/flv]

KCCI-TV Des Moines reported residents of Newton were “shocked” and “disturbed” about the Iowa Telecom buyout, because of potentially staggering layoffs to come after Windstream closes the deal.  (11/24/09 – 2 minutes)

Not everyone is singing the blues about Windstream’s buyout of Iowa Telecom.  Despite the transaction’s impact on Windstream’s credit rating, Wall Street has supported Windstream with a strong stock price, owing to the company’s relentless desire to deliver dividends to stockholders.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Cramer on Windstream 12-7-09 1025.flv[/flv]

CNBC’s Jim Cramer loves the “massive dividends” Windstream provides to stockholders.  But Cramer also issues some caveats, reminding viewers of FairPoint Communications, another former high-dividend stock… until it went bankrupt.  Cramer interviews Windstream CEO Jeff Gardner about the company and the future of independent phone companies in general.  (12/7/09 – 10 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Windstream Profile NASDAQ 12-10-2009 222.flv[/flv]

CNBC reports on Windstream’s move to the NASDAQ and interviews CEO Jeff Gardner about the future for the telecom industry in general.  (12/10/09 – 2 minutes)

This is part one in a series of stories illustrating how telecommunications companies use a combination of public relations firms, professional lobbyists, friendly regulators, and outmaneuvered state officials to sell “improved service” to the public in return for regulatory “reform.”  Too often, that “reform” is loaded with loopholes and language that guarantees providers can break their promises, tie state and local regulators’ hands when bad service results, and ultimately stick you with the bill.

Over the past several months, several communities in New Jersey have been up in arms about Verizon’s reinterpretation of a state law originally written in the 1940s but “updated” just a few years ago, to mean it no longer has to pay telephone pole and infrastructure taxes to municipalities for using the public right of way.  Verizon’s “reinterpretation” of the state’s Business Personal Property Tax law surprised several municipalities who now face significant financial challenges as a result of the lost revenue.  New Jersey residents will likely make up the difference with a higher property tax rate.

On the surface, it might appear Verizon simply happened upon tax savings.  Verizon claims the law only requires it to pay taxes in communities where it has more than 51% of the area’s phone customers.  Despite protestations from local officials, Verizon has signaled its intent to carry on, estimating 150 communities will join the 50-60 already impacted by next year.

Changes in telecommunications public policy do not occur in a vacuum.  They happen when providers lobby for regulatory reform and bring gift baskets filled with promises for dramatically improved service.  Using a network of high priced lawyers and public relations campaign experts, companies can easily outmaneuver local and state regulators at every turn.  Unfortunately, by the time consumers (and sometimes regulators) realize they were left with a Trojan Horse filled with empty promises, it’s too late.

Some deals just bring consumers higher prices while others saddle communities with highly-leveraged, heavily indebted companies that eventually collapse in bankruptcy.

Just how did we get here?  In this series, we’ll look at New Jersey’s history with its largest resident phone company.  From New Jersey Bell to Bell Atlantic to Verizon, more than 20 years of questionable reform has left residents “touched” in their wallets.  The blame doesn’t rest entirely with the phone company, either.  Local and state officials were repeatedly won-over by professionally-run lobbying campaigns.  After repeated bad experiences, one might assume they’d know better by now.  Those communities no longer getting tax payments from Verizon can testify they haven’t.

Let’s turn back the clock to the dramatic changes in telecommunications that came with the 1984 breakup of Ma Bell and the Bell System.

Telecommunications Industry Sets the Stage for a Money Party

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/1977 The Bell System.flv[/flv]

In 1977, the overwhelming majority of Americans were served by “the phone company,” namely AT&T and its family of Bell companies providing local service. (2 minutes)

AT&T's Bell System in 1977 (click to enlarge)

For decades, telephone service was run largely as a monopoly by the enormous Bell System and several dozen smaller, non-Bell independent phone companies.  Telephone service was regulated by state and federal authorities who approved rate increase requests and made sure providers met service quality standards. Consumers did not own the telephone equipment in their homes – it was rented from the phone company.  Although often uninspired, Bell System telephones were often virtually indestructible, ranging from basic utilitarian black rotary dial phones to the flaunting Princess phone, which had a lighted dial and came in several colors.

As America began earnestly developing data transmission systems in the late 1960s and early 1970s, AT&T kept its monopoly intact there as well.  At the time, a cooperative arrangement between IBM and AT&T ensured most American businesses would probably deal with one or both companies for their data communications needs.

The eventual fall of the monopoly glory days of AT&T and its Bell System monopoly can be laid at the feet of corporate arrogance, particularly from one John D. deButts who became AT&T’s new Chairman and CEO on April 1, 1972.  deButts was AT&T born and bred, rising through the ranks over decades of employment with AT&T.  To him, anything smacking of competition was to be considered a duplication of effort and wasted resources.  AT&T, in his view, had already strayed too far from its past when Americans could go from coast to coast and deal with just one telephone system using uniform standards and practices of operations.  Consistency and quality should be the highest priority for AT&T, not squabbling with smaller competitors fighting with each other for customers.

A politically tone-deaf deButts infuriated a post-Watergate Congress hellbent on reform at a time when Americans had grown suspicious of big power players, be they political or corporate.  The confident AT&T executive delivered a speech before regulatory commissioners in the fall of 1973 that included within it, “[we must] take to the public the case for the common carrier principle and thereby implication to oppose competition, espouse monopoly.”

Not only did the speech irritate many members of Congress, it helped convince one of AT&T’s competitors, MCI to file a 22 count lawsuit against AT&T in March 1974, accusing Ma Bell of being engaged in illegal antitrust activities.

An even more important lawsuit was filed by the U.S. Justice Department on November 20, 1974.  The federal government also accused AT&T of antitrust behavior, claiming the company locked-up the telephone equipment business for itself, and was well-suited to crush any potential competitor from getting a serious foothold in the marketplace.  At the time, AT&T officials sniffed that the lawsuit was completely without merit and promised to fight back at all costs.

deButts ordered company lawyers to stall, delay, and roadblock the government’s case as much as possible, and the company enjoyed years of court delays.  The lawsuit dragged through several preliminary hearings and motions, until the then-presiding judge, Joseph Waddy, fell ill and had to reduce his caseload.  The United States v. AT&T was transferred to a newly-appointed District Judge named Harold Greene in September 1978.  The days of delay were over.  Greene quickly ordered the case to trial starting in September 1980.

While the court case saw some changes, AT&T did as well.  In February 1979, deButts was out, replaced with a far more conciliatory Charles Brown.  He changed AT&T’s tune, publicly welcoming competition into the marketplace, announcing “I am a competitor and I look forward with anticipation and confidence to the excitement of the marketplace.”

Having that attitude probably wasn’t helpful to defending AT&T’s case, and the company eventually threw in the towel, reaching a settlement with the government in 1982.  Overseen by Judge Greene, AT&T was promised it could keep its long distance service, Western Electric (which manufactured telephone equipment), and Bell Labs, the company’s research and development arm.  In return, it had to divest all 22 local phone monopolies.

America's newly independent regional telephone companies post-1984

Judge Greene, issuing a final consent decree to be effective January 1, 1984 formally broke up the Bell System.  The 22 local phone companies under AT&T were merged into seven Regional Bell Operating Companies, each to be run independently:

• Ameritech (acquired by SBC in 1999 – now part of AT&T again)
• Bell Atlantic (acquired GTE in 2000 and changed its name to Verizon)
• BellSouth (reabsorbed back into a newly reorganized AT&T in 2006)
• NYNEX (acquired by Bell Atlantic in 1996 – later to become part of Verizon)
• Pacific Telesis (acquired by SBC/AT&T in 1997)
• Southwestern Bell (changed its name to SBC in 1995, then acquired the remnants of AT&T in 2005, rechristening itself as the ‘new’ AT&T)
• US West (acquired by Qwest in 2000.)

The goal was to create several smaller regional companies not too large to face challenging competition from new independent providers entering the marketplace.

The result of all of this upheaval was competition in the long distance calling marketplace, but very little competition for local residential telephone service over phone company-provided telephone lines.

Still, for a time the post-breakup family of former Bell companies enjoyed stability and a less regulated marketplace, and several raised rates for local phone service, even while cutting long distance prices.  Customers could now buy and install their own telephone equipment, including answering machines and computer modems, and several competitors began to spring up to serve business customers.

By the 1990s, a new upstart appeared on the horizon that would potentially threaten the whole ‘arrangement.’  The cable television industry, subjected to a more regulated marketplace after years of monopoly abuse of customers, was looking for new unregulated add-on services they could provide to bring back the days of big profits they enjoyed just a few years earlier.  Two potential services: providing connectivity to the Internet and providing cable customers with telephone service.

When phone companies realized cable was planning to invade their turf, this meant war.

In part two, learn more about how the telephone companies went ‘back to the future’ and rebuilt the empire Judge Greene broke up.

The FCC today voted unanimously to begin writing a formal Net Neutrality policy to govern broadband services across the United States.  Three Democratic commissioners voted yes and applauded the concept of Net Neutrality.  The two Republican commissioners also voted to move the process forward, but signaled they would likely oppose the final draft of the rules.

Support for Net Neutrality, which would prohibit providers from slowing down, blocking, or charging higher pricing for favored access to web content, was spearheaded by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

Genachowski said the rules were needed to protect consumers from abusive behavior by telecommunications companies that might seek to block or restrict access to broadband content, including telephone and video services.

“Internet users should always have the final say about their online service, whether it’s the software, applications or services they choose, or the networks and hardware they use to the connect to the Internet,” Genachowski said.

Other Democratic commissioners agreed with Genachowski.  Commissioner Michael Copps stated it was important to hear from everyone about the proposed rules.

“We need to recognize that the gatekeepers of today may not be the gatekeepers of tomorrow,” Copps said.

John McCain

Many Republicans were unconvinced of the need to establish Net Neutrality as formal policy.

“I do not share the majority’s view that the Internet is showing breaks and cracks, nor do I believe that the government is the best tool to fix it,” Republican commissioner Robert McDowell said.

“These new rules should rightly be viewed by consumers suspiciously as another government power grab over a private service provided by private companies in a competitive marketplace,” Sen. John McCain wrote in an opinion piece published by The Washington Times.

McCain compared Net Neutrality with the federal bailout of Wall Street and the American auto industry.

Under the draft proposed rules, subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service:

1. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user’s choice over the Internet;
2. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user’s choice;
3. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user’s choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network;
4. would not be allowed to deprive any of its users of the user’s entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers;
5. would be required to treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner; and
6. would be required to disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking.

The draft rules make clear that providers would also be permitted to address harmful traffic and traffic unwanted by users, such as spam, and prevent both the transfer of unlawful content, such as child pornography, and the unlawful transfer of content, such as a transfer that would infringe copyright.

Today’s vote marks only a beginning of the process to begin writing the formal policy of Net Neutrality governing Internet use in the United States.  As with the ponderous debate on health care reform, what ends up defining “Net Neutrality” will be open to interpretation, and a barrage of lobbyists and arm twisting from politicians will be part of what comes next.

On the eve of the historic vote, Verizon Communications seemed to join Google in affirming some of the basic principles of Net Neutrality.

However, the devil is in the details, as is always the case in telecommunications policy.

Verizon supports its own interpretation of Net Neutrality, which is wrapped in a concept they call “innovation without permission,” which is code language for a deregulatory open free-market environment.  It broadly accepts the concept that telecommunications companies should not interfere with legal content, but the company doesn’t want a whole barrage of new regulations to specifically define what would constitute “interference.”  Verizon believes onerous rules would stifle investment, and that existing rules already in place at the FCC are sufficient protection.

Things get downright dicey when Verizon spells out its “network management” principles, warning the FCC overly specific rules in this area could have unintended consequences.

Broadband network providers should have the flexibility to manage their networks to deal with issues like traffic congestion, spam, “malware” and denial of service attacks, as well as other threats that may emerge in the future–so long as they do it reasonably, consistent with their customers’ preferences, and don’t unreasonably discriminate in ways that either harm users or are anti-competitive. They should also be free to offer managed network services, such as IP television.

It is in this area where very specific rules are appropriate to write, because what one company defines as appropriate “network management,” could be discriminatory against selected content those providers seek to “manage.”

No broadband user has ever objected to network management that controls spam, “malware,” denial of service attacks, and other like-minded traffic.  In fact, most consumers wish more could be done to control these things.  Nothing in the current framework of telecommunications regulations or in those proposed have ever sought to impede this type of management.

No consumer minds having access to additional content, such as IP television.  But consumers do object when such content is used as an excuse to ram through Internet Overcharging schemes limiting broadband usage or imposing higher fees for using the types of services companies like Verizon now advocate.  “The broadband sky is falling” rhetoric about “exafloods,” overloaded “Internet brownouts,” and other such scaremongering nonsense often comes from the same providers that now want to provide IP television.  What they provide with their left hand, they want to limit with their right.

It’s anti-competitive, because the same companies with an interest in selling these pay television services (FiOS, cable television, fiber-telephone U-verse, etc.) also provide the broadband service that companies like Netflix and Hulu use to indirectly challenge their video business models.

Another concern is “traffic congestion” management, which all too often has meant speed throttles selectively imposed on “offending” applications, particularly peer to peer traffic.  There is good traffic management, such as routing equipment that provides even delivery of services like streaming video and Voice Over IP telephone calls, which rapidly deteriorate on loaded down networks, and then there is bad traffic management which selectively slows down the speed of whatever the provider deems to be of “lower priority.”  Allowing the customer to make the decision about which traffic gets priority is one thing.  Allowing a provider to do it without the consent of the customer is quite another.

Too often, the “unintended consequences” Verizon and Google speak about in the joint statement go to the provider’s favor, not to the consumer.  Overly broad, non-specific language opens loopholes through which providers will eagerly leap through.

Verizon also advocates transparency — “All providers of broadband access, services and applications should provide their customers with clear information about their offerings.”

Disclosure alone doesn’t suffice for consumers, particularly if there are few competitive places to take your business if you disagree with company policies.  Those rules should include realistic speed information (marketing stating “up to 10Mbps” that in reality only delivers 3Mbps would be one example).  It should not simply be an escape clause for providers to abuse their customers with throttled, slow service, and give them the excuse that “we disclosed it.”

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Federal Communications Commission Open Meeting

October 22, 2009

112 minutes

(Warning: Loud audio)