level playing field

Tagged Stories

Georgia Legislature to Revoke Local Authority to Build Networks

The Georgia Senate is considering SB 313, a bill that would overrule local decision-making authority in matters of broadband. Even as connections to the Internet have become essential for communities, the Georgia Legislature is poised to make it harder for communities to get the networks they need.

We saw very similar language in North Carolina pass last year after many years of lobbying by Time Waner Cable and CenturyLink. These massive companies use their lobbying clout to stop any form of competition they could face, and they are presently threatened by the examples of many communities that have built incredible next-generation networks. For instance, see the thousands of new jobs in Chattanooga that are credited to its community fiber network.

Community networks spur competition -- it is why Chattanooga got Comcast's xfinity service before Atlanta, despite Atlanta having long been prioritized over Chattanooga previously. It is why Cox Cable, which is headquartered in Atlanta, launched its upgrades in Lafayette, Louisiana -- they felt the competition pressure from a community fiber network.

Bill supporters are already claiming that this is just an attempt to level the playing field:

"The private sector is handling this exceptionally well," Rogers said. "What they don't need is for a governmental entity to come in and compete with them where these types of services already exist. We're not outlawing a local government entity from doing this, but if they're going to compete, they can play by the same rules and ask the voters if it's okay before they go out and spend all these dollars."

We have mapped the states that enacted barriers to community networks,written extensively about level playing field arguments, and even produced a video about the level playing field:

As for whether the private sector is providing enough competition or high enough capacity networks, I leave that to individual communities to decide.

SB 313 effectively removes such decisions from local communities. It purports to just set additional terms that the public sector must meet, but many of these terms are sufficiently onerous (especially when taken all together) that communities will not be able to build the network they need.

The bill first requires communities to ask the private sector to build the necessary network. This ignores the basic fact that community networks are operated with different incentives that privately owned networks. Due to the scarcity in the market, private providers tend to keep prices higher than necessary to maximize their short term profits. Publicly owned networks lower prices (while still paying their costs) in order to spur job creation and increase digital inclusion.

The bill requires communities to pass a referendum before building a network and requires inaccurate, damning language be included on the ballot. Broadband referendums tend to invite deep-pocketed incumbent providers to spend heavily to buy the votes necessary to stop competition - see the Longmont saga for an excellent example of how hard it is for a community to stand up to these big cable corporations.

Georgia Legislature

Communities that somehow get this far are then subject to all the regulations as are private providers in addition to numerous additional regulations imposed on them by this legislation and their inherent duty to operate in an open and transparent manner. Despite being nonprofit, they are required to pay taxes and still face additional barriers that private operators do not.

They will be restricted in how they price their services and where they offer services in ways the private sector is not.

In short, this bill will make it all but impossible for communities to build networks -- even in areas that are presently unserved. The bill purports to exempt some unserved areas, but does so in a cynically evasive way. The only way a community could meet the unserved exemption is if it vowed to only build in the least economical areas -- meaning it would have to be significantly subsidized. Serving unserved areas and breaking even financially almost always requires building a network that will also cover some areas already served (because that is where you can find the margins that will cover the losses in higher expense areas).

The bill is presently in the Senate Regulated Industries and Utilities committee. We will continue covering it and attempt to learn which interests are pushing to revoke local authority and replace it with what distant legislators think best.

Photo used under Creative Commons license, courtesy of Flickr's PhotoPhiend.

AT&T's Lobbying Power

A deep thank you to Public Knowledge for their throwing back the curtain on AT&T's lobbying operation in the attempted takeover of T-Mobile.

Whenever the discussion of public v. private arises, the focus is inevitably on the advantages that the public sector supposedly has over the private providers. We have documented these "level playing field" claims and refuted them.

When I recently visited Lafayette, the head of the public utility told me that in fighting the Local Government "Fair" Competition Act in 2005 (meant to prohibit competition against incumbent cable and phone companies) Lafayette hired one lobbyists and the incumbents hired all the rest. In Tennessee, Chattanooga hires one lobbyist to defend itself from many lobbyists -- in October I learned that AT&T has already registered 26 lobbyists for the 2012 session in Tennessee.

Not only do major national companies like AT&T already have most of the advantages in the marketplace, they spend mightily on lobbyists and campaign contributions to make sure it stays that way. One of the reasons I am an enthusiastic supporters of Larry Lessig's Rootstrikers campaign is because the power of big telephone and cable companies likes in their ability to influence policy and elections, not in the quality of their services in the marketplace.

Back to Public Knowledge -- they researched AT&T's push for th T-Mobile merger and found AT&T hired three former US Senators, four former House members, dozens of staffers from both parties, and spent over $40 million in advertising to push its bid to reduce competition in the wireless market.

“This information gives us a more complete picture of the vast lobbying and advertising resources AT&T has dedicated to trying to ram through this takeover,” said Harold Feld, legal director of Public Knowledge. “It is even more impressive that while many members of Congress have ignored the facts and are backing this takeover, the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission have not. It is clear that the data the DoJ and FCC have compiled on this deal will negate all of the money AT&T has spent to mislead policymakers and the public.”

Community Networks Provide Cable/Broadband Competition That is Otherwise Unlikely

You can also read this story over at the Huffington Post.

How can it be that the big companies who deliver some of the most important services in our modern lives (access to the Internet, television) rank at the top of the most hated? Probably because when they screw up or increase prices year after year, we have no choice but sticking with them. Most of us have no better options.

But why do we have so few choices? Government-sanctioned monopolies have been outlawed since the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Unfortunately, the natural tendency of the telecommunications industry is toward consolidation and monopoly (or duopoly). In the face of this reality, the federal government has done little to protect citizens and small businesses from telecom market failings.

But local governments have stepped up and built incredible next-generation networks that are accountable to the community. These communities have faster speeds (at lower prices) than the vast majority of us.

Most of these communities would absolutely prefer for the private sector to build the necessary networks and offer real competition, but the economics of telecom makes that as likely as donuts becoming part of a healthy breakfast. In most cases, the incumbent cable and telephone companies are too entrenched for any other company to overbuild them. But communities do not have the same pressures to make a short-term profit. They can take many years to break even on an investment that creates many indirect benefits along the way.

One might expect successful companies like AT&T and Time Warner Cable to step up to the challenge posed by community networks, and they have. Not by simply investing more and competing for customers, but by using their comparative advantage – lobbying state legislatures to outlaw the competition. As we noted in our commentary and video last week, massive cable and telephone companies have tried to remove local authority to build networks.

These companies frequently claim they are at an unfair disadvantage when they have to compete against a broadband network owned by the local government. This claim resonates strongly with some politicians, particularly those who happen to receive a lot of campaign contributions from big telco and cable companies -- as recently demonstrated in Wisconsin. They say they just want a "level playing field."

We decided to take a deeper look. We compared Time Warner Cable to Salisbury, North Carolina -- which built one of the newest community fiber networks – to see who is at a disadvantage.

TWC v Salisbury Fibrant InfoGraphic

Big companies like Time Warner Cable have some big advantages over any community that decides to build a network. Of course, communities do not build their own networks on a lark, they do it because they need fast, affordable, and reliable networks for economic development and maintaining a high quality of life.
But a better comparison goes beyond simply the scale of the competitors in order to complete a more meaningful comparison. For that, we created our “Level Playing Field” video, attached below.

There should be no doubt that massive incumbent cable and phone companies have a monopoly on the “unfair” advantages in telecommunications. Fortunately, community networks have a host of local advantages and often superior technology with which to invest in the networks they need. The question is whether Congress and the states will protect the right of communities to choose for themselves if a local community network is necessary.

Video: 
See video

Access Wisconsin Supported Broadband Stimulus Before They Opposed It

Access Wisconsin, a group of telephone providers working with AT&T to kill a network essential for schools and libraries across the state, claims that using taxpayer money is unfair competition. It is a fascinating argument from a collection of companies that rakes in various state and federal subsidies.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported these statements from Access Wisconsin this week:

"This is by far the greatest assault we've ever felt from the University of Wisconsin Extension," said Mark Weller, president and CEO of Access Wisconsin, which represents 30 mostly small, rural telecommunications providers. "It's totally inappropriate.

"When services are available through the private sector at a competitive rate and we have to compete against yet another entity that is being funded by the taxpayers, that's just not fair."

Those statements came after increasing outrage around the state following the news that their lobbyists waited until the 11th hour to suddenly insert a provision into an omnibus bill that would kill WiscNet and require the state to return multiple broadband stimulus awards expanding telecommunications services in unserved areas.

But back in February of 2010, when Access Wisconsin was receiving a similar broadband stimulus award, it had a different attitude.

“The Recovery Act grant will bring fiber optic broadband to areas where it would otherwise be too expensive to build.  There aren’t enough customers to justify the cost of the investment without the help of these funds," Weller said.  “The federal grant, along with a 20% state match, is providing the kind of infrastructure for rural schools and libraries that will meet their needs for decades.”
 
The new fiber optic broadband connections will provide new education and economic opportunities in 380 largely rural communities across Wisconsin.  Schools and libraries in those communities will gain dramatically expanded telecommunications access, while the installation of new infrastructure will help make broadband access available for businesses and residents.

logo-att.png

But that award fell through because AT&T and Access Wisconsin didn't read the rules. When they found that they had to share network assets built with all that free money, they balked and returned the money. Which means, hundreds of communities across Wisconsin don't have 'dramatically expanded telecommunications access.' In fact, hundreds of communities need better services -- services that Access Wisconsin readily admitted they cannot provide absent taxpayer subsidies.

So, when Access Wisconsin claims this week that:

"When services are available through the private sector at a competitive rate and we have to compete against yet another entity that is being funded by the taxpayers, that's just not fair."

They know very well that those services are not available through the private sector at a competitive rate.

But what about the argument that they should not have to compete against a network funded by taxpayers? Don't forget, that these same providers are always telling us about how much competition there is -- that is why they needed to be deregulated in Wisconsin a few months ago.

Professor Andy Lewis of UW Extension Service reminded me that at least 15 members of Access Wisconsin have received federal money through the Rural Utility Service for their networks. Isn't it then unfair for WISPs and other private providers to have to compete against Access Wisconsin members living off the public dole?

Make no mistake, Access Wisconsin doesn't want fair, doesn't care about fair, and wouldn't even know fair if it competed Access Wisconsin upside the head. Access Wisconsin wants to protect broadband scarcity because it allows them to charge rates above the cost of providing services. Under stimulus rules, the networks being built have to be available to all parties under fair terms -- so these are actually an opportunity for Access Wisconsin members to use better networks to expand their services!

Taking profits from de facto monopoly territories and dumping it into campaign contributions and lobbying to protect those profits is a no-brainer for profit-maximizing companies. What is curious is why Wisconsin would put up with a Legislature that envisions local schools and libraries as chum for telco sharks. What happened to fiscal responsibility? Schools and libraries need WiscNet and the broadband stimulus to operate efficiently and provide the best opportunities to their communities.

Policy In-Depth: Debate over Muni Broadband Competing With Private Sector

On June 1, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation held an oxford-style debate over the proposition: "Governments should neither subsidize nor operate broadband networks to compete with commercial ones."  

Jim Baller and I spoke against the proposition while Rob Atkinson and Jeff Eisenach defended it during the 2 hour, 15 minute session.  I was unable to be in DC and thus participated by the magic of modern telecommunications.  

This is a long but valuable and unique discussion.  We left talking points behind, actually responded to the points raised by the other side, and presented both sides of this debate in a reasonable manner.  In short, this is exactly the kind of discussion we would elected officials to consider before legislating on the matter.  But it very rarely happens -- nothing even remotely close to it occured in North Carolina when Time Warner Cable pushed its bill through the Legislature to enact a de facto ban on muni networks in the state.

You can watch it here.

 

Video: 
See video

Mitchell and Baller Defend Community Networks in ITIF Debate on June 1

Sign up for a live webcast (or if you are in DC, please attend) of Jim Baller and Christopher Mitchell engaging in an Oxford-style debate on the subject of community broadband with Rob D. Atkinson and Jeff Eisenach on June 1 at 9:00 EDT.

The statement to be debated is: "Governments Should Neither Subsidize nor Operate Broadband Networks to Compete with Commercial Ones."  Guess which side Jim and I will take?

The Hypocrisy of Those Seeking a Level Playing Field

At least once a week in my 48 months of public service, I was told by someone that the purpose of the Commission was to create a "level playing field." No one meant it.  The proponents of this view wanted someone else to be burred under their "level" field.  And I never believed our job was "leveling."  Should a jury declare a defendant neither guilty nor innocent, but only express a neutral view?

After 4 Years, TWC Buys Its North Carolina Legislation

Last year, we put together a report with graphs showing how superior the community fiber networks are compared to incumbent operators like AT&T and Time Warner Cable. When we released the report, we noted that Time Warner Cable would almost certainly push legislation in 2011 to limit local authority to choose to build locally owned networks.

Sadly, we were right. On Friday, North Carolina's Governor Perdue bowed to the pressure of TWC, CenturyLink and other companies that want to limit competition. She refused to veto a bill written by those companies, for those companies, that will ensure local businesses and residents will have fewer choices and higher bills when they connect to the Internet.

In February, we dug into TWC's H129 to explain how it threatened the future of broadband access in the Tar Heel state. It was the first of more than 30 posts we wrote since, reporting very closely on its path through a legislature effectively controlled by big-money corporations.

North Carolina has become the first state in perhaps 5-6 years to enact new barriers to prevent communities from building their own broadband networks, even when the private sector has refused to invest. Advocates of the bill pretend it exempts rural areas with little broadband access, but that section was carefully amended by lobbyists to effectively apply to no one.

Below, you'll see the video we produced that shows the real threat TWC and CenturyLink were responding to - the embarrassment of offering anemic, overpriced services compared to networks like Salisbury's Fibrant and Wilson's Greenlight.

We hope that voters will remember whether their elected officials, including Governor Perdue, represented the people and small businesses of the state or simply parroted talking points from an industry that has dumped millions of dollars into the Legislature to buy new regulation to kill the only likely source of broadband competition.

nc-gov-perdue.png

Governor Perdue ignored more than 2,000 phone calls begging her to veto a bill she agreed could "have the effect of decreasing the number of choices available to their citizens."

Her concern?

There is a need to establish rules to prevent cities and towns from having an unfair advantage over providers in the private sector.

One might as well push for legislation to prevent ants from having an unfair advantage over children with magnifying glasses. Or for legislation protecting NFL running backs from the threat of middle-school linebackers.

While local governments may have one or two tools available to them that are not available to the private sector, massive companies will tens of billions of dollars in revenue have far more advantages than any local government. Additionally, incumbents naturally have multiple advantages over any overbuilder -- pro-competition legislation should seek to remove unfair incumbent advantages, not increase them.

Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of this rough-and-tumble battle in North Carolina was the utter lack of discussion about what communities need for economic development, quality of life, and such. Whenever Representatives from rural areas tried to talk about what their communities needed, those pushing the bill (Avila was the worst) said that discussion should be held another time -- but it was always clear that this was the one broadband bill leadership wanted to succeed.

It was quite clear that to those in the legislature supporting TWC's bill, an unreliable, overpriced connection to DSL was no different than a far more reliable and affordable connection via a next-generation fiber-optic network. And even though AT&T is cutting future investment while imposing new limits on how much of their service subscribers can use, most of the legislature effectively said "more power to them." As long as TWC and CenturyLink can cut those big campaign checks, too many elected leaders have no interest in what is really necessary for North Carolina's communities to thrive.

We must learn from this struggle and move on to find ways of expanding affordable, fast, and reliable access to the Internet to everyone. This will now be harder in North Carolina, but voters can change that in coming elections, if they so choose.

As always, anyone interested in helping to defend and increase local authority to build networks, donate to make sure we can continue this important work. For those interested in a wider look at the threat of corporate power to democracy, check out Larry Lessig's Rootstrikers.org. Only by continuing to organize can we balance the massive power of corporations like Time Warner Cable.

Video: 
See video

Time Warner Cable Monopoly Protection Act Heads to North Carolina Governor

It took far more longer than expected, due to the many phone calls from concerned citizens opposing it, but Time Warner Cable's investments in the North Carolina Legislature have finally paid off. A bill that will crush its only potential broadband competition in the state is sitting on the Governor's desk. We join with SEATOA, the vast majority of businesses in North Carolina who depend on broadband, and local communities in calling on the Governor to veto it.

The NC House had to approve it again due to changes made in the Senate -- including a change that absolutely gutted the rural exemption for communities who are lacking access broadband access to the Internet. Representative Avila and other sponsors have made many promises throughout this process that they never intended to hold true to.

SEATOA has long organized to preserve local authority in this matter and reported:

We made certain Rep. Avila understood that that clarification gutted the exemption and she did not care. e-NC reports that the private sector providers are permitted to report an entire Census Block as having access to internet, if only one home in the block actually has it.  In essence, North Carolina will have no "unserved areas" or communities will have to do their own door to door surveys, an expensive and monumental feat.

But what do you expect from elected officials who calls something a "level field" while bragging that they are crafting rules (such as limited service territories) that only apply to the community networks, which already operate at a disadvantage to a $19 billion a year competitor like bill author Time Warner Cable?

When the bill passed the Senate, a newspaper in Davidson noted its unequal approach that further handicapped communities:

Davidson Mayor John Woods said Tuesday MI-Connection deserves to be treated the same as private companies.

“We strongly object to the territory limits that this bill will impose on MI-Connection which are not imposed on other broadband providers. In addition, MI-Connection would remain subject to open meeting laws, which do not apply to those other providers,” he said.

Mr. Venzon also said local governments already face other rules that put them at a disadvantage to private competitors, including the requirement to operate under the N.C. Public Records Law. That “limits our board from operating as freely as a private company. Could we get access to the strategic plans, pricing strategies and competitive analysis for other broadband, cable and satellite providers? That would level the playing field,” Mr. Venzon told DavidsonNews.net.

Stop the Cap! has a call to action with more information about the final votes to pass the bill. Thanks to Representatives Faison and Luebke for standing up to the massive monied interests (chiefly Time Warner Cable and CenturyLink) that successfully bought legislation in 2011 after four years of trying.

We have provided some of the audio from the House Floor once again - it appears below this call on the Governor to veto the bill by SEATOA [pdf].

nc-gov-perdue.png

Dear Governor Perdue:

No student in North Carolina, no patient, police officer, lawyer or business can function properly without access to reliable and affordable broadband service. Broadband is a grass-roots issue. Access to advanced broadband networks has now become essential for our citizens and businesses to participate in the global economy and access modern medicine, public safety, energy management and education. North Carolina has long been ahead of the game, with the distinguished history of its public and private sectors working together to make our state a high technology leader. It is for this reason that I write you today requesting that you veto H129 - a bill which threatens to deny large portions of our state access to reliable and affordable broadband service, bring a close to our long history of high technology excellence, and ultimately handicap the ability of our state to compete effectively in the global knowledge-based economy. H129 will bring about these changes in a number of ways:

H129 will effectively prevent our rural communities from providing their citizens and businesses broadband when the private sector will not

Half of North Carolina’s population live in our rural areas, communities where the state’s large incumbent providers have publicly stated their profit requirements prevent them from serving because of their low household densities and incomes. Yet H129 will effectively prevent our communities from providing broadband service, even in areas the private sector refuses to serve, by imposing a series of new onerous regulations on municipalities which do not apply to the private companies. H129’s sponsors claim “unserved” areas are freed from these terminal regulations, but such areas are measured one census block at a time. If 50% of the homes in a census block have access to internet, it is “served.” e-NC reports that private providers are allowed to report that all the homes in a census block have internet service if only one home in the census block has access. As such, North Carolina will have no unserved areas. Because H129 prevents our rural communities from stepping in and providing broadband service when the private sector will not, it will guarantee our rural areas are digital have-nots. (See FCC Commissioner Clyburne press release criticizing H129) For these communities, MCNC’s new fiber middle-mile network will be a bridge to nowhere.

H129 fails to fully exempt North Carolina’s most advanced fiber networks
A handful of communities in our state, including Wilson and Salisbury, have responded to the private sector’s lack of interest in building the kind of fiber networks needed for our businesses and students to globally compete, by building their own fiber to the home networks. These gigabyte networks are the most advanced in the state (and in the country). H129 seeks to shut these systems down because they compete with the large private companies (Time Warner Cable and Centurylink) who are unwilling to invest in similarly advanced technology. H129 imposes numerous regulations on municipally owned systems that would shut a private company down. While the municipally owned systems have been able to obtain a few exemptions to H129, their service areas are micro-managed by the bill in a way which will arrest their growth. Stopping a company’s ability to grow is the best way to shut it down. It will just be a matter of time.

H129 effectively prevents any communities from filling in private sector broadband gaps, even with public private partnerships

The federal government and our own General Assembly (with the Video Services Competition Act), deregulated all voice, video and broadband services, regardless of provider. Yet H129 imposes new regulations only on municipally-owned systems. These regulations include holding special elections (referendum) before a municipality funds any kind of equipment associated with constructing or repairing a new communications system, and the regulation of the rates charged by a municipality, where costs they do not incur (such as personal property tax) must be added to the price paid by customers. Such burdensome and anti-competitive regulations will effectively prevent the financing of these systems, and will prevent any private company from partnering with a North Carolina community on such a project. Private companies seeking partnerships will simply go to states where no such regulations exist, as will the private companies who sell equipment to these advanced broadband systems. The large incumbent carriers serving our state will have no incentive to upgrade their outdated infrastructure because they will be the only option in town. Jobs associated with the existence of advanced broadband will not develop; economic investments will not occur. (See Google et al. letter opposing H129)

H129 shackles the growth and innovation of our state to the decisions of a few multi-billion-dollar, out-of-state corporations
H129 sets a bad precedent of placing the interests of large out-of-state companies ahead of the interests of North Carolina businesses and residents. Time Warner Cable and Centurylink are billion dollar, multi-state companies, loyal only to their shareholders. By effectively prohibiting our local communities from building their own advanced broadband systems, the ability of our state to grow and innovate will be tied to the minimum level of technology these two companies are willing to provide in our state. The result to date, according to FCC data, is that North Carolina’s broadband service is the worst in the country (see attached FCC chart). “North Carolina grown” municipal fiber systems have developed because these local communities, who lost their tobacco economies, recognized that the only way they could survive in the global economy was to match the type of technology Asia and Europe are building. They recognized access to high capacity, affordable, broadband infrastructure is a key driver for jobs and economic growth.

H129 creates state law that is in contravention of both federal law and North Carolina’s constitution.
H129 newly subjects communications services offered only by municipalities to strict rate regulation and oversight by the NCUC (e.g., §160A-340.1(a)8-9; Section 2.(a)).This is in direct contravention to federal laws preempting the regulation of virtually all cable rates (47 U.S.C.§543(a)(1)); all cable system facilities and services (47 U.S.C. §544(a)); state utility regulation of cable systems (47 USC §541(c)); and federal laws and rules prohibiting state regulation of broadband services. H129 also subjects municipal property used for communications purposes to property tax, in direct violation of the North Carolina Constitution. (§160A-340.1(9) and §160-340.5 compared to N.C. Const Art V, §2(3)).

We have lost our tobacco, textile and manufacturing economic base. Access to advanced internet service is the last remaining hope for all our citizens, rural and urban, to compete in the global knowledge based economy using our state’s greatest resource: our ability to innovate. H129 effectively cuts off the ability of our rural communities to provide their businesses and citizens internet access when the private sector will not. It also fails to fully exempt from its onerous regulations, the most advanced municipal fiber systems in our state, with the intention to slowly and painfully put them out of business. North Carolina has a proud history of high-tech leadership in our country. Now is not the time stifle that strong technology history by regulating our North Carolina-based broadband providers for the benefit of a few out-of-state, the multi-billion dollar companies. Now is the time for the public and private sectors in our state to work together so everyone in North Carolina can obtain broadband access. That is what the citizens of North Carolina believe and expect.
Please ensure that will happen by vetoing H129.

You are missing some Flash content that should appear here! Perhaps your browser cannot display it, or maybe it did not initialize correctly.

You are missing some Flash content that should appear here! Perhaps your browser cannot display it, or maybe it did not initialize correctly.