community broadband networks

Earlier this year we reported on SB 88 in the Kentucky legislature. The bill, sponsored by Republican Senator Paul Hornback and authored by AT&T, would have eliminated the "carrier of last resort" requirement and reduced consumer protections. A similar bill in 2011 was also defeated by a coalition of public interest groups.

This is one of a series of bills crafted by AT&T and ALEC that has been explained in great depth by the National Regulatory Research Institute in their 2012 review [pdf] as well as by Bruce Kushnick in this report [pdf].

Advocates on the side of consumers, including ILSR, were happy to see the bill defeated in the House. Though AT&T will undoubtedly be back again in future years, this victory shows the massive corporate carriers are vulnerable. In addition to blocking harmful deregulation, this is an example of how an organized coalition can protect the public interest.

I spoke with Mimi Pickering, Director of the Appalshop Community Media Initiative in Whitesburg, Kentucky. She described how local groups defeated the bill with the facts. Appalshop teamed up with nonprofit Kentucky Resources Council (KRC), AARP Kentucky, the AFL-CIO, Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, and several other groups. The coalition explained the complexities of the proposal and spelled out what could happen to landline service without consumer protections.

KRC is an environmental advocacy group that helped stop SB 88 by providing critical research to educate the public and lawmakers. In Episode #44 of our podcast, Pickering and KRC Director Tom FitzGerald describe the coalition's work. KRC put the bill on its "Ugly" list early in the session and Fitzgerald dedicated significant time to analyzing the bill and spreading the word about its pitfalls. 

In a January Kentucky.com opinion piece, Fitzgerald described in detail how passage of the bill would affect households directly and indirectly. Pickering says his ability to translate legislative jargon was critical to the victory. By spelling out the likely outcomes for legislators and citizen groups, KRC and FitzGerald gave lawmakers the facts they needed to make informed decisions.

AT&T relied on a campaign of fear and misinformation. In contrast with FitzGerald's analytical opinion piece, AT&T Kentucky's President Mary Pat Regan penned a fluff piece about SB 88. She claimed the proposal would encourage competition and that residents already had abundant choice. Kentuckians, especially those in rural communities, knew better. Throughout, AT&T claimed that failing to pass the bill would result in Kentucky falling behind technologically.

Kentucky media picked up on the story, perhaps anticipating an interesting replay of the 2011 battle. Kentucky Tonight with Bill Goodman, televised an interview with FitzGerald, an AT&T attorney, Ron Bridges from the AARP Kentucky, and the executive director of Citizens for a Digital Future (CDF), an astroturf group supporting the group. Pickering believes exposure from the show increased momentum and contributed significantly to the campaign.

CDF, an organization claiming to represent senior citizens, ran an aggressive robocall campaign to push the bill. FitzGerald investigated the roots of CDF and found their leading national member was AT&T. He describes another member organization, 60 Plus, as "Rove-esque."

The robocall strategy back-fired when legislators of targeted districts in eastern Kentucky took offense. The calls named legislators who opposed the bill and claimed they were trying to impede progress in Kentucky and circumvent the legislative process. Chairman of the House Tourism Development and Energy Committee and Speaker Pro Tem Larry Clark from eastern Kentucky knows how hard it is to get cell phone service in rural areas. He was particularly annoyed by CDF/AT&T's "heavy-handed" threats.

AT&T and its allies also refused invitations to resolve problems with the bill. FitzGerald wrote several versions of a compromise proposal but AT&T would not give workable solutions the time of day. In the end, obstinance hurt their position.

When AT&T promised to increase its investment in Kentucky, FitzGerald looked at the numbers they supplied. He found no evidence for an increase beyond what they were already slated to invest. Lawmakers did not appreciate the wiley attempt to fool them.

Pickering, FitzGerald, and other leaders of the coalition used facts, education, and a willingness to cooperate to shed light on AT&T's dark motives. With a little media coverage, the strategy defeated millions of lobbying dollars. We know AT&T and other powerful telecommunications giants will continue to push for similar deregulation. However, this struggle in Kentucky can definitely be called a VICTORY for the public interest. 

Municipal broadband networks have been gaining traction across the country. It's easy to see why: In many rural and low-income communities, privately offered broadband services are nonexistent. In its 2012 Broadband Progress Report the Federal Communications Commission counted nearly 20 million Americans (the vast majority living in rural areas) beyond the reach of broadband.

The Free Press' Timothy Karr's words are supported by the growing number of pins on our Community Network Map. We connect with places nearly every day where municipal networks fill the cavernous gaps left by the massive corporations. Large cable and telecom providers do not hide their aversion to servicing rural areas, yet year after year their lobbying dollars persuade state politicians to introduce bills to stop the development of municipal networks. Karr reviewed recent efforts to use state laws to stifle community owned networks in a Huffington Post article.

As readers will recall, this year's front lines were in Atlanta, where HB 282 failed. We hope that loss may indicate a turning point in advancing municipal network barriers because the bill lost on a 94-70 vote with bipartisan opposition. If it had succeeded, Georgia would have been number 20 on a list of states that, thanks to ALEC and big corporate sponsors like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner Cable, have decided to leave their citizenry begging for the private market to come their way.

Time and again, the supporting argument goes like this:

"A vote 'yes' for this bill means that you support free markets and free enterprise," [Rep Hamilton, the Chief Author of HB 282] said [on the House Floor].

A 'no' vote means that you want more federal dollars to prop up cities, Hamilton said.

But Karr points out that some policy makers are starting to question that argument, with good reason. From his article:

"They talk about [the companies] as if they are totally free market and free enterprise, but doesn't AT&T get some tax breaks?" [Rep. Debbie Buckner] asked. "Didn't Windstream get some stimulus money? Isn't that government money?"

Indeed, phone and cable companies have been on federal welfare since their inception. A 2011 Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy study shows AT&T and Verizon receiving more than $26 billion in tax subsidies from 2008 through 2010. The FCC's 2012 report on Universal Service Fund subsidies shows nearly $3 billion in federal payments to AT&T, Verizon and Windstream.

In 2010, Windstream, Corp. -- a telecommunications company with services across the South -- applied for $238 million in federal stimulus grants to improve its service in 16 states. More than 16 million taxpayer dollars went to upgrade the company's services in Georgia.

So, while AT&T, Verizon, and Windstream continue to work with legislators and lobbyists who advance bills that maintain an environment rife with corporate welfare, rural Americans get nothing for their contributions. As the word spreads and more people learn about the benefits of community networks, we anticipate more people will recognize their value. In addition to saving public dollars, increasing connectivity, and spurring economic development, local networks are accountable to the communities they serve, unlike the big corporate ISPs, who are accountable to shareholders.

"The private companies have not been there for us," said Rep. Buckner, who represents rural parts of Talbot and Meriwether Counties. "And if they say they're going to come and be there for us, we don't know how long it will take them to find us."

Last year, we reported on the failed SB 135, which would have eliminated the "carrier of last resort" requirement in the state. The bill, sponsored by Republican Senator Paul Hornback would have let AT&T decide who could receive basic telephone service and would have limited consumer protections.

Last year's bill did not become law, but a progeny, SB 88, has already passed in the Kentucky Senate and was received in the House on February 15th. (We'd like to report what committee will hear it first but the Kentucky Legislative web has not yet published that information.) Senator Hornback is again the chief author of the bill, crafted by AT&T and its ALEC pals.

The Kentucky Resources Council (KRC) provides an analysis of SB 88 and a prognosis on how it would affect Kentuckians. KRC must be feeling deja vu, as are many organizations looking out for rural dwellers who depend on their landlines. These bills continue to be introduced year after year as large telecommunications companies spend millions of lobbying dollars, also year after year.

WMMT, Mountain Community Radio in Whitesburg, Kentucky, recently reported on the legislation. Sylvia Ryerson spoke with Tom Fitzgerald from KRC, who discussed the analysis. From KRC's report on the legislation:

At potential risk is the opportunity for existing and new customers, to obtain stand-along basic telephone services from the incumbent telephone utility, or “Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS)” as it is called. Those most adversely affected by this loss of access to basic, stand-alone, telephone service are those least able to obtain affordable and reliable alternatives – those who live in rural, lower density areas, and the poor in dense, urbanized areas who have no affordable alternative priced as low as POTS.

The main concerns with the bill include:

Removal of power from the Public Service Commission to hear and resolve complaints about local exchange service. This would affect voice service, operator assistance, directory assistance, and accurate 911 assistance. Restoring lost service is often a waiting game for rural customers served by AT&T. With no where to go, customers can lose their connection to family and the outside world for even longer periods. As with many other provisions of this bill, the elderly are the biggest casualty. Healthcare matters are  often handled over the phone, including my dad's pacemaker monitoring.

In areas where there are more than 5,000 households, offering basic stand-alone service would be at the provider's discretion. Service could be terminated without prior regulatory approval if there are any other voice services offered to the customer, even if that service was from an affiliate. This lack of competition would likely lead to cost increases for people who cannot afford them. Another scenario would be the company's requirement for customers to bundle services, forcing those least able to afford it to purchase services they do not need or want just to get telephone service.

In communities where there are fewer than 5,000 households, the current providers (AT&T, Windstream, or Cincinnati Bell) could cease to offer stand alone landline service of there was available voice wireless service, even if that service was less effective for 911 purposes. Again, the "forced bundle" would be an issue.

They could also petition to be relieved of the obligation to provide basic telephone service if they meet certain criteria regarding the availability of voice services from other providers in the area. For example, if there is a broadband provider "capable" of providing voice services (contrasted with one that actually "does provide" voice services) the provider could be relieved of the obligation. Again, that "capable" provider does not have to offer the service as a stand alone, but may require bundling.

Providers can use any technology they wish if they decide to continue the "provider of last resort" obligation, which will make that obligation completely deregulated. This tactic is the backbone of the private sector's efforts to deregulate. For more on this strategy, we encourage you to listen to our conversation with Harold Feld on the 23rd episode of the Broadband Bits Podcast.

For more detail on the bill, and all its shortcomings, take a few moments to review the detailed analysis by KRC. The full text of the bill, its amendments, and the status, are available on the Kentucky General Assembly website.

So what could be gained for Kentuckians by passage of such a bill?

From a Courier-Journal report by Joseph Gerth:

Proponents of Senate Bill 88 say the bill would allow companies like AT&T, Cincinnati Bell and Windstream to sink more money into expanding wireless broadband communications rather than costly old, outmoded land lines.

History shows us, however, that promises made by regulated companies today often end up as foggy memories tomorrow. We have seen time and time again how dergulation given in exchange for promises results in a breach of the social contract. This is known as Kushnick's Law:

"A regulated company will always renege on promises to provide public benefits tomorrow in exchange for regulatory and financial benefits today."

Rather than wait to be taken advantage of again, we encourge you to call the toll-free legislative message line 1-800-372-7181 and leave a message that will be delivered to all legislators. This is especially critical if you live in Kentucky, but legislation like this will march across all states if it passes here or elsewhere. 

Harold Feld, Senior Vice President of Public Knowledge, is back on Community Broadband Bits to discuss five fundamental rules necessary to ensure we have a great telecommunications system that benefits everyone. Harold first appeared on our show in episode 23.

Harold explains the Five Fundamentals here and includes a link to their full filing [pdf].

In short, the fundamentals are: Service to all Americans, Interconnection and Competition; Consumer Protection; Network Reliability; and Public Safety. The comments also include some thoughtful words about the balance between federal, state, and local governments in ensuring these five fundamentals.

We want your feedback and suggestions for the show - please e-mail us or leave a comment below. Also, feel free to suggest other guests, topics, or questions you want us to address.

This show is 25 minutes long and can be played below on this page or subscribe via iTunes or via the tool of your choice using this feed. Search for us in iTunes and leave a positive comment!

Listen to previous episodes here. You can can download this Mp3 file directly from here.

Thanks to mojo monkeys for the music, licensed using Creative Commons.