NC Democrats Push Anti-Municipal Broadband Legislation, Threatening to Derail Federal Stimulus Money

As reported by the Independent Weekly, Representative Ty Harrell (D-Wake) and State Senator David W. Hoyle (D-Gaston) have penned SB1004 (and it's House counterpart, HB1252), known as the "Level Playing Field/Cities/Service Providers" bill. Contrary to its name, the bill seeks to prevent municipal governments from installing high-speed broadband or wireless internet service and acting as an ISP, even if commercial ISPs have no plans to offer service to their communities.

Close on the heels of Time Warner Cable's announcement that it would begin testing "tiered bandwith" caps in Greensboro, and the annoucement of Salisbury's plan to follow in Wilson's footsteps and provide fiber to the home for its residents (promising symmetrical speeds of up to 100Mbps), these bills not only threaten the possibility that North Carolina will finally claw its way above the national average in residential broadband access, and do so in an affordable manner, it also threatens North Carolina's access to the $4.7 billion the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has set aside from the $787 billion stimulus package to bring broadband to underserved and un-served communities.

Read on for legislative contact information and learn why North Carolina isn't likely to receive fiber internet any time soon...

Current Status and Legistlative Contacts

HB1252 is expected to be considered by the Committee on Science and Technology tomorrow (apparently, despite numerous complaints, Harrell was pushing to have it voted on on April 15, but ran out of time). If the Committee on Science and Technology, which Harrell chairs, approves the bill, it will then be sent to the Comission on Public Utilities, chaired by Lorene Coates (D-Rowan), and then, Finance, chaired by Paul Luebke (D-Durham).

SB1004 is waiting to be considered by the Senate Committee On Commerce, chaired by Sen. Floyd McKissick (D-Durham).

If you oppose this bill, and there's plenty of reasons to oppose, just as there were plenty of reasons that the previous attempt, the "The Local Government Fair Competition Act" failed in 2007, contact the bills' sponsors:

The sponsors of House Bill 1252

Ty Harrell (D-Wake) | (919) 733-5602 | ty.harrell@ncleg.net

Earl Jones (D-Guilford) | (919) 733-5825 | Earl.Jones@ncleg.net

Marilyn Avila (R-Wake) | (919) 733-5530 | Marilyn.Avila@ncleg.net

Thom Tillis (R-Mecklenberg) | (919) 733-5828 | Thom.Tillis@ncleg.net

The sponsors of Senate Bill 1004

David Hoyle (D-Gaston) | (919) 733-5734 | David.Hoyle@ncleg.net

Debbie Clary (R-Cleveland/Rutherford) | (919) 715-3038 | Debbie.Clary@ncleg.net

ILECs and LATAs and RBOCs, Oh My!: Why NC is Screwed When it Comes to Telecom Coverage

Most people would look at North Carolina and think it was a prime candidate for a rollout of one of the leading high-speed internet packages, such as FIOS or U-Verse, considering that it is the 10th largest state population in the U.S., home to a number of major banking and telecommunications companies, the site of three major research universities, the hosts what is widely considered to be the east coast's Silicon Valley.

Unfortunately, if you think that way, you're looking at the Old North State from the standpoint of a rational human being. The Telcos see it far differently.

RBOCs

The Regional Bell Operating Companies were the result of the U.S. DoJ's anti-trust suit against AT&T. Commonly called "Baby Bells," the RBOCs were split regionally in an effort to prevent monopolies and increase investment in telecommunications technologies. North Carolina was served by BellSouth and independent regional carrier GTE, which was roughly the size of an RBOC, but was not limited by geographic boundaries like the units spun-off from AT&T.

Following the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which substantially erased the lines between the RBOCs and the long-distance carriers, the larger RBOCs began gobbling up the smaller RBOCs and independent regional carriers, creating circumstances wherein what were formerly local, competitive markets became fragmented segments of national markets.

ILECs

Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers are essentially what's left of the RBOC -- they're the telecom companies that, prior to the 1996 Telecommunications Act, held local monopolies. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, on the other hand, are the smaller, more agile telecom carriers, that, for the most part have been bought-up as soon as they pose a financial threat to the ILECs. North Carolina has three major ILECs: Verizon, AT&T and Embarq and none of them are interested in providing substantial service outside of their main ILEC boundaries.

LATAs

Local access and transport areas are the geographic regions in which former RBOCs and ILECs own the physical exchanges and network infrastructure. LATAs are the reason that calling a physically local number within the same area code (such as Durham to Raleigh) might incur long-distance charges, but further distant numbers within separate area codes (Durham to Roxboro) does not. As a result, wireline providers are able to license their high-speed backbones to their competitors at prohibitively expensive rates, discouraging competition.

Further confusing the issue is that LATAs are not defined by state, county or even city boundaries and a single city may have multiple LATAs owned by multiple providers. DSL providers are not permitted to provide broadband service that crosses LATA boundaries, even if the adjacent LATA is also owned by the same company, so while your residence might be only 1,000 yards from the geographically-closest CO, the closest CO in your LATA may be more than 6,000 yards, making it effectively too far away for DSL.

And the LATAs, themselves, are often divided by the ILECs. LATA 426, technically the "Raleigh" LATA, encompasses the Research Triangle Region, and has five different ILECs/CLECs providing service to various locations. None of these companies, particularly BellSouth (AT&T) and Verizon, have any incentive to improve the quality of their data services in these municipalities, because the customer base is so balkanized that the costs of infrastructure improvements outweigh any potential profits.

LATA 426 is North Carolina in a microcosm. Divided between Verizon, AT&T and Embarq, as well as a host of small, regional and local players, the rules as they exist, discourage the telecom industry from serving the residents and businesses of North Carolina with the latest in high-speed broadband, if they provide any service at all. (Click here to see just how segmented North Carolina's telecommunications infrastructure is.)

If the telecom industry manages to ram HB1252 and SB1004 through the state legislature, it will only get worse.

Save NC Broadband

As best summed up by Brian Bowman, the Public Affairs Manager for the City of Wilson, NC, on the Save North Carolina Broadband blog:

If the cable/phone companies really want a level playing field, they’d open their books just like we do in the spirit of open meetings and open records law. They don’t want a level playing field. They want to be the only team on the field.

Bottom line, these companies are using your state lawmakers to protect monopolies. It was wrong in 2007 when a similar bill died in the house and it’s wrong today.

One last note, Wilson tax money does not fund Greenlight. It is self-supporting through subscription fees.

====

Cross-posted at DailyKos (link)

Digg it (link)

Share on Facebook

I just heard about this yesterday

and thought ... holy shit. What the heck is going on here. I guess wearing a bow tie only gives Representative Harrell the illusion of being smart.

The truth is, Time Warner and its phone company competitors have benefited from a government-granted monopoly. As a result, the US SUCKS in comparison to many countries in broadband service levels and quality.

In my view, broadband is no less essential for life in the 21st century than running water, public schools and garbage collection. The only way this playing field is going to get leveled is if We the People have the right to bypass current providers.

My letter

Mr. Harrell.

I was surprised and disappointed to learn today that you're leading the charge on one of the most ill-conceived pieces of clap-trap legislation I've seen coming through the General Assembly - and that's saying a lot.

Is it too late for you to reconsider this unwise proposal, or are you a person who moves forward with a bad idea no matter what?

I'll be contacting everyone I can reach to encourage them to oppose your bill. The half-assed state of North Carolina's broadband coverage speaks volumes for itself. Guaranteeing a perpetual monopoly for those companies who have failed to keep up with what almost every other civilized country offers is a huge mistake.

What on earth are you thinking? And more to the point, who are you working for?

James Protzman

http://bluenc.com/nc-democrats-push-anti-municipal-broadband-legislation...

Now write yours.

Your letter

was great!!!

Sweet Union Dem

Here's mine

I sent this, or a variation thereof, to Ty Harrell, Thom Tillis, Marilyn Avila, Earl Jones, David Hoyle, Debbie Clary, Paul Luebke and Floyd B. McKissick, Jr. last Tuesday:

Representative Harrell,

I would like to register my opposition to House Bill 1252, now before the House Committee on Science and technology, which you sponsored. The pseudo-Orwellian name, "Level Playing Field/Cities/Service Providers," belies the true intent of this bill: to prevent the current ILEC and wireline telecom providers from giving up their de-facto monopolies, which allow them to demand whatever fees and concessions they see fit, stifle competition and avoid investments in new infrastructure and technological improvements.

Similar bills introduced in previous sessions (such as 2007 HB1587) have been met with fierce opposition from constituents and businesses alike in the past; I don't expect the reaction to be any different this time around. Furthermore, the timing of the bill, which coincides with current efforts to provide municipal broadband in Salisbury and Time Warner Cable's announcement that it intends to begin metered bandwidth billing in Greensboro, where it has an effective monopoly, makes me question your wisdom, motivation and dedication to progressive causes.

I am a registered and active Democrat in Durham, a former software developer, a former Washington, D.C.-based national security analyst and a current staff member within the [international studies center at a major university]. In all of those professional positions, as well as my personal interests, fast, unfettered residential broadband have played a vital role in my work responsibilities and home life. I believe that HB1252 threatens the future of our current broadband-dependent lifestyle, education and commerce and will stagnate the drive for improvements in current service technology and actively deter the expansion of broadband service areas within North Carolina.

Perhaps I should mention that North Carolina is swiftly falling behind the national curve in broadband service penetration and available speeds. Furthermore, the nation as a whole is falling behind the rest of the developed world -- Australia, home to the most geographically-distributed national population on Earth, recently announced a plan to provide 100 Megabit per second fiber internet to at least 90% of its population within three years. By comparison, most broadband-subscribed North Carolinians pay $40-50 per month for speeds that range from 1.5 Mbps to 7 Mbps and a significant percentage of the state (>30%) is only served by 56k dial-up.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

I also called the legislative offices of Harrell and McKissick.

I've heard nary a peep from any of the legislators I sent this to.

My job

is to make you seem vastly more reasonable in comparison. I think I did that!

:)

Hey you all.

Please write your letters now. This is truly an odious piece of legislation where the only beneficiaries are gigantic telecommunications companies.

Raleigh City Council opposes H1252/S1004!

This afternoon the Raleigh City Council passed a resolution opposing the "Level Playing Field" Act!

Here's the text of the resolution:

A RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE CONCERN OF THE CITY OF RALEIGH ABOUT CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF RECENTLY INTRODUCED LEGISLATION REGULATING GOVERNMENT PROVISION OF BROADBAND SERVICE AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE.

Whereas, Senate Bill 1004 and House Bill 1252, companion bills entitled The Level Playing Field Act, have been introduced in the 2009 Regular Session of the North Carolina General Assembly; and

Whereas, it is possible that the bills do not provide the level playing field implied in their titles for local governments versus private providers; and

Whereas, the United States Congress has enacted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which includes provision for up to $4.7 billion in federal grants to local governments to assist them in providing affordable access to high capacity broadband service in unserved and underserved areas; and

Whereas, S 1004 and H1252 could have the effect of denying the availability of such grants to local governments if those bills are enacted into law; and

Whereas, North Carolina law already imposes strict accounting and other regulations on the provision of enterprise services and in the provision of funds to encourage economic development throughout the State; and

Whereas, local government only desires that the playing field for the provision of these services be truly level for both public and private sectors;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE RALEIGH CITY COUNCIL THAT;

1. The General Assembly reexamines the need for the Level Playing Field Act to determine its true effect on local government’s obligations to its citizens and to remove the chilling effect these bills will have on local economies if they become law.

2. The General Assembly make public and private providers subject to the same standards and requirements if it is determined that one of the groups is at an actual disadvantage.

3. The General Assembly takes no action to impede or remove the local government’s ability to access American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds.

4. A copy of this Resolution be given to each member of the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Committee of Science and Technology

I hope this sends a clear signal to state legislators that we're paying attention!

If you are in the Raleigh area and can attend Wednesday's Science and Technology Committee Meeting that would be great. It will meet at 11 AM in room 425 of the Legislative Office Building. Get there early as empty seats will be in short supply.

Cheers!
Mark

Thanks, Mark

Weird that Mr. Harrell (D - Wake) isn't all that interested in what Raleigh thinks about this.

I'm still trying to get over that it is Ty Harrell

I think he needs to loosen his bow tie. It's cutting the circulation to his brain.

Sending emails and will rally the Charlotte folks.



***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.

Thanks, Betsy

Like you don't have enough to do.

Somewhat good news!

The bill did not die today but it is somewhat wounded. Today the House Science and Technology Committee could not muster enough support to vote favorably on the bill. Instead the bill was punted to its next committee "without prejudice," which I'm told means the bill may be in trouble.

The bill now heads to the House Public Utilities Committee. The committee chair, Rep. Coates, hails from Salisbury, While I don't know Rep. Coates's feelings on the issue, I do know that Salisbury is vigorously pursuing its own municipal Internet and has spoken out vehemently against the bill.

If the bill found rough sailing in the Science and Technology Committee, it could get even rougher in the Public Utilities Committee.

Thanks, Mark.

Maybe it will die a slow, painful and highly visible death so that legislators will know better than to try this crap again.

By the way, I heard back from exactly zero of the nine people I wrote to about this.

As a taxpayer

As a taxpayer, I agree with the bill that requires cities selling broadband to create a seperate account.

I would like to see if the city is actually making money off the service, or if they want it just so they can have a little extra authority power.

The sad thing is that many legislatures were once on their city council, so I can guess how they would vote.

I can count on my hand the number of cities who have tried to sell utilities in the past, and who have actually made a profit. (Wilson, Hickory, anyone else?)

The ones who lost money...well, that number is way too high.

Profit vs. people

I first replied that not everything a city does has to make money. These kinds of ventures, however, are supported by revenue bonds and therefore do have to make money in order to support themselves.

Wilson is beating estimates on its subscriber base and from what I hear, its subscribers are very happy with Wilson's service.

As for revenue enterprises that do make money, municipal water plants such as Raleigh's make quite a bit of money.

What is really schocking

is that I have been yelping about this on Facebook, as we organized groups to fight TWC's Consumption Based Pricing. I get from Democratic Party folks, well it's Ty and he has done a lot for us...blah,blah, blah. I don't believe in something just because it has a D next to it's name, I believe in what is right, and this is plain wrong.

So I did some digging and Ty has taken money from both Embarq and Time Warner, albiet not a lot (but there is no election going on right now). See his finance reports here.

I am here to help. Day at the legislature, maybe?

Also, check out Stopthecap.com,devoted to stopping what the broadband companies are doing.

Jay Ovittore

“The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.” Thomas Jefferson