Tag Archives: legislation

What price political donations in the NC anti-broadband bill victory?

“US politicians seek and receive funds from corporations to finance their political
campaigns. Why, because corporations want access and influence. Have lobbying and
financial donations corrupted the US political system? Well, that’s rather subjective,
and regardless the system is here to stay for the foreseeable future.” (T TV)

It happens all over the world. A great recent example is what recently happened in North Carolina. Despite all rational thinking, quantifiable evidence the legislators there seemed to ignored everything allowing the H.129 “Level Playing Field / Local Government Competition” bill to pass last week by the North Carolina House. Some call it the “anti-broadband bill”, on the not unreasonable grounds that it stifles the ability of under-served communities to build their own broadband networks and services.

In my opinion a bill that places the interest of the huge corporate players pushing the bill over what is truly best for the people and their local communities.

A post on Telecom TV ( T TV) sheds light on the possible dirty politics that goes on and really should be stopped:

Here is what was posted on T TV states:

What price political donations in the NC anti-broadband bill victory?

Posted By TelecomTV One
01 April 2011

Looking at the voting results and the immediate conclusion is that party politics played
its ugly part in the 81-37 result. Not a single Republican voted against the bill. In
fact, 15 Democrats also voted in favour – in favour of a bill that ostensibly looks to
“level the playing field” but in reality means that underserved municipalities and local
communities face being regulated to hell and back if they even think about wanting to
provide their own broadband services.

Why? What persuaded Representatives to support this piece of legislation?

Maybe it was because the telecoms/media sector spent over $600,000 on political campaign
donations in the 2010 North Carolina elections? Fair question, and so we took a look.

Our data comes from the Follow The Money website, the
site of the National Institute on Money in State Politics. It is subject to non-reported
disclosures and transcription errors, although we have checked our facts very carefully.

In total, a staggering $39.7 million was donated to the North Carolina 2010 campaign,
spread between House and Senate candidates, party committees and the High and Appeal
Courts. The House got a $9.7 million share of this, spread between 268 candidates.

Of the $39.7 million total, $11.2 million was “candidate contributions” and a further
$7.4 million was “party contributions”. That leaves just over $21 million from the
corporate sector. So where does the “communications and electronics” sector sit in the
rankings? (note that the NIMSP defines this sector as including TV & Movie
Production/Distribution, Telecom Services & Equipment, Telephone Utilities, Electronics
Manufacturing & Services, Computer Equipment & Services.) Well, it only ranks ninth when
you omit “public subsidy” from the list, with $612,766.

The H.129 debate was won by 81 votes to 37 – in other words 69% voted yes.

Looking through the detailed records of those 118 Representatives, the communications
sector made donations to these chosen few of $201,462.

Companies within the sector are listed below, together with the size of their total
contribution to voting House Representatives, and the percentage of this given to those
who voted in favour of the bill:

AT&T – $44,750 – 47%

Time Warner – $31,000 – 85%

CenturyLink – $25,250 – 77%

NCTCC – $18,000 – 79%

Verizon – $15,000 – 63%

Corning – $9,000 – 22%

Sprint Nextel – $2,750 – 55%

Microsoft – $3,000 – 67%

Other (small companies) – $52,712 – 13%

For those not familiar with all the companies in this list, CenturyLink describes itself
as “a leading provider of high-quality broadband, entertainment and voice services over
its advanced communications networks to consumers and businesses in 33 states,” and
contributed $67,775.

NCTCC is the North Carolina Telephone Cooperative Coalition, and has donated $52,250 to
elected officials and political parties. Based in Raleigh, North Carolina, NCTCC
describes itself as “a coalition whose members provide high-quality state-of-the-art
telecommunications services to the most rural areas of North Carolina.” It has eight
member telcos.

Time Warner, whose influence on the bill is there for all to see, contributed $66,100.

A broad analysis shows that on the face of it, campaign money is not a factor, and it
evens out. With 81 votes to 37, the money was split $103,510 to $97,952, or 51% to yes
voters, suggesting that if anything, recipients of telecoms money tended to vote no.

However, there are some factors to consider. First, the “Other” group contains a
staggering $30,258 to Democrat Rep. Hackney (a serious fund raiser who amassed $1.2
million for his campaign!). So if we removed this group from the analysis and just
concentrated on the top 8 companies and associations, we see that money is now split
$96,500 to $52,250, or 65% to yes voters. That’s a bit closer to the 69% actual vote

Hard to see the influence there. But take a closer look at those who received telecoms
money against those who didn’t. Only 30% of those voting yes received telecoms
contributions, against 70% who didn’t receive a cent. Those voting no were split 50:50.
So in fact, it looks like telecoms contributions had a negative effect on the result,
which would disprove popular opinion.

But Time Warner is the most “involved” company in this bill, so how did its influence
show? Of the beneficiaries of its money, 8 voted yes and 8 voted no. Mind you, they
didn’t waste that much money – the eight who voted for the bill received $14,250 from
Time Warner, whereas the eight who voted against only got $3,750. Pretty good return.

As bill proposer, Marilyn Avila has come in for a lot of attention. She received $3,000
from the telecoms sector towards her 2010 campaign, with $500 from Time Warner. She
received a further $500 from AT&T and $1,000 apiece from CenturyLink and NCTCC.

House Speaker Thom Tillis and Rep. Grey Mills both voted for the bill, effectively
derailing the community-owned MI-Connection cable system in Mecklenburg and Iredell
counties (which they represent). Tillis received $5,000 from Time Warner, plus $3,500
from NCTCC, $6,000 from CenturyLink, and $8,000 from AT&T (almost $29,000 from telecoms
in total). Mills on the other hand, received nothing. Meanwhile, Rep. Bill Faison who was
outspoken in his criticism of the bill, matched Avila’s Time Warner contribution with
$500 of his own.

Of course the unquantifiable result of campaign donation is the influence recipients have
on other Representatives. How do the House members decide their vote – do they listen and
follow others’ leads? And if so, is it the ones with the telecoms money that are doing
the most influencing?

There is no clear-cut answer to all this. But one thing is certain – campaign donations
lead to voter mistrust. So long as politicians continue to receive money from
corporations, then, no matter what assurances of impartiality they give, there will
always be the suspicion of influence. And this isn’t just a fact of US politics – it
happens the world over.

We’ve provided the raw data, so we’ll leave you to make up your own minds. But perhaps a
bigger influence on the outcome of the H.129 vote than campaign donations (although they
are closely linked) is lobbying and legal support. Refer back to the House meeting on 4
March and the accompanying picture on this page of Avila with one of Time Warner’s
lobbyists and write your own caption.

Meanwhile, local news station WRAL-TV sought comments from the two opposing camps after
Monday’s meeting. They quoted Avila as saying that businesses need protection from
“predatory” local governments:

“We have to have some sort of framework that everybody understands when you go into this.
This bill is going to establish those rules. It is not anti-competition. The cities can
enter into it [broadband service]. It is not going to be easy, though. It’s going to be

Democrat Rep. Bill Faison countered that “tough” doesn’t cover it:

“This bill will make it practically impossible for cities to provide a fundamental
service. Where’s the bill to govern Time Warner? Let’s be clear about whose bill this is.
This is Time Warner’s bill. You need to know who you’re doing this for.”

Jay Ovittore of public network advocacy group SEATOA said:

“They’re making it out to be a bunch of folks in sweatpants that want to download Netflix
faster. That’s not the case at all. The reality is that this is about job growth and
economic development, and they’re failing to catch that point. It’s a crucial
infrastructure. It’s a bad bill, it’s a bad bill, it’s a bad bill. And we fully intend to
make this an election issue.”

And so to the Senate…

The Bill was received from the House by the Senate on Tuesday. It passed its first
reading and was referred on to the Committee on Commerce.

To be continued…
# # #

Let’s hope it continues in favor of the people for a change.


In exchanges of rights of way ? AT&T capping broadband.

In an effort that Looks like to me, positioning to find a way to charge even more via metering bandwidth traffic, Telecompetetor writes: AT&T is joining a growing number of carriers who are implementing usage caps on their residential broadband service. The blogosphere is reporting that AT&T intends to institute these caps for DSL and U-verse users beginning on May 2nd. This is good to know as you consider the recent article in DSLREPORTS explaining how about 2-5% of of the bill most pay actually goes to bandwidth as it is.

BroadbandReports.com reports that AT&T will begin notifying their subscribers this week of a 150GB monthly usage cap for all DSL customers and a new 250 GB cap for U-verse subscribers. Additionally, GigOM reports that AT&T will institute overage charges of $10 for an additional 50 GB of bandwidth usage (although the overage charges will reportedly only kick in after three instances of customers exceeding their cap – kind of like a broadband three strikes and you’re out approach).

AT&T reports that “…their average DSL customer uses around 18GB a month and these changes will only impact about 2% of all DSL customers.” AT&T has been trialing these usage caps in a couple of markets.

As it is stated that the cap will impact only about 2% of the customers at about 2-5% of the money that actually goes toward bandwidth, it begs how much that is worth to AT&T. Our legislators must be thinking how much that would be worth in exchange of rights of way during these tough times.

More subscribers are moving toward the basic tier

According to a recent CNNMoney.com report, more people appear to be moving toward purchasing basic tier cable. Part of the reasoning for this may be cost and also that much of what can be seen on premium cable or phone video service channels can be purchased elsewhere. Although, cable prices have been very competitive. The idea of one in eight people may be expected to cancel cable or satellite subscriptions, because of the cost, raises a question. Does it make sense for some to begin charging or increasing rates for online customers? Eventually the next monopoly will be the highest cost, so is this just another turn in the cycle of spirally rate increases?

Sure, “premium” products can really be purchased for a number of venues ( netflix, etc., for example) , however, the unique local PUBLIC ACCESS programming that exist on basic subscriptions is a huge draw that video providers could embrace as a marketing opportunity.

I think this highlights the need and value of public access centers such as WCCA TV 13. Where niche local programming news and information is accompanied by a comprehensive vehicle to encourage inclusion and participation in electronic media through a public forum that can be wide cast on cable and online. Is something that cable marketing people have ignored for years. Rather than just promote their own infomercial channels and bundle services, they are missing the opportunity to promote a substantial value and return for the buck that Public Access channels offer subscribers, and the whole community.

Cable and phone companies that offer Public Access PEG channels, have something that satellite programming providers do not have. Encouraging online streaming of cable related products, including PEG channels, creates a new win – win marketing opportunity.

Please join us is asking our friends in congress to support the CAP Act HR 3745

Please join us is asking our friends in congress to support the CAP Act HR 3745

HR 3745

The Community Access Preservation Act was introduced October 7, 2009 by Representative Tammy Baldwin(WI-2).

It is an a important piece of legislation for Public, Educational and Government (PEG) Access Centers.

Link here for the full legislation

What Will It Do?

Much stronger language is need to guarantee funding assurances for non-profit public access institutions such as WCCA TV , however this is a good first step.

1. It removes the distinction between “capital” and “operating” in PEG support fees.

PEG support fees that are collected from subscribers by the cable operators can only be used for “capital and equipment” and not for operational overhead. The CAP Act will eliminate that part of the Telecommunications Act that prevents PEG centers from using PEG support for their operating expenses. Right now, access centers are having to close their doors because even though they receive money for buildings and equipment, they do not have or are losing money for operations. The CAP Act will allow centers to spend the PEG support fees as they see fit to keep the centers open and keep the channels on the air.

2. It guarantees that PEG channels are treated the same as all other local commercial stations or network affiliates and guarantees that those channels be made available to every subscriber (Basic tier).

Certain cable operators are lumping all PEG channels in a regional area onto one single channel (for instance AT&T’s channel 99). This delivery method degrades the signal quality, prevents close-captioning and causes viewers to have to wade through myriads of menus to get their local PEG channels. PEG channels should be treated exactly the same as other commercial or network affiliated channels. And, PEG channels should be made available to every subscriber.

3. Rolls back reductions in PEG funding and channels.

CAP provides that PEG channels will receive funding equal to the historical support it received prior to the damaging statewide/state issued franchising laws that have passed since 2005–OR–the amount that operators are required to pay under the new statewide/state issued franchising laws–whichever is greater. It returns the number of channels a community can have to the same number that was being provided as of May 31, 2005.

4. It requires the FCC to undertake a study on PEG.

The FCC will be required to undertake a study within 180 days of the passage of CAP to analyze the effect of statewide/state issued franchise laws that have passed. It also requires an analysis of the impact of digital conversion on PEG. And it calls for the FCC to make recommendations for changes to the Telecommunications Act to preserve and advance PEG and localism.

Thank you for your attention and support.