Save Access

from: Institute for Southern Studies

Rural Broadband vs. Statewide Franchising Lobbyists

From Institute for Southern Studies, February 15, 2007

Remember FDR’s rural electrification? It transformed the South, or at least the Appalachian Tennessee Valley for every future generation.

While broadband internet access isn’t quite on par with electricity as a basic human need in modern society, it’s almost as important, especially in terms of U.S. global competitiveness.

In a 1994 speech (thirteen years ago!) about the Clinton administration’s National Information Infrastructure initiative, Vice President Al Gore said:

The principles that I have described thus far will build an open and free information marketplace. They will lower prices, stimulate demand and expand access to the National Information Infrastructure.

They will, in other words, help to attain our final basic principle — avoiding a society of information “haves” separate from a society of information “have nots”.

There was a Washington Post headline last month: “Will the ‘Information Superhighway’ Detour the Poor?”

Not if I have anything to do about it. After all, governmental action to ensure universal service has been part of American history since the days of Ben Franklin’s Post Office. We will have in our legislative package a strong mandate to ensure universal service in the future — and I want to explain why.

We have become an information-rich society. Almost 100% of households have radio and television, and about 94% have telephone service. Three-quarters of households contain a VCR, about 60% have cable, and roughly 30% of households have personal computers.

As the information infrastructure expands in breadth and depth, so too will our understanding of the services that are deemed essential. This is not a matter of guaranteeing the right to play video-games. It is a matter of guaranteeing access to essential services.

We cannot tolerate — nor in the long run can this nation afford — a society in which some children become fully educated and others do not; in which some adults have access to training and lifetime education, and others do not.

Nor can we permit geographic location to determine whether the information highway passes by your door. I’ve often spoken about my vision of a schoolchild in my home town of Carthage, Tennessee being able to come home, turn on her computer and plug into the Library of Congress. Carthage is a small town. Its population is only about 2,000. So let me emphasize the point: We must work to ensure that no geographic region of the United States, rural or urban, is left without access to broadband, interactive service. Yes, we support opening the local telephone exchange to competition. But we will not permit the dismantling of our present national networks.

All this won’t be easy. It is critically important, therefore, that all carriers must be obliged to contribute, on an equitable and competitively neutral basis, to the preservation and advancement of universal service.

Thirteen years later there has been progress, but we are still a long way from this vision. More recently, several states have taken it upon themselves to address the need for rural broadband.

Around the South, Kentucky’s award winning program is leading the way:

A national study done in 2002 and 2003 found that Kentucky ranked 44th among the states in its proportion of high-tech businesses, 45th in personal computer use and 43rd in residential internet use, Rutledge said. The same study found that 4,300 university graduates leave Kentucky each year.

Since the Prescription for Innovation plan was put into place, statewide broadband availability increased by 36 percent and usage increased by 45 percent, according to Connect Kentucky, an alliance of government, universities and technology companies, and broadband Internet access is available to 375,000 households that previously had no such access.

The goal of making broadband access available to all households in Kentucky by 2007 is nearing completion, with 83 percent of Kentucky homes with access currently.

Commenting on the Southern West Virginia Broadband Summit last year, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) said:

Just as electricity and telephone service once spread throughout America, we must make sure that the benefits of high-speed Internet access spread to every household and business in West Virginia,” said Rockefeller. “I hear from too many economic developers and businesses, particularly in southern West Virginia that the lack of broadband availability is hampering our chances for economic growth.

This isn’t just a technology issue – it’s an economic issue. If we can develop an extensive broadband network, we will see new companies, bringing new jobs, move in to take advantage of this new technology.

Last year, Georgia launched its BRIDGE program (Broadband Rural Initiative to Develop Georgia’s Economy). In Tennessee, the Tennessee Broadband Task Force says that only one in four households subscribes to broadband internet access and that usage is as low as 17% in rural areas. They are urging the governor and state lawmakers to address the problem.

Meanwhile, AT&T, which recently merged with BellSouth creating a virtual monopoly on telephone communications in the South, wants to expand its cable TV and broadband content business. Under the flag of “increased competition”, they have launched a massive, nationwide, state-by-state lobbying effort to eliminate local control of cable access and clear the way for state-wide franchises.

Just today, the Knoxville News Sentinel reports that AT&T has launched an all out lobbying and PR effort aimed at the current Tennessee legislative session:

NASHVILLE — AT&T launched an anticipated public relations and lobbying campaign Wednesday on behalf of legislation that would allow the company to enter the cable television business statewide. [..]

AT&T and BellSouth, who have recently merged, have fielded a team of 16 registered lobbyists and the Nashville public relations firm McNeely Pigott and Fox to support efforts behind the Competitive Cable and Video Services Act. [..]

The kickoff of the AT&T campaign came in a news conference where four state legislators — two Democrats and two Republicans — depicted the bill as a means to promote competition, spur investment in broadband technology and reduce costs to consumers.

So what’s the problem? Everybody wants cheaper cable and internet? From the same article:

At a recent meeting of the Knox County legislative delegation, Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam and Knox County Mayor Mike Ragsdale, who also is president of the Tennessee Association of County Mayors, said the legislation poses a threat to local control over cable and the revenue received from franchise fees. [..]

Under current law, cable companies must negotiate an agreement with city or county governments and pay franchise fees before providing service to an area. The proposed law would allow a company to obtain a statewide franchise.[..]

“Like a bad blind date, AT&T’s cable and video services legislation fails to live up to the grand promises and high expectations,” she said in a statement distributed to reporters after the AT&T sponsors’ news conference.

She and others representing the cable industry or local government said the bill will allow AT&T to “cherry pick” areas for service that provide the biggest profits, making it more difficult to expand service into small towns and low income or rural areas.

The bill also contains a provision that forbids local governments from enacting any consumer quality or service standards or requiring that all neighborhoods in a municipality be served, Mahery said.

So not only is the legislation anti-consumer, it is also at odds with state efforts to expand rural broadband access.

Local governments who control the infrastructure rights of way have a duty to make sure those resources benefit all their citizens and taxpayers. They also know best which areas are underserved (which are all too frequently rural, low-income, or predominately minority communities), and they are more likely to negotiate build-out requirements to ensure that every resident has access. It’s unlikely that a bureaucrat in Nashville will know or even care about the needs of Bell Buckle or Ducktown TN, and even less likely that anyone at a communications giant’s corporate headquarters has even heard of such places.

Free Press, a progressive media policy think tank, has this to say:

Local access means giving communities the ability to create their own media and the power to decide how to best serve their own technology and communications needs. Those needs include everything from public access television channels to universal broadband Internet service.

Local access has never been more important. We are entering an era of “convergence.” In the next few years, your telephone, television and Internet service will all come through the same pipeline.

In a fierce competition to corner the market and protect their astronomical profits, the largest cable and telecom companies are trying to take away the ability of communities to demand and obtain the communications technologies they need. Across the country, industry giants are working to subvert, hobble or eliminate the tools communities can use to hold them accountable.

Cable rates are skyrocketing. Access to broadband is becoming increasingly important. Media giants still press for a new round of consolidation. As it becomes increasingly difficult for local viewpoints to be heard and broadband access continues to be a service only for those who can afford it, a debate is raging in the states and in Congress: will new communications technologies answer to local communities? Or will local communities answer instead to the most powerful telecommunications and cable companies?