THE HARVARD VERSION OF WHY JANE CAMPBELL LOST THE ELECTION

Over dinner last week at one of her favorite restaurants in this Ivy League town, Campbell and her mother, the Rev. Joan Brown Campbell, spoke candidly about why they thought Campbell lost.

“Affection of the black community for Jane cost us in the white community,” said Brown Campbell, who was in town to talk to her daughter’s students about faith and politics.

To illustrate that point, she and her daughter recalled a comment made by a white resident during Campbell’s door-to-door campaigning on the West Side. They said the woman pointed to one of Campbell’s black campaign workers and complained that Campbell spent too much time on “people like that.”

White West Side voters thought Campbell was too tight with Black people... so they went out and voted for the Black guy. What a bunch of racists.

For the record, here's how the votes fell, ward-by-ward. And here's the one documented instance of "racial politics" in the campaign -- on Campbell's behalf.

I don't want to dislike Campbell personally. But with crap like this, she's making it hard to hold out.

George asks the pertinent question about her new consulting business.

democracy guy is stunned that this line is being taught in a Harvard classroom. Actually, it's not just Harvard -- it's the Kennedy School. And I don't find it stunning in the slightest... though it does make you wonder whether, and how, Campbell's students are hearing the other side of the story. You know, the African-American winner's side.

MARTY SWEENEY MEETS THE BLOGGERS

The podcast of MTB's interview with the new President of Cleveland City Council, recorded last Tuesday at Talkie's, is on line.

If you live in Cleveland and care about city politics this is a must-listen.

TAKE A MUSIC BREAK: Neil Young's new album "Living With War" is available for free listening here. I'm listening right now to "Shock and Awe".

Maxspeak says: If culture was a war, this would be like the landing at Normandy.

Yeah, well, it's pretty good.

COPE ACT IS ON THE FAST TRACK

From Defend Your Voice, the blog of Media Bridges in Cincinnati:

More bad news.

1. The COPE Act is expected to be voted on [by the full U.S. Houses of Representatives] next Thursday, May 4th.

2. The Senate is expected to add its on final bill into the mix a week later.

So... if you don't want this bill to become law, you have five days to let your Member of Congress know about it. The clock's ticking!

Dennis Kucinich
Stephanie Tubbs-Jones
Steven LaTourette
Sherrod Brown
Tim Ryan
Ralph Regula

TED STRICKLAND'S EXPLANATION OF HIS "COPE ACT" VOTE

Late yesterday afternoon Congressman Strickland responded to the request of this blog for an explanation of his "Yes" vote in Energy and Commerce for the Barton/Rush video-Internet franchising bill (the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Efficiency Act", or COPE Act).

I appreciate Congressman Strickland's prompt, straightforward response.

I also appreciate his commitment to pursue legislation to require "net neutrality" of nationally franchised video-Internet providers. I can't see how this commitment was served by helping send the COPE Act to the floor as a bipartisan proposal, which was the actual effect of Strickland's vote. But it's true that the escalating net neutrality fight can and will continue in other Congressional arenas, so his promise to "continue to strongly support efforts to ensure net neutrality, and ... stand with any effort to ensure fair and comprehensive access to the internet" does mean something.

But net neutrality is not the only issue with this bill. In fact, it's not really the most important issue, even though it's the one getting all the heat. I'm very disappointed that Congressman Strickland's statement simply regurgitates the core AT&T /Verizon argument for national franchising, without even acknowledging the existence of other serious problems at the heart of the bill.

The point of the COPE Act is to strip local communities of their historic leverage over existing and new cable/Internet providers' rates, channel offerings, customer service and neighborhood availability. It transfers their jurisdiction over neighborhood access ("redlining") issues, customer service complaints, public access resources, and even right-of-way disputes to the FCC -- a Washington bureaucracy that has neither the capacity nor the political inclination to deal with these community concerns seriously. (At the Committee's "opening statements" session Tuesday, Rep. Doyle of Pittsburgh had a very interesting comparison of the FCC's total complaint caseload with the much greater volume of cable TV complaints now being handled by local governments.)

By driving municipalities from the franchising table, the bill also eliminates one of the few tools available to communities to fund low-income technology inclusion and access programs. The states have already lost this leverage as "advanced telecommunications" slipped out from under the jurisdiction of public utility regulators. Now it's the cities' turn to lose. Under the COPE Act's federalized franchising system, we'll see no more regulatory negotiations of the kind that have provided most of the resources for community technology in Ohio, especially Cleveland, in the last decade. (See the second half of this post.) And there's no proposal of any kind to compensate states and cities for this lost leverage.

You'd think Congressman Strickland, who hopes to become a Governor who supports community technology centers as well as community broadband partnerships, would be more protective of local powers in this area. Instead, his statement simply repeats the AT&T/Verizon mantra: Federalizing the franchise process will "facilitate competition in the video market so that consumers have more choices and can benefit from lower cable prices. This bill.. will provide consumers with choices and savings that were, to this point, very difficult to realize under current guidelines."

Look, the telecoms don't need national franchising to start competing with cable in Ohio cities and villages. There's nothing stopping AT&T from seeking a local franchise right now to roll out its new LightSpeed service to compete with Time-Warner in Cleveland or Akron. The telecoms would certainly prefer to avoid dealing with local authorities -- for all the reasons described above. But does the Congressman imagine that, if the COPE Act doesn't pass, AT&T and Verizon will just give up on the high-speed converged-media market and leave it all to the cable companies?

As for unserved rural areas, there's nothing in the COPE Act to induce either the telecoms or the cable industry to build out higher-speed services in places where they don't offer DSL or cable modem service now. Do you think they intend to string fiber where they won't string coax or upgrade their copper lines?

The only part of the COPE Act that provides any real balance to its mortal attack on community franchising rights is Title 4, which establishes what could be called a "Community Right to Network". In a nutshell, it says to cities and villages: While you will no longer have any authority over the private companies that use your streets and poles to sell video services, they will no longer be able to stop you (by means of state or Federal legislation) from creating and selling your own public TV or Internet services. If there's not enough competition, the community can build an open infrastructure and lease it to other providers; if parts of the city aren't served by private infrastructures, the community can step in and build its own. If a city wants to build community computer centers or special low-income Internet rates into its own networking plan -- as Philadelphia is doing in its wireless project with Earthlink -- it's free to do so.

I'd have more confidence in Congressman Strickland's position if he showed some understanding of the importance of Title 4, and promised to be "a voice on the front lines fighting" for the Community Right to Network when the telecoms make their inevitable move to strip it from the bill.

UPDATE: STRICKLAND STATEMENT ON COPE ACT SUPPORT

I just got this in the email from Strickland campaign staffer Jesse Taylor, addressed to several dozen Ohio bloggers:

Ted's Statement on the COPE vote

"On Wednesday, I voted for an amendment to the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Efficiency Act of 2006 (COPE) to ensure "net neutrality" which ultimately failed. I also voted for the final version of the COPE Act in committee.

"My vote for the COPE Act was an effort to facilitate competition in the video market so that consumers have more choices and can benefit from lower cable prices. This bill, despite the regrettable exclusion of net neutrality language, will provide consumers with choices and savings that were, to this point, very difficult to realize under current guidelines.

"I continue to strongly support efforts to ensure net neutrality, and would stand with any effort to ensure fair and comprehensive access to the internet. There is still time to fight and win this battle, and I will be a voice on the front lines fighting to preserve equal access to the internet for all consumers and content providers."

HOUSE IGNORES PUBLIC, SELLS OUT THE INTERNET: A press release from SaveTheInternet.com via the Free Press.

TED? SHERROD? WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?

Late last night I sent emails to the Brown and Strickland campaigns:

[Rep. Brown/Strickland] cast a "yes" vote this evening on the final version of the Barton/Rush video-Internet franchising bill in Energy and Commerce, after supporting Congressman Markey's unsuccessful amendment to strengthen net neutrality protections. This vote (for the final, unamended bill) is likely to be the subject of considerable blog criticism -- by me, among others.

In fairness, can you provide either a statement by the Congressman which I can quote, or a link to such a statement, explaining his rationale for this vote?

No response yet from either campaign.

BARTON/RUSH: WHEN THE DEAL GOES DOWN, BROWN AND STRICKLAND VOTE "YES"

Well, the deal just went down. And this time the news is all bad.

The entire "COPE Act", essentially unchanged from what the subcommittee marked up two weeks ago, was just approved by the full Energy and Commerce Committee 42 to 12. Eleven Democrats and one Republican voted against it.

Rep. Sherrod Brown and Rep. Ted Strickland voted for the final bill.

Yes, the bill that effectively wipes out community oversight of the cable industry. The bill that will allow nationally franchised video/Internet providers to redline neighborhoods and create "tiers" of Internet service. The bill that undermines net neutrality and threatens to "end the Internet as we know it." That bill. They voted "yes".

Which means, I guess, that it didn't really matter that...

[posted earlier]
BROWN, STRICKLAND SUPPORT NET NEUTRALITY AMENDMENT

Just watched the webcast Energy and Commerce Committee vote on the "Markey amendment" to strengthen the net neutrality section of the Burton/Rush video-internet franchising bill.

Here's the bad news: The amendment was defeated 34 to 22 on an almost straight party-line vote. Here's the Broadcasting & Cable coverage.

Here's the good news: Both Sherrod Brown and Ted Strickland voted for the net neutrality amendment.

More good news, also from B&C: Municipal Net Bans Won't Be Grandfathered. An amendment to leave anti-muni-broadband laws in place in the fourteen states that have passed them (Ohio isn't one) was essentially shouted down on a voice vote. (It doesn't look like Rep. Buyer's promised amendment to get the "Pennsylvania law" put into the bill ever materialized.)

Markup is still in progress with a vote on the whole package coming soon. More later.

Update: Save The Internet's map has already changed. Lots more green dots now. But not enough.

COMMITTEE GATHERS TO CUT THE VIDEO-INTERNET FRANCHISING DEAL; SHERROD STILL AMONG THE MISSING

I just watched the webcast of the Energy and Commerce Committee's "opening statements" session on the Barton/Rush bill (the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006"). There were many empty chairs. Ohio's sole representative was GOP Congressman (and national franchising enthusiast) Paul Gillmor.

No sign of Sherrod Brown. Or Ted Strickland.

I wonder if they'll be in the room when the Committee gets down to the business of carving up the open Internet -- and what remains of local community initiative -- tomorrow morning.

(Kudos to Reps. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois and Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania, who seem to have actually gone home during the recess and talked to some city officials in their districts about the bill's impact.)

IT'S FINALLY NEWS IN CLEVELAND

Yes, the words "net neutrality" have finally appeared in the Plain Dealer, courtesy of Cox News Service (the article is on the first page of today's business section but not on line.) Better late than never, I suppose.

Here's Save The Internet, the coalition described in the article. Among the extremely diverse groups joining to demand stronger protection of the open Internet are the Ohio Community Computing Network (disclosure: I'm the president of the OCCN board) and our national mother ship, the Community Technology Centers Network.

The PD's headline refers to the Energy and Commerce bill as "bipartisan". This in itself is a victory for the Republican majority, courtesy of Chicago's Black Panther Congressman, Bobby Rush. Selling out ordinary consumers, small businesses and communities to please major industry lobbyists -- and their check-writers -- is often a bipartisan undertaking in the Congress.

This map shows just how few (eight) of the fifteen Democrats on the Telecom and Internet Subcommittee showed up and voted for the net neutrality amendment offered by their leaders, Dingell and Markey, when the bill was "marked up" two weeks ago. (Note that Ohio's Sherrod Brown was not among them.) What will the map look like after the full E&C Committee does its business on this bill tomorrow? Will there be many more green dots? Stay tuned.

(Keep up to date with the Free Press news page. Also, Josh Marshall weighs in.)

Update: Harold Feld at wetmachine says there will be a move in tomorrow's markup to gut Section 401(a), which guarantees communities' "right to network" without state or Federal interference:

I am informed that Representative Steve Buyer from the state of Indiana will introduce an amendment tomorrow seeking to eliminate the good language on muni broadband with language similar to that in the Ensign Telecom rewrite bill that requires local governments to get permission from private industry before building a network (aka the “Pennsylvania Plan”).

... I fear that with all the focus network neutrality and local franchising, that people will lose track of one of the few good things in the bill and let it slip away.

A HORSE CAN ENDORSE, OF COURSE, OF COURSE

The horses at psychobilly democrat have posted a stunning appraisal of the Democratic candidates for the 13th District Congressional seat being vacated by Sherrod Brown. You gotta read this.

SHOWDOWN ON NATIONAL VIDEO/INTERNET FRANCHISING AND NET NEUTRALITY THIS WEEK... BUT IT'S NOT NEWS YET

It's Monday. The recess is over and Congress is re-convening. The House Energy and Commerce Committee takes up the Barton/Rush national video/Internet franchising bill tomorrow at 5 pm. "Markup" is scheduled for Wednesday.

The bill will have a major impact on cable TV franchises in Cleveland and other NEO communities. As drafted, it will also clear the way for a highly controversial "tiered Internet".

Sherrod Brown and Ted Strickland are both Committee members. Neither statewide candidate for higher office has yet made any public comment about the proposal.

And the Plain Dealer has not printed a word about any of this. Not. One. Word.

Art Brodsky at TPM Cafe Friday:

Congress is going to hand the operation of the Internet over to AT&T, Verizon and Comcast. Democrats are helping. It's a shame.

Don’t look now, but the House Commerce Committee next Wednesday is likely to vote to turn control of the Internet over to AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner and what’s left of the telecommunications industry. It will be one of those stories the MSM writes about as “little noticed” because they haven’t covered it.

Amen to that.

(See Matt Stoller's overview at MyDD today, including an animated explanation of "net neutrality.")

BLACKWELL AND COINGATE: PRESENT AT THE CREATION?

After a long MTB hiatus, I managed to drag my butt to yesterday's Meet The Bloggers session with Democratic State Treasurer candidate Richard Cordray. The audio isn't posted yet, but Jill has a long description.

Here's my headline from the interview: Cordray said that the first state deposit to a private BWC investment account controlled personally by Tom Noe was issued by the State Treasurer's office in 1998. Cordray, who's now the treasurer of Franklin County, says this handling of state funds was self-evidently improper and should have been blocked automatically by Treasury officials.

And who was State Treasurer at the time this occurred?

Ken "Coingate is Petro's fault" Blackwell.

MUST READ: I don't know why Ohio 2006 never got on my blogroll, but it's there now. See Yellow Dog Sammy's excellent on-scene coverage of the 11th District Caucus meeting the night before last.

A NEW KIND OF EXIT POLL

Just got this in the email from Judy Gallo of the Greater Cleveland Voter Coalition (link added):

From: Greater Cleveland Voter Coalition
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 11:00 AM

Please post this notice to your list serves ASAP. Because time is so short, we hope you can do this today.Thank you very much for your help in this important election project.

April 20, 2006

Dear Friend of Voting Rights,

The Greater Cleveland Voter Coalition invites you to participate as an exit poll monitor in the Cuyahoga County primary elections on May 2, 2006. The purpose of this nonpartisan effort is to develop objective information to improve our election process, hopefully in time for the General Elections in November.

Based on past experience with voter problems and given the introduction of electronic voting machines, we have devised a short exit poll which will collect important data on potential key problems.

We are looking for volunteers who can spend a couple of hours on Election Day, polling voters as they leave the polls. Our goal is to cover select polls during the busiest parts of the day- early morning and late afternoon, early evening. Everyone who agrees with our Mission Statement... is invited to participate, regardless of party affiliation or position on other issues not included in the mission statement. This is strictly a non-partisan effort.

If you can contribute at least 2 hours and preferably 3+ hours on May 2, either in the morning (6:30-9:30am) or the evening (4:30-7:30pm) or both, please go ASAP to: www.ohioelectionvolunteer.org and sign up for the times most convenient for you. Forms and instructions will be sent in time for the May 2 polling. PLEASE SIGN UP AS SOON AS POSSIBLE - TODAY IF YOU CAN!!

With many thanks to you for helping to improve elections,

Yours sincerely,
Cynthia Samples and Roslyn Talerico, Co-Conveners, the Greater Cleveland Voter Coalition

TALES OF THE SAUSAGE FACTORY: SHUTTING OUT "CONTROVERSIAL" RELIGIOUS ADS

From Harold at wetmachine:

As some of you may recall, the United Church of Christ has found it difficult to buy air time for advertisements urging folks to come to church. Please note, that's BUY airtime. UCC has not asked for a freebie public service announcement.

Apparently, the message that Jesus ministers to everyone regardless of whether they are mainstream or not is still too “controversial” for mainstream networks. Worse, and further proof of the power of consolidation to supress debate, the cable networks owned or affiliated with the broadcast networks have now joined in the black out of UCC's controversial “God loves everyone” message. Even the Viacom gay and lesbian network has rejected the advertisement (apparently a church that actually welcomes members of their target audience is too controversial).

For anyone who laughs at the idea that a “free market” will willingly forgo revenues just to block potentially unpopular speech, I advise you to look again.

THE NATIONAL VIDEO/INTERNET FRANCHISING BILL: HOW WE SHOULD FEEL

In a comment on my last post, Jill asks: "How should we feel?... Can you sum what's at stake, or re-direct to a prior post where you discussed?"

Sure. Let's get boring. Here's how I feel personally about the bill that Energy and Commerce will start considering next week -- presumably with Congressmen Brown and Strickland in attendance.

1) Both the telecom and cable companies are seeking vertical integration of very large chunks of the Internet content, backbone and ISP markets. In Cleveland, the likely result is enhanced duopoly control of high-speed Internet service as it gets faster -- two dominant players (AT&T and Time Warner), each of which has the power (and the intent, apparently) to steer its customers toward its own preferred web content.

You could solve this problem by stopping the vertical integration -- you know, actual antitrust enforcement -- but that's no longer a serious option. You could require the two systems to act as "common carriers" for competitors, but that fight was lost (with respect to cable being an open network for ISPs) six or seven years ago. So vertically integrated companies with closed networks are what we're gonna get.

The "street argument" for the bill is, basically, we're better off with two of these companies in our community intead of just one. This would probably be true, all other things being equal. But of course other things won't be equal. The monopoly we have now (cable) has an element of control over its monopoly behavior -- the local franchising process, which gives consumers some leverage on program mix, rates, and equitable availability of service. The current House bill eliminates these vestiges of community control, substituting FCC "protections" that are essentially meaningless.

So first off, Congress should not be legislating to substitute a vertical duopoly for a regulated vertical monopoly, eliminating community regulation in the process.

But if that's what they're going to do, at least the substitute Federal regulation should be meaningful. At a minimum, it should prohibit the use of the vertical duopoly to steer Internet traffic to favored web sites and services. "Prohibit" means more than a slap-on-the-wrist fine for blocking a site or a user. It means putting an affirmative obligation on the franchised companies to offer both up and down services on a non-discriminatory basis. Failure to comply should bring either automatic loss of franchise, or the possibility of disadvantaged content providers to sue you for damages, or both.

2) Of course there's another approach to the vertical monopoly/duopoly problem -- enable more players to compete. If we're not going to impose Net Neutrality and open-network obligations on the big telecom and cable systems through regulation, at least we can make sure our network access, from top to bottom, isn't dependent on them.

That's what the Utopia project in Utah is doing, building city-owned residential fiber networks as an open last-mile infrastructure for use by multiple ISPs, television and phone providers. At a much lower bandwidth, it's what Philadelphia Wireless is doing... inducing Earthlink to create a third, wireless citywide data infrastructure that's open to other ISPs and networks including community nonprofits. It's what cities in other countries (notably Reykjavik in Iceland) have been doing for years. It's what some community wireless groups envision -- interconnected nets of community-owned APs that spread across regions or even the country.

Maybe it's where One Cleveland is taking northeast Ohio, eventually. I hope so.

Public policy should aim to expand the ability of all comers, public and nonprofit as well as private, to add to the diversity and openness of the network at all levels. A national franchise system may, in fact, help bring more private infrastucture builders into some communities by allowing them to compete only for "high-value customers" and ignore others. For the high-value customers themselves, this will be a good thing. But for the rest of us, public and community networks will be be needed to accomplish the same good competitive outcome.

To this end, the bill before Energy and Commerce has one excellent provision: Section 401(a), which says:

Neither the Communications Act of 1934 nor any State statute, regulation, or other State legal requirement may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting any public provider of telecommunications service, information service, or cable service (as such terms are defined in sections 3 and 602 of such Act) from providing such services to any person or entity.

If the rest of the bill is going to be passed, Section 401(a) must remain, without compromise.

3) Most of the funding for community computer access and literacy programs in Ohio has come from state and local regulatory bargains. From 1994 through 2000, consumer intervenors were able to secure over $5 million to support low-income technology access programs through PUCO case settlements with telephone companies. The biggest local CTC funding initiative, Cleveland’s $3 million Neighborhood Technology Fund, was created as part of the city’s 2000 franchise agreement with Adelphia Cable. These initiatives couldn't have happened under the all-Federal system now being pushed through Congress.

I freely admit to being an interested party here -- I work for the coalition that first proposed the Neighborhood Technology Fund deal. You may not share my interest in the slightest. But if you think the "digital divide" is a legitimate policy concern, you should be aware that the pending Energy and Commerce bill will eliminate the main tool Ohio state and local governments have used to address that concern.

Is there a way to fix this? I don't know. Maybe companies with national video/Internet franchises should be required to pay into the Universal Service Fund, and low-income IT programs should be made eligible for USF funding. But something needs to be done to compensate communities for this important (if unintended) effect of ending their franchise authority.

So to sum up, here's what I want Congress to do with this bill:

1) Preferably, just kill it. Too much bad stuff, not enough good stuff, and all the wrong people in the room to make it better.

But this is probably not in the cards, so at a minimum...

2) Place an affirmative obligation on nationally franchised TV/Internet providers to offer both up and down services on a non-discriminatory basis (i.e. Net Neutrality and no redlining of customers). Failure to comply should bring either automatic loss of franchise, or explicit standing for disadvantaged content providers to sue for damages, or both.

3) Keep Section 401(a), guaranteeing communities' "right to network" without state or Federal interference, in the bill without compromise.

4) Do something to compensate communities for the lost opportunity to bargain for community technology resources as part of franchise agreements.

SALON: THE CORPORATE TOLL ON THE INTERNET

Via Boing Boing via BFD, an excellent article by Farhad Manjoo explaining why the Congressional wrangle over "network neutrality" is a big deal.

If you have an opinion about this issue, right now is the time to let it be known. Hearings on the U.S. House bill that will decide the future of Net neutrality -- and the role of communities in network access -- will start in the full Energy and Commerce Committee next week.

Sherrod? Ted? Representative Sherrod Brown, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from Ohio, is a member of Energy and Commerce. Representative Ted Strickland, the leading Democratic candidate for Ohio Governor, is also a member of that committee. As far as I can tell, neither of these Congressmen/candidates has commented publicly on the proposed legislation, or on the generic issue of Net neutrality, or on the generic issue of local communities' role in the future of information networks.

If anyone working for the Brown or Strickland campaigns, or their Congressional staffs, happens to read this, I'd really love to publish anything your Congressman has to say about these subjects.

Meanwhile, if you're an Ohio voter who thinks the future of the Internet is important -- that it's an issue that might actually affect how you vote this November -- you might want to let Representative Brown, Representative Strickland, and your own Representative know how you feel.

OHIO IS 29TH IN STATEWIDE BROADBAND PENETRATION

This article in Crain's Chicago Business makes me wonder how much of Cleveland still has no broadband access for small business.

But it also turned me on to the FCC's twice-a-year reports on high-speed Internet penetration by state and technology. I downloaded the most recent spreadsheet (it's the "zip files" of the June 2005 report) and did my own version of the chart in the Crain's article, including all fifty states and the District of Columbia, using 2004 Census population numbers. (My spreadsheet is posted here if you want it.)

The bottom line: With a broadband line for every 7.61 persons, Ohio ranks 29th among the fifty states -- 30th if you add the District of Columbia to the list, which you should, because it has the highest per capita broadband penetration in the country.

"END OF THE INTERNET" IS AT HAND: IS IT NEWS YET?

So here's the thing: Nine days ago, a U.S. House subcommittee approved a proposed bill by a bipartisan 21-4 margin, after slapping down a couple of amendments proposed by the committee's minority (Democratic) leadership. The legislation was written by the chairman of the full House committee, who says it will be acted on by that committee as soon as the House returns from its Spring break. It's strongly supported by the nation's single best-funded lobby (big telecom) and now includes major concessions to its main industry opponent (cable TV companies). The powerful chairman, who made all this happen in under three weeks, says the bill will go to a full House vote this summer and will pass.

The legislation in question...

-- ends thirty years of municipal authority over cable TV franchises, eliminating local communities' ability to ensure community-wide service, affect rates or channel availability, negotiate community benefits (like Cleveland's Neighborhood Technology Fund), or maintain robust public access programming

-- permits both new and existing cable/fiber providers, operating under "national franchises", to provide next-generation broadband hookups only where they choose within a community... and even to charge different rates in different neighborhoods

-- permits major owners of Internet backbone like AT&T and Verizon, who will also be dominant local providers of next-generation broadband, to abandon the longstanding principle of network neutrality in Internet service and create "tiers" of cost and access that steer their customers to favored websites. (This is what Jeff Chester and others have been warning is "the end of the Internet as we know it".)

For Cleveland and many nearby communities, the passage of this bill will make upcoming negotiations with Time-Warner on the takeover and renewal of Adelphia Cable's franchises pretty meaningless, since Time-Warner will soon be free to abandon those local franchises in favor of the national alternative.

There's every reason to expect this bill, the "The Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006", to pass the House soon after Chairman Joe Barton steers it through the full Energy and Commerce Committee in early May. There's also good reason to expect a version of national cable/Internet franchising to reach the U.S. Senate floor in the not-too-distant future. If it passes, there will be a conference committee dominated by Barton and his GOP Senate counterpart, they'll produce a "compromise" bill, and national franchising may become the law of the land by the end of the year.

You'd think this would be news, wouldn't you? I would. But apparently we'd be wrong. It can't be real news, because (as far as Google and I can determine) the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act" has not yet been mentioned by:

The Plain Dealer (except in Henry's blog)
The New York Times
The Washington Post
The Associated Press
CBS, NBC, or ABC News
NPR
The vast majority of politics blogs of any stripe, including NEO blogs.

Honorable exceptions to that last generalization include Matt Stoller at MyDD, this Kos diarist, the aforementioned Jeff Chester (who's also been on Amy Goodman), Public Knowledge, Progress Report and a few others -- very few. (Update: Add the Huffington Post to the list.)

The lack of MSM and blogger interest in Northeast Ohio is especially strange, not just because of the impact of this legislation on cities trying to deal with Time-Warner (I promise you, people at City Hall are paying close attention), but also because Ohio's two top-of-the-ticket Democrats, Ted Strickland and Sherrod Brown, are both on Energy and Commerce and will have to vote on this whole mess in the next couple of weeks.

"WE CAN CHANGE THE WORLD BY TALKING"

At wetmachine, Harold Feld recreates his speech from the Community Wireless Summit.

STEELYARD COMMONS SHRINKING?

Don't look now, but Cleveland's new shopping mall in the Flats seems to have gotten smaller in the last ten months.

You can check it out at the official Steelyard Commons website. Here's the site plan as of May 2005. And here's the "Current Lease Plan" map dated March 2006. Comparing the two, it appears that the site has been redesigned to:

Eliminate one of the four "major retail" stores (at 150,000 square feet, the second biggest) at the development's north end...

Add 40,000 to 50,000 net square feet of smaller retail, and...

Add a couple of outlots at the north entrance for Steak 'n' Shake and Dunkin' Donuts.

All told, it seems the developers have eliminated something like 100,000 square feet of leasable area -- 10% of the million square feet originally promised.

How will these changes affect the project's tax and employment projections? Unfortunately, no such updates have been added to the SYC "Economic Impact" page.

"WHO OWNS THE INTERNET? WE HAVE A MAP..."

From Ben Wurthen at CIO Blogs:

I’ve been following the net neutrality debate for a while now. Real briefly, the telecommunications industry is lobbying for the right to manage the traffic that flows over their networks as they see fit. For more read the post linked above. Everyone is focusing on the last mile, which makes sense because that is the part of the network where there is the most congestion. But getting rid of net neutrality would also give the companies that own the fiber and routers at the core of the Internet the ability to manage data there.

When I heard that AT&T was going to buy Bell South, I wondered how much of the backbone this new company would own. With all the attention on the last mile were we overlooking a burgeoning monopoly at the core?

That’s where this map comes in.

Here's Wurthen's map (it's a big PDF file).

(Found via firstmile.us.)

RUMOR MILL

BFD passes along a speculation by Paul Forsgren that the "big announcement" recently promised by One Cleveland/Community is that Time Warner Cable will move its headquarters from NYC to Cleveland and form some kind of partnership with 1C.

Great rumor. Is there any truth to it? Who knows? After all, we're bloggers. Let's make'em deny it.

CUYAHOGA ELECTION OFFICIALS INDICTED FOR TAMPERING TO AVOID '04 HAND RECOUNT

Oh. My. God.

Remember this?

Michael Vu is not one of the people indicted... yet. But is there some remaining argument about whether he should be fired?

BARTON BILL AMENDMENTS CLAIM TO ANSWER CRITICS ON NET NEUTRALITY AND REDLINING; DEMS, CONSUMER GROUPS ARE NOT CONVINCED

Henry Gomez points to a News.com story about "manager's amendments" to the telecom bill, circulated in advance of today's markup session in the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. Here's a similar story from Broadcasting & Cable. The amendments give the FCC more explicit authority to punish "national franchise" cable/Internet providers for violations of the agency's own net neutrality policy and strengthen the bill's language against economic redlining. From the B&C article:

As advertised, the bill, which is being amended Wednesday, will contain stronger anti-red-lining language (red lining is not serving lower income and other less profitable customers) and stronger enforcement power over violations of the FCC's network neutrality principles, which encourage nondiscrimination in the provision of Internet service.

The bill will require the FCC to adjudicate complaints within 90 days, up the fine for violations to $500,000 per, and give the FCC additional enforcement authority.

The bill also allows for periodic audits of the national franchisee to make sure they are paying their franchise and PEG (public, educational and government) channel fees.

But Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey, a Democrat on the subcommittee who plans to introduce his own amendments in the markup session, is unconvinced:

Markey remains concerned about the bill's lack of buildout requirements for either new video entrants or cable incumbents once they, too, seek a national franchise. That, he says will allow companies to bypass some lower-income areas and to raise rates in others to subsidize competition for more lucrative customers.

Or, as Ben Scott of Free Press puts it in an email:"[The B&C article] leaves out the fact that the anti-redlining language is still a white wash job that leaves investigation and enforcement of redlining in all US towns and cities to the FCC, a federal agency with no track record of enforcing anything at the local level effectively."

Update: The Barton Bill, with the "manager's amendments", was approved by the subcommittee late today by a vote of 27 to 4, according to the National Journal's Insider Update. The four "no" votes were Democrats Dingell, Markey, Eshoo, and Doyle.

The closest vote of the day in the subcommittee, which includes eighteen Republicans and fifteen Democrats, was the 22-11 defeat of a Dingell/Markey anti-redlining amendment -- requiring the regional Bell operating companies,as they enter local cable TV markets with their brand-new national franchises, to “build out” services to all customers within each community. Another Dingell/Markey proposal to put more teeth in the bill's "Net neutrality" provision went down 23-8.

The bill now goes to the full Energy and Commerce Committee for action in late April or early May, and then to the full House (possibly with a stop at the Judiciary Committee).

(I'm told that Ohio Rep. Sherrod Brown, a subcommittee member, was absent from the markup session... though I don't know how to reconcile that with the reported 33 votes cast on the Dingell/Markey "buildout" amendment.)

NEGAWATTS AND PUBLIC POWER IN THE FREE TIMES

Another Foray Into Newsprint in today's Free Times (Electric Slide: Cleveland needs the power of negative thinking). If you're here because you saw the URL at the bottom of the column, welcome.

Some of the column's "missing links"...

Here's the Rocky Mountain Institute, with Amory Lovins' bio. Also an article about RMI's strategic plan for the San Francisco public power system.

Here's the Chicago experiment with hourly metering, run by the Center for Neighborhood Technology.

I've written a lot on Public Power's high rates... here and here are my last two posts on the subject. If you still think of CPP as a cheaper competitor to CEI/First Energy, check out this comparison of the two utilities' residential charges over the past thirteen months, based on my own CPP bills and the PUCO's monthly Ohio Utility Rate Survey:



And no, I don't know what "Electric Slide" means. Like writers always say, I don't write the headlines.

COLUMBUS TV STATIONS WON'T RUN MOVEON'S ANTI-PRYCE ADS

From Down With Tyranny.

More from Swing State Ohio, UAPA.

THE TELECOM BILL: MORE LINKS

Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey blogs at The Agonist: "Roadblocking the Information Superhighway by Negating Net Neutrality".

Testimony by Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, and Free Press at the March 30 hearing.

Jeff Chester at Digital Destiny says "Rep. Joe Barton and Co. destroy 'Community Communications'”.

Want to read the whole bill (at least the version circulated last Monday)? Here it is... all 34 pages.

And... the "final markup" session in the Energy and Commerce telecommunications subcommittee will be webcast live, starting at 5 p.m. this evening. Should be good clean politico-geek fun. (Real Player required.)

EAST OHIO'S REGULAR APRIL BILLS WILL BE CHEAPER THAN NOPEC'S "DEAL"

A month ago, I wrote:

NOPEC isn't going to save us. The new "aggregation" deal announced last week by the Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council means that households in NOPEC cities, including Cleveland, will pay about $12.74 per mcf from April through September ($9.70 contract gas cost, plus 73 cents in sales tax on the gas, plus $2.30 for East Ohio's transportation charge). This will probably be no more than 2% or 3% cheaper than Dominion East Ohio's own rates, which will fall to a similar level for the same period. Then NOPEC has to negotiate a new -- and higher -- contract gas rate for bills starting in October.

Well, I was wrong. On Thursday, Dominion East Ohio filed its regular "utility rate" for April, and it's not 2%-3% higher than the ballyhooed NOPEC rate -- it's thirty-three cents cheaper!

So after all the press hype -- not to mention the cost of mailing all that pretty color-glossy literature to hundreds of thousands of homes -- it turns out what NOPEC is offering us is the chance to pay more for natural gas from now through October, unless we "opt out" of the offer and stay with Dominion's non-choice rate. Or unless they pull the plug on the offer, which I have to believe (and hope) is under consideration.

NOPEC's supplier for its $9.70 gas is Dominion's wholesale arm. At a community meeting two weeks ago, NOPEC spokesperson Bess Vrettos assured me they had very good reason to believe that the regular Dominion East Ohio rate would be going up in April. Did NOPEC's "expert" negotiators just get flat-out suckered?

And incidentally: This somewhat explosive information has been public at least since Friday. Has it been covered in the Plain Dealer, but is not showing up on their archive search? Or has the PD just missed it? John Funk, where are you?

WIRELESS SUMMIT NEWS: CONGRESSIONAL BATTLE LOOMS ON "NET NEUTRALITY" AND CITY CABLE FRANCHISE POWERS

Steve Goldberg and I got back from the Community Wireless Summit very late last night. Here's the big headline I wouldn't know about if I hadn't been there, because it's gotten very little coverage (none so far in the PD).

The U.S. House of Representatives is fast-tracking a telecom policy bill that, among other things, would:

1) Open the way for AT&T and other big broadband infrastructure providers to create "tiered Internet access" by charging extra fees for server and network priority... in effect, creating a passing lane on the information highway for preferred customers and business partners; and

2) Eliminate most municipal franchise authority over local cable TV by establishing "national franchising" in any city where the telecom (e.g. AT&T) establishes a new broadband video presence. A city like Cleveland (which faces franchise transfer and renewal negotiations with Time-Warner this Summer) could still collect franchise and public access fees, but would lose its right to enforce service in all neighborhoods, its voice in channel and rate issues, and its ability to negotiate other community benefits.

The bill is set for final markup this week by the Telecommunications Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, whose Chairman, Joe Barton of Texas, unveiled it just a week ago. Ohio E&C Committee members include Republican Paul Gillmor and Democrats Sherrod Brown and Ted Strickland. Gillmor and Brown are members of the subcommittee.

On the up side, the Barton draft (as of Friday) would protect municipalities' right to build and operate their own networks. But this part of the draft is already under attack by some of Barton's GOP colleagues.

The best press coverage of the bill is being collected by the Free Press here. See also Sasha Meinrath's rundown.

The Democratic minority, led by John Dingell of Michigan and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, is denouncing the Barton bill for its failure to protect "net neutrality". I assume this also represents the views of committee members Brown (who will be directly involved in markup this week) and Strickland.

So we could be watching the emergence of the sleeper issue of the 2006 Ohio election -- Democrats vs. Republicans over "who will own the Internet" and set the terms of access for Ohio residents.

Other stuff from the Wireless Summit: Steve's laptop was kaflooey for much of the event but he managed this wiki entry. On the way home, Angela Stuber of Ohio Community Computing Network started a blog.

At the Summit website they've already linked to some podcasts as well as blog coverage by Lisa Yeo, Bob Babione, and Ken from Seattle Wireless.

Apparently we got out of town just in time.