Time Warner takeover: It's not just Cleveland (a regionalism opportunity)

In response to Jill's comment on my last post, it's important to note that it won't only be Cleveland City Council trying to deal with Time Warner this Summer. As a result of the Adelphia buyout deal and some territory-trading with Comcast, Time-Warner intends to take over franchises in thirty-seven municipalities in Cuyahoga County alone (and over five hundred statewide). Jill's home town, Pepper Pike, is one of them. Click on the map to get the picture:


If you live in one of these communities, you should be talking to your own city or village council first. Of course, one suggestion you could make is that this might be an excellent time to try a little of that "regional cooperation" we keep hearing about. There may not be time to organize all thirty-seven communities to deal with Time-Warner together, especially if the Federal government imposes new time limits on franchise approvals -- but then again, you never know unless you try. And it can't hurt for the cities to at least explore some coordination and information sharing.

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Time Warner takeover of Adelphia Cable about to clear final hurdle; Cleveland, here they come

Harold has the story at Public Knowledge today. He's hoping the FCC might require Time Warner to practice net neutrality. Don't hold your breath.

In case you haven't been paying attention, Cleveland and many other NEO communities are part of Time Warner's piece of this deal. Cleveland City Council's Public Utilities Committee (chaired by Ward 17's Matt Zone) should soon be getting Time Warner's formal application for City approval of the takeover and renewal of the local franchise, which expires in September.

How much authority the City will ultimately have in this matter is up to Congress, but under current law there's a lot to talk about, so Council's franchise hearings could be a big deal. Some of the issues: cable rates and programming, the future of public access (Time Warner has started to charge a $25 fee for citizens to run a program on Akron's public channel), future support for the Neighborhood Technology Fund and other community benefits. Also expect the Communications Workers to make a stink about Time Warner's anti-unionism.

Presumably Time Warner's goal will be to shuck off as much of this civic-obligation stuff as possible, and get on with locking down all corners of the local pay-TV market before AT&T makes its move with LightSpeed. Expect to hear a great deal of blather about how competitive the cable market is about to become, and how unfair it is to ask Time Warner to do anything in exchange for the use of city streets and poles, other than make as much money as possible.

Senate Commerce Committee passes telecom bill, NN amendment not included

Well, the Senate Commerce Committee just finished its three-day markup of S. 2686, the "Communications, Consumers’ Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act" (aka "COPE Act Lite") and approved it 15-7. Committee Chairman Ted Stevens said just yesterday that he didn't think the bill would make it to the Senate floor unless he could find 60 votes for it. Does this mean he found them? Which side is he counting Mike Dewine on?

Harold Feld posted a great summary of the bill's good and bad points at wetmachine Monday. After two days in the sausage machine, the final bill apparently hasn't changed much. The biggest (and closest) vote happened around 4 this afternoon, when the Snowe/Dorgan Net Neutrality amendment failed 11-11 (a tie means it loses). All Democrats voted yes, all Republicans except Snowe herself voted no. A John Kerry amendment strengthening the bill's anti-redlining language also failed.

As Harold points out, the bill is mildly better for cities than the House's COPE Act. It leaves cities in charge of cable and IPTV franchising but imposes a 90-day time limit to approve franchise applications, requires use of a standard application designed by the FCC, and otherwise severely limits the city's negotiating options. It also clearly allows selective buildouts (cherrypicking, redlining) within a community, just like COPE. And it removes cities from the list of agencies that have to approve the mid-franchise transfer of a cable company to new owners.

The bright spot in the bill is the municipal networking section, which, like COPE, prevents state legislatures from shutting down city broadband projects. (This provision handily survived an attempt by Democrat Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia to gut it.) While the Senate version adds a couple of hoops for muni broadband projects to jump through, the end result is a solid win for the Community Right To Network. Nice, but not nice enough to outweigh all the other crud.

So... 60 out of 99 votes needed, and a bright line drawn on Net Neutrality. If the GOP leadership wants this thing to pass, they probably can't let Senator Mike vote the other way this time -- which means Net Neutrality might become a real issue in the Senate race after all.

Then we can enjoy the spectacle of Dewine explaining why he went to bat for a telecom giant that wants to sell off its 800,000 Ohio households because they don't fit into its hot new ultrafast fiber video/Internet plans.

P.S. Do you think Sherrod will ever add "big telecom" to the list of pay-to-play industries Congress should be independent of?

AT&T DSL overcharge update: Customer service says sorry, no refund

So I called AT&T customer service first thing yesterday to explain how they've been overcharging me for eight months and ask for my money back.

I could bore you with the details of the conversation, but here's the bottom line: No.

AT&T's position, according to the supervisor of my very nice service representative Nancy, is that I should have called them last November if I wanted my bill lowered to their new, lower rate. The fact that they didn't tell me (or you, or anyone) that the rate for month-to-month DSL Express service had been lowered, and still aren't telling us (unless we burrow deep into the "terms of service" fine print in their ads), and kept sending me bills that said I owed them the old rate, is immaterial. It was up to me to figure it out and tell them that the bills were too high. Since I paid those bills, too bad, but they're keeping the money.

Of course they'd be delighted to offer me a much better rate on my next year of service...

I called the Office of Consumers' Counsel but, as I suspected, neither OCC nor the PUCO is allowed by law to deal with consumer complaints about DSL, because it's an unregulated service. The OCC staffer suggested contacting the Federal Communications Commission.*

So, this is interesting. AT&T has, like, $160 that they overbilled me. They're not giving it back. There have to be lots of other customers (millions?) who are "similarly situated". If you've had an SBC/AT&T DSL account for a couple of years, you may well be one of us.

Do the words "class action" ring any bells?

*Update: From the FCC website...

How do I file a complaint against my Internet Service Provider?
The FCC does not regulate the Internet or Internet Service Providers (ISPs). You may contact your state consumer protection office...

AT&T is overcharging me for DSL... how about you?

I just figured out that AT&T (formerly SBC) has been overcharging my family $20 a month for our home DSL service.

The company's current advertised price for "High Speed Internet Express" service is $29.99 a month, once you're past your initial one-year contract at the $12.99-$14.99 promotional rate. "Express" service means ADSL with up to 1.5 Mbps download and up to 384 Kbps upload, with one dynamic IP address. That's what we've got.

But AT&T is still billing us $49.95 a month for it.

And I'm willing to bet we have lots of company.

Here's the history: We signed up for a year of "Standard" DSL in April 2003. At the time, that meant paying $49.95 for 768 Kbps down and 128 up. That contract ran out in April 2004, and we continued with month-to-month service at the same price.

At some point -- about the same time as the contract ended, I think -- we noticed that our download speed had doubled and was now routinely testing at 1.2 Mbps or better. Hey, we thought, that's pretty cool. In retrospect, I guess that was SBC converting our "Standard" service to their new "Express" category, at the same $49.95 price. No complaints here.

But then last October SBC cut their "ongoing rate" for DSL Express accounts from $49.95 to $29.99. Same service, $20 a month cheaper... for people just like us, using "ongoing" month-to-month 1.5 Mbps service.

Only they didn't bother to tell us, or reduce our bills. So every month since last November, SBC/AT&T has billed us -- and we've paid -- twenty bucks that we didn't owe them.

Yes, of course, I'm going to call the company first thing tomorrow morning and demand our $160 back. And I'm pretty confident that I'll get it, though it may take some pushing and shoving.

But here's the thing: What if I hadn't noticed? AT&T has 7.4 million DSL lines in service across the country. At least a million -- maybe a lot more -- must be Standard/Express customers who've had their accounts for two or three years, like my family. How many are still shelling out fifty dollars a month for service that's supposed to cost them thirty? How much extra money has AT&T collected from all us schlubs? $150 million? $200 million?

And how much more will they collect before the word gets around and somebody makes them stop?

Once upon a time, the PUCO and Ohio Consumers Counsel were allowed to check into telephone company rates and billing practices. But now broadband services are deregulated (and soon, under "alternative regulation", basic phone rates will be too). No more PUCO jurisdiction, no more OCC authority. Nobody's watching any more.

We're on our own, folks. Ain't deregulation grand?

WITH NO CHANCE OF PASSAGE, DEWINE VOTES FOR MINIMUM WAGE HIKE. HEY, WHAT ABOUT OHIO?

Mike Dewine was one of eight Republican Senators to vote "Yes" yesterday on Ted Kennedy's proposal to raise the national minimum wage. With those eight -- four of whom, like Dewine, have re-election races this year -- the bill actually passed 52-48. But it needed a supermajority of 60 votes under the Senate's budget legislation rules, so of course it was dead from the start.

A cynic might see Dewine's vote as a cost-free way to inoculate himself on an issue that may well be center stage in Ohio this November. The Ohio Fair Minimum Wage issue is very likely to get on the ballot, with Sherrod Brown as a loud, proud supporter. Dewine can't stop the issue from raising Democratic turnout, but he's just made it more difficult for Brown to paint him as a villain on the issue.

But let's lower the cynicism setting for a minute. This isn't Dewine's first vote for a minimum wage hike... not exactly. Maybe he really feels in his heart that it's time for minimum-wage workers in Ohio to get a few raises.

If so, there's an easy way for him to prove his sincerity. The Ohio Fair Minimum Wage proposal would create a state requirement starting at $6.85 an hour with annual cost of living bumps. That's virtually identical to the proposal Dewine just voted for (three annual steps to $7.25).

So why doesn't Senator Dewine endorse the petition drive and promise to support the issue when it's on the ballot in November?

Of course, those partisan Democrats behind the petition campaign probably haven't asked for his support. But there's no reason to let them call the shots, right? And unlike the futile vote Dewine cast yesterday in the Senate, his active endorsement of the state issue might really help it to pass -- and would really neutralize the issue in the Senate race.

Seems like a pretty obvious move... assuming, of course, that Dewine really wants the minimum wage to go up.

(To prove my sincerity: If anyone in the Dewine campaign reads this, I promise to attend his Ohio Fair Minimum Wage endorsement press conference, blog the heck out of it, and importune all my fellow "progressive Ohio bloggers" to do the same. Really.)

TWO TELECOM TALES: OR WHY IT MIGHT NOT BE THE GREATEST IDEA TO PUT AT&T AND VERIZON IN CHARGE OF OUR INTERNET ACCESS

1) "AT&T rewrites rules: Your data isn't yours"

From today's San Francisco Chronicle via havecoffeewillwrite :

AT&T has issued an updated privacy policy that takes effect Friday. The changes are significant because they appear to give the telecom giant more latitude when it comes to sharing customers' personal data with government officials.

The new policy says that AT&T -- not customers -- owns customers' confidential info and can use it "to protect its legitimate business interests, safeguard others, or respond to legal process."

The policy also indicates that AT&T will track the viewing habits of customers of its new video service -- something that cable and satellite providers are prohibited from doing.

2) WSJ: Verizon is trying to sell off its Ohio customers.

This doesn't show up in a Google News search, but a friend in the Communications Workers sent me a copy of a May 10 Wall St. Journal article by Dionne Searcey and Dennis Berman that says, in part:

Verizon Communications Inc. is fielding offers for two big packages of traditional telephone lines that could have a combined value of up to $8 billion, say people familiar with the matter. The possible sales are part of the New York-based phone giant's strategy to delve deeper into the wireless and broadband arenas, while getting out of the traditional phone business in U.S. areas that aren't slated for fiber upgrades -- which allow the company to sell more Internet-based services -- and therefore are less valuable to the company in the long run... Verizon also has been shopping a package dubbed "GTE North" that comprises about 3.4 million access lines in former GTE Corp. territories in Indiana, Illinois, Ohio and Michigan. [emphasis added]

Here's a PUCO map of Verizon's "GTE North" service territory in Ohio. Notice it includes a significant chunk of northeast Ohio (southern Lorain and Medina Counties). Over 800,000 households in this territory were served by GTE when it merged with Bell Atlantic in 2000 to form Verizon.

If the WSJ is correct, all these customers are up for sale as "less valuable" because they're "not slated for fiber upgrades", i.e. Verizon has no intention of offering them its new fiber-optic IPTV and Internet service ("FiOS").

Do you think Verizon explained all this to Sherrod Brown (who represents those Lorain/Medina households), Ted Strickland (whose district includes much of the Verizon/GTE North service area along the Ohio River), or any other Ohio Congressman who supported* the company's national video franchising bill on the grounds that it would (in Strickland's words) "facilitate competition in the video market so that consumers have more choices and can benefit from lower cable prices"? The promised "competition" being the FiOS IPTV that Verizon apparently isn't planning to offer in their districts.

Or did the Verizon lobbyists just forget to mention it, counting on the Congressmen to miss the Journal story, not understand its implications, or choose to ignore it?

And how about Voinovich and Dewine? What do they know about Verizon's plan to bail out of Ohio?

Lots of questions. Stay tuned.

*Brown supported the bill in committee but voted against its final passage.

MORE CAREFUL FACT-CHECKING AT THE PD

Nice story on the PD's late-breaking news site this afternoon about LeBron James investing in new home development in Glenville. Olivera Perkins writes:

LeBron James will be the featured attraction Wednesday at the groundbreaking for Parkside Townhomes at Rockefeller Park in Glenville, but it won't just be a celebrity appearance.

He is one of the investors in a 20-unit, $20 million project being built with the nonprofit Glenville Development Corp.

Ummm... wait a second. Twenty units. $20 million. That means each unit will cost (or sell for) a million dollars, right? Near Superior and East Blvd.? A million bucks a unit?

A little googling leads us to Hotel Bruce's 2005 interview with GDC director Tracy Kirksey, in which Tracy said:

I’m excited about the Parkside Townhomes being built on Superior Ave between E. 101 and E. 103 close to East Blvd. We assembled the land, got some housing trust fund money for infrastructure, and even asked the Rockefeller trust for some green space for 20 units that are selling in the mid to high 200s.

This raises so many questions a person hardly knows where to start. But for now, I just want to know how Perkins and her editor figured out that 20 units X "mid to high 200s" = $20 million.

Of course, it's possible that the asking prices have quadrupled in the last year. Everything the King touches turns to gold, right?

UPDATE 6/21: The version of this story in today's real (dead tree) newspaper says Parkside Townhomes is a $4.3 million project, not $20 million, and has other details not included in yesterday afternoon's "Latest Updates" version (linked at the beginning of this post).

But the corrected story isn't on line... and yesterday's online version hasn't been corrected.

STRICKLAND: TIME TO BAN LOCAL GUN ORDINANCES

I guess it's time to face up to it: My candidate for governor just has a problem with the idea of local self-government.

Hard on the heels of his floor vote to get rid of local cable franchising, Ted Strickland put out this campaign press release today:

Strickland Statement on Ohio Senate's Failure to Act on Legislation to Strengthen Protections for Ohio's Gun Owners

Columbus, Ohio – Ohio gubernatorial candidate Congressman Ted Strickland today offered the following statement on the Ohio Senate’s failure to act on HB 347, legislation to strengthen protections for Ohio’s gun owners, before retiring for summer recess.

“Ohio’s GOP leadership has demonstrated that they are unwilling to act on important legislation to strengthen protections for Ohio’s gun owners.

The improvements needed to Ohio’s current concealed carry law outlined in HB 347 have bipartisan support from both Democratic and Republican legislators in the Ohio House of Representatives. But the Republican-controlled senate has stalled this very important bill indefinitely.

As governor, I would support passage of this bill in its entirety and would sign HB 347 into law the moment it hit my desk. I urge the legislature to stop the delay and pass this legislation as soon as possible.”

The press release neglects to say that "this very important bill", which Strickland supports "in its entirety", is explicitly designed to eliminate any form of municipal firearms legislation in Ohio. This includes the assault weapons bans now on the books in Cleveland, Toledo and Columbus. The League of Women Voters, which opposes HB 347, summarizes its impact thusly:

If enacted, HB 347 would:
• Evade the Home-Rule provision of the Ohio Constitution.
• Take away authority from cities. It would prevent local communities from deciding what is in the best interests of their citizens, families and children related to firearms.
• It would serve as a model to eliminate “Home Rule” over other areas of local government.

In addition to preempting local firearms ordinances, this bill would:

1) limit journalist access to information regarding persons who have a concealed weapons license.
2) provide a “self-defense” affirmative defense for discharging a firearm while in or on a vessel or motor vehicle.
3) remove the plain sight provision in vehicles and allow guns to be concealed.
4) define a loaded gun as one that has a bullet in the gun (ammunition carried separately would not constitute being loaded).

Meanwhile, there's no sign from the Strickland campaign of that "urban agenda" they keep promising.

Unless this is it.

AL'S SLIDESHOW AND THE REST OF IT

The family went to see An Inconvenient Truth at the Cedar Lee last night. It turns out this is really three films intertwined. There is, of course, the "filmed live" version of Al Gore's Global Warming Slideshow. Then there's the Slide Show Backstage -- interludes of Gore travelling to presentations, pecking at his laptop on planes, walking through airports, even occasionally talking to sources. Finally there's a healthy dose of Al Gore Campaign Infomercial.

Four things I'd like to say about An Inconvenient Truth:

1) The actual Slideshow, which is around two-thirds of the film, is absolutely terrific. Riveting. Not to be missed. Whoever said to Gore, "You know, Al, you should make a movie of this" was freaking brilliant. For this part alone, go see this movie.

2) The Campaign Infomercial stuff -- including most of Gore's wanderings around his Tennessee homestead, reflections on his boyhood, shots of the 2000 campaign, and most of the footage about his sister and his son -- detracts from the film's strength and raises obvious questions about its intentions. It just shouldn't be there.

3) The Slide Show Backstage parts have way too much of Gore pondering soulfully, striding alone through airports and playing Lone Laptop Ranger on planes. If director Davis Guggenheim cut this stuff back, there'd be room to include some other voices from among the many people we see, or hear about, but never meet. Like: Gore interviewing a few of the scientists we see him visiting. Gore talking with people who helped organize his big audiences in China and elsewhere. Gore introducing a mayor or two from cities that have adopted carbon reduction programs.

(A lesson Gore should have learned from the 2000 campaign: Don't try to tell the press that you played a crucial role in developing the Internet -- introduce them to Vint Cerf, and let him tell them. There's an element of "Al Gore discovered global warming" in this film. Like the Internet thing, there's some truth to it, but it would sound better coming from other people's mouths.)

4) Virtually all of the film's "What is to be done?" content is relegated to some text interspersed with the closing credits. There's a strange moment in the Slideshow when Gore graphs out the CO2 reductions that various strategies could achieve, but gives no explanation of what they involve, apparently assuming that we all know. (Quick, what's "carbon sequestration"?) You leave the theater horrified and motivated but with few new clues about Gore wants you to do. Even the movie's website URL, where we're apparently supposed to seek the answers, shows up only in the closing credits sequence.

Bottom line: As an Al Gore Global Warming Slide Show concert film, An Inconvenient Truth could hardly be better. The peripherals are a lot weaker, but so what? Two thumbs way up.

CLIFTON ARTS FESTIVAL BROWSERS LOVE "RAISE THE WAGE" PETITION

Law School Daughter and I just got home from a short stint circulating the Ohio Fair Minimum Wage petition at the Clifton Arts and Musicfest. It took each of us less than an hour to get the fifty-five voters' signatures needed to fill a blank petition. The signatures were coming literally as fast as I could approach people and ask.

Lest you think the enthusiasm was limited to poor Clevelanders, twenty-three of my signers were residents of west and southwest suburbs, including a dozen from Bay, Olmsted and Westlake.

If this thing makes it to the ballot, it's unbeatable.

MONETIZE THE TURNPIKE?

I don't think many Ohioans have realized yet that Ken Blackwell's key "jobs" proposal, other than tax cuts, is to get a pot of development money by leasing`the Ohio Turnpike to a private operator. Blackwell models his idea on Chicago's recent 99-year lease of the Skyway and Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels' proposal to lease the Toll Road for 75 years, to a pair of corporations from Australia and Spain, to raise money for other highway projects.

On Wednesday MaxSpeak linked to a Washington Post article about this trend that describes the hornet's nest stirred up by Daniels' deal ("Keep the Toll Road, lease Mitch!"). Max's own comment:

When a government takes a lump sum in exchange for permitting a private firm to manage a road and levy tolls, it is not only privatizing. It is borrowing, worsening its fiscal position. Most states are looking at growing budget shortfalls in the future, as Medicaid costs in particular continue to grow more rapidly than their revenues.

The Gov could just as easily contract out operations and management, but keep the tolls for itself. The fact that the money is earmarked to new projects -- investment -- is irrelevant. It's still borrowing. You could just as easily keep the roads and float a bond -- also borrowing -- for the new projects. The leasing is not necessary.

As usual, there's a string of erudite reponses. Economists, ya know.

The buzz word for this kind of scheme, which entrances many Democrats like Chicago Mayor Daley as well as GOP privatizers like Blackwell, is "monetizing" public assets... which sounds better than "spending our future income now", I guess.

CLEVELAND CITY COUNCIL HAS WIFI, SORT OF

I found a new comment posted Tuesday by Ward 15 City Councilman Brian Cummins on this old post:

...I was catching up on Bill's blog while attending our council meeting in Council Chambers. I checkout various spots in City Hall occasionally and sure enough, it appears that the wireless signal from the Building & Housing's Permit's server reaches the Chambers. Although I can and do, use a computer, last night I was on the internet using my IPAQ.

I'd like nothing better to see more wireless access throughout our city and especially in our commercial districts and throughout our neighborhoods. Please e-mail me with any suggestions and offers of help!

His email address is in the comment.

A MUSICAL INTERLUDE

The Broadband sings God Save The Internet.

Hey mister telephone man, God save the Internet,
Don't change my reality, keep net neutrality...

Catchy.

AFL-CIO COMMITS A BILLION DOLLARS TO GULF COAST REBUILDING

From the national AFL-CIO's blog:

The AFL-CIO today announced a $1 billion Gulf Coast Revitalization Program to build badly needed affordable housing, spur economic development and create family-supporting union jobs in Gulf Coast communities devastated by Hurricane Katrina last year.

HUH? WHAT HE SAY?

Tech Link has an excerpt from a statement by Mike Dewine today at the Senate Judiciary Committee. The subject is net neutrality and video franchising. What the Senator means to say about these issues (due to be addressed in a Commerce Committee markup on June 22) I'll leave it to you to figure out. Good luck.

For example, we have heard a lot lately about net neutrality. Many of the internet service providers, including many phone and cable companies, have expressed an interest in finding new ways to "manage their networks." The net neutrality debate revolves around how, and how much, the network providers can control the way their networks are used. It also involves who pays, and how much they pay, for using those networks. We must address this issue carefully. We may well be at an inflection point, a point at which the future of the internet is determined. Action or inaction may dictate the degree of investment and the pace of competition and innovation generated by the Internet for years to come. This committee must make every effort to ensure that the legal framework for this industry provides the best possible platform for competition and innovation.

Another important issue that must be addressed is the process for video franchising. As the phone companies enter into video services, they tell us that the current franchise requirements delay how quickly they can enter specific markets and begin to provide another choice for consumers. At the same time, the cable companies - who were required to get franchises in each of the towns and cities they serve - argue that all the players in this industry should be treated the same, regardless of the technology they use. At some point soon we must resolve these conflicting views of the market, and we must do it in a way that encourages free and fair competition.

Uh-huh. And apple pie is great, especially with ice cream on it.

Josh Marshall lists both Dewine and Voinovich as "fingers in the wind" on the net neutrality issue (by which Josh means the Snowe/Dorgan "Internet Freedom Preservation Act"). Sounds about right. Blow in Senator Dewine's direction here.

WKYC/SURVEYUSA POLL SHOWS STRICKLAND, BROWN LEADING AMONG LIKELY VOTERS

If this is right, the Ohio GOP is in big trouble.

Here are the story and the crosstabs. From the crosstab page:

In an election for Governor of Ohio today, 6/13/06, Democrat Ted Strickland defeats Republican Ken Blackwell, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted for WCPO-TV Cincinnati, WKYC-TV Cleveland, and WYTV-TV Youngstown. Strickland, currently representing Ohio's 6th District in Congress, gets 53%. Blackwell, currently Ohio Secretary of State, gets 37%. Strickland gets 89% of Democrat votes. Blackwell gets 72% of Republican votes. 20% of Republicans cross over and vote for the Democrat. Independents prefer Democrat Strickland by 19 points. Strickland leads by 4 among men and by 27 among women, a 23-point Gender Gap. Blackwell runs even with Strickland among voters under age 35, and in Western Ohio.

U.S. Senate: In an election for United States Senator from Ohio today, 6/13/06, Democratic challenger Sherrod Brown ousts Republican incumbent Mike DeWine... Brown, who represents Ohio's 13th District in Congress, wins by 9 points, 48% to 39%. Brown gets 85% of Democrat votes. DeWine gets 73% of Republican votes. Brown wins by 14 points among Independents. Brown wins by 2:1 in Eastern Ohio. DeWine leads in Western and Central Ohio. Brown leads by 21 points among low-income voters. Other income groups are tied. DeWine leads by 13 among the youngest voters. Brown leads by 22 among the oldest voters.

Filtering: 1,000 Ohio adults were interviewed 6/10/06 - 6/12/06. Of them, 844 were registered to vote. Of them, 507 were judged to be "likely" voters. Crosstabs reflect Likely Voters.

(Emphasis added.)

Of course the campaign hasn't really started. But before waving this off, remember: SurveyUSA was deadly accurate in the Cleveland mayor's race.

HOUSE DEMOCRATS TO CITIES: DROP DEAD!

The Republican Party has built its national dominance on two main institutional bases: corporate business and conservative churches. Republican leaders never miss an opportunity to defend the interests and increase the reach and power of these two key bases. When they're under attack, Republicans defend them; when they're in conflict, the party works to reconcile them. In elections the Republicans "move to the middle" by packaging corporate and conservative church interests for mainstream consumption (low taxes and no regulation equals growth, "school choice" equals education reform).

The Democratic Party also depends on two main institutional bases: the labor movement and cities. But unlike the GOP, national Democrats seldom miss an opportunity to abandon and weaken their bases of support.

Case in point: Last Thursday's U.S. House vote on national franchising of video/Internet providers (the COPE Act).

At its core, the COPE Act has a simple purpose -- to strip local communities of any vestige of influence over commercial cable and IPTV development on their public rights-of-way.

This bill is not "about net neutrality". Of course it's part of the grand AT&T/Verizon strategy to grab a dominant position in the network infrastructure market and use that position to make money by shaping network content of all kinds, including Internet commerce. Of course this strategy poses a threat to the open Internet that needs to be countered, by putting NN requirements back into Federal law among other things.

But the telcos (and Big Cable) don't need the COPE Act to give them Federal permission to create tiered Internet service and screw nonpreferred content providers. They're free to do that right now, under existing law. What they need the COPE Act for is to stop uppity local governments -- and people who can influence them, like consumer groups and local ISPs and content providers and digital inclusion advocates -- from messing with their converged, bundled, our-pipes-our-content business model in local markets.

So the vote last Thursday wasn't primarily a choice between AT&T and Google, or AT&T and craigslist. It was a choice between AT&T and the power of local communities: power to help make the New Media rules, and to get a piece of the action for community needs.

So of course the Democratic majority voted for AT&T against local communities -- abandoning the interests of the cities that support them and further weakening a vital Democratic base, urban governments.

(No, this was not a Hobson's choice between the cities and the unions, as Seth Rosen of the Communications Workers made clear in a comment here last week.)

But wait, you say... didn't the majority of Democrats support the Markey net neutrality amendment? And didn't they vote for Congresswoman Solis' motion to recommit the bill to committee, showing their displeasure with its lack of serious redlining protections for "low value" communities?

Sure they did. Democrats voted for the Markey Amendment 140 to 58. Then they voted for the Solis "recommit" motion 162 to 36. Very strong. Very stirring. And very meaningless, since neither measure had the faintest hope of passage, with the GOP majority holding its votes on a very tight leash.

Then they had the real vote.

Democrats voting to take away municipal franchising powers, with no significant change on either net neutrality or anti-redlining protection: 106. Voting against: 92.

Bottom line: House Democrats to the cities... drop dead!

Ironically, the national city officials' organizations, led by the League of Cities and the Conference of Mayors, seem to have made some real headway dealing with Republican leaders on the Senate side. Senator Ted Stevens' revised S 2686, released Friday in preparation for Commerce Committee hearings that start today, reduces cities' discretion in video franchising but still keeps them in charge of the process, preserving some local leverage over franchise lengths and fees, consumer complaints and right-of-way enforcement, and protecting their public and government access resources. These are issues that House Democrats didn't even try to raise.

WORD OF MOUTH: DONUTS FOR DEMOCRACY

It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it. Scott steps up.

CLOSE TO HOME: BROOKLYN CENTRE GARDEN TOUR TODAY

It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood...

SHERROD'S "NAY" PUTS DEWINE ON THE SPOT

The first thing I want to say, the morning after the COPE Act vote, is "thank you" to the handful of Ohio Representatives who took their responsibility to their communities and consumers seriously. Thank you, Dennis Kucinich. Thank you, Marcy Kaptur. Thank you, Tim Ryan.

And thank you, Sherrod Brown.

Sherrod has taken a beating on this blog and others for his April vote to report the Barton/Rush bill out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. He said at the time that he supported national pay-TV franchising, but wanted strong net neutrality language added and intended to support a floor amendment to that effect. My unanswered question then was: If no such language is added, will you still support this bill?

Last night he finally answered the question with his vote: No net neutrality amendment, no support.

This was not an easy vote for Brown to cast -- not, as you might think, because of telecom industry money it may cost him in his Senate race, but because it puts him at odds with one of his strongest union supporters, the Communications Workers. (John Ryan of the Cleveland AFL-CIO, CWA's former district director, has taken a leave to serve as Brown's campaign manager.) CWA has never formally endorsed the COPE Act, but it did send a letter to the Judiciary Committee opposing the Sensenbrenner net neutrality bill, and it strongly supports national or state video franchising to jumpstart the IPTV business of its major all-union employer, AT&T. I doubt that CWA put all that much pressure on Brown -- his vote was never going to matter much in the arithmetic of passage -- but they must be making their opinions known in the campaign. (Incidentally, before jumping to the conclusion that CWA is "the enemy", people who think like me should go read the union's whole telecommunications policy. You may be surprised.)

But when push came to shove, Sherrod backed up his stated commitment to an open Internet with his vote. Good for him.

And good for his Senate campaign, because that "Nay" vote puts his opponent Mike Dewine on the spot.

This is going to be a much, much tighter fight in the Senate, where Commerce Committee chairman Ted Stevens has his COPE counterpart bill, S. 2686, scheduled for hearings on June 13. Until last night, the Internet uproar about net neutrality posed no threat to Dewine, since Brown had done nothing to position himself to take advantage of it. Now he has. That means Dewine's behavior -- including the side he takes on a very close, high-visibility floor vote in the next few weeks -- could become a significant campaign issue.

The situation is even more interesting in light of Dewine's chairmanship of the Senate's Judiciary subcommittee on "Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights".

Keep watching. This has only gotten started.

P.S. Here's an important comment from Seth Rosen, CWA's District 4 Vice-President, about the union's position. Seth says CWA put no pressure on Brown or anyone else to vote for COPE; that CWA not only hasn't formally endorsed the bill (as I said) but really doesn't support it, because it doesn't require universal buildout of new broadband infrastructure. I consider Seth an unimpeachable source on this subject, so I stand corrected.

COPE ACT VOTE MAY BE TONIGHT

Agonist says the final debate on the COPE Act will come tonight at 10 pm.

Stoller at MyDD says it's scheduled to follow Tom Delay's farewell speech. In a separate post, he summarizes the amendment situation, which isn't good. Contrary to reports last night, the two amendments allowed on Net Neutrality are a strong one offered by Markey, which has no GOP support and will be defeated, and a largely meaningless one from Rep. Lamar Smith, which could pass. No amendments are on the agenda to preserve municipal franchise powers or prevent community redlining. Thus there is no chance that the final bill will be an improvement over what came out of the Energy and Commerce Committee -- and no legitimate excuse for "progressive" Democrats to vote for it.

Stay tuned.

UPDATE 10:20: COPE Act passes 321-101. The GOP support was overwhelming (something like 216-7) but the majority of Democrats also voted "Yes" on the final bill. I'm waiting for roll call info on the Democrats from Ohio.

The Markey net neutrality amendment was defeated handily, of course.

UPDATE 10:51: OHIO VOTES

In the end, Sherrod Brown did the right thing. He voted "No" on the COPE Act's final passage, along with Tim Ryan, Dennis Kucinich and Marcy Kaptur.

Ted Strickland and Stephanie Tubbs-Jones voted "Yes", along with all the Ohio Republicans. Strickland's vote was pretty much expected, but Tubbs-Jones is a disappointment. TechLink quoted her office yesterday to the effect that she was undecided and "wants to talk with AT&T, Verizon and others before making up her mind". I guess that was a clue.

PD STORY ON COPE ACT: SOME THINGS HENRY KNOWS BUT DIDN'T TELL YOU

This morning's COPE Act story by Henry Gomez and Stephen Koff is disappointing on several counts. I say "disappointing" because Henry is one of the most clued-in local reporters in the country on the national franchising debate, and a story of this length could easily have accommodated more of what he knows.

First, the story's admirable qualities: It's timely. Gomez and Koff focus correctly on the heart of the bill -- the elimination of municipal TV franchise authority for the benefit of an AT&T business model. They put the hot-button Net Neutrality issue in its proper context, as just one of several important controversies surrounding the bill. They identify (briefly) a couple of other key issues -- the CBO prediction that the new system will cost cities and villages hundreds of millions of dollars, the potential for redlining of poor and rural communities. This is all good.

But... not nearly good enough.

Here are a few significant things that Henry knows about the COPE Act and AT&T that readers don't know after reading this morning's story:

1) The bill doesn't just free AT&T and Verizon from the necessity of seeking local franchises to get into the pay-TV business... it frees the current cable companies (Time-Warner, Comcast, Cox) as well.

Under the COPE Act, AT&T's first Federally-franchised IPTV customer hookup in Cleveland will effectively void the city's cable franchise agreements with Adelphia and its likely successor, Time-Warner Cable. All the cable company has to do is apply for its own Federal franchise, wait 30 days for the automatic approval, and -- voila! -- no more pesky City Hall to deal with. Customer complaints, neighborhood service issues, even enforcement of the City's rules about the companies' use of public rights of way -- all become Federal issues, to be adjudicated by the FCC. Time-Warner, like AT&T, will be immunized from community pressure to extend new services to "low-value" neighborhoods, or support community media and technology training efforts, or even provide discount services to schools, libraries and community centers.

Please note that all this will occur even if AT&T's market penetration in the city remains minimal, and Time-Warner remains the pay-TV monopoly in most areas, and city customers see little improvement in services or rates. Nothing in the bill requires the telecom or cable companies to actually deliver on their promises. And this isn't an academic concern, because...

2) "The new AT&T" has been in the cable business before, and abandoned it.

In 1995 Ameritech launched a fiber-based pay TV business called Americast, which by 2000 had TV franchises in a hundred cities in Ohio, Michigan and Illinois, with over 300,000 customer households. They claimed to have a third of the market in the communities where they held franchises. Then SBC took over Ameritech and sold off its cable business (in Ohio, the buyer was Wide Open West). Here's what SBC said five years ago:

Joe Izbrand, a spokesman for SBC, said his company "is really focused on data and broadband and long distance as our growth drivers, and our feeling is that cable is best left to cable providers."

Today's AT&T is just SBC with a different name. In 2001 they wanted out of their substantial, growing fiber TV business; today they want Congress to rewrite the franchising rules as a supposed precondition to getting back in.

And the PD helpfully refers to this as an effort to "rewrite outdated industry rules" because AT&T has "fallen behind cable firms"! Well, yeah, it's easy to fall behind if you sit down in the middle of the race.

3) Rumors of lower prices with cable competition are greatly exaggerated.

Wide Open West competes directly with Time Warner Cable in Columbus, whereas in Akron, Time Warner is still pretty much a monopoly. WOW offers "basic digital cable" bundled with 4 mpbs Internet for $88 a month, compared to Time Warner's $97 for a similar package. (Road Runner may be a little faster, and the TV channels are not identical, so "similar" is about the best I can do.)

So is Time Warner service cheaper in the competitive hotbed of Columbus than in the monopoly hothouse of Akron? No, Virginia, it's not cheaper. No price wars, no competitive rate-slashing. It's pretty much what AT&T's chairman told Wall Street analysts to expect from his company's entry into the pay-TV market under a national franchising system: "I don't think there's going to be a price war." Of course this isn't what his lobbyists are telling Congressmen like Paul Gillmor, or what Gillmor (and Sherrod Brown) are telling PD reporters... who, for some reason, are not asking them to explain the discrepancy.

4) The COPE Act and its companion legislation in the Senate not only write municipalities out of the cable franchise process, they also write new rules for cities thinking about building their own high-speed networks.

The COPE Act leaves communities free to provide network services as they see fit, while the Senate bill requires any public network proposal to be put out for bid to private companies first. Given the legislative process -- the bills pass with their differences and then are "reconciled" through horse-trading in a semi-secret conference committee -- it's almost certain that the final outcome will be new Federal limits on the rights of community-owned networks to compete, anywhere the telcoms and cable companies want to stop them.

So why do Gomez and Koff fail to mention these things, each of which is directly relevant to its northeast Ohio readers? And why didn't Gomez and Koff interview some local people who could have commented on the bill's local impact with some authority -- e.g. people at Cleveland City Hall who face negotiations with Time Warner on the terms of its takeover of Adelphia's franchise this Summer?

I don't know. But it's disappointing. I hope Gomez and Koff have more to come.

Update: Here's Henry's take on the story.

Update 7:45 pm: From ITworld.com...

The U.S. House of Representatives is due to debate a wide-ranging telecommunications reform bill as soon as Thursday, and lawmakers will have a chance to vote on a net neutrality amendment, House leaders said...

The House Rules Committee, which decides what amendments will be allowed on the House floor, voted Wednesday to allow two major net neutrality amendments to be voted on when the House debates the telecom bill.

One amendment, based on a bill sponsored by Representative James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, would change U.S. antitrust law by requiring broadband providers to give independent content providers the same speed and quality of service as they have.

The second amendment, sponsored by Representative Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, would require broadband providers that set aside faster connections for new services such as video over Internet Protocol to offer the same speeds to competing services.

Barton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said Wednesday he opposes a move to allow a net neutrality amendment prohibiting broadband providers from blocking or impairing competing Web content.

COPE ACT VOTE NOW SET FOR FRIDAY; JUDICIARY "NET NEUTRALITY" MEASURE TO BE OFFERED AS AMENDMENT

So you have a couple more days to contact your Congressman. From today's National Journal Insider Update:

House Republican leaders are pressing forward with the Bell company-led effort to pass telecommunications legislation and have scheduled the measure -- designed to make it easier for the Bells to enter the video service market -- for a floor vote that likely will take place this Friday.

But Republican leaders are also seeking to avoid requiring members to vote on the contentious issue of network neutrality, congressional and industry sources said. And Bell company lobbyists have been tasked with generating sufficient support against a network neutrality amendment.

A decision on how to proceed on the network neutrality issue is expected Wednesday, when the House Rules Committee meets to determine the guidelines for floor debate on the telecom legislation.

The underlying bill, H.R. 5252 -- which passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee 42-12 on April 26 -- would ease municipal video franchising rules that have limited the Bell companies' ability to offer nationwide video services. Opposition to the franchising aspect comes from the cable industry and municipalities

If Bell advocates of the telecom measure are not able to generate support against a neutrality amendment, the measure could slip to next week, said industry sources.

But an aide to House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said leaders were going to proceed with an unusual vote outside the chamber's normal Tuesday-to-Thursday work week. "We will have a vote on Friday," said Boehner spokesman Kevin Madden, referring to the telecom measure.

After his committee was denied a chance to consider the Energy and Commerce-passed bill, House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., authored rival H.R. 5417 that included strict network neutrality rules. It passed 20-13. Sensenbrenner said last week that he probably would seek to offer his bill as an amendment to H.R. 5252.

The House Rules Committee will decide on whether to allow a vote on such an amendment no earlier than Wednesday, said a Rules Committee spokeswoman.

Emphasis added. (Thanks to the Benton Foundation's daily email update for the heads-up.)

COPE ACT VOTE SCHEDULED FOR THIS WEEK

Well, the Internet was safe for a week but it's over now. Congress is back in session.

And the Benton Foundation reports that HR 5252, the infamous "COPE Act", is on this Wednesday's calendar for a vote by the full House of Representatives.

The chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, who's pushing a parallel bill (S. 2686), has predicted a vote on his bill in the upper chamber by the end of June.

There are differences between the House and Senate proposals, of course. For one thing, the Senate version neuters the only good thing in the House bill -- the section that protects local communities' right to develop their own public high-speed networks without state interference. But don't sweat the details, because as the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported, the point of all this is to get something called "national pay-TV franchising" passed by both houses:

The House and Senate are preparing to vote on telecommunications legislation that could affect every American who surfs the Internet, watches cable TV or uses a phone. But consumers shouldn't waste much time watching the floor debates on C-SPAN. The lawmakers admit their goal is not to pass definitive legislation in public in the coming weeks. Instead, they want the House and Senate to pass separate bills, regardless of how different they may be. The final version would be negotiated, largely in private, by about a dozen senators and representatives on a conference committee. The Senate just needs to pass "anything to get us into conference," where the real decisions will be made, House telecommunications subcommittee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) said Tuesday at a telecom forum hosted by National Journal's Technology Daily... While most conference negotiations are closed to public view, lobbyists continue to influence the members and their staffers, sometimes even supplying language that ends up as the law of the land.

That last sentence is what you might call "ironic understatement".

But what about that Sensenbrenner-Conyers "Net Neutrality" bill passed by the House Judiciary Committee on May 25, which makes price or service discrimination by network providers a violation of antitrust law? Won't that save the Internet? Sorry, Henry, but no, it won't. Given that the majority of Republicans (who, um, control the House) on the committee voted against it, Sensenbrenner-Conyers has approximately a hellbound snowball's chance of actually becoming law. But it's a handy campaign prop for Democrats like Sherrod Brown and Ted Strickland, who now have a chance to vote for both the COPE Act and Net Neutrality. Slick, huh?

So, here we go. After all the huffing and puffing and all the learned debate among bloggers, real and astroturfy, the voting's about to start. Your Member of Congress is going to help decide this Wednesday whether the next generation of pay TV and Internet connectivity will be wholly owned (and its content shaped) by a few big telephone and cable corporations. And whether your community will have any control over the way these companies use the public rights of way to deliver their proprietary services. And whether poor city neighborhoods and rural townships will get high-speed services, too. And whether the new system will kick the supports out from under community technology training and access programs. And whether local communities will be free to invest in community-owned networks to serve community needs.

A "Yes" vote on HR 5252 this week will be a vote for duopoly control of next-generation IP services; for the duopolies' right to cherry-pick and redline communities; for stripping local communities of authority over their own public rights of way and their negotiating leverage over cable rates, service issues, public access and community benefits; and against the open Internet. But as far as I know, at this moment not a single Ohio Representative, Democrat or Republican, has made a commitment to vote "No".

If you want to have a say in your Representative's decision, time is running out. You gotta send that email and make that call today. Thursday will be too late.

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

Oh, one more thing: If your Representative or his staffer tells you the COPE Act is going to slash cable TV rates through competition, show him this.

BELATED BLOGDAY ISSUE: THE FERRY

I just noticed that this blog's third birthday was a week ago today.

Well, actually, that was the third anniversary of my first post, which was legitimately forgettable. The first Cleveland Diary entry that was actually about something was three days later.

But whichever date you want to count as this blog's actual debut, I forgot about it till now. This is so typical. Just ask my family.

Don't worry, I'm not about to do a retrospective. But it seems like maybe I should check back on the first topic I wrote about. So... what's up with that ferry to Canada, eh?

Ah, here we go. Bad news, right in time to spoil my belated blogday party.

You'll recall that the Port of Cleveland finished its ferry feasibility study and got a big green light from its consultants. Then they put out a request for proposals and picked a ferry operator. Then they got a $7 million Federal grant to build a ferry terminal at Dock 28 behind Browns Stadium. So everything was pretty much ready to roll on the U.S. side of the lake a year ago.

What's still missing is a place to go on the other side.

The municipality of Central Elgin, Ontario -- which includes Port Stanley, the proposed ferry destination -- wants the ferry project (though local opinion is by no means unanimous). But so far they haven't gotten Transport Canada, which is selling off Port Stanley (the harbor, not the town), to agree to transfer it to local ownership. Meanwhile, Port Burwell, a few miles to the`east, is trying to get support for a competing ferry plan to be based in Fairport Harbor.

Here's a recent summary of how this all looks from the Canadian side.

There's no indication whether anyone from Cleveland is exploring the Port Burwell option.

I give the Port some points for their patient, systematic -- one might even say plodding -- approach to getting their big, expensive Canada ferry in the water. But after three years of planning, fundraising and negotiation with no actual deal in sight, I hope somebody at the Port is working on a Plan B. Maybe even a more modest, more affordable Plan B, designed just to get people and vehicles across the lake and back again.

Yes, yes, I know the Port staff are all too busy working on statewide development deals and eminent domain lawsuits. But a guy can wish, can't he? Especially on or about his blogday.

LIVE-BLOGGING FROM FROM THE ARCHWOOD STREET SALE

Well, actually, from my front porch. Something to do while waiting for shoppers to wander through. Need a mirror? A dresser? A Nordic Track ski machine? A $5 ukelele? Come on down.



The Archwood Street Sale happens twice a year on Archwood Avenue between Pearl Roard and Fulton Avenue... two days X six blocks of wall-to-wall bargains. There's no planning committee, board, staff or budget -- just a couple of neighbors who put up the old sign at the end of the block, and a hundred or so households that load up our front yards and start selling. (Okay, there's obviously somebody in charge -- someone's picking the date and hauling the sign out of storage. But no one knows who it is. It just happens. It's a tradition.)

Update: Sorry, the ukelele is sold.

ONLINE BANKING IN CLEVELAND: ARE YOU INSECURE?

Q. What do Third Federal, Huntington, Fifth Third and Charter One have that National City, Key Bank, US Bank and Chase don't?

A. An "https" in the address of the webpage where you enter your user name and password to log in to your online account access.

The "s" after the standard "http" means the page is secured using the SSL encryption protocol. All these sites and other online banking sites use SSL to protect your data, starting with the page you're taken to when you log in.

But some banks don't secure the login page itself.

Why is this a problem? Tech Republic explains:

What's actually happening is that Banks are using SSL for encryption, but they're not using it to prove the Bank's authenticity to you the customer. Encryption is useless if you don't know who you're talking to is the entity you're intending to talk to. This means that it's extremely easy to intercept and spoof a Bank that doesn't use SSL login forms. Unsuspecting users will login to a fake online Bank and enter their login credentials which get captured by the bad guys. Once they have it, they can just transfer some money to their own bank accounts.

A list of big U.S., Canadian and other banks with their login page security practices is at SecureWebBank.

Here's a quick survey of Cleveland area institutions:

With "https" in the login page address for personal online banking: Third Federal, Huntington, Sky Bank, Charter One, Fifth Third, First Merit, First Federal of Lakewood, Dollar Bank, Park View Federal, Republic.

Without "https" in the login page address: National City, Key, US Bank, and Chase/Bank One.

(Thanks to Geoff Beckman for pointing this out.)