Politicians Defer To Time Warner Lobbyists Who Wrote The Bill They're Pushing

from the funny-how-that-works... dept

Fri, Apr 24th 2009 9:33am — Mike Masnick

Following up on the earlier story of Time Warner Cable going the political route to try to block municipal competition in Wilson, North Carolina, Broadband Reports has a story pointing out two interesting side stories:

During hearings about the law to ban such municipal competition, the politicians pushing the bill that would ban municipal competition were asked to clarify, and rather than answer themselves, the politicians "turned to a Time Warner staff member and an attorney who represents the industry to speak on their behalf." In other words, they outright admitted they didn't understand their own legislation and that the corporate lawyers from the company that would benefit from the legislation understood it better than they did. It's certainly no surprise that lobbyists write the legislation that politicians pass, but usually they at least try to hide it a little bit. Here they're basically flaunting the fact that Time Warner Cable wrote the bill, and the politicians just shuffled it through the process without understanding it. Isn't it great to be a servant of the people?
Time Warner Cable is complaining about what a huge cost municipal broadband is to the people of Wilson, but leaves out the fact that Time Warner Cable's CEO's compensation from the past two years is greater than it cost the city of Wilson (via a bond measure, so not taxpayer dollars) to fund the deployment of the fiber network. And you have to wonder if Time Warner Cable will end up spending more trying to block this competition than it would have cost to have built out a competitive quality service as well.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: broadband caps, lobbyists, municipal broadband, politicians
Companies: time warner cable

33 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

sycarion, 24 Apr 2009 @ 9:58am

Not surprising
The two representatives represent Wake (Raleigh) and Meckenlenburg (Charlotte), TimeWarner's two biggest markets in NC.

Deferring the TW lawyer during a hearing? Fail!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt, 24 Apr 2009 @ 10:23am

is that even legal?
I wonder if there are some serious legality questions when it is shown that lobbying is the cause of the bill?

Might this be a chance to get the noerr-pennington doctrine repealed? We need it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noerr-Pennington_doctrine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael Long, 24 Apr 2009 @ 10:24am

Irrelevant
"...but leaves out the fact that Time Warner Cable's CEO's compensation from the past two years is greater than it cost the city of Wilson ... to fund the deployment of the fiber network."

So what? Or to be more specific, what does one have to do with the other? TWC's CEO may or may not be overcompensated, but how is that relevant to practically anything at all?

Besides, you had to stretch even for that one. Compensation for the past TWO years? How using the last THREE years next time? Or saying his compensation over the last DECADE is greater...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baloney Joe, 24 Apr 2009 @ 10:25am

Bonds are taxes
Bond measures are taxes. How do you think the Coupon payments are made?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Shawn, 24 Apr 2009 @ 10:33am
  
  Re: Bonds are taxes
  I dunno... from the customers paying their bills?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Baloney Joe, 24 Apr 2009 @ 10:57am
    
    Re: Re: Bonds are taxes
    Yeah because the customers are going to pay bills for the build out? Or are you saying that the bond holders are not going to want payment until the revenue meets the servicing costs of the Bond, not likely.
    
    Bond payments are not made at maturity 99.9% of the time. They are paid either quarterly or annually.
    
    Muni wifi is not a profitable endeavor, most jurisdictions use it as a backbone for their traffic and sell extra capacity to the public.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mechwarrior, 24 Apr 2009 @ 10:50am
  
  Re: Bonds are taxes
  Im not sure that you know how bonds work....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Baloney Joe, 24 Apr 2009 @ 11:06am
    
    Re: Re: Bonds are taxes
    Really? I think I do. There is no way a Muni WiFi project will generate enough "revenue" to meet it's obligation in the beginning and probably ever. Hence taxpayers will foot the bill, which I am not opposed to as long as the service is worth the amount I would pay in taxes to support it.
    
    This type of project is typically set up a special "tax district" allowing the Muni to collect taxes for the service directly. Similar to a water district or a park & rec district.
    
    But you may be right I may not know what I am talking about.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Grae, 24 Apr 2009 @ 11:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Bonds are taxes
      What the eff are you talking about?
      
      How can you possibly claim to know what you're talking about when it's painfully obvious you can't read or at least have the attention span of a squirrel? This ENTIRE EFFORT is about municipal fiber optic to the home, NOT municipal wireless internet(muni wifi).
      
      From http://www.greenlightnc.com/about/ (The municipal ISP at the heart of this article, in case you weren't aware.)
      Greenlight is North Carolina’s only all fiber optic network. It provides faster Internet access, as well as superior TV images and dependable phone service.
      (Emphasis mine.)
      
      A fiber optic network will definitely make a profit. Considering reports of people who are willing to move/have moved to get within the areas serviced by fiber optic ISPs I can't see how it couldn't make a profit.
      
      Please, please: read, think about, then read again before splattering such ignorance on the web.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Baloney Joe, 24 Apr 2009 @ 11:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Bonds are taxes
        Your logic is flawed.
        
        By your logic, the rates I pay for my water should cover the bond issued by the water district, yet I still pay $1300 a year in property taxes to the Water District on top of my $100 a month water bill to the Water District. Shouldn't my water rates make the district profitable? Now piss of.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chris (profile), 24 Apr 2009 @ 12:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bonds are taxes
        yet I still pay $1300 a year in property taxes to the Water District on top of my $100 a month water bill to the Water District. Shouldn't my water rates make the district profitable?
        
        $209 per month for water? do you live on the moon?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Baloney Joe, 24 Apr 2009 @ 12:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bonds are taxes
        Sorry, I misspoke, my bill comes every 2 months, so my monthly is only around $50, $75 in the summer thanks to my HOA and a green grass requirement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Baloney Joe, 24 Apr 2009 @ 11:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Bonds are taxes
        By the way, I was talking about bonds, the "utility" is irrelevant, asshat.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike (profile), 24 Apr 2009 @ 1:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Bonds are taxes
      There is no way a Muni WiFi project will generate enough "revenue" to meet it's obligation in the beginning and probably ever.
      
      That's true of muni-WiFi. But this is muni-fiber, which has been quite profitable for many cities.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Baloney Joe, 24 Apr 2009 @ 11:13am
    
    Re: Re: Bonds are taxes
    from Wikipedia, it's an online encyclopedia, with lots of info about lots of stuff, you should check it out sometime...
    
    A general obligation bond is a common type of municipal bond in the United States that is secured by a state or local government's pledge to use legally available resources, including tax revenues, to repay bond holders. Most general obligation pledges at the local government level include a pledge to levy a property tax to meet debt service requirements, in which case holders of general obligation bonds have a right to compel the borrowing government to levy that tax to satisfy the local government's obligation.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Christopher Mitchell (profile), 5 May 2009 @ 1:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Bonds are taxes
      @Baloney Joe - they didn't use GO Bonds - try looking up revenue bonds. Oh, also, you have been wrong about nearly everything you wrote on this post.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tgeigs, 24 Apr 2009 @ 10:30am

Nice
You know, at least when these assholes usually allow the lobbyists to run the system, they don't do it so transparently. This is as if they dropped their pants and shit on my shoes, just to show me they could...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matthew, 24 Apr 2009 @ 10:53am

Actually, there really isn't anything particularly frightening about lobbyists drafting legislation. Can that be abused? Certainly. Should we expect our legislators to read and understand legislation drafted by lobbyists? Of course! Nonetheless, the purpose of a lobbying group, whether it's one that we like or one that we do not like, is to influence legislators to pass laws in a certain direction. One way to accomplish that is to shoulder the responsibility of drafting the bill in the first place.

In this instance, that practice was used dishonestly and the legislators sponsoring the bill were lazy. More upright lobbying firms do, actually, draft plain-language legislation with clear and honest intent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mATT, 24 Apr 2009 @ 11:01am
  
  Re:
  Really? how about some examples of lobbying firms that got laws passed with clear and honest intent.
  
  How far back do you want me to dig for the opposite? DMCA? Franchise suits? Lending acts? Copyright? Patent law? Trademark? National speed limits? NHTSA guidelines? ISO/IEC JTC 1?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - bikey, 27 Apr 2009 @ 2:22am
    
    Re: Re: legislation
    shame. that's cute.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 24 Apr 2009 @ 11:17am
  
  Re:
  Should we expect our legislators to read and understand legislation drafted by lobbyists? Of course!
  Which seems to be the objection here. Regardless of whether you're for or against the measure, you'd expect the people introducing the legislation to have a grasp on it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Portola, 24 Apr 2009 @ 10:57am

I wish there were a website where I could submit all of those involved to some sort of Hall of Shame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matthew, 24 Apr 2009 @ 11:06am

I don't have any examples in my back pocket, but I could dig them out over the weekend. (They'd be Minnesota state laws, though, not federal legislation.) In any event, we may also not share equivalent definitions of "clear and honest." I don't mean that it's necessarily good for everybody or fair. By the nature of lobbying, it is going to be biased. Sometimes, however, the bias is undisguised and the purpose is straightforward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SwimSC, 24 Apr 2009 @ 11:37am

Got $100
Bet it passes....any takers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 24 Apr 2009 @ 11:40am

As told by bias party
"The lawmakers turned to a Time Warner staff member and an attorney who represents the industry to speak on their behalf"

The source of this quote is the City of Wilson's CIO. This is a little like hearing a soccer player saying "the line judge didn't like us". They may be a little bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2009 @ 12:04pm

This story seems a little absurd to me. They approached TW and Embarq about upgrading their infrastructure and both companies refused stating that it was far too expensive for them to do so. This is why Wilson installed their own infrastructure. The service is not setup to profit, it's set up as a utility for the community. They get far superior service and a HUGE cost savings. You should check out the pie chart floating around somewhere that lists what service are available from the huge telcos vs. Greenlight. TWC's biggest defense is "they have a right to make money" which they could do and be competitive but they wouldn't make as MUCH money as they are now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob, 24 Apr 2009 @ 12:05pm

Why we need term limits
This lobbyist writing of legislation is what has been wrong with Washington DC for the last 50 years.
This does not surprise me and should not surprise anyone that pays attention to what goes on inside the beltway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Poster, 24 Apr 2009 @ 12:10pm

If I were a Time Warner customer, I'd cancel my account over this. I haven't seen this much bullshit since my last visit to my cousin's farm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 24 Apr 2009 @ 1:04pm

Said it before
Isn't it great to be a servant of the people?
Said it before and I will say it again, we really do have the best government that money can buy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ToySouljah, 24 Apr 2009 @ 6:01pm
  
  Re: Said it before
  lmao...I tell everyone that all the time :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dan, 24 Apr 2009 @ 7:02pm

This is a perfect example of why we need to nationalize broadband infrastructure and lease bandwidth to ISP's based on a nonnegotiable, published price schedule. In short equal access to all comers, big and small.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bikey (profile), 27 Apr 2009 @ 2:20am

understanding legislation
Did they understand TRIPS (written by the pharma industry among others)? Did they understand the Patriot Act (silly question, I know, since they didn't claim to have read it as there wasn't time) (written by the torture industry?). They don't write legislation anymore, they sell the right to others to write it. Get over it. It's the American way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pixelpusher220, 27 Apr 2009 @ 10:52am

Transcripts?
First off, it might help to point out this is not the US House but the NC State House of Reps.

Secondly, can someone point to a transcript of these proceedings because one legislator is disputing the 'spin' by the blogger reporting the story. Would be nice to see the actual discussion that happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]