Two months ago, when the Federal Communications Commission allotted $8 million to expand broadband Internet access in rural Louisiana areas, U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu was quick to praise, perhaps a bit prematurely, the “investment” while Gov. Bobby Jindal remained uncharacteristically silent.
Despite Landrieu’s laudatory claim that the funds would “upgrade the digital infrastructure in rural communities,” the $8 million represented only 10 percent of an $80 million grant for Louisiana that was rescinded in October of 2011 because of Jindal’s aversion to what then Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater deemed a “top-down, government-heavy approach that would compete with and undermine, rather than partner with the private sector…”
What Rainwater—and through him, his boss, Jindal—did not acknowledge is that the Jindal administration’s obsession with protecting the private sector at the expense of broadband Internet service to customers in the rural areas of the central and northeastern parts of the state was part of the 12-year-old official position staked out by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in August of 2002. http://alecexposed.org/w/images/6/6f/9A15-Municipal_Telecommunications_Private_Industry_Safeguards_Act_Exposed.pdf
Also ignored by the Jindal administration—and ALEC—is that broadband service in the U.S. is woefully inadequate when compared with countries like South Korea, Japan and even Portugal and Italy. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/competition-and-the-internet/
And it’s even worse in the country’s rural areas. http://deltafarmpress.com/blog/broadband-service-rural-areas-promise-still-exceeds-reality
No doubt you’ve seen those cute AT&T commercials featuring the man sitting at a table with children. He asks a question and gets feedback from the kids and the commercial ends with, “It’s not complicated.”
Indeed it is not. In 2008, Jindal’s very first year as governor, he signed SB-807 into law as Act 433 over the objections of the Louisiana Municipal and State Police Jury associations. The bill, the Consumer Choice for Television Act, was authored by then-Sen. Ann Duplessis (D-New Orleans). It passed the Senate by a 34-1 vote with only Dale Erdy (R-Livingston) voting no. Absent and not voting were Sens. Robert Adley (R-Benton), Jody Amedee (R-Gonzales) and Sheri Smith Buffington (R-Keithville).
AT&T, which contributed $10,000 to Jindal’s campaign since 2007, supported the bill. AT&T also contributed $250,000 to the Supriya Jindal Foundation for Louisiana’s Children.
It’s not complicated.
It also passed overwhelmingly in the House by a 94-9 vote. The only members casting no-votes were Reps. James Armes (D-Leesville), Thomas Carmody (R-Shreveport), Greg Cromer (R-Slidell), Jean Doerge (D-Minden), Ricky Hardy (D-Lafayette), Lowell Hazel (R-Pineville), Robert Johnson (D-Marksville), Sam Jones (D-Franklin), and Chris Roy (D-Alexandria). Rep. James Morris (R-Oil City) was absent and did not vote.
The only ALEC member to go against the official doctrine was Carmody. He attended ALEC’s 2010 annual meeting in San Diego at which the organization’s Telecommunications & Information Technology Task Force passed an official resolution in potential opposition to private telephone and cable companies by public bodies such as city councils and parish governments. https://louisianavoice.com/2012/05/09/could-loss-of-that-80-6-million-broadband-internet-federal-grant-last-fall-have-been-deliberately-orchestrated-by-alec/
Other members of the Louisiana Legislature who attended that meeting included Reps. John LaBruzzo (R-Metairie), Robert Johnson (D-Marksville), Tim Burns (R-Mandeville), State Chairman Joe Harrison (R-Gray), Bernard LeBas (D-Ville Platte) and Sen. Yvonne Dorsey (D-Baton Rouge).
Act 433 well may even have been written by AT&T, which is a member of ALEC and a member of ALEC’s Communications and Technology Task Force. AT&T chipped in $50,000 to the ALEC cause in 2010 and was a member of the Louisiana Host Committee for ALEC’s 2012 annual meeting in New Orleans. Jindal was the recipient of ALEC’s Thomas Jefferson Freedom Award at that 2012 meeting. http://www.alec.org/hundreds-of-state-legislators/
It’s not complicated.
And lest one think that Louisiana’s loss of the $80 million broadband grant in 2011 was the exception, consider this:
- Early this year, the Kansas Legislature undertook Campaign Stop Google Fiber—and any cities that may wish to invest in broadband network technologies. Included in legislation introduced in the legislature were stipulations that except with regard to unserved areas, a municipality may not themselves offer to provide or lease, construct, maintain or operate any facility for the purpose of allowing a private entity to offer, provide, carry or deliver video, telecommunications or broadband service. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/30/1273848/-Kansas-moves-to-Stop-Broadband-Internet-to-residents?detail=email
- In February of 2011, the Minnesota Cable Communications Association (MCCA) initiated a public battle with National Public Broadband (NPB) by inundating Lake County with a flurry of public records request designed to slow NPB’s efforts to bring broadband Internet to rural areas of Lake County.
While MCCA correctly asserts that Lake County should act transparently, the barrage of requests submitted by the association makes its intent to protect its own financial interests over those of rural residents of the county is quite apparent. Its monopoly is, after all, being threatened and those cable services that are overpriced and which provide as little speed as possible are fighting back.
Certainly it’s only coincidental that AT&T, CenturyLink, Charter Communications, Comcast, Excel Communications, Fair Point Communications, Sprint Nextel, Verizon, and Cox Communications are members of ALEC. All but Excel and Fair Point serve on ALEC’s Communications and Technology Task Force. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ALEC_Corporations.
It’s not complicated.
So, given Jindal’s cozy relationship with ALEC and given ALEC’s opposition to public participation in expanding broadband Internet service to rural areas in competition with ALEC members, it’s perfectly understandable why Jindal eschewed that “top-down” management of the $80 million grant.
It’s not complicated.
And it is equally apparent that the monopolistic advantage enjoyed by private sector providers be protected at all cost—even at the cost of creating some 900 miles of cable over 21 rural parishes that would support several Louisiana universities with expanded optical fiber networking capacity.
It’s not complicated.
Top-down management apparently is good only when it originates from the fourth floor of the State Capitol. Just ask any legislator, former state employee, or board or commission member who has dared to contradict him on any issue.
It’s not complicated.
Expose, expose, expose. Keep up the great work!
Hello Mr. and Ms. Legislator. Among others, the underserved and underfunded education system and educators of Louisiana from Pre-K through University levels finds you and your “Votes For Sale” approach to governing disgusting.
And that was such a crock at the time because had the private sector had any interest in extending broadband to more rural areas, they would have done it!
When the grant was announced, what crossed my mind was the similarity to what was done in the1930s with the R.E.A.
http://newdeal.feri.org/tva/tva10.htm
Thanks for the link. It is 100 percent relevant to the broadband issue and serves as an excellent rebuttal to the administration’s nonsensical argument.
When corporations become sizeable enough to regulate government, then is the time for a turnaround where government seriously regulates corporations. The writer who states that without the REA , many of the people of east Louisiana would have done without electricity, amply demonstrates the folly of Jindal’s corporate pet theology.
The ALEC agenda’s safeguards protecting us from government control of telecommunications have enabled AT&T to gradually return to its status as Ma Bell without Ma’s kindness.
I am among those with limited (and expensive) broadband coverage in a rural area. Long story short: When I lived in the actual country, I (as it turns out miraculously) had DSL via AT&T. When I moved to the relative suburbs, AT&T promised me 4 times the speed at half the cost I was paying for DSL in the country, Once I actually moved, I had NO broadband service at all. My best alternative at that point was a mobile hotspot by, guess who, AT&T. It costs me 4 times what I was paying in the country and gives me half the data usage at the same speed (1.5 MBPS-not exactly blinding).
I contacted every possible regulatory agency, my attorney, all my elected representatives and AT&T people all the way up to the Office of the President. NOBODY did anything to help despite the existence of a fairly simple solution. We are told AT&T will beneficently provide us with U-Verse at some point in the future. I feel so blessed.
I don’t know whether the funds Jindal rejected would have helped people in my situation or not. My story’s point is: To the extent we are willing to accept our elected officials’ actions toward making the private sector untouchable by government control (as would appear to be the ALEC agenda) we are going to increasingly find ourselves mere pawns in the game. Ma Bell was at least a benevolent monopoly – probably the last.
Stephen, have been there and done that with U-Verse. Not available now but coming soon! And, compared to what you can get with cable broadband, the U-verse speeds are not that great. 😦
I’ve been through the same problems with ATT and sought the same solutions with every agency and legislator and had the same degree of success: zero. I had to switch to Verizon to get service. You can tell who has ATT on our street. They are the ones walking up and down the street yelling in their cell phones. People with U-Verse out here say it is poor as well.
The article is well written as usual, Tom. I love the refrain!
Interesting piece.
And to think, here I am in Opelika, Alabama, with blazing fast internet and cable thanks to a fiber optic network installed and operated by the city, thanks to a mayor and city council with some vision. And believe me, these guys ain’t socialists or even liberals. They’re just aware that having it makes the city much more attractive for all kinds of investment in the future.
Now Bill, it doesn’t hurt that you are right nearby a major university either. 😉
Jindal was silent on the new 8 million going to “broadband” because it was going to protect and extend current monopolies. The money is going to AT&T and CenturyLink for infrastructure growth through the FCC’s Connect America Fund. AT&T & CenturyLink—That is, to the monopoly incumbents in these rural areas. Notice that none of the parishes mentioned are in the state’s poorest areas in the northeast delta region.
The 80 million that Jindal fought to prevent coming to the Louisiana _after_ the grant was awarded was meant for the delta. It would have built NEW networks, not subsidized established monopolies. It would have been, by the authorizing law, an open network that would have sold bandwidth at wholesale to all comers. It would, in short, have built new capacity and run it in such a way as to develop real competition.
The 8 million has nothing to do with the 80 million we lost, does not serve the area of greatest need and further entrenches the current monopolies in the rural areas it does cover. Of course Jindal remains silent.
Fredster: Opelika is a separate city from Auburn. The city of Auburn doesn’t have a fiber optic network.
What would happen if those countries that Jindal visited wanted to move to any of those remote locations that doesn’t have the fiber network/broadband or whatever, they would probably neither want to locate their business nor company? Oh but wait, of course, he would probably give them some kind of large tax free incentive and get those lines installed ASAP saying it was all his idea to bring those folks into the 21st century. Just watch and follow the money, Jindal has so many ideas that if it’s not his idea first he puts things on the back burner until it fits into his Plans.
The $80 Million grant you reference was awarded based on a flawed proposal/application that was not authorized by the Administration. The project was so far behind schedule the grantee could not meet federally imposed deadlines. Could the “State” have accomplished something meaningful with the $80 Million grant….yes. Could the “state” do something meaningful for those “have nots” in rural communities under the grant application as written and federal governances over the grant…NO!
And here we are 6 years later in desperate need of broadband out to rural areas for distance learning.
Jindal’s administration: The gift that keeps on giving.