Fear and Lying in Annapolis

When the Economic Matters Committee in the Maryland House of Delegates convened on Tuesday (Feb. 27), the first item on the agenda was a bill allowing local governments to buy street lights from electric companies.

There was a lively discussion among the Committee members about how much energy is used in various types of bulbs, how much money is saved on maintenance and on the possible environmental affects of certain types of equipment. Several Committee members asked questions and engaged the witnesses.

While it’s nice to shed some light on a topic, so to speak, the discussion over a slightly larger topic - the future of the Internet in Maryland - draw just the opposite reaction from the Delegates. The bill, HB (1069), would require reporting of deployment of broadband while recommending a non-discrimination policy for the Internet. The “hearing” on the legislation took about 90 minutes. The witnesses for the bill spoke, then the witnesses against.

The game was rigged from the start as Verizon and Comcast put out the word the bill shouldn’t pass. Perhaps that explains why from a committee of about two dozen delegates there were only about five questions asked during the entire hearing, and a couple of those came from the bill’s sponsor, Del. Herman Taylor (D). The delegates sat staring at their laptops or staring into space. In the weeks before the “hearing,” delegates had been pressured to drop off the bill, having been told by their friendly local lobbyists that it was a “bad bill.” Even sponsors were being pressured to drop out. Our side got the word that if we had too many witnesses, the leadership wouldn’t like it because we were prolonging the hearing. On the other hand, if we had too few (as ended up happening), we looked overwhelmed. If we generated calls and email, it was because of those evil Move On people and considered a nuisance. But if the other side generated calls and emails, it was OK.

While the big business interests obviously have a lot of influence on Capitol Hill, it’s magnified in a small state capital like Annapolis. How do they do it? Not much mystery there - it’s by generating fear among delegates and by lying about the bill.

Start with the “Fear Factor” which was generated by Verizon and its handmaiden, the Communications Workers of America (CWA). Their representatives at the hearing made a big deal out of the fact that both labor and company oppose the legislation. The delegates seemed impressed. That’s because the legislators don’t know the history, and neither the union nor the company will let on.

Once upon a time, CWA was an independent, strong voice for consumer interests. That era ended in 1995 during the deliberations over the Telecom Act. The union at that point became, from the public policy standpoint, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bell companies, a role they maintain to this day. In their Maryland testimony, Ron Collins, administrative assistant to the vice president of CWA District 2, put it right out there. The union opposed the bill because it would put company investment at risk, and thus put jobs at risk. He was also careful to note what a wonderful employer Verizon was because it provides health care to its workers. According to CWA’s written statement: “Bills such as HB 1069 would cause the loss of good jobs with health care and other benefits in the state of Maryland.”

Michael Dean, the president of the Maryland CWA state council, piled on by saying that Verizon provides “good paying jobs” laying fiber and he, too, didn’t want to put those jobs at risk. (Of course, CWA’s witnesses somehow didn’t get around to testifying that they endorsed the part of the bill calling for reporting of broadband deployment.)

Verizon, of course, opposed the bill, as did Verizon Wireless, with their lobbyist, Robert Branson, reminding the Committee about the two centers the company has for developing innovation in Maryland. The not-so-subtle message: Don’t screw this up.

Apparently not only is big business threatened, and thousands of jobs. According to Sean Looney from Comcast, Taylor’s bill would even raise prices at local coffee shops that offer Wi-Fi. The implication there, of course, was the fear of small business jobs being hurt. For good measure, Looney also tossed in the absurd argument that Google “discriminates” in searching, and also said one (unnamed) consumer web site hides its information behind a “members only” sign-in. The arguments are irrelevant and untrue, but that’s what we’re up against.

Behind the spreading of fear, though, is something more insidious - the lie. That’s a pretty strong term, one not used lightly. But it’s appropriate when there is such a simple fact out there that everyone should know is true. We can’t be more clear than this: The Net Neutrality portion of the Taylor bill is a “finding.” It has no legal authority behind it. It is a suggestion. It’s a reasonable one we think, one that would bring Maryland into parity with the 23 states being served by AT&T, but a suggestion nonetheless. As the Attorney General of Maryland said in a legal opinion, a “finding” by the General Assembly “would impose no substantive requirements” on anyone.

How, then to account for this:

“A measure recently introduced in the Maryland General Assembly, HB 1069, would impose net neutrality obligation” - legal memo from the firm Davis Wright Tremaine for the Cable TV Association of Maryland, Delaware and DC.

“The ‘net regulation’ proposed by HB 1069 would actually freeze the advancement and evolution of the Internet” - written testimony from Paul Wood of Verizon.

“In its misguided attempt to place unnecessary regulation on the Internet, it [HB 1069] discourages investment in broadband, denying Maryland businesses the capabilities they need to compete with companies in other states…” Greater Washington Board of Trade

“This bill requires excessive regulation of the Internet and may have the unintended consequence of discouraging investment in broadband deployment in Maryland” - Tech Council MD, which added “Any attempt to regulate the Internet at the state level would prove impossible and most likely exceeds state authority.”

“It [the bill] would regulate broadband networks and the Internet and would discourage the offering of services like remote medical monitoring that require high levels of network quality and security” - Prince George’s Black Chamber of Commerce.

“I was surprised to see a bill -House Bill 1069 - popping up in the Maryland House of Delegates that would attempt to regulate the Internet” - Intelect Corp.

“The provisions of House Bill 1069 restricts the use of cable modems in I-NETs (institutional networks)” - John Lyons, Office of Information Technology, Anne Arundel County, who also said it would cost $450,000 to replace cable modem service with fiber technology.

What do all of these statements, from the hot-shot law firm to the small business owner, have in common? They are all wrong. The bill doesn’t regulate anything. It suggests a policy.

Bill opponents need the Big Lie to support their other points, about how Net Neutrality would “freeze the advancement and evolution of the Internet,” as Verizon said and its minions echoed. We can have a discussion whether Net Neutrality encourages the use of the network and thus promotes investment so customers can enjoy the new video and other features, but that’s not one the bill’s opponents are willing to have.

The only requirement in the bill is that broadband suppliers report on their deployment. That isn’t regulating the Internet, it’s tracking the benefits of the spread of technology through data that the carriers have anyway. The Attorney General said this portion of the bill “would place no restrictions on the functioning of broadband Internet services and “could arguably advance competition.” But the business community and its allies apparently isn’t interested in that. It doesn’t inspire fear and it’s the truth.