Jun

13

[UPDATE 2]Who is Pete Sessions? Why Does he Want to Enact a Nation-Wide Ban On Municipal Broadband?

»
sascha's picture

As is being reported:

    A Texas Congressman has introduced a bill that impose a nationwide prohibition on municipally-sponsored networks. Dubbed by the Author, Representative Pete Sessions (R-Texas), the Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005, the bill prohibits state and local governments from providing any telecommunications or information service that is "substantially similar" to services provided by private companies.

What's not really being reported is how much money Pete Sessions has been getting from telecom companies; and, perhaps more importantly, that his wife is a director at Cingular Wireless (described as, "the collboration between Southwestern Bell Wireless and Bell South Mobility"). Pete also is a former employee of Southwestern Bell and Bell labs.

Groups like Media Action Project, Free Press (whom I consult with), and New America Foundation have been actively working in DC for quite some time and had anticipated this move. But even so, it's a fairly cynical move that our elected officials are (literally) sleeping with the enemy.

[UPDATE 1]I'm still trying to track down the validity of the information claiming that Pete Session's wife is a director at Cingular Wireless. But while we wait, check out this conflict of interest:

    Nat'l Muni-Ban Advocate Holds $500K in SBC Stock Options
    Pete Sessions: Eliminating your choice is good for you, really....
    Texas Representative Pete Sessions is trying to pass the "Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005" (HR2726), which would ban towns and cities from wiring themselves for broadband. However Sessions is not only a 16 year ex-SBC employee, his wife works for Cingular, and he holds half a million dollars in SBC stock options, according to an e-mail being circulated today by media reform outfit Free Press.

    "Congressman Sessions is the latest poster child for corruption on Capitol Hill," says Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press. "He has put personal greed ahead of his responsibility to the public. This legislation boosts the bottom line of companies like SBC by stifling free-market competition, slowing innovation, and taking away the right of local communities to decide which technologies best serve their interests. Sessions should come clean about his conflicts and abandon this bad bill."

    From: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/64502

I guess we know what "Pete's Act" is actually "Preserving".

[UPDATE 2]Still waiting on confirmation on Pete Session's wife being a director at Cingular; but this just in... Technology Daily is now reporting that Juanita (Nete) Diaz (Sessions) is a VP at SBC (no joke). Here's an exerpt (the full version should be available online at http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/ in a couple hours:

    Sessions does not sit on any panels that regulate communications, but his ties to SBC are as thick as Texas sagebrush. He was an executive with Southwestern Bell Telephone, SBC's precursor, for 16 years, and his wife, Juanita (Nete) Sessions, is a vice president for billing with SBC.

    During the 2003-2004 election cycle, individuals and political action committees associated with SBC were Rep. Sessions' third-largest donor, contributing $23,750, according to the watchdog Center for Responsive Politics.

    ...

    Juanita Sessions, meanwhile, held SBC stock options valued between $500,001 and $1 million through the end of 2003, and additional assets in BellSouth and SBC valued from $1,001 to $15,000 each. She also had an investment worth up to $1,000 in WorldCom, since renamed MCI.

  1. Adam Gardner (not verified) on Thu, 2005-07-14 18:36

    I don't know if you actually agree with the update you included from dslreports.com or if you are just trying to pile on to what amounts to a groundless accusation. How can a bill that is intended to prevent the expansion of federal government into services and industry which are perfectly well served by the private sector possibly stifle free-market competition, slow innovation? The only "right" it takes away from a local community is the ability to enter a market ALREADY SERVED by a private entity. Don't take my word for it, read it yourself: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc109/h2726_ih.xml

    _OF COURSE_ SOMEONE WHO HAS THE EXPERIENCE NECESSARY TO AUTHOR SUCH LEGISLATION WILL HAVE TIES TO THE INDUSTRY.

    An apparent conflict of interest is not an actual conflict of interest.

    If this bill were not completely in line with conservative philosophy you might be able to make your case. As it is, this is exactly the kind of conservative legislation needed: http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=4324 (statements 3 and 5 are particularly relevant).

  2. sascha on Wed, 2005-08-24 10:05

    Adam,

    Wouldn't you think it paradoxical for the Federal Government to make it illegal for local municipalities to offer broadband services? Or for the government to decide what "market failure" means? Shouldn't the Federal Government just stay out of the fray and let people decide for themselves what networking solutions best meet their needs? Don't you think there's some correlation between public broadband support and broadband penetration rates?

    Don't you think the statement:

      neither any State or local government, nor any entity affiliated with such a government, shall provide any telecommunications, telecommunications service, information service, or cable service in any geographic area within the jurisdiction of such government in which a corporation or other private entity that is not affiliated with any State or local government is offering a substantially similar service

    is a bit excessive since it covers public access TV, school systems, public service and safety networks and other core telecommunications systems?

    Don't you think that a legislator should divest themself of over $500,000 in stock before proposing a law that directly benefits the company whose stock they own? And that not doing so is an actual conflict of interest?

    Don't you think that local communities know when they're being ripped off, offered substandard services, and otherwise bearing the brunt of "market failures" better than the Federal Government? Or do you think the Federal Government should be deciding when market failures exist in any municipality in the United States?

    I guess I just don't see how you can claim that the bill, "is intended to prevent the expansion of [the] federal government into services and industry which are pefectly well served by the private sector" when it's talking about local and state governments and says absolutely nothing about banning the Federal Government from getting involved. In fact, it's the Federal Government's involvement that created the Internet in the first place -- don't you think that was a good idea?

    Huge swaths of the United States have been shown to be un(der)served by our existing telecommunications infrastructure (especially in rural and low-income areas). You claim that "The only 'right' it takes away from a local community is the ability to enter a market ALREADY SERVED by a private entity." If you'd read the recent FCC Broadband report and the numerous critiques of its woefully inadequate broadband penetration rate statistics, you'd know that the Federal Government claims that if a single 200kbps+ (in one direction) line is available at any location in your entire zip code, that they define the entire geographical area as "covered" by broadband. Personally, I (and many others) don't believe this is an accurate metric for measuring broadband penetration; and, given the confusion over what "coverage" even means, we don't think that it's a good idea to have the Federal Government disallowing local communities from building their own telecommunications infrastructures?

    --Sascha


  3. daniel (not verified) on Mon, 2005-08-08 06:04

    The bill isn't aimed solely at federal government, but also at restraining municipal governments. By advocating federal restraint over local governments you are advocating violating the principle of devolution, the idea that governmental powers should be devolved to the lowest level possible. This principle was the bedrock of the Contract with America.

    If a community demands a service, and believes its local public utility districts are up to the task, why should Congress stand in their way?