Back in March 2007, I wrote that "the worst state franchise bill I've ever read has just been introduced in Illinois". At the time, there was a united front among community activists and community media producers to kill this bill (HB1500). As I wrote, "In taking away home rule power for local communities [HB1500] creates situations whereby local disruptions (e.g., digging up streets, sidewalks, front yards, etc.) are taken completely out of local hands."

And then a remarkable thing happened -- on May 30, 2007, AT&T holed up with legislators to create a "compromise" bill. The plot seemed straight from a Hollywood movie:

I've just learned that AT&T lobbyists are holed up in state legislators offices and are rewriting state laws that they will attempt to get passed in the dead of night. One might think that this is some sort of nefarious plot to some Gotham City corruption scandal, but it's happening right now in the State of Illinois. With massive public opposition to HB1500, it appears likely that AT&T and it's legislators will attempt to attach amendments to SB 678.

Here's the kicker, however, AT&T and its political cronies wouldn't have been able to pass this bill without the avid support of community media producers. While folks like myself were writing:

The amendment that AT&T's lobbyists are working on would lower buildout requirements while granting this telecom giant unprecedented power to ignore local concerns. Meanwhile, consumer protections are gutted, and network neutrality has been entirely eliminated. Back when I wrote about the worst telecom bill I'd ever seen i hadn't realized that AT&T, still wanting more, would attempt a late-night assassination of consumer- and municipal-rights and that government officials in Illinois would be so corrupt as to go along with this farce.

Community media producers were busy working to help pass this franchise (220 ILCS 5/21-601). This break in the ranks was difficult to understand -- prior allies explained it as the best of a bad situation -- but it still meant that the public interest coalition was splintered and PEG producers did provide the political cover necessary to ensure a smooth passage of this bill.

One summer later, I've started receiving dire e-mails from the very PEG channel folks who helped pass the AT&T state franchise bill who are now angry that AT&T is not living up to its promises and expectations. I have to wonder, are these people daft? What did they expect would happen? When telecommunications experts are issuing dire (public) warnings about the gutting of consumer rights, local authority and control (language like, "a late-night assassination of consumer- and municipal-rights" is a fairly clear warning), what did people think was going to happen?

It pains me to see incredibly smart and talented people either hoodwinked or naively trusting that they, somehow, weren't going to end up on the wrong side of a Faustian bargain with AT&T. Meanwhile, here's the latest assessment of just how bad things have gotten with AT&T's Illinois State franchise:

Recently, Keep Us Connected circulated Loyola University professor, Dr. Diane Schiller’s Chicago Tribune letter to the editor on the sub-par treatment of PEG programming on AT&T’s U-Verse system. Over the past two decades, Dr. Schiller and her colleagues have demonstrated the public benefit of community access through Countdown, a live, call-in math instruction program for elementary school students across the city. Loyola professors introduce student viewers to a different math concept each week on Countdown.

Dr. Schiller fears those years of work will be undermined with the deployment of AT&T’s inferior U-Verse system. In her letter to the Tribune, Dr. Schiller says:

AT&T's planned system for PEG programs like Countdown fails the test by removing those programs from its television line-up. PEG programs will be hard to find, channel surfing between commercial channels and PEG channels won't work, and channel listings for programs like Countdown will disappear. It doesn't take an educator to know that "out of sight" can easily become "out of mind."

In response, AT&T Illinois President Paul La Schiazza claims, "All PEG content is easily found on U-verse’s Channel 99, which is absolutely acceptable under state law…"

While AT& T Illinois President Paul La Schiazza publicly dismisses criticisms of U-Verse, other company representatives have repeatedly acknowledged deficiencies in the system, both in local and national demonstrations of the PEG product.

Contrary to La Schiazza's assertion, it is clear the U-Verse system fails to comply with Illinois law.

---

The law says:
Companies operating under Illinois’ Cable and Video Franchise law of 2007 "shall provide to subscribers public, educational and government access channel capacity at equivalent visual and audio quality and equivalent functionality, from the viewing perspective of the subscriber, to that of commercial channels carried on the [provider]’s basic cable or video service offerings…"

PEG channels on AT&T's U-Verse system:

• are cumbersome to find and slower to load than commercial channels
• have inferior picture and audio quality compared to commercial channels
• cannot support closed captioning
• cannot support second audio programming
• shut down after 2-3 hours of viewing
• are incompatible with programmed recording devices like Tivo
• are excluded from program guides and listings

---

The law says:
Public, education and government channels shall all be carried on the holder’s basic cable or video service offerings or tiers. Basic cable or video service is defined as "any cable of video service offering or tier which includes the retransmission of local television broadcast signals."

AT&T's U-Verse system:
Segregates PEG channels from all other channels by moving PEG channels to a web-like application under the generic heading "Channel 99." PEG channels will not be transmitted in the same way as local television broadcast signals.

---

The law says:
"The holder shall provide a listing of public, education and government channels on channel cards and menus provided to subscribers in a manner equivalent to other channels…"

AT&T's U-Verse system:
Strips away PEG channel identity, only listing a generic Channel 99 on channel cards. Local residents looking for PEG channels are forced to scroll through a menu of dozens of PEG channels from the entire region in order to find what they are looking for.

---

The law says:
"…the [provider] shall provide a listing of public, educational, and government programming on its electronic program guide if such a guide is utilized by the holder."

AT&T's U-Verse system:
Does not list PEG programming on its electronic program guide.

From here on out, I expect that things will get even worse.

I am only just now getting a chance to make a first read of this amended 128-page document. AT&T's goal is to pass it by tomorrow -- with almost zero debate, due diligence, or public input. From what little I've garnered thus far, this amendment is an utter disaster for Illinois residents. It's being crammed through in a late-night legislative coup because it would never pass if legislators actually had time to read and analyze this massive document -- first I'll begin with most of the "old" language from SB678.

As I first reported yesterday evening, AT&T is attempting to pass an incredibly bad piece of legislation by amending it to a popular bill in the dead of night. Amendment number 3 leads off with a number of great ideas -- the creation of a "Broadband Access on Passenger Rail Plan" and the "High Speed Internet Services and Information Technology Law."

But then the real purposes of this amendment, to limit consumer choice, empowerment, and control over Illinois telecommunications, begins to shine through. A great example is on Page 3-4, Section 10-15:

19 (a) Notwithstanding any other statute, the Lieutenant
20 Governor, with the advice of the Broadband Deployment Council,
21 shall authorize the creation of a nonprofit corporation called
22 Connect IL to implement a comprehensive, statewide high speed
23 Internet deployment strategy and demand creation initiative

Yet a closer look at this non-profit demonstrates demonstrates that its very structure ensures that the private sector (and not consumers, government officials, and/or non-profit organizations) will control the entity (on Page 4):

13 (b) Connect IL's governing board shall be appointed by the
14 Lieutenant Governor, with the advice of the Broadband
15 Deployment Council, and shall not exceed 11 members, with a
16 maximum of 6 representing the private sector and a maximum of 5
17 representing the government and nonprofit sectors. Four of the
18 private sector members shall be from the largest incumbent
19 local exchange carriers, one shall be from the cable television
20 industry, and one shall be from the Internet Service Provider
21 (ISP) industry. Members representing the public sector shall
22 include one member from a public Illinois university, one
23 member that represents Community Technology Centers, one
24 member from the Department of Commerce and Economic
25 Opportunity, one member from the Lieutenant Governor's office,
26 and one member from the Department of Central Management.

As someone who serves on the Broadband Deployment Council, I have watched as incumbent representatives have systematically undermined the very innovations that this group is supposed to foster. The position that Connect IL would be any different is incredibly naive. Right from the get-go, Connect IL is an industry-controlled front group whose purpose is to obfuscate systematic, structural failings of the market sector to deploy affordable high-speed broadband to many Illinois residents and communities.

Section 10-20 (Pages 5-6) further exemplifies just how utterly impotent Connect IL will be:

In Section 10-20(a)(1), Connect IL is empowered to:

13 (1) Create a geographic statewide inventory of high
14 speed Internet service and other relevant broadband and
15 information technology services.
16 (A) identify geographic gaps in high speed
17 Internet service through a method of GIS mapping of
18 service availability and GIS analysis at the census
19 block level; and
20 (B) provide a baseline assessment of statewide
21 high speed Internet deployment in terms of percentage
22 of Illinois households with high speed Internet
23 availability.

Section 10-20(a)(2-5) (Pages 5-6) states that Connect IL will:

24 (2) Track and identify, through customer interviews
25 and surveys and other publicly available sources,
1 statewide residential and business adoption of high speed
2 Internet, computers, and related information technology
3 and any barriers to adoption.
.
.
.
16 (4) Collaborate with high speed Internet providers and
17 technology companies to encourage deployment and use,
18 especially in underserved areas, by aggregating local
19 demand, mapping analysis, and creating market intelligence
20 to improve the business case for providers to deploy.
21 (5) Establish a program to increase computer ownership
22 and Internet access for disenfranchised populations across
23 the State.

This all looks great -- in fact, I'm all for it, and I suspect that most consumer advocates would be happy to hear that these ideas were included in this amendment... and they might even have stopped reading right there, but there's a poison pill. In the very last paragraph of Section 10-20, in subsection "f" there's this clause:

14 ...any information that is designated
15 confidential or proprietary by an entity providing the
16 information to the nonprofit organization or any other entity
17 to accomplish the objectives of this Article shall be deemed
18 confidential, proprietary, and a trade secret and treated by
19 the nonprofit organization, Connect IL's governing board, or
20 anyone else possessing the information as such and shall not be
21 disclosed.

We already know from telecom incumbents' own FCC proceedings that all of the information that Connect IL is supposedly going to measure is considered proprietary. In essence, this entire section is a lark -- there's no intention to ever collect this information, provide it to the public, or otherwise meaningfully aid the general public or decision-makers with useful data.

And just to make the impotence of Connect IL entirely explicit, there's Section 10-25 on pages 7-8:

22 ...Nothing in this Article
23 shall be construed as giving the Lieutenant Governor, the
24 Broadband Deployment Council, the nonprofit organization, or
25 other entities any additional authority, regulatory or
1 otherwise, over providers of telecommunications, broadband,
2 and information technology.

Section 10-30 transfers all money from the "Digital Divide Elimination Infrastructure Fund" under the control of the Connect IL industry front group by creating the " High Speed Internet Services and Information Technology Fund."

And the thing is, this amendment just gets worse from here.

Included in this amendment are provisions that radically change Section 13-505.4 of the "The Public Utilities Act" -- the apply named "Provision of noncompetitive services." The introduced section of law (Paragraph c on pages 10-11) would create both bundling of services and the precedent for service providers (through bundling) to leverage state-wide franchise in one service (for example, the state wide video franchise that AT&T is demanding) into completely new media (for example, Internet service provision). Parsing through the jargon, legalese, and purposeful complexity of this paragraph, it would appear that AT&T is attempting to undermine local control of almost every media but enabling a lowest common denominator approach to franchising.

As an example, if AT&T gets a state-wide video franchise, they can then declare video to be bundled with Internet service provision, and thus ignore local authorities, mandates, consumer protections, etc. by declaring that Internet provision is now covered by the state-wide video franchise. More importantly, it would allow a telecom incumbent to undermine local buildout of telecom services by basically legalizing predatory pricing. If this amendment passes, municipal entities will lose the power to control any "service, service element, feature, or functionality or bundled offering" and have little recourse against telecom incumbents who artificially lower pricing to prevent local authorities from being able to build out publicly-owned infrastructure.

[UPDATE 1]

Sec. 21-101 on Page 14 states:

15 (g) Providing an incumbent cable or video service provider
16 with the option to secure a State-issued authorization through
17 the termination of existing cable franchises between incumbent
18 cable and video service providers and any local franchising
19 authority, is part of the new regulatory framework established
20 by this Article.

In essence, combined with the power to engage in anticompetitive pricing, the intent of this amendment is to legally protect telecom incumbents (or "video service providers") that break their contracts with local municipalities. So, if you received a 5-year franchise in say, 2003, and you've utterly failed to meet your build-out requirements, this law would enable you to break your agreement without compensation or recompense for the communities who these incumbents took advantage of.

The law also explicitly exempts "any person or entity that provides cable television services" (Sec. 21-101.1) -- clearly AT&T doesn't want it's competitors benefiting from this massive corporate welfare program. Sec. 21-201 also exempts satellite video and broadband providers through the defining of "access" to exclude them (very clever, though entirely anticompetitive).

"Broadband service" is defined on Page 16 as:

6 (c) "Broadband service" means a high speed service
7 connection to the public Internet capable of supporting, in at
8 least one direction, a speed in excess of 200 kilobits per
9 second (kbps) to the network demarcation point at the
10 subscriber's premises.

Thus locking the State of Illinois into an absolutely ridiculous legal definition for this service. More importantly, it adds a new twist -- that the speed is only to the "demarcation point." So an apartment building of 20 units would be considered to have "broadband service" if a single line were run into the building that had 200kbps of throughput (in a single direction). This means that the state of Illinois would legally define as "broadband service" speeds that are a tiny fraction of a dial-up modem. It's a remarkable leap backward for Illinois.

[UPDATE 2]

I've just learned that all of Section 10 -- the parts attempting to set up the Connect IL initiative -- have been cut from SB678.

[UPDATE 3]

AT&T's SB678 just passed the Illinois House 113-0.

[UPDATE 4]

Low-income buildout requirements for SB678 are still defined (on Page 18) using a household income of $35,000 -- which is far above the poverty level -- in fact, in much of rural Illinois, $35,000 is very close, and for some areas under the median income. This allows telecom providers to still ignore poor constituencies while still being able to claim that they serve legislatively-defined "low-income households."

Section 21.301(c) makes it possible for incumbents to break existing franchise agreements with local municipalities (and thus avoid current buildout requirement and their timelines). From Page 21:

5 (c)(1) An incumbent cable operator may elect to terminate
6 its agreement with the local franchising authority and obtain a
7 State-issued authorization by providing written notice to the
8 Commission and the affected local franchising authority and any
9 entity authorized by that franchising authority to manage
10 public, education, and government access at least 180 days
11 prior to its filing an application for a State-issued
12 authorization. The existing agreement shall be terminated on
13 the date that the Commission issues the State-issued
14 authorization.

Following paragraphs make explicit that local franchise rights will be usurped by state franchises -- thus formally eliminating local control over services, land use, agreement enforcement, and consumer protection.

[UPDATE 5]

I've finally made it through the PEG and related language of the bill. These sections are actually quite good and I can understand why many folks who've been working on these specific facets of the bill are quite happy with them. However, the elimination of local control over franchising, and the transferal of this control to the State Legislature, is going to cause massive problems down the line. On the one hand, I applaud folks who've worked to make the best out of a bad situation, on the other hand, let's not forget that this is a bad situation to begin with.

Buildout requirements are still a joke -- all but guaranteeing that broadband in Illinois will continue to stagnate. The speeds that incumbents need to deploy are inane all they need to do is (from Page 59):

1 ...provide
2 wireline broadband service, defined as wireline service
3 capable of supporting, in at least one direction, a speed in
4 excess of 200 kilobits per second (kbps), to the network
5 demarcation point at the subscriber's premises, to a number of
6 households equal to 90% of the households in the holder's
7 telecommunications service area by December 31, 2008, or shall
8 pay within 30 days of December 31, 2008 a sum of $15,000,000 to
9 the Digital Divide Elimination Infrastructure Fund

To make things even more ridiculous, there's a clause that would allow for the extension or exemption of buildout requirements if the incumbent claims (from Page 60):

9 (3) The inability to access developments or buildings
10 using reasonable technical solutions under commercially
11 reasonable terms and conditions.

Since "commercially reasonable terms and conditions" are left up to the incumbents to define, this creates a de-facto unenforceable buildout requirement. This is something that I'd pointed out in my original analysis of HB1500 at the beginning of March.

Sec. 21-1401 is fairly self-explanatory (from Page 68):

3 (a) The provisions of this Article are a limitation of home
4 rule powers under subsection (i) of Section 6 of Article VII of
5 the Illinois Constitution.

That's right -- this bill, introduced 24 hours ago (Thursday morning) and set to pass today (Friday), would limit powers granted by the Illinois Constitution. And these constitutional limitations will continue for over half a decade -- until October 1, 2013.

In the end, this is a bill that looks good on the surface, but contains so many loopholes, caveats, and redefinitions that it fails in its primary mission to spur connectivity to Illinois residents.

The worst state franchise bill I've ever read has just been introduced in Illinois -- ironically called the "Cable and Video Competition Law of 2007" -- this act guarantees redlining of un(der)served communities, the poor, and the rural. Among other horrendous provisions (which are far too numerous to enumerate), any service provider who fails to deliver even the utterly abysmal service provision requirements required by the law can get an extension or even a waiver of service for, among other things, "Developments or buildings being inaccessible using reasonable technical solutions under commercially reasonable terms and conditions" (Page 28). The terms of the state franchise deal are far worse than comparative measures introduced in other states (for example, Michigan and California).

Just about every single provision of this bill has been jiggered to maximize the power of telco incumbents -- whether redefining "low income households" so that they're not tied to the federal poverty level, but actually specifically defined as $35,000/year, or allowing providers to get out of existing franchise agreements with 90 days written notice. What's clear about this bill is that it was written by telecom lobbyists and signed off on my multiple legislators.

In taking away home rule power for local communities it creates situations whereby local disruptions (e.g., digging up streets, sidewalks, front yards, etc.) are taken completely out of local hands. In fact, even if local residents sue the provider (for example, for backhoe-ing their back yard), the law grants the power to telco providers to continue their use of the right of way -- so even if they lose the lawsuit, they will have already finished their project. In seeking some of the most invasive governmental regulations to date, these telco providers are also rewriting eminent domain laws to allow them to seize private property to deploy their networks.

HB 1500 is a wholesale giveaway of local power, local control, and individual autonomy to private corporations. It usurps community control over their own land and quality of life. It protects telcos from being sued for redlining and provides no meaningful protection and enforcement mechanisms to prevent these companies from yet again running amuck in Illinois.

[UPDATE01] HB 1500 is a wholesale giveaway to corporate giants and one of the worst (perhaps _the_ worst) state franchise bills I've ever read (see: http://www.saschameinrath.com/node/516). This Bill was introduced by James Brosnahan, so I thought I would check the followthemoney.org database on the bill's sponsor... here's what I found, I'll leave it to all of you to help get this information out to folks:

James D. Brosnahan: number one sector contributor? -- Telecom Services & Equipment -- $13,750 (number 2 is Lawyers & Lobbyists $9,150) -- together these two groups account for over 25% of all of Brosnahan's funding. The question I would like Brosnahan to answer is, "Who wrote HB 1500?" If anyone can make it to the hearing for HB 1500 on Thursday, March 8 at 8:00 AM in Room 114 of the State Capitol -- please see if we can get an answer to that simple question.

Take a look for yourself here.

Through the hard work of folks like Michael Maranda and many others, the Chicago Digital Access Alliance has formulated an extraordinarily useful 10-point statement of principles applicable to every city engaged in expanding digital inclusion. Tackling the multi-faceted nature of the digital divide, the CDAA has drafted a document that should be brought before all decision-makers before they sign off on plans to wire(less) their communities. Congrats to the CDAA!

PRINCIPLES OF THE CHICAGO DIGITAL ACCESS ALLIANCE

The following principles have been adopted under the Campaign for a Community Benefits Agreement. We believe these principles should guide the development of the wireless network and the opportunities that emerge from its formation.

1. DIGITAL EXCELLENCE IS AN INSTITUTIONALLY FUNDED PRIORITY FOR CHICAGO. Activities promoting Digital Excellence are best shaped and supported through a sustained funding mechanism. A Digital Excellence Trust, guided by local constituents and practitioners in the field of Digital Literacy should advocate on behalf of the digitally under-served, offer programmatic support to establish local capacity and promote the vision of digital excellence.

2. SOUND PLANNING, EVALUATION AND POLICY MEASURES ARE CRITICAL TO DIGITAL DIVIDE EVALUATION AND DIGITAL EXCELLENCE IMPACT. Qualitative and quantitative processes must be established to gather baseline and ongoing data on Chicago's digital divide, and guide the creation of new policies and practices to strengthen digital opportunities, thereby promoting digital excellence.

3. UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO HIGH-SPEED CONNECTIVITY IS A PUBLIC RIGHT AND NECESSITY. Universal broadband access for all citizens is a public right, not a privilege. Internet access must be available to ALL Chicago residents regardless of where they live, work or learn, furthermore, provision must be made for special access needs. Service upgrades and enhancements must be made available to all communities in an equitable manner.

4. DIGITAL LITERACY AND FLUENCY ARE FORMS OF HUMAN CAPITAL AND REQUIRE PUBLIC INVESTMENT. Comprehensive training for digital literacy must be available in multilingual and varied learning formats. Digital proficiency must be promoted at neighborhood based locations, especially community technology centers, community based organizations and libraries, to strengthen resident understanding of new technologies. Training must be available in multiple formats to promote the inclusion of citizens who are fluent in other languages or disabled.

5. LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE IS NECESSARY FOR COMMUNITY-DRIVEN CONTENT DEVELOPMENT. Content must reflect the ideas, identities and innovation of community residents and their respective neighborhoods. Local infrastructure must be established to allow for community control over content. Civic, educational and government web sites must be available for free to residents at ALL times through a Civic Garden accessible on the wireless splash page.

6. HARDWARE TOOLS MUST BE AVAILABLE TO ALL. Computer hardware, whether new or refurbished, must be available to ALL Chicago residents free or at affordable cost, and non-predatory mechanisms must be put in place for the acquisition of this hardware for all consumers. Community based organizations, libraries and parks must be equipped and supported to provide free public use access.

7. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE BEST PRACTICES AND INNOVATIONS IMPROVE THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF ALL NEIGHBORHOODS. The tools of the information age must adhere to and support the highest levels of environmental and economic sustainability. The city should use the new network as a means to disseminate and capture information vital to improving the sustainability of our city, such as gathering air and water quality data and improving transportation choice. Economically and environmentally sustainable processes for disposal and recycling of outdated electronic materials should be supported by the City and technology vendors in all communities, particularly those low-income areas traditionally targeted for the potentially harmful disposal of used and toxic computer hardware. The City and technology vendors should support the creation of neighborhood-based recycling and refurbishing initiatives for environmental remediation and job creation.

8. OUR FREEDOM TO CONNECT DEMANDS NETWORK NEUTRALITY AND ACTIVE MONITORING FOR EQUITABLE SERVICE. Network Neutrality is grounded in Freedom of Speech. For all networks offering service in Chicago the precept of network neutrality must be honored and all features of the network (bandwidth, services and enhancements) must be deployed so as to achieve universal and equitable coverage. The community must have the ability to monitor and verify data on coverage and quality of service, there must be mechanisms for
remediation, and the city must take an active role to ensure compliance by vendor and subsidiaries.

9. THE GLOBAL ECONOMY WORKS FOR EVERYONE: ASSURE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND FIRST SOURCE HIRING. Workforce development opportunities that emerge from the wireless network should be made available to neighborhood residents (including the hard-to-employ, youth, and physically challenged) that are identified, trained and employed through first source hiring opportunities and subcontracting opportunities for neighborhood-based businesses.

10. IN STRONG NEIGHBORHOOD ECONOMIES, ENTREPRENEURS AND SMALL BUSINESSES THRIVE. The network must provide mechanisms to expand existing small businesses and cultivate new opportunities in Chicago's under-served communities. Small businesses and residents must have the resources, training and support to use the access afforded by the network to grow revenue and potential, including training in business development and eCommerce.

Verizon announced this month that, "Verizon Expands High-Speed Internet Access in Illinois: Company Upgrades Network to Make Super-Fast DSL Service More Available." I kid you not -- "super-fast."

I read the press release excitedly -- certainly this is very good news for the rural communities that have been systematically discriminated against in terms of broadband services. Then I read the rest of the press release -- not to sound too harsh, but what Verizon is offering is unbelievably slow and outdated service, it's crap:

Verizon will offer two high-speed DSL Internet service plans to qualifying consumers, one with maximum connection speeds of up to 768 Kbps (kilobits per second) downstream and 128 Kbps upstream and another with maximum connection speeds of up to 3.0 Mbps (megabits per second) downstream and 768 kbps upstream... NOTE: Actual (throughput) speeds will vary.

128Kbps upstream speed is their standard package, with premium service at just half-a-meg (768Kbps) upload speed. And that's the maximum speed, which means that actual rates may be substantially less. What Verizon is doing is offering just about the most limited service possible that would still be considered "broadband" by the inane definition utilized by the FCC -- which would, in essence obfuscate the fact that most of rural Illinois is actually receiving extremely bad broadband connectivity or none at all.

Long-term, this will lead to the continuing digital divide and undermine efforts to eliminate the substantial discrimination faced by rural populations across the United States. I see Verizon's initiative as the crumbs thrown to hush an increasingly displeased public.

What is perhaps the most dispicable part of the press release is the actual headline and the fact that the actual service speeds are in the second-to-last paragraph of the 3-page press release (the version I received). As all reporters know, you lead with information that informs the headline -- this press release was purposefully constructed to place connectivity speed as far away from their claim of "super-fast DSL service" as possible.

Read the full press release here.