Several farm groups recently asked lawmakers to “encourage competition in the cable industry that will speed deployment of advanced communication services to rural America.” Among the groups mentioned in a press release were the American Corn Growers Association, California Farmers Union and The Soybean Producers of America.

In theory, this "grassroots campaign” sounds good. But in practice, it's being fertilized by Consumers For Cable Choice, a group largely financed by Verizon and AT&T (formerly SBC), and directly supports those companies’ money-making agenda.

Who can argue against invoking the American farmer on behalf of a cause? Certainly not the message maestros at the RBOCs. But is this just another deceptive tactic in the ongoing telco land grab? Yes, we think it is.

And we think it’s time for some straight talk about this group – or at least some honesty and transparency. Washington is being roiled by ethics scandals in which lobbying organizations, backed by corporate agendas, have twisted laws to meet their own needs. That type of behavior might be expected in Washington. Do we need to bring it down on the farm, too?

What soils this approach even more is the fact that the RBOCs are on record with Wall Street analysts as saying they only want to serve “high value” customers with their video broadband services. Yet, the initial communities they chose to serve don’t look very rural. But they certainly do look lucrative.

If this “consumer" group gets its way, the changes to “encourage competition” will strip away local control over public rights-of-way. “It would be a shame if the state took away the opportunity for local government to experiment with ways to foster competition that are tailored to their local market conditions,” said assistant Manatee County, Florida, attorney Robert Eschenfelder, who helped the county negotiate a franchise with Verizon.

In rural states like Indiana, community leaders strongly oppose legislation advocated by AT&T. According to the Indiana Business Journal, “Leaders in a number of Indiana cities counter that phone companies refused to bring broadband service to their residents because it wasn’t profitable enough.”

It’s hard to see how less local control over franchising will help small farming communities – if indeed the RBOCs ever change their strategy to serve them. Farmers aren’t likely to see the telephone companies improve service to their homes soon, but they may still receive some benefit by applying the statements of Consumers for Cable Choice and its phone company financiers directly to their fields.