Cable Competition and Community Access
There has been lots of discussion regarding Assembly Bill 207, named the Wisconsin Cable Bill or Video Competition Act. Supporters state that the bill, which is being heavily lobbied by AT&T, will increase competition in Wisconsin's Cable market, therefore increasing quality and lowering prices. Opponents state that this bill will lower consumer safeguards and dramatically hurt local Cable Access broadcasting networks.
While there is much more detail available from both sides of the proposal, it does seem that if all parties are willing to work together, Wisconsin can have increased cable competition while protecting consumers and local cable access stations. This is a complex bill to understand though, and confusion can lead to poor choices.
See the Bill here.
Some of the news:
From Oshkosh Community Access Television Director Jon Urban:
"OCAT's existence is in jeopardy and we need your help. A bill was proposed last week by state Rep. Phil Montgomery, R-Green Bay, that will strip the authority of local municipalities to manage local cable franchise agreements and replace it with a one-size-fits-all franchise agreement process managed by the state. The bill has been titled Proposed Video Franchising Legislation LRB 1914/3.
The proposed bill has raised "significant concerns" by both local governments and Wisconsin PEG (public, educational and government) access channels like OCAT. The League of Wisconsin Municipalities, the Wisconsin Alliance of Cities and the Wisconsin Association of PEG Channels have been working together for several months to communicate to the bill authors that local control of the franchise process is essential. Local control, through local franchise agreements, allows municipalities to ensure fair compensation for the private use of the public rights-of-way; video services for all residents, not just a select few; proper repair of streets and roadways that get damaged by telecom providers; protection of consumer rights and continued availability and funding of PEG access channels and facilities. Unfortunately, the proposed bill does not have adequate language addressing these key issues.
Most concerning to OCAT is that the bill will prohibit municipalities from requiring video service providers to provide funds, services, programming, facilities or equipment in support of PEG channels. Without specific language protecting current PEG channels and funding, this bill will cripple, if not eliminate the OCAT operation."
From the Oshkosh Northwestern on April 2:
Opposition - "If it would pass … it could have some devastating impacts on local governments across the state," said Oshkosh City Manager Richard Wollangk... Combined with the loss of other funds for capital equipment and having to possibly pay for expenses like transmitting the signal that Time Warner currently provides for the city's community access television stations, the city could see a financial impact of $2.8 million to $3.5 million during the nine years remaining in the current contract, Wollangk said."
Support - "We're not trying to kill the channels," Raschka said. "It's all about competition. Consumers haven't had a true choice in video." According to Jeff Bentoff, spokesman for AT&T, the cable competition bill is a "pocketbook issue" for many consumers. Cable rates in the Green Bay market, Bentoff said, have risen 24 percent from 2000 to 2006. Competition, he said, will drive down prices for consumers."
Our Representatives: "If we're going to open up competition we're not going to do so at the expense of consumer protection or local government," (Gordon) Hintz said."
From the Oshkosh Northwestern Editorial on April 3:
"The good: Wisconsin can and should keep an open mind and open door to competition, especially if it means cable TV costs can decrease.
The bad: The legislature needs to ensure that, if the bill passes, it contains a strong provision requiring any new state cable provider to either provide or work with municipalities to ensure an "eye-on-government" channel. Does Oshkosh need two or three local government and public access channels? No. But it does need that one, CSPAN-like eagle's eye on local government boards and councils."
One of the best articles criticizing the bill can be found on OnMilwaukee.com by "jfoust":
"AT&T and its sock puppets spin this as "video competition." I think that’s bull. Look at the facts. Since 1984, the FCC has prohibited cities from granting exclusive franchise agreements. If you have Time-Warner Cable, there’s nothing to prevent Charter or AT&T from entering your neighborhood. All they need to do is work with your city to create a franchise agreement. FCC rulings already require cities to give every provider the same terms."
From the Wisconsin State Journal on March 24:
Opposition - "Wisconsin residents would lose their rights to cable television repairs within 72 hours, credit for service interruptions and advance notice of rate increases, under a bill on the fast track in the state Legislature."
Support - "Consumer costs for video service have dropped 23 percent in markets where phone companies offer competition, Montgomery said, citing a General Accounting Office study. And in a report out this week, the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute said each Madison customer could save up to $138 annually through video competition."
From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal on March 27:
Support - "Scott T. VanderSanden, the president of AT&T Wisconsin, told the committee that when AT&T enters a cable market "prices go down and service goes up."
"I suspect you might be asking, 'Why is AT&T so concerned with video?' Simply put, studies show that consumers want an alternative to cable and we want to provide that alternative," VanderSanden said.
He said AT&T operates in 438 communities in Wisconsin, and that if the company were required to negotiate TV franchise agreements with each one, consumers would have to wait years to get AT&T's video products. "Under this bill, local governments get major benefits of revenue sharing and consumers see benefits of competition much sooner," VanderSanden said."
Opposition - "Janet Jenkins, the state's top consumer advocate, said the bill, called the Video Competition Act, would weaken existing standards in a variety of ways. She said, for instance, it would no longer ensure 30-day notice of rate increases to customers.
At the same time, she said, it would end the right to have service repaired within 72 hours and would not require credit be given on consumers' bills when a service interruption of four hours or longer occurs. "We have significant concerns about the total lack of consumer protections in the legislation," said Jenkins, administrator of the Division of Trade and Consumer Protection."
From the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign's Big Money Blog:
"Montgomery is one the bill's lead sponsors and the measure must have Huebsch's OK to pass the Assembly. Huebsch and his Republican colleagues control the Assembly 52-47. Turns out AT&T barely knew Montgomery and Huebsch existed until last year. From 1998 through 2005, AT&T employees or political action committees had contributed only $300 to Montgomery and $800 to Huebsch.
In 2006 when the proposal was being developed, AT&T contributed $2,250 to Montgomery's campaign and $1,225 to Huebsch, and a few months later out pops the bill AT&T wants. It also turns out Montgomery's proposal is not exactly homegrown. It comes from a group called ALEC, which stands for American Legislative Exchange Council. This Washington-based conservative think tank is a bill mill, penning numerous anti-regulatory, anti-tax and pro-business proposals and encouraging state legislators around the country to offer them up at home."
From the Legislative Reference Bureau (broken into several different parts):
"Current federal law generally prohibits a person from providing cable service without a cable franchise. "
"Current federal law allows either states or municipalities to grant cable franchises to persons who provide cable service, which are referred to as "cable operators." Under current state law, municipalities (i.e., cities, villages, and towns) grant or revoke franchises. In addition, current state law allows a municipality to require a cable operator to pay a franchise fee to the municipality that is based on the operator's income or gross revenues."
"This bill repeals state law authorizing municipalities to grant cable franchises to cable operators. Instead, the bill requires a person who provides "video service" to obtain a video service franchise from the Department of Financial Institutions (DFI)."
"Under the bill, if a person has not been issued a cable franchise under current law, the person may not provide video service unless DFI issues a video service franchise to the person. The bill allows a cable operator who has been issued a cable franchise under current law to provide cable service under the cable franchise until the cable franchise expires, or apply to DFI for a video service franchise. "
"A video service franchise under the bill authorizes a video service provider to occupy public rights-of-way and construct, operate, maintain, and repair a video service network in the video franchise area. A video service franchise does not expire, unless a video service provider gives 30 days' advance notice to DFI that the video service provider intends to terminate the video service franchise. A video service provider may transfer a video service franchise to any successor-in-interest, including a successor-in-interest that arises through merger, sale, assignment, restructuring, change of control, or any other transaction. A video service provider and a transferee must notify DFI and affected municipalities about the transfer, but the bill prohibits DFI and municipalities from reviewing or approving the transfer."
"The bill prohibits a video service provider or municipality from bringing an action in court regarding the amount of a video service provider fee until the parties have completed good faith settlement negotiations. In addition, an action regarding a dispute over such an amount must be commenced within three years following the calendar quarter to which the disputed amount relates, or is barred, unless the parties agree to an extension of time."
"the bill prohibits municipalities from requiring video service providers and interim cable operators from providing funds, services, programming, facilities, or equipment related to public, educational, or governmental use of channel capacity;"
"The bill prohibits DFI and municipalities from regulating video or cable service rates of video service providers or interim cable operators that provide service in a municipality if at least one other unaffiliated video service provider or interim cable operator serves the municipality"
"if a video service provider pays video service provider fees to a municipality as required under the bill, the municipality may not require the video service provider to pay any compensation allowed under current law for obstructions or excavations, or pay any permit fee, encroachment fee, degradation fee, or any other fee, for the occupation of or work within public rights-of-way."
"The bill repeals requirements enforced by DATCP and district attorneys regarding cable television subscriber rights regarding service interruptions and disconnections, repairs, program service deletions, and rate increases."
While there is much more detail available from both sides of the proposal, it does seem that if all parties are willing to work together, Wisconsin can have increased cable competition while protecting consumers and local cable access stations. This is a complex bill to understand though, and confusion can lead to poor choices.
See the Bill here.
Some of the news:
From Oshkosh Community Access Television Director Jon Urban:
"OCAT's existence is in jeopardy and we need your help. A bill was proposed last week by state Rep. Phil Montgomery, R-Green Bay, that will strip the authority of local municipalities to manage local cable franchise agreements and replace it with a one-size-fits-all franchise agreement process managed by the state. The bill has been titled Proposed Video Franchising Legislation LRB 1914/3.
The proposed bill has raised "significant concerns" by both local governments and Wisconsin PEG (public, educational and government) access channels like OCAT. The League of Wisconsin Municipalities, the Wisconsin Alliance of Cities and the Wisconsin Association of PEG Channels have been working together for several months to communicate to the bill authors that local control of the franchise process is essential. Local control, through local franchise agreements, allows municipalities to ensure fair compensation for the private use of the public rights-of-way; video services for all residents, not just a select few; proper repair of streets and roadways that get damaged by telecom providers; protection of consumer rights and continued availability and funding of PEG access channels and facilities. Unfortunately, the proposed bill does not have adequate language addressing these key issues.
Most concerning to OCAT is that the bill will prohibit municipalities from requiring video service providers to provide funds, services, programming, facilities or equipment in support of PEG channels. Without specific language protecting current PEG channels and funding, this bill will cripple, if not eliminate the OCAT operation."
From the Oshkosh Northwestern on April 2:
Opposition - "If it would pass … it could have some devastating impacts on local governments across the state," said Oshkosh City Manager Richard Wollangk... Combined with the loss of other funds for capital equipment and having to possibly pay for expenses like transmitting the signal that Time Warner currently provides for the city's community access television stations, the city could see a financial impact of $2.8 million to $3.5 million during the nine years remaining in the current contract, Wollangk said."
Support - "We're not trying to kill the channels," Raschka said. "It's all about competition. Consumers haven't had a true choice in video." According to Jeff Bentoff, spokesman for AT&T, the cable competition bill is a "pocketbook issue" for many consumers. Cable rates in the Green Bay market, Bentoff said, have risen 24 percent from 2000 to 2006. Competition, he said, will drive down prices for consumers."
Our Representatives: "If we're going to open up competition we're not going to do so at the expense of consumer protection or local government," (Gordon) Hintz said."
From the Oshkosh Northwestern Editorial on April 3:
"The good: Wisconsin can and should keep an open mind and open door to competition, especially if it means cable TV costs can decrease.
The bad: The legislature needs to ensure that, if the bill passes, it contains a strong provision requiring any new state cable provider to either provide or work with municipalities to ensure an "eye-on-government" channel. Does Oshkosh need two or three local government and public access channels? No. But it does need that one, CSPAN-like eagle's eye on local government boards and councils."
One of the best articles criticizing the bill can be found on OnMilwaukee.com by "jfoust":
"AT&T and its sock puppets spin this as "video competition." I think that’s bull. Look at the facts. Since 1984, the FCC has prohibited cities from granting exclusive franchise agreements. If you have Time-Warner Cable, there’s nothing to prevent Charter or AT&T from entering your neighborhood. All they need to do is work with your city to create a franchise agreement. FCC rulings already require cities to give every provider the same terms."
From the Wisconsin State Journal on March 24:
Opposition - "Wisconsin residents would lose their rights to cable television repairs within 72 hours, credit for service interruptions and advance notice of rate increases, under a bill on the fast track in the state Legislature."
Support - "Consumer costs for video service have dropped 23 percent in markets where phone companies offer competition, Montgomery said, citing a General Accounting Office study. And in a report out this week, the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute said each Madison customer could save up to $138 annually through video competition."
From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal on March 27:
Support - "Scott T. VanderSanden, the president of AT&T Wisconsin, told the committee that when AT&T enters a cable market "prices go down and service goes up."
"I suspect you might be asking, 'Why is AT&T so concerned with video?' Simply put, studies show that consumers want an alternative to cable and we want to provide that alternative," VanderSanden said.
He said AT&T operates in 438 communities in Wisconsin, and that if the company were required to negotiate TV franchise agreements with each one, consumers would have to wait years to get AT&T's video products. "Under this bill, local governments get major benefits of revenue sharing and consumers see benefits of competition much sooner," VanderSanden said."
Opposition - "Janet Jenkins, the state's top consumer advocate, said the bill, called the Video Competition Act, would weaken existing standards in a variety of ways. She said, for instance, it would no longer ensure 30-day notice of rate increases to customers.
At the same time, she said, it would end the right to have service repaired within 72 hours and would not require credit be given on consumers' bills when a service interruption of four hours or longer occurs. "We have significant concerns about the total lack of consumer protections in the legislation," said Jenkins, administrator of the Division of Trade and Consumer Protection."
From the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign's Big Money Blog:
"Montgomery is one the bill's lead sponsors and the measure must have Huebsch's OK to pass the Assembly. Huebsch and his Republican colleagues control the Assembly 52-47. Turns out AT&T barely knew Montgomery and Huebsch existed until last year. From 1998 through 2005, AT&T employees or political action committees had contributed only $300 to Montgomery and $800 to Huebsch.
In 2006 when the proposal was being developed, AT&T contributed $2,250 to Montgomery's campaign and $1,225 to Huebsch, and a few months later out pops the bill AT&T wants. It also turns out Montgomery's proposal is not exactly homegrown. It comes from a group called ALEC, which stands for American Legislative Exchange Council. This Washington-based conservative think tank is a bill mill, penning numerous anti-regulatory, anti-tax and pro-business proposals and encouraging state legislators around the country to offer them up at home."
From the Legislative Reference Bureau (broken into several different parts):
"Current federal law generally prohibits a person from providing cable service without a cable franchise. "
"Current federal law allows either states or municipalities to grant cable franchises to persons who provide cable service, which are referred to as "cable operators." Under current state law, municipalities (i.e., cities, villages, and towns) grant or revoke franchises. In addition, current state law allows a municipality to require a cable operator to pay a franchise fee to the municipality that is based on the operator's income or gross revenues."
"This bill repeals state law authorizing municipalities to grant cable franchises to cable operators. Instead, the bill requires a person who provides "video service" to obtain a video service franchise from the Department of Financial Institutions (DFI)."
"Under the bill, if a person has not been issued a cable franchise under current law, the person may not provide video service unless DFI issues a video service franchise to the person. The bill allows a cable operator who has been issued a cable franchise under current law to provide cable service under the cable franchise until the cable franchise expires, or apply to DFI for a video service franchise. "
"A video service franchise under the bill authorizes a video service provider to occupy public rights-of-way and construct, operate, maintain, and repair a video service network in the video franchise area. A video service franchise does not expire, unless a video service provider gives 30 days' advance notice to DFI that the video service provider intends to terminate the video service franchise. A video service provider may transfer a video service franchise to any successor-in-interest, including a successor-in-interest that arises through merger, sale, assignment, restructuring, change of control, or any other transaction. A video service provider and a transferee must notify DFI and affected municipalities about the transfer, but the bill prohibits DFI and municipalities from reviewing or approving the transfer."
"The bill prohibits a video service provider or municipality from bringing an action in court regarding the amount of a video service provider fee until the parties have completed good faith settlement negotiations. In addition, an action regarding a dispute over such an amount must be commenced within three years following the calendar quarter to which the disputed amount relates, or is barred, unless the parties agree to an extension of time."
"the bill prohibits municipalities from requiring video service providers and interim cable operators from providing funds, services, programming, facilities, or equipment related to public, educational, or governmental use of channel capacity;"
"The bill prohibits DFI and municipalities from regulating video or cable service rates of video service providers or interim cable operators that provide service in a municipality if at least one other unaffiliated video service provider or interim cable operator serves the municipality"
"if a video service provider pays video service provider fees to a municipality as required under the bill, the municipality may not require the video service provider to pay any compensation allowed under current law for obstructions or excavations, or pay any permit fee, encroachment fee, degradation fee, or any other fee, for the occupation of or work within public rights-of-way."
"The bill repeals requirements enforced by DATCP and district attorneys regarding cable television subscriber rights regarding service interruptions and disconnections, repairs, program service deletions, and rate increases."
Labels: Media
posted by Vincent at 4:19 PM
1 Comments:
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS “PROTECT THE INCUMBANT’S INVESTMENT”
“By managing the deployment as we do, we protect the incumbent’s investment in existing infrastructure, we protect the public from unnecessary disruption to private business and to their safe use and enjoyment of the public right-of-way, and we ensure that new entrants are provided with unfettered access in a reasonable and timely fashion, while ensuring that they comply with all safety requirements. This system has worked well for cable, traditional phone and other providers for many years, and is necessarily performed by the local government.”
– Arvada Colorado Mayor Ken Fellman’s Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet Wednesday, April 27, 2005 (Fellman is also a cable franchise lawyer and VP at NATOA)
"PROTECT THE INCUMBANT'S INVESTMENT", YOU BET THEY DO, SO WELL THAT YOUR CABLE BILL SHOT UP 93% INCREASE (1995-2005 FCC source)
WHY DO THEY JUST JACK UP THE TV BILL
Comcast is raising the price of the average metro-area customer's cable bill by 6.9 percent starting March 1, yet they held the line on prices for high-speed Internet and phone services. – RMNews January 2007
THEY “PROTECT THE INCUMBENT’S INVESTMENT”, THAT MEANS NO COMPETITION. RESULT FOR YOU IS A 93% INCREASE IN YOUR CABLE BILL.
Comcast Profit Triples - Reuters, 2/1/07
How’s that for a double whammy – one week after Comcast announces a 7% increase for its captive cable customers, the cable monopoly announced record profits.
And as they rake in the cash and their executives get richer and richer, they fight every effort by their employees to get fair wages and benefits – all the while milking customers for everything they got!
As American Rights At Work found in a special report, wages for Comcast’s cable techs are a third lower than wages in traditional land-line telephone companies like at&t, where unions represent about three-fourths of the workers. Benefits are less generous and jobs are less secure, with annual turnover about twice as high.
Worse, Comcast fights tooth-and-nail to keep unions out, or decertify them once their in. Northwest Labor Press reports of a 37-page Comcast anti-union management training document that stated: “Comcast does not feel union representation is in the best interest of its employees, customers and shareholders.”
But it gets worse. Comcast is waging war against union employees – literally. During the AT&T days, unions made headway organizing in a handful of cities, including Beaverton, OR. But once Comcast acquired AT&T’s cable systems they began to systematically dismantle union shops…and show union workers the door. In Beaverton, Comcast vice president Curt Henninger made the company’s intentions crystal clear when he told commissioners in videotaped testimony: “I will tell you we are going to wage a war to decertify the CWA.”
Cable is anti-consumer & anti-competition
Legislators must send them the message that their days of pillaging customers and exploiting workers are over.
Post a Comment
<< Home