Hintz & Roessler in Forum

According to TalktoTony.Blog, the following event is scheduled for 2/11/08 at 6:30pm at UW Oshkosh:

What Ever Happened to Good Government in Wisconsin? How Can We FIX it?

Monday, February 11, 2008 6:30–8:00PM

Room 227C – Reeve Memorial Union – UW Oshkosh

1748 Algoma Blvd - Oshkosh, WI

Panelists:
State Senator Carol Roessler – (R-Oshkosh)
State Representative Gordon Hintz – (D-Oshkosh)
Professor James Simmons – UW Oshkosh Political Science Dept
Professor Tony Palmeri – UW Oshkosh Communication Dept / Oshkosh Common Council
Kathy Propp – League of Women Voters of Wisconsin
Jay Heck – Executive Director of Common Cause in Wisconsin

Moderator: Alex Hummel – Editorial Page Editor of The Oshkosh Northwestern

SPONSORS: COMMON CAUSE IN WISCONSIN, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OSHKOSH AREA, UW-OSHKOSH POLITICAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT, AARP, WISCONSIN ALLIANCE OF RETIRED AMERICANS, AND THE UW-OSHKOSH POLITICAL SCIENCE STUDENTS ASSOCIATION

For more information: http://www.commoncause.org/wi or call Scott Colson (608) 256-2686

The Cable Bill Update

According to the Legislative Spotlight:

"A proposal to establish a statewide video franchise, 2007 Assembly Bill 207, was introduced in the Assembly on March 22. The proposal would repeal state laws allowing municipalities to grant cable franchises and require cable companies to obtain a franchise through the state Department of Financial Institutions. After extensive debate, the Assembly adopted Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 to AB-207. The Assembly passed the amended version of AB-207 on May 9, by a vote of 66-28. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities and Rail, which recommended concurrence.

The companion bill is 2007 Senate Bill 107. On October 31, the Joint Committee on Finance recommended passage by a vote of 13-1. The Senate passed an amended version of the bill on November 8 by a vote of 23-9 and sent it back to the Assembly for their consideration."

Back in April, we posted current commentary from vested parties, much of which contained some degree of concern - see here. It isn't difficult to find opposition now either, including:

From the WI St Journal on 10/31/07: "The 2,200-member Milwaukee local of the Communications Workers of America last month voted to oppose AB 207, even though its parent union supports it. "If we're going to pass a bill here in Wisconsin, why not pass a good bill?" said George Walls, president of CWA Local 4603 in Milwaukee. Walls said his local could support the bill if it includes significant penalties for companies that don't provide service in all parts of a community and don't quickly provide services after the bill is passed. He also said the bill should include a provision for the state franchise to expire after a period of years, rather than be granted forever."

From the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign on 11/9/07: The state Senate passed AT&T's cable TV bill late yesterday. Assuming the Assembly agrees to the few noncontroversial amendments the Senate tacked on and the governor signs it into law as expected, this legislation will say a lot about who owns cable television in Wisconsin and what the terms of ownership will be. But it says much more about who owns our state government. The Democracy Campaign just released an analysis showing that special interest backers of the cable bill gave senators who voted for it 12 times more in campaign contributions than they gave the senators who voted against it. AT&T alone gave 28 times more in campaign donations to senators who voted to approve the legislation. (this information was emailed from the WDC, but the site link above includes more detailed info)

From the Wisconsin State Journal on 11/8/07: "opponents decried the bill, saying it would virtually eliminate regulation of television providers, do nothing to spur competition in most parts of the state and reduce consumer protections and customer service requirements. "This bill does nothing good for Wisconsin, " said Sen. Kathleen Vinehout, D-Alma. The Senate rejected Vinehout 's amendment that would have replaced AB 207 with a similar bill that passed in Illinois that she said is better for consumers while still promoting competition. She said the Wisconsin bill eliminates local governments ' ability to protect consumers while failing to give the state money to investigate complaints. The bill adds satellite telecommunications companies to existing state consumer regulations."

According to Mayor of Madison Dave C on 11/9/07: "This proposal eliminates funding for public access programming, awards perpetual video franchises with minimal review, hampers the ability of local communities to control their rights of way, and provides no meaningful consumer protection or regulatory oversight."

According to Mayor of Milwaukee Tom B on 11/9/07: "the video franchising bill that passed the State Senate last night undermines the protection the City currently has for Milwaukee consumers and taxpayers."

According to the Capital Times on 11/8/07: "Critics, including Laitman (Cynthia Laitman, the co-founder of the statewide chapter of TeleTruth), charge the AT&T-backed bill would dissolve consumer protections, threaten the viability of public access stations and allow telecommunications providers to serve only dense and wealthy parts of the state. The bill has been heavily lobbied by AT&T, whose stable of lobbyists included for a short time Joe Wineke, the state chairman of the Democratic Party."

According to the Capital Times on 11/10/07: "As a former Dane County district attorney and Wisconsin attorney general, Gov. Jim Doyle knows that it is wrong for legislators who have accepted campaign contributions from special-interest donors to allow lobbyists associated with those donors to craft legislation. Yet, that is precisely how the cable television re-regulation bill that has now reached his desk came to be. As such, Doyle should not hesitate to veto this corrupt legislation. And the legislators who wrote it and are backing it have taken money from donors linked to the corporations that will benefit most from this atrocious restructuring of the process to favor the industry that is supposed to be regulated rather than the consumers it is supposed to serve. If enacted, the quality of cable service in Wisconsin will decline. Cable bills will go up. Rural areas and inner cities will be denied access to technological advances. The digital divide will grow wider. And corporations will know that if they spread campaign money and lobbying influence around in the right way, they can game the system in Wisconsin."

From to Capital Times on 10/31/07: "Backed by AT&T as part of a move to consolidate control over communications in Wisconsin, the legislation -- Senate Bill 107 -- was written in consultation with industry interests with the purpose of undermining consumer protections, threatening public access channels, eliminating the ability of communities to establish basic standards for cable service, and decreasing the likelihood that new communications technologies will be offered to communities throughout the state. The supposed regulations in this bill are riddled with loopholes that are designed to allow communications conglomerates to deny quality service to low-income and rural areas of Wisconsin."

From the Wisconsin Alliance of Cities on 10/29/07: "The bill would do significant damage to local government and public access to local government activities, while doing nothing to accomplish the goals of video competition and lower video rates that we all share."

In addition, according to state records, the following organizations and groups have registered in opposition of the bill: AFSCME Council 11, Association of Wisconsin School Administrators, Citizens Utility Board, City of Madison and Milwaukee, Dane County Cities & Villages Association, League of Wisconsin Municipalities, League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Inc, Municipal Electric Utilities of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Alliance of Cities Inc, Wisconsin Association of Public, Educational and Government Access Channels, Inc., Wisconsin Association of School Boards Inc, Wisconsin Association of School Business Officials, Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators, Wisconsin Council for Administrators of Special Services, Wisconsin Counties Association, Wisconsin Farmers Union, Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group (WISPIRG), Wisconsin Towns Association.

Conclusion: The notion that this bill must be passed immediately is an illusion. Fast tracking this bill is bucking the responsibility of ensuring that the best decisions are being made. The opposition to the current bill is too great from too many important components of Wisconsin society to push through the flawed legislation.

Wisconsin Eye now Open

Wisconsin Eye, the C-Span type coverage of state politics, has now officially launched its coverage of Wisconsin state assembly and senate sessions and committee meetings.

You can access live video of sessions, and you can access archived video of past sessions.

Visit http://www.wiseye.org/.

This is a great step in the state of Wisconsin to increasing government accountability, openness, and accessibility.

Congratulations to the recent UW Oshkosh grad working on the Wisconsin Eye Team.

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."