Mayor Vicky Barnett explains to Paul W. Smith on WJR why she municipalities are against the state-wide cable
TV franchise rules
"First let me start out by saying, we are very happy at the prospect of competition....They were welcome to come into our
community -- we could have gotten it done in 60 days."
- Mayor Barnett, City of Farmington Hills and Pres. MML
Streaming Audio: Please note a broadband connection speed
or higher is recommended.
ADRIAN — City administrator Dane Nelson does not yet have a clear picture
on how much harm a statewide cable franchise bill will have on city coffers. The legislation was approved last week by the
state Senate and is awaiting the signature of Gov. Jennifer Granholm.
The city of Adrian receives about $180,000 annually
through its current cable franchise agreement. The contract with Comcast Corp. is set to expire in August 2007, but Nelson
is afraid the statewide cable franchise will nullify the existing deal.
Under the current system, local municipalities
retain the right to grant franchise agreements to cable companies. Through negotiations, cities like Adrian have been able
to ensure that all of a community’s homes have access to cable services, have bargained for local access television
stations and have had a say in how much money is paid by cable companies each year to cities and townships in exchange for
access to public rights of way.
If the new statewide franchise bill is signed into law, Nelson fears cities will lose some cable coverage
and at least a portion of the rights of way compensation, in addition to other potentially negative effects. Instead of negotiating
with each community, cable companies would negotiate with the state of Michigan and if a franchise is granted, would receive
access to the entire state. It could eliminate the ability of individual communities to bargain with cable companies, according
to Nelson.
“The Michigan Municipal League (MML) has indicated that it will be potentially a big (financial) loss
to some cities,” he said.
Nelson has not yet analyzed the bill, which was passed 26-12 by the state Senate on
Wednesday. It had previously gained House of Representatives approval. Nelson does not believe the city will lose all of its
rights of way revenue but does believe the city’s finances will take a hit.
“There is nothing good in it
for cities,” he said. “That much I’m certain of.”
The MML estimates that communities will lose between $47 million and $50 million in annual revenue if the
bill is implemented.
“I’m sure there are going to be a lot of legal challenges,” Nelson, a former
Adrian city attorney, said. He is especially interested in the impact the bill could have on existing franchise agreements
— specifically if cable companies will be able to void the franchise agreements they already have with cities like Adrian.
Nelson does not believe that the legislature has the authority to allow cable companies to break existing contracts.
The
bill also represents another potential move by Lansing that destabilizes local revenue streams, according to Nelson, who said
the city receives about the same nominal level of state revenue sharing as it did 10 years ago. He also said the legislation,
if approved, would strip local communities of local control over cable service.
Local municipal leaders had made efforts
to convince lawmakers to vote against the bill, Nelson said. Adrian Mayor Gary McDowell has appeared on television announcements
opposing statewide cable franchising and Nelson was involved in at least one conference call with state Sen. Cameron Brown,
R-Fawn River Twp., about the issue.
Brown, Rep. Dudley Spade, D-Tipton, and Rep. Leslie Mortimer, R-Horton, all voted
in favor of the statewide franchise bill. Nelson said Thursday he had received an e-mail statement from Spade saying the bill
will benefit Michigan cable customers.
Proponents of the legislation believe it will lay the groundwork for increased
cable competition in Michigan communities, which will force lower cable rates and better customer service. Nelson, however,
contended that there is nothing in the current system that prevents competition,
especially in Adrian.
“There is a lot of thought out there that we have an exclusive franchise, but we don’t,”
he said. “We have a non-exclusive franchise so that there are opportunities for other cable companies.”
AT&T
Inc. led the push for the bill’s passage, encouraging the creation of an easier and less expensive way to enter the
marketplace and compete with current cable providers in Michigan communities. The company lobbied heavily, even saying it
will hire 2,000 workers and invest up to $620 million over three years once the law takes effect. Nelson said the city of
Adrian has offered AT&T the same franchise agreement that it has with Comcast in the past but AT&T did not accept
the terms.
He called Wednesday’s Senate approval of the bill “a loss of local control and a gain for AT&T.”
City
leaders had recently made contact with Comcast to try to start negotiations on an extension of the existing franchise agreement,
which is set to expire next year. A new deal could have included requirements for more service options for Adrian Comcast
subscribers, including high-definition television programming, Nelson said. Depending on what happens with the bill, he is
concerned the city may no longer have the control to negotiate at all.
“Everything is a little uncertain,”
he said. “We don’t know yet if the governor will approve the bill.”
Among other provisions in the
bill, the legislation would require AT&T and other large cable providers to offer TV service to half of households in
their service areas within six years and reach a minimum percentage of low-income residents.
The Associated Press contributed
to this story.
Andy Rogers covers city of Adrian news for The Daily Telegram. He can be reached at 265-5111, ext. 260, or by e-mail at andy@lenconnect.com.
This just in....the evening of Tuesday, December 12, 2006...
Governor Granholm issued the following statement in response to concerns about net neutrality and HB 6456:
"I
support net neutrality and will continue to fight for it on the state and federal level. HB 6456 creates over 2,000 jobs in
Michigan, improves competition and services for
Michigan residents, and it includes a number of
provisions to safeguard consumers. The issue of net neutrality is far bigger than this one bill. I believe it is more desirable
to pursue the protections necessary to maintain net neutrality as stand-alone legislation in the coming year rather than as
an amendment to this year's legislation. I am committed to ensuring that citizens are protected from greater expense or slower
service because of the entry of phone companies into the video/ internet space, and I look forward to working on securing
continued open access to the Internet in the year ahead."
From
WWJ Newsradio 950's Great Lakes I.T. Report of Tuesday, December 12, 2006. By Matt Roush:
Guv
mum on cable TV bill: Gov. Jennifer Granholm's office wasn't talking Monday about whether or not she'd sign a bill being considered today
by the state Senate that would create a single, statewide franchise system for cable TV operators. The bill is being sought
by AT&T Inc., which wants to bring its U-verse combination video, high-speed Internet and phone service to its Michigan
service area without having to negotiate separate franchise agreements with hundreds of municipalities for the cable TV part
of the service. Several municipal groups have complained the bill would cost them franchise fee revenue, and the bill is also
opposed by Google and some Internet service providers because it contains no mention of "net neutrality" -- requiring the
companies -- like AT&T -- that own the fiber optic cable that provides much of the Internet's backbone to carry everyone's
data at equal speed, including their own content. "I think we're going to wait and see what happens in the legislature tomorrow,"
Granholm spokeswoman Liz Boyd said Monday afternoon. "Let's see what kind of bill the legislature gives us. That's where we
stand at this point." Boyd said the governor hasn't "gone into a lot of detail publicly" about what she'd like to see in the
bill, but did mention that "the governor's focus is on consumer protection as part of this legislation, so we want to make
sure consumers are protected." Additional consumer protection features were added to the bill in a state Senate committee
last week. Boyd wouldn't say whether the governor considered net neutrality to be a feature of strong consumer protection. There's
also a new Web site in opposition to the proposal. It's at http://michigan6456.tripod.com/.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Cable TV Bill Goes To Michigan Senate
Tuesday Without Net Neutrality
LANSING - It appears the Michigan cable TV franchise bill is headed for Senate sign off on
Tuesday without wording that would address abrogation of current franchise agreements with local governments or tackle the
issue of net neutrality, which Google has been pressing for.
The chamber is expected to vote on HB 6456 on Tuesday. While amendments designed to cover those areas are likely to be
offered on the floor, a spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Ken Sikkema (R-Wyoming) said Monday that it appeared only
technical amendments would make it onto the legislation.
"Certainly the two big ones that everyone is talking about will not be taken up," said spokesperson Ari Adler.
Liz Boyd, spokesperson for Governor Jennifer Granholm who has made a point of insisting on consumer protections in the
legislation, declined to comment on whether the lack of language on the bill addressing those points of contention would affect
the chances of the bill being signed.
The administration has been privy to discussions on the cable bill, but Boyd said, "We'll want to see what language emerges
tomorrow," before further commenting.
The legislation was moved out of the Senate Government Operations Committee last week to the floor in a substituted form,
which Sikkema had then postponed a vote on to give members time to review. The amended version had provisions clarifying that
companies will get credit for the franchise fees they pay, that consumers cannot have services switched on them, that fees
charged for public access channels cover the cost of operations, that school districts are not viewed as video franchisers,
and that cable operators would have to guarantee that local emergency alerts are broadcast.
Sen. Nancy Cassis (R-Novi) is expected to offer an amendment she had also offered in committee that would prohibit local
franchise agreements from being eliminated unless a second, non-satellite provider came into a community and began providing
service to 5 percent or more of the population.
That amendment puts more reasonableness back into the legislation, said David Bertram of the Michigan Townships Association,
because it ensures cable companies will not up and drop their local franchise agreement under the new law.
"That amendment alone would go a long way," he said, otherwise build-out provisions in more rural communities may get lost.
Local governments would also like to see the bill amended to further address the METRO Act. Although the committee did
address the issue, Bertram said the wording could still mean the Public Service Commission could offer a partial credit or
deny a credit to AT&T Metro Act payments.
On Monday, the Michigan Catholic Conference also sent a letter to all Senate members stating that net neutrality protections
should be added to the bill to ensure that Internet-based religious speech is protected.
"If the Internet becomes, as it inevitably will without strong protections for net neutrality, a medium where speakers
must pay to deliver their messages, religious speech will be effectively barred from the Internet," said Paul Long, MCC's
vice president for public policy.
It appears that interested parties have one last shot at getting the bill amended in the Senate as the House is not expected
to amend the bill further once it returns to that chamber. House Republican spokesperson Matt Resch said lawmakers are simply
expecting to vote on concurrence with the Senate changes.
This story was provided by Gongwer News Service. To subscribe, click on Gongwer.Com
Local community cable franchising was preempted when the Michigan State Legislature passed PA 480 of 2006. This law is
a dramatic regulatory change that will impact your local community, particularly in the areas of:
Local franchise fee collection
Local franchise fee auditing
Local public rights-of-way regulation
Cable service provision to local residents
In-kind services to local communities
Administrative procedures dealing with providers and state agencies
Both the Detroit Free Press (New era arrives for cable customers) and the Detroit News (Senate clears way for cable TV reform) have articles on Michigan's new cable franchising bill which has passed the House and Senate and appears to be headed for
a quick signing by Governor Granholm. It's a very complex issue, but at its simplest, the new regulations will replace locally
negotiated cable TV franchises with a uniform set of state rules.
On the plus side, the measure is expected to increase consumer choice as telcos and others move to offer cable TV (and
probably also increased internet bandwidth). The downside is that the new regulations don't require service of rural and urban
low-income markets which could lead to a greater digital divide in Michigan.
Two weeks ago, telecommunications giant AT&T promised to invest over $600 million in infrastructure and create 2000
jobs over three years (including 1200 in 2007), which might make the savvy reader ask "Why?"
The answer, according to a pundit at MyDD.com is that the telephone companies are seeking to make an end-around the soon-to-be Democratic Congress and secure franchising
without a corresponding guarantee of Net Neutrality. According to SavetheInternet.com, an advocacy group, Net Neutrality ensures that the public can view the smallest blog just as easily as the largest corporate
Web site by preventing internet companies from rigging the playing field for only the highest-paying sites.
The whole issue has started a modest firestorm in the .....
News EDITORIAL Saturday, December 2, 2006 10:05
PM EST
At issue: A bill changing Michigan cable franchise agreements from local to statewide.
Our
view: The issue is too important to rush. Unless local governments are reimbursed for lost revenue and safeguards installed
for guaranteed service and net neutrality, the plan should be rejected.
How high are the stakes
with Michigan’s cable reform bill now before the state Senate?
One indication of the bill’s importance
is that senators will conduct a special hearing Monday even though the Senate itself won’t be in session. Another was
Thursday’s announcement by AT&T that it would hire 2,000 workers over the next three years and spend up to $620
million in Michigan if the recently approved House bill becomes the primary structure for a new law.
Let’s hope
that doesn’t happen, however. The House-approved bill is badly — perhaps fatally — flawed and the issue
is far too important for slapdash lawmaking.
It’s true that Michigan could use some changes in its present cable system. Rising cable
bills and limited channel packages prove that, and an emerging digital economy will require better infrastructure.
Currently,
cable companies negotiate separate franchises with local governments. The House bill would exchange local cable agreements
with a statewide franchise for service.
The issue goes far beyond deciding who delivers your TV movies. AT&T has
promised to install fiber optic systems that could conceivably bundle cable, Internet and phone service into one package.
However,
there are numerous problems:
Removing local franchise control would cost municipalities current franchise revenue estimated
at more than $50 million per year (Adrian receives about $100,000 per year, according to city officials).
According
to local officials, cities also would lose control over their rights of way, and they would no longer be able to force providers
to service the entire franchise area. The provider could extend service to wealthier communities and neighborhoods that are
more likely to sign up for expensive packages, and skip poorer areas.
Many communities have local access programming
that they fear would be lost under a statewide franchise.
Oversight and complaints would be removed from local officials
to those in Lansing.
A proposal such as AT&T’s also would give it greater control over users’ download
speed, cost and access to the Internet. Rather than increasing competition, it effectively would reduce it.
AT&T’s
jobs and investment promise is not very compelling. Many such jobs are likely short-term and would disappear once the company
had the fiber optic expansion it eventually will build anyhow.
Real competition requires getting more, not fewer, providers
involved. The current cable bill will do just the opposite. AT&T wants the protected status of a public utility providing
essential services, but it appears unwilling to guarantee the sort of service such utilities must deliver to all would-be
customers. If it enjoys a state franchise, that’s wrong.
Any new law will require compromise, but it should address
the concerns listed above. This is too vital for the Legislature to approve an incomplete bill that benefits AT&T while
putting a large number of state residents at a disadvantage.
Unlike other states -- which eliminated local franchising in favor of statewide authorizations to serve, issued by a state
agency -- the Michigan bill retains local franchising. However, the terms of the franchises are set by the state, and the
terms are very limited.
For instance, providers will identify the areas they intend to serve, list the names of company executives and vow to conform
to federal telecommunications laws.
Incumbents can opt to convert their local franchises into ones reflecting the state standards. Any agreements with terms
beyond those in the new bill are deemed “unreasonable and unenforceable,” according to the bill’s language.
Local communities will have 15 days to review a new provider’s application for a uniform franchise. If local authorities
don’t act within 30 days total, the franchise is automatically granted for a term of 10 years.
New providers must match the public, educational and government channels deployed by incumbents, and providers will support
those channels with a 1% fee on their gross revenues. They must also pay a 5% franchise fee.
Within three years of launch, 25% of a new provider’s service area must serve low-income homes. Within six years
of launching video, 50% of the service area of the largest providers, such as AT&T, must qualify as low-income households.
New providers can use “alternative technologies” to meet the build-out requirements, but law specifies that
direct-broadcast satellite services are excluded as that alternative.
The governor is expected to sign the bill.
From WWJ Newsradio 950's Great Lakes I.T.
Report of Wed., Dec. 13, 2006. By Matt Roush:
State Senate passes cable TV bill: On a 26-12 vote,
the state Senate Tuesday passed a bill designed to ease the entry of AT&T Inc. and other large telecom providers into
Michigan's cable TV market. The bill earlier passed the state House 86-21. It would create a single, standard franchise for
cable TV agreements between providers and local governments. AT&T says the bill is critical to offering its U-verse combination
video, high-speed data and voice service. The bill had been opposed by the Michigan Municipal League and the Michigan Townships
Association, who argued it could cut local government franchise fee revenue. The bill creates a standard 5 percent franchise
fee, minus any right-of-way payments telecom providers may already pay under a 2002 state law. One change the state Senate
made Tuesday -- it bumped a separate fee to support local cable access programs from 1 percent of system revenue to 2 percent.*
The bill now goes to the state House for reconciliation with the amendments made by the Senate. It's not known exactly
when the bill might get to Gov. Jennifer Granholm's desk.
Critics of AT&T Michigan's legislative push to offer cable television are warning consumers of darker sides of the
issue.
Michigan Municipal League officials say that while the company claims increased competition could lower prices, the telecommunications
giant fails to explain that it could deny service to poor areas and cause financial hardship to others.
Under the Uniform Video Services Local Franchise Act, cable providers no longer would need franchise agreements with communities.
Instead, a statewide deal would allow companies to expand at will -- and possibly for cheaper pacts.
That would jeopardize the $1.4 million in fees that Saginaw County communities receive from St. Louis, Mo.-based Charter
Communications.
The city of Saginaw reaps the most at $450,000, followed by Saginaw Township at $200,000, said Tim Ransberger, director
of government relations for AT&T Michigan. He was in Lansing on Wednesday to address the issue with lawmakers.
Municipal League leaders are up in arms.
"AT&T told Wall Street that part of their strategy is to (avoid) low-value residents," said Joe Fivas, assistant director
of state affairs.
"It's red-lining and it eliminates contracts already in place, which in some cases means in-kind services" totaling at
least $25 million.
AT&T spokesman Joe Steele said the concerns are unwarranted.
Of the $4.6 billion it wants to invest in coming years, more than 5 million of its customers "would be considered" low
income, he said.
Committee Sends Cable Bill to State Senate, but More Work Remains
Legislation that supporters say would give Michigan customers more choice in
the cable TV market is one step closer to approval, though lawmakers say some issues may never be fully resolved.
Legislators
and Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s administration planned to continue negotiating in the coming days.
“Most consumers
today are unhappy that they don’t have a choice with cable. They’re locked into one provider,” Senate Majority
Leader Ken Sikkema, R-Wyoming, told reporters after the panel’s vote. “This legislation, should it be signed into
law, gives consumers a choice.”
Cable providers historically have had to secure individual licenses, or franchises,
from each of the communities where they want to do business. The legislation that passed the House and is before the Senate
would let companies get a statewide franchise without negotiating in every community.
AT&T Inc. backs the change
as a faster and easier way for it to enter the cable market and compete with incumbent companies like Comcast Corp.
Local
governments and others who oppose the bill worry about losing money from cable providers, low-income residents not getting
new services and local access channels not being able to show programming.
“We’re the first line of defense
for the average guy,” said Michael Watza of the Michigan Coalition to Protect Public Rights-of-Way, a group of cities.
The
bill was amended Wednesday to clarify some issues. It would require cable providers to pay fees so the Michigan Public Service
Commission could handle consumers’ cable complaints and implement parts of the proposed law.
But big issues were
unresolved.
Google, Yahoo! and eBay are pushing for provisions to prevent cable providers, which also offer Internet
and phone services, from discriminating against Web traffic based on which sites pay them the most.
Sikkema described
the fight over the concept known as net neutrality as “World War III.”
“It can’t be resolved,”
said Sikkema, who opposes net neutrality because he thinks Google and other Web sites, not consumers, should pay costs to
run video-sharing Web sites like YouTube.
Michael Yang of Google testified, however, that the company already pays
to send content over the Internet.
“Double or triple charging is neither good for the Internet nor is it good
for the consumer,” Yang said. Groups backing Google include the Michigan Catholic Conference, which testified that the
bill would stifle free speech and the Internet’s democratic nature.
Another key issue that remained unresolved
was existing franchise agreements with local governments. The new bill would let incumbent providers opt out of those deals
for the state franchise, as long as they plan to keep offering cable.
Critics say existing contracts shouldn’t
be nullified in a community without at least guaranteeing there is competition from AT&T or another new provider. They
also say requirements that providers service low-income residents are too weak.
Both Democrats and Republicans said
more work needs to be done before next week’s Senate vote, and Democrats said they want to ensure the bill does more
to protect consumers.
Sen. Buzz Thomas, D-Detroit, said he wants his constituents to benefit from more cable competition,
but he had concerns with the bill.
“Hopefully we can get there,” Thomas said.
The cable bill is
House Bill 6456.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Cable TV Franchise Bill To Go To Michigan Senate Floor Thursday
LANSING - The cable franchise bill has switched channels, with the Senate Government Operations
Committee now planning to act on proposed amendments to HB 6456 and the entire Senate voting on the bill on Thursday.
The Senate Technology and Energy Committee was unable to agree on changes to the bill on Tuesday so reported the measure
with recommendation that the Government Operations Committee, chaired by Senate Majority Leader Ken Sikkema (R-Wyoming), act
on the measure.
The action is ironic given that Sikkema led a mutiny of the Technology and Energy Committee in June 2000 to move a telecommunications
bill when the then committee chair tried to stall a meeting so amendments more favorable to the then-company Ameritech could
be considered. Ameritech is now AT&T Michigan.
Sikkema has listed final action on the cable bill as one of his top priorities for the lame duck session.
The Technology and Energy Committee did meet Tuesday morning after it failed to work on amendments to HB 6456 on Monday.
Meanwhile, last Friday AT&T Michigan put added pressure on the Michigan Senate to approve the new cable TV legislation
by announcing plans to invest $620 million in Michigan over the next three years and hire 2,000 employees because the Michigan
House approved the bill on Nov. 14.
AT&T President Gail Torreano, citing House Bill 6456 as the catalyst, said AT&T plans to bring next-generation
video and broadband services to local consumers. To do so, AT&T will need to hire 2,000 employees across Michigan to upgrade
its fiber-optic network and install its next-generation video products in consumers' homes. Approximately 1,200 of these high
tech jobs are expected to be in place by the end of 2007.
"The legislative leaders supporting House Bill 6456 deserve high praise for their bipartisan effort to reform our state's
antiquated cable franchising system," said Torreano. "We stand ready to make a historic investment in network and human capital
in Michigan. Video reform legislation holds great promise for our state, and we look forward to delivering new video options
to Michigan consumers."
The Michigan House passed the cable TV bill 80-21 vote on Nov. 14. The bill is now under debate in the Senate Technology
and Energy Committee.
Under the bill, new cable television providers would be required to seek a 10-year license from the Public Service Commission.
But they would also be required to notify the communities where they plan to offer service.
The local communities could then charge the new provider essentially the same franchise fee they charge the incumbent provider
with adjustments made for the right of way fees. Those fees would be paid directly to the local government.
The bill also requires that any new provider develop a plan to offer service throughout each community it serves. It would
be prohibited from excluding poorer neighborhoods, but would be allowed to use wireless and other technology to reach various
parts of the community as long as the programming choices are the same.
The bill also includes provisions for communities and incumbent cable providers to agree to end current franchise agreements
early.
But local governments intend to push amendments that were rejected in the House that will give them greater protection
over the abrogation of cable contracts and to ensure they do not totally lose revenues cable TV licenses now generate.
Meanwhile, Google leaped into the fray last month when it announced its concern over the bill's potential effect on net
neutrality. The company, which is opening its Midwest headquarters in Ann Arbor, ran a newspaper advertisement urging readers
to contact their Michigan Senators to urge support for "an open Internet."
Last month, an organization called SavetheInternet.com said it plans to file petitions signed by 18,000 residents challenging
the bill as it came from the House.
But the Michigan Chamber, in a memo sent Senate members, said that wholesale changes should not be made to the bill. "A
small number of genuine technical amendments" could be made, but the bill as it passed the House largely meets the goals the
chamber set for the legislation.
The issue of net neutrality should not be decided by the state, but by the federal government, the chamber said in its
memo. Any attempt to deal with the issue at the state level should not be attempted until separate legislation can be introduced
next year, it said.
This story was provided by Gongwer News Service. To subscribe, click on Gongwer.Com
Mayor Guido
The Mayor of the City of Dearborn Michael Guido had been a tireless speaker in favor
of maintaining local franchising. Mayor Guido passed away on Tuesday, December 5, 2006. His statements in
this press release are from only a little over a month ago. His testimony on national video franchising is available
on our links page.
House Bill 6456 (H-2), Addressing Cable and Video Franchising in Michigan, to Hurt Communities If Passed Into
Law
Communities to Lose Revenue and
Community Access TV to be Eliminated or Scaled Back
SOUTHFIELD, Mich., Nov. 6 /PRNewswire/ -- There
is pending legislation before the Michigan House of Representatives, House Bill 6456 (H-2), which addresses cable and
video franchising in Michigan. If passed in its current form, House Bill 6456 (H-2) would drastically cut funding to Michigan communities
and could eliminate local cable access community television programming, warns PROTEC, the Michigan Coalition to Protect
Public Rights-of- Way, the Michigan chapters of NATOA, the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
and the Alliance for Community Media. "This legislation would slash revenues to communities and could
end community access television as we know it," said Dearborn Mayor Michael Guido, whose city is a member of PROTEC.
"We have always welcomed competition. We want to make sure that the needs of the local citizens are met."
The bill, which could be voted on as early as November 9, is projected to cut revenues and in-kind services to Michigan
communities annually. Experts have determined that the loss would be in the range of $47 million to $57 million per
year. House Bill 6456 (H-2) would also put a permanent cap on community channels and eliminate Institutional Networks (I-NETs), which
allow live telecasts from various locations throughout a community, keeping municipal buildings connected.
Other facts about House Bill 6456 (H-2), in its current form: * The loss of customer service at
the local level will result with complaints going to the Michigan Public Service Commission
(MPSC) in Lansing * It allows phone and cable companies
to redline and cherry-pick neighborhoods and homes. The current local system
requires that ALL residents within cities and villages receive service while service
in rural areas is subject to strict local requirements *
Public right-of-ways are left unprotected. With the elimination of current franchise
contracts, this leaves local communities very little authority to protect public safety
and right-of-ways "Local communities still want, and demand, local access cable programming," Guido
added. "Residents want to know what is going on in their communities, schools and nonprofits. Without local access cable programming,
this very important media outlet would leave communities with little to no means of communicating to area residents."
Subscribers should express their concerns to their legislators, through direct phone calls and emails through their Web
site. Voice your concerns and demand your legislators vote no on House Bill 6456 (H-2) until local needs are met.
"If this Bill passes, there will be no local control," said Michigan Municipal League President and Farmington Hills Mayor
Vicki Barnett. "Cities will have little enforcement power, and customer complaints will be referred to the Michigan
Public Service Commission. "It's a shame that this bill leaves thousands of residents with no protection
by requiring them to leave messages on a phone service line to be fielded by an agency with little experience in handling
these issues, rather than contacting their local government and getting the issue resolved quickly," Barnett added
PROTEC, The Michigan Coalition to Protect Public Rights-of-Way, was formed in 1996 by several Michigan cities interested
in protecting their citizens' control over public rights-of-way, and their right to receive fair compensation from the
telecommunications companies that use public property. For more information, please visit http://protec-mi.org The National Association of Telecommunications
Officers and Advisors (NATOA) is a national organization that represents the communications needs and interests of local
governments. NATOA members' responsibilities include cable administration, telecommunications franchising, rights-of-way management
and government access programming, INET planning and management. NATOA has its own Michigan state chapter.
The Alliance for Community Media is committed to assuring everyone's access to electronic media. A nonprofit, national
membership organization founded in 1976, the Alliance represents over 3,000 Public, Educational and Governmental (PEG)
access organizations throughout the country. Alliance for Community Media has its own Michigan state chapter.
In the coming weeks, major communications companies and their high-spending lobbyists will do everything they
can to dismiss the Nov. 7 political result and re-assert their control over the business of policymaking.
But what happened that Tuesday has much deeper ramifications for phone and cable efforts to set the agenda.
In 2006, political corruption tipped over into public view.
It wasn’t just the glaring exposure of dirty-dealings by Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay and their cronies
— but of the depths to which greed has become a part of the system. Abramoff was just one fellow traveler along a money
trail that led from K Street to Capitol Hill and back again.
The revolving door of congressional staffers-cum-industry lobbyists is a part the same corruption of our democracy that has become
loathsome to voters.
The phone and cable lobby is a major player in this scheme. In the past 10 years, telecommunications, broadcasting
and cable companies have spent more than half a billion dollars on campaign contributions, political action committees, PR firms and high-spending lobbyists to push through
self interested policies.
These regulations – offering massive tax breaks, relaxed ownership rules, and unfettered control of
the public airwaves and broadband markets — all came at the public’s expense.
On the issue of Net Neutrality, companies like AT&T, Verizon, BellSouth and Comcast outspent public interest
advocates on a scale of 500 to 1 – pushing Congress to remove the longstanding nondiscrimination rules that enabled the Internet to become
the greatest vehicle for free speech and economic innovation.
To do away with these freedoms, the phone and cable lobby will continue to paint issues like Net Neutrality
as “unnecessary government regulations” and dismiss the groundswell of public support for this issue as the handiwork
of a few “liberal groups.”
The public tolerance for this type of “Astroturfing” was tested in 2006. More than 75 percent
of respondents to a September CBS/New York Time poll thought that most members of Congress “are more interested in serving special interest groups” than
“serving the people they represent.”
As much as anything, the election sent a message to Congress to stop currying favor with moneyed interests
and return to governing in the public interest.
Near the top of this new agenda will be restoring Net Neutrality. Many in Congress came to this realization
after receiving more than a million letters from concerned citizens urging them to maintain a free and open Internet.
Whereas before, the phone companies had been confident that Congress would simply sign-off on industry-written
legislation. Now — as the 109th Congress comes to a close — no member can vote with the telecom cartel without
feeling the full heat of public scrutiny.
Legislators Must Do More Work on Much-Needed Cable Measure
Pending legislation in the Senate could drastically change the way Michiganians
get their Internet and cable and could be a big step toward real cable competition.
But, this “lame duck”
Legislature must act responsibly and not give away the store to what is ostensibly a “market grab” by communications
giant AT&T — at the expense of local funding and programming.
The state House has already passed HP 6456,
and the measure is now in committee in the Senate on the fast track to be passed, maybe as early as this week.
Clearly,
it’s time for a change, for consumers’ sake if nothing else.
Cable rates have risen 86 percent in the past
10 years and 40 percent in the past five years, increases that far outpace any semblance of inflationary increases.
Why?
Because they can, apparently.
And see what AT&T has in store: Planned fiber optics and fully integrated systems
that tie together everything from cable, phone and Internet to the way you interact with your home and appliances would make
competition even more tantalizing.
But the way this legislation came out of the House, there is no protection spelled
out covering communities’ rights of way, decreases in current cable fees in some communities and the possibility of
less community coverage or local access.
The measure also takes control from communities and gives it to the state,
limiting redress by consumers, who now have no farther to go than City Hall. With the legislation in its current form, consumers
would have to petition Lansing and probably the Michigan Public Service Commission to air their complaints. We need less government
bureaucracy, not another layer far off in Lansing.
A group called PROTEC, the Michigan Coalition to Protect Public
Rights-of-Way, formed by several Michigan cities, opposes the measure, along with other groups, saying experts have determined
that the loss would be in the range of $47 million to $57 million per year for communities.
The Senate must add a provision,
if need be, to fairly compensate these communities for potential loss of this revenue.
In addition, AT&T has said
it wants only the most high-value customers, according to the Michigan Municipal League, and that would leave many of the
“low-value” customers to flail in the entertainment and communications wind.
“They told Wall Street
their only intention is to serve high-value customers,” said MML spokesman Joe Fivas. “Right now, the legislation
is they want to discriminate and serve only highvalue customers. We want a guarantee that they will give a real build-out.”
AT&T,
however, vehemently denies the assertion, saying any entry would take time to fully build out, and it has never intended to
“cherry-pick” any areas.
In addition, Google has said the bill would allow AT&T and others to charge
for now-free Internet services and block certain Internet providers from their service.
This is a nonstarter and needs
to be addressed in the strongest terms before any legislation can proceed.
Why take chances? Language can easily be
inserted into legislation to avoid the several pitfalls of this cable competition act and still bring much-needed competition
to Michigan’s airwaves.
AT&T Michigan to Invest $620 Million, Hire 2,000 Workers if
Bill Passes
11/30/2006
LANSING, Mich. – AT&T Michigan on Thursday announced a three-year plan to invest $620 million in upgraded
technology and hire 2,000 employees across Michigan. AT&T expects about 1,200 of these jobs to be in place by the end of 2007.
There’s just one catch: a controversial bill would have to pass in order for the cash to flow freely. AT&T cited
House Bill 6456 as the catalyst for the commitment. The bill, which passed the Michigan House on Nov. 14, 2006 in a lame-duck session, addresses
cable and video franchising in the state.
If passed in its current form, opponents to the bill warn that the legislation could radically cut funding to Michigan
communities and could end community access TV. The bill was received by the Michigan Senate on Tuesday for scrutiny by the
state’s Technology & Energy Committee.
“Even if this bill doesn’t pass, we will still continue to invest in Michigan,”
AT&T Michigan spokesman Joe Steele told MidwestBusiness.com. If the bill doesn’t pass, Steele says
“it would change the speed that this or any investment is made. It would slow the process tremendously because we’re
negotiating with about 1,100 Michigan municipalities.”
Rather than spending the resources to negotiate individual franchises in each and every town, House Bill 6456 would allow
phone and cable firms to secure a franchise across the entire state without having to negotiate separately in every community.
The bill was introduced by Rep. Mike Nofs on Sept. 12, 2006.
Various companies view some merit in the bill but want changes made to the final version. For example, Google says it wants to thwart companies from showing favoritism to Web traffic based on which sites pony up the most cash.
The timing of AT&T’s monster investment could be viewed not only as a commitment to its Michigan infrastructure
and consumers but also as a means to convince legislators of the bill’s merits and help passage in the Senate. While
AT&T’s current plan is contingent on the bill’s passage, some government lobbyists say AT&T is already
beefing up its systems and the bill shouldn’t be needed to ensure the investment.
“The legislative leaders supporting House Bill 6456 deserve high praise for their bipartisan effort to reform our
state’s antiquated cable franchising system,” AT&T Michigan President Gail Torreano told the press on Thursday.
“We stand ready to make a historic investment in our network and human capital in Michigan. Video reform legislation
holds great promise for our state.”
If the bill becomes law, AT&T pledges to invest its latest money train in consumer video products and broadband services.
Specifically, the Midwest’s dominant incumbent telecom says the move will bring fiber closer to the consumer’s
home and open the flood gates to new IP-based services. One such video offering is called AT&T U-verse, which promises remote access to a digital video recorder (DVR) via the Web and other unique features.
“Our legislators have an opportunity to encourage investment, attract jobs and save Michigan consumers millions and
millions of dollars on their cable bills,” former Michigan Atty. Gen. Frank Kelly told reporters on Thursday. “It
is costing us money [every day our legislators wait].”
In an attack against Comcast, RCN and other cable competitors, AT&T on Thursday also cited a recent report from Lawrence Technological University in Southfield, Mich. that claims today’s Michigan cable subscribers could save up to $1.8 million a day through video
reform legislation.
Cable legislation
could affect customers' choices, costs
BY ERIC CZARNIK STAFF WRITER
December 1, 2006
Observer&Eccentric
The most controversial cable bill in Michigan today won't be found in your mailbox.
It's found in the hands of state lawmakers.
The bill in question is a piece of state legislation that would streamline how cable television and Internet
companies get franchises. It would let providers have a franchise agreement with the state instead of signing individual agreements
with cities.
Although the bill easily passed the state House 80-21 in mid-November, various cities, politicians and organizations
clash on the legislation's effects.
Advocates call it the "cable choice" bill and say it would give some cable and Internet companies access to
more markets. Supporters argue that this would boost the economy by encouraging businesses to compete. AT&T has been a
major backer of the bill.
State Rep. Bob Gosselin, R-Troy, who voted to approve the legislation, said the reforms will lower cable costs
and be good for consumers' bottom line.
"It's just good competition," he said. "We as conservatives want competition. We want the price to go down."
The Michigan Cable Telecommunications Association is remaining neutral on the matter, spokesman Mike Nowlin
said. But he added that his group removed its opposition to the bill for now, and it's watching for amendments.
"From the very beginning ... our main concern has been to maintain a level playing field so that all entrants
in the marketplace compete under the same set of rules," he said.
Opponents like Chuck Rondeau, a volunteer producer for Clawson's ClawTV, say the bill's fine print could cut
funding of local television channels that air content such as high school sports or school board meetings.
"We see it as being one pretty significant step toward losing (ClawTV) altogether," he said.
Current franchise deals typically make cable companies pay franchise fees and Public Education Government
fees to cities. Franchise fees are often 5 percent of the gross earnings, and PEG fees make up an additional 1 percent. Cities
spend PEG money to keep local programming on the air.
Clawson City Manager Richard Haberman said his city gets $120,000 of franchise fees and $23,000 in PEG funds
per year. He agreed that the legislation would jeopardize Clawson's local TV funding and limit the city's oversight on where
a cable provider can put its infrastructure.
Franchise fees collected by nearby cities range from $34,000 in Pleasant Ridge to more than $600,000 in Royal
Oak.
Haberman added while Clawson has franchise deals with Comcast and Wide Open West, current law cannot stop
AT&T or other companies from seeking a franchise.
"Since competition already exists under current legislation, why does AT&T need special legislation?"
he asked.
Although many state representatives from both parties supported the bill, local Democrats like Marie Donigan
and Andy Meisner stood against it.
Meisner said his biggest sticking point was that it usurped local control. "For the state Legislature to come
in and say a contract that the local unit of government negotiated (has to) go away, I think that is a very dangerous precedent,"
he said.
However, state Sen. Gilda Jacobs, D-Ferndale, said she wouldn't take a clear stance on the bill until it comes
out of the "sausage-making" process of a Senate committee.
Suburbs fight for cable TV turf
Senate to vote on bill that would replace community franchises.
November 29, 2006
Darren A. Nichols and Gary Heinlein / The Detroit News
LANSING -- Communications giant AT&T,
communities throughout the state and consumer groups are battling over what's being touted as a plan to dramatically expand
Michigan's cable TV and Internet options.
Barely on policymakers' radar screens before the election, it has now emerged as a key issue.
Backers say a complex bill replacing community cable TV franchises with less-cumbersome state rules would
expand competition among cable TV and high-speed Internet firms, holding down rates. Opponents claim the bill, as written,
would benefit huge corporations at the expense of consumers, cost communities millions of dollars a year in franchise fees
and jeopardize cable access shows.
"Cities and schools are going to suffer," said Frank Ayers, 50, a Livonia resident who watches municipal meetings
on television. "When you get into that, you can't watch school board and City Council meetings. That would make me mad."
AT&T says it wants to build a fiber optic network and become a major competitor for Michiganians' cable
TV and Internet dollars. Sponsors say the bill, already passed by the House, immediately would create jobs and help a struggling
economy.
The Michigan and Detroit chambers of commerce are on board, urging the Legislature to adopt it before the
current session ends in mid-December. Gov. Jennifer Granholm hasn't taken a position.
Opponents charge the rule changes would rob municipalities of the money they need to telecast City Council
meetings, school performances, talk shows featuring local university students and church services. Gone also, they say, would
be current guarantees that the same cable TV, Internet and phone service options are available to all Michiganians regardless
of how much they earn or spend.
With a Senate vote to come as early as this week, AT&T workers and other bill supporters planned to rally
in Lansing today. At a gathering of opponents on Tuesday, an organization of consumer groups turned in petitions with 18,000
signatures calling for changes before lawmakers adopt the legislation.
"What's the cost of your free speech?" said Mark Monk, who runs the local-access programming setup in the
Kalamazoo area and heads a state group representing community media.
Even Google has entered the fray, urging state lawmakers to bar AT&T from charging for now-free Internet
services or blocking online features that compete with its own services.
"Google never would have gotten beyond a garage project if Internet providers had been able to block or slow
access by individuals," said Andrew McLaughlin, Google senior policy counsel.
AT&T became the focus of the debate after it was unable to reach franchise agreements with several communities,
then decided to seek changes in the state law.
"It gets everybody a level playing field and gives consumers more of a choice," said Rep. Mike Nofs, R-Battle
Creek, chief sponsor of the bill. "It helps businesses in Michigan that need this broadband capability for teleconferencing
and the like."
Under the proposal, a state video service authorization program essentially would replace-- or supersede--
Michigan's hodgepodge of local cable TV franchises.
It would allow more cable providers to easily compete with companies such as Comcast, WOW and Bright House,
which dominate cable TV service and have a competitive Internet advantage with broadband, backers say.
The current law, requiring each cable TV company to negotiate with the state's 1,200 municipalities,
which collect $38 million to $57 million annually in franchise fees, is a huge obstacle to competition, they argue.
It theoretically would allow consumers to shop for bargains among the packages of cable TV, Internet and phone
services in a more-competitive marketplace.
"We feel it's an improvement to the system. It will provide for the ability to increase market's choices,"
said Melissa Trustman, senior director of government relations for the Detroit Regional Chamber.
Opponents claim it also would take away cities' control of their rights of way, lower service standards and
make it harder for consumers to resolve cable problems. Customers, who now can air their complaints with local officials,
instead might have to take them to the Michigan Public Service Commission, a government agency that oversees utilities.
Some cities could lose income under the legislation, which limits franchise fees to 5 percent of gross revenue
plus another 1 percent to cover the cost of local access channels. While those are common rates, a number of communities collect
more. Any fee reduction could force them to cut local programming.
Many cities and school districts also receive special hookups as part of deals with cable TV firms. Dearborn
schools, for example, aren't billed for a fiber optic link to the offices of the Wayne County Regional Educational Services
Agency several miles away. Other cities aren't charged for cable TV service to city offices.
Dearborn Heights Mayor Dan Paletko said the city stands to lose about $2 million annually in fees, he said.
"In my community, that is overwhelming," Paletko said.
Others critics say the proposed rule changes would give firms too much leeway to choose who they would serve,
fearing they would pick wealthy areas over poor ones.
"I'm losing sleep at night (and) my stomach turns. I'm very concerned," said Kathy Sherman, cable manager
for Southfield.
