JG Excerpt:Americans have heard this before many times and have clearly bought into the same corporate sales pitch offered by giants like Wal-Mart. People just naturally think competition means lower prices, but unfortunately we live in different economic times now. Businesses nowadays sell for the highest price the market will bear, not the lowest. We are all willing participants in an economy driven by the GOP growth mantra, a supply side pressure philosophy riding high under the banner of Federal tax cuts, privatization, outsourcing and competition at the expense of the very same people they have convinced will share in the resulting newfound wealth.
Supporters say competition would provide consumers with alternatives, reduce cable bills and save consumers money. -- Paul Williams
Cable Debate:
The proponents of the bill were associated with AT&T, their lobbyists, large business organizations like WMC, or the unions of workers who'd get the jobs associated with new video build-outs.
This video debate has been largely absent from the Wisconsin blogosphere. – John Foust
While Democrats and most of the Left are protesting the Iraq War and thinking of ways to impeach George W. Bush, the right in the meantime have been pushing local referendums and lobbying state governments with bills that will do two things - increase local taxes and fee’s for the masses and create record profits for the few. This is what will happen if they pass Wisconsin bills SB 107 and AB 207.
JG Excerpt:But even if the bills fail which they should, the problems resulting from contracts that permit a business full monopolistic rights must be changed. This is perhaps what is at the heart of the problem.
Under current law, a company that wants to serve a Wisconsin community generally must negotiate a cable franchise agreement with the community. Janesville has a franchise agreement with Charter Communications. -- Paul Williams
Cable Competition:But is that true? According to Councilman Williams, cable providers could waltz right in, sign an agreement and set up shop overnight - WITHOUT the bill.
The bill would eliminate the monopoly that cable companies currently enjoy, and give Wisconsin's TV consumers a real choice.
JG Excerpt:But if these franchise agreements do not have built-in exclusion laws that prohibit a competitor from entering the community, why haven’t others like AT & T entered? My other question is why can’t others just split the costs and demands of the original franchise agreement? Certainly, I know things are not this simple, but if competition is inevitable, local communities should strive to accommodate the profiteers on our own terms and not have them dictated to us by lobbyists.
"Another video service provider could come into Janesville right now and sign a franchise agreement with us, and we'd be more than happy to do that," – Paul Williams, Janesville Council
JG Excerpt:Cable companies will have to pay the same studio royalties and right-of-way fee's no matter how many providers are in town, and if the customer base is split up, each cable company will be doing accounting, service fleets and programming in perpetual duplication and redundancy. Expect higher prices.
And what about your monthly cable TV charges? The proposed legislation prohibits both the DFI and municipalities from regulating video and cable service rates in a competitive environment. Has competition from satellite TV reduced your cable TV rates? -- Williams
I agree with Williams and Foust, lets hope the Video Competition Act is defeated outright or at the minimum, completely restructured to protect local control and free access community channels. But lower prices resulting from competition? Nonsense!
Learn more - get involved!!
2 comments:
Thank you for extending the discussion! Just to confuse the issue, I think AT&T loves this bill because they plan to be exempt from it. The Sheboygan Press points out that AT&T wants to carve out an exemption for themselves in this bill just because they happen to use "Internet protocol". There's a clause in the bill that exempts any video provider who happens to use "Internet protocol" to deliver the video stream. If the cable law from 30 years ago made the mistake of using the word "cable", then this law makes a similar mistake by differentiating on the basis of protocol. Who cares what data format a provider chooses to use?
If AT&T is using flexible computer-like protocols to deliver its video signal, then it should be far easier for them to sell channels ala carte. For that matter, any digital video delivery mechanism could do that, if it's smart enough to let me buy pay-per-view events. Charge me by the minute, by the channel, by the program. But that might mean consumers would pay less for what they actually watch, as opposed to whatever bundle they'd prefer to sell me. It's not about choice or savings like the ads say. It's about being able to harvest $1200-1500 a year from you for the bundled service of telephone, television and Internet.
I think it's more reasonable to continue to base the law on the use of the public's right-of-way. That's why decades of telecom court decisions and state laws found it found it reasonable for cities to be able to ask for benefits in exchange for private companies profiting from the use of public right-of-ways. If you're using the public's property for your wires, there's a tax and we might even ask you to carry a couple PEG channels. The alternative is what? That private companies get to use the poles and dig up our streets for free?
Local control is about what happens to your streets, medians, alleys and crossings. This state-level franchising bill eliminates the right of your local City Hall to control where AT&T puts its closet-sized boxes in your neighborhood. (See the City of Geneva, IL web for an example.)
This bill also changes the definition of the revenues that are taxed, meaning your city will receive 10-20% less in franchise fee revenue. This money is either being used for general spending or for your PEG channel. Again it will be a tax versus services debate at your City Council. If this bill passes and your city loses a few hundred thou, what will be cut from your city services? It may not be only funding for a public access channel.
Hey, John. Thanks for visiting.
I can't help but think that one way or another we should have up to ten competing media/communications providers in every town. The digitalization of the carrier format through fiber optics or even through wireless technology is either here already or on its way. The Video Act has "Ma Bell" written all over it, this is much than people are being led to believe. But the "lower costs through competition" seems to hook'em every time.
Post a Comment