The Video Competition Act was legislation heavily lobbied by AT&T to smother local control over video providers under the guise of improved service and cheaper TV rates for consumers. This legislation was hyped by TV4US as the vehicle to create an open environment of competition between video services providers. Those cabinets represent the passage of the "Video Competition Act." Wisconsin consumers they insist, will finally have the chance to enjoy lower prices. Anywhere from 15% to 41% lower. Those cabinets supposedly also represent those lower rates.
So, the battle is over. AT&T won. TV4US now lists 17 video service providers signed up to compete for our TV-watching dollars. The city of Janesville is currently wired by Charter Cable and now is being measured and dressed for AT&T’s U-verse system.
The TV4US Website also has a nifty link still showing cable rate increases in Wisconsin. Say goodbye to that, right? I'm looking forward to TV4US presenting the new map reflecting the decline in our cable rates. I'm counting on the savings.
The big discussion surrounding At&T’s foray into Janesville should be about the future of community access channels (PEG) but instead is centered around the aesthetics and placement of those fiber-optic conversion cabinets. So, with competition being at the core of all of this activity, I have not heard the question: Can other communications companies also use these cabinets to supply digital services to their customers? And if not, will our city council plan for the future and take into account that another video provider might have to install their own cabinets in order to compete with this technology? Possibly side-by-side. Two, three or four cabinets? Perhaps up to seventeen? After all, wasn’t the legislation that greased the way for AT&T called the Video “Competition” Act?
What Real Video Competition Could Look Like
1 comment:
Yes, multiple video service providers (VSPs) can place their boxes in the public right-of-way. On the bright side, I guess, now that they don't need to offer their products to everyone in a community, you'll only see the new boxes in neighborhoods where ATT thinks they can attract customers who spend $120 or more a month on the bundle.
When reporters tried to corner ATT's reps on whether they'd lower prices, they hedged by saying they'd offer "better service." Indeed, surveys in states where similar video competition laws were passed has shown that although you might see an early drop in prices as they enter the markets, prices climb right back into line soon after that.
For PEG channels as well as municipalities who've now lost local control, the toughest part of a new law like this is that there are weak spots, loopholes and glaring absences. The new law gives very little room for state oversight, either. Allowing ATT to rewrite this law was a very poor approach. It would've been far more fair to bring all the parties to the table, hear each other's grievances, and work towards a compromise that updated the old law for new technologies. ATT and the legislators they bought with campaign contributions didn't like that approach, though.
Post a Comment