Thomas Veil
Apr 4, 2007, 09:57 AM
Coming soon to a state near you: a bill designed (by AT&T, no less) to weaken cities' ability to regulate cable franchises.
When this was passed by Michigan’s Republican legislature and signed by Governor Granholm, a Democrat, in December, I wrote: “The Michigan law is very likely to provide the template for similar legislation in the Ohio General Assembly early next year.”
And here it is, right on schedule.
Introduced quietly on Thursday in the shadow of the Governor’s budget rollout, Ohio Senate Bill 117 closely resembles its Michigan sibling, HB 6456… as it should, because it has the same parent, AT&T, and the same goal, which is to eliminate the last traces of local community power over private corporations’ use of public rights of way to deliver video and broadband services....
What will happen if SB 117 becomes law?
Yes, AT&T will accelerate its rollout of its version of broadband video service in more “high value” (dense, middle to upper income) markets where it already offers DSL service. Those communities will have no say in the matter (e.g. over all those boxes popping up on tree lawns) but they will get to collect a 5% franchise tax. This will be seen by some local officials as the Second Coming.
Meanwhile, existing cable providers will stop talking to local governments, having no further reason to do so. Where franchises expire (as is now the case with Time Warner in Cleveland), the cable companies will go to the state Commerce Director for pro forma approval of new ones — standard ten year terms, no more citywide service obligations, no more demands for special services to municipal and school facilities, no more requirements to support community media access and technology programs, no negotiation of any kind. Where a franchise remains in effect, the cable company can walk away whenever it chooses, and “no provision of that franchise or agreement is enforceable” by the community. (You may want to file this for future reference under Sacredness Of Contracts.)
Has your cable company agreed to pay a fee to support “PEG” (public, educational and government) access television facilities, as in Cincinnati? That agreement will be unenforceable. (Incidentally, this is a major comedown from the Michigan law, which allows cities to preserve their existing public access support fees, or impose new ones up to 1% of cable revenue.)
Has your cable company agreed to offer digital cable service — which is necessary for broadband Internet access — to households in every neighborhood, no matter how poor? That agreement will be unenforceable. (“Nothing in sections 1332.21 to 1332.35 of the Revised Code shall require a video service provider to provide access to video service within the entire video service area.”)
Has your cable company agreed to provide free or discount service to municipal buildings, schools, libraries, and nonprofits? Or senior citizen discounts? That agreement will be unenforceable...
In return for all this “reform”, AT&T agrees to do exactly what it most wants to do — deploy its brand of video/broadband service to lots of the same Ohio households that already have (and can afford) competitive broadband access in the form of DSL and cable modem service.
Such a deal.Free Press (http://www.freepress.net/news/21809)
Ohio is a very Republican state, so as the article goes on to say, the skids are well-greased.
Incidentally, those "boxes popping up on tree lawns" are literally the size of refrigerators, and it's already been determined that AT&T has the right-of-way, even on the homeowner's own treelawn. So when this comes to your state, you'd better hope it's not your treelawn.
But then, you didn't really want the right to decide what does or doesn't go on in your community anyway, did you?
God I love deregulation. :mad:
When this was passed by Michigan’s Republican legislature and signed by Governor Granholm, a Democrat, in December, I wrote: “The Michigan law is very likely to provide the template for similar legislation in the Ohio General Assembly early next year.”
And here it is, right on schedule.
Introduced quietly on Thursday in the shadow of the Governor’s budget rollout, Ohio Senate Bill 117 closely resembles its Michigan sibling, HB 6456… as it should, because it has the same parent, AT&T, and the same goal, which is to eliminate the last traces of local community power over private corporations’ use of public rights of way to deliver video and broadband services....
What will happen if SB 117 becomes law?
Yes, AT&T will accelerate its rollout of its version of broadband video service in more “high value” (dense, middle to upper income) markets where it already offers DSL service. Those communities will have no say in the matter (e.g. over all those boxes popping up on tree lawns) but they will get to collect a 5% franchise tax. This will be seen by some local officials as the Second Coming.
Meanwhile, existing cable providers will stop talking to local governments, having no further reason to do so. Where franchises expire (as is now the case with Time Warner in Cleveland), the cable companies will go to the state Commerce Director for pro forma approval of new ones — standard ten year terms, no more citywide service obligations, no more demands for special services to municipal and school facilities, no more requirements to support community media access and technology programs, no negotiation of any kind. Where a franchise remains in effect, the cable company can walk away whenever it chooses, and “no provision of that franchise or agreement is enforceable” by the community. (You may want to file this for future reference under Sacredness Of Contracts.)
Has your cable company agreed to pay a fee to support “PEG” (public, educational and government) access television facilities, as in Cincinnati? That agreement will be unenforceable. (Incidentally, this is a major comedown from the Michigan law, which allows cities to preserve their existing public access support fees, or impose new ones up to 1% of cable revenue.)
Has your cable company agreed to offer digital cable service — which is necessary for broadband Internet access — to households in every neighborhood, no matter how poor? That agreement will be unenforceable. (“Nothing in sections 1332.21 to 1332.35 of the Revised Code shall require a video service provider to provide access to video service within the entire video service area.”)
Has your cable company agreed to provide free or discount service to municipal buildings, schools, libraries, and nonprofits? Or senior citizen discounts? That agreement will be unenforceable...
In return for all this “reform”, AT&T agrees to do exactly what it most wants to do — deploy its brand of video/broadband service to lots of the same Ohio households that already have (and can afford) competitive broadband access in the form of DSL and cable modem service.
Such a deal.Free Press (http://www.freepress.net/news/21809)
Ohio is a very Republican state, so as the article goes on to say, the skids are well-greased.
Incidentally, those "boxes popping up on tree lawns" are literally the size of refrigerators, and it's already been determined that AT&T has the right-of-way, even on the homeowner's own treelawn. So when this comes to your state, you'd better hope it's not your treelawn.
But then, you didn't really want the right to decide what does or doesn't go on in your community anyway, did you?
God I love deregulation. :mad:
