from: Uncommon Sense TV [1]
Information on Ohio Senate Bill SB 117 and State Video Franchising
April 24th, 2007
by Andy in Media and Democracy
A briefing on SB 117 [2] from Walter & Haverfield’s client newsletter
If enacted as written, Ohio Senate Bill 117 (S.B. 117), introduced on March 15, 2007, will have a tremendous negative impact on every municipality, township, and school district in Ohio. S.B. 117 takes away the right of Ohio’s municipalities and townships to require cable franchise agreements from cable operators and/or telephone companies. But this Bill would not only prohibit local governments from negotiating new agreements or extending existing ones; in fact, it would permit operators to abandon their existing franchise agreements at any time after the legislation becomes effective
Interesting in that I have heard that according to the Ohio Municipal League, AT&T has hired all the available lobbyists in the Columbus area, whether they use them or not, just so that nobody else can. I believe this is quite likely true, as they did the same thing when pushing state video franchising in California last year. The telcos hired literally thousands of lobbyists, and there were times where the state capital building had more lobbyists from AT&T in it at any one time than there were actual legislators.
Ohio Senate Bill SB 117’s Siblings
Here are some informative press reports on various state video franchising battles taking place throughout America. Though these articles are in reference to different states, they are all highly relevant to each other and especially to the issues at hand here in Ohio because they are all for all intents and purpose the same legislation as Ohio Senate Bill SB 117. This is because they are emanating from the same source…AT&T…who is sponsoring a national campaign to promote this legislation throughout the nation. They all have the same hallmark characteristic of changing the rules in order to dramatically increase the allowance for private corporations to use the public commons for private profit.
Same issues, same concerns, different states, such as here in Florida….
Boca To State: Stop Messing Around In Local Business [3]
Wisconsin’s got its own version….
Loss of Public Access TV Not Worth Deregulation [4]
Bill Would Kill City Cable Channel [5]
And from Iowa….
This from former FCC Commissioner Nicholas Johnson, one of only TWO former FCC commissioners in the history of that regulatory body (established in the 1930’s) not to come from or go to lucrative positions in the industry it was established to regulate…
Qwest can already offer cable-television service. But it wants more.
It wants to write the rules, and with state, not community, franchises.
So it gave over $79,000 to Iowa legislators during 2005-06. Its industry PAC gave another $86,000. And the Iowa Senate gave the company what it wanted.
We don’t assume anything’s amiss. We trust our legislators. But we also follow President Ronald Reagan’s advice: “Trust, but verify.”
Why tilt the playing field to favor one industry?
Because, we’re told, the bill’s good for us. Competition lowers prices. Really? Qwest lobbies legislators to reduce its prices and profits? I don’t think so. As AT&T’s CEO told Wall Street, “it’s going to be a war of value and services,” not prices.
The data are slightly mixed. But most show it’s tough local regulation, not competition, that lowers prices — the very regulation this bill undermines.
Read his complete post - Rein In Prices By Keeping Tough Local Regulation [6]