from: Shegoygan Press [1]
Community Conversations: Cable TV bill should match Illinois' new law
Posted August 12, 2007
By Curt Witynski
Wisconsinites deserve the same as Illinoisans when it comes to oversight of cable TV. Illinois recently passed a much more balanced cable bill than the industry drafted proposal currently before the Wisconsin Legislature. Wisconsin's "video competition" legislation, Assembly Bill 207, should contain the same consumer protections, public access television support, public rights-of-way safeguards, and benefits for property taxpayers as the new Illinois law.
Consumer protection
The Illinois law contains extensive customer service protections addressing all aspects of cable company practices, including billing and termination of service. In contrast, the Wisconsin bill is an effort at deregulation that includes only minimal consumer protections.
For example, the Illinois law allows customers to disconnect their service at any time within the first 60 days after subscribing or upgrading the service, without being subject to any fees, charges or penalties by the cable company. The Wisconsin bill doesn't address this consumer issue.
Also, in Illinois, the attorney general and local governments may enforce all customer service standards in response to complaints by local residents by imposing fines. The Wisconsin bill provides no penalties for violations of its slim service standards. All a state agency or municipality would be able to do in response to consumer complaints is file an action in circuit court asking the judge to force the cable company to comply with the law.
What's more, under the Illinois law, a cable provider must make an annual report to the state and local governments on how well it is complying with customer service standards. The report must identify the number and type of customer complaints the cable company received over the prior year. The Wisconsin bill contains no such requirement.
Support for public access TV
While the Wisconsin cable bill prohibits cable providers from contributing even a small amount toward the cost of operating municipal, school and public access channels, the Illinois law requires cable providers to help support such channels by paying municipalities a fee equal to 1percent of the cable company's gross revenues. This payment is in addition to the up to 5 percent franchise fee that both the Illinois law and Wisconsin bill require cable providers to pay municipalities.
Managing public rights-of-way
Both the Illinois law and Wisconsin bill allow municipalities to impose reasonable regulations on cable providers' use of the rights-of-way. However, while the Illinois law allows a municipality to charge cable providers right-of-way permit fees covering the cost of administering permits and inspecting any work done in the right-of-way, the Wisconsin bill prohibits municipalities from collecting such fees. The Wisconsin bill forces municipalities to recover the cost of managing cable providers' use of the rights-of-way exclusively from the franchise fee.
In-kind services
Under the Illinois law, all cable and video providers must provide free basic service to all current and future public buildings, including municipal offices, public libraries, and public schools. This is largely the practice now under municipal franchise agreements, and, like franchise fees, is part of the reimbursement cable companies make for using the rights-of-way for profitable gain. No similar requirement exists in the Wisconsin cable bill. Rather, the bill prohibits municipalities from making such a demand.
These are examples of what might be included in Wisconsin's cable legislation if it wasn't drafted exclusively by AT&T and the cable industry. Wisconsin's cable bill, if enacted without changes, is a gift to cable and telecommunications companies that will keep on giving.
The Wisconsin Senate should amend AB 207 to include reasonable regulations modeled after the Illinois law that protect consumers, support public access television, allow municipalities to effectively supervise use of the rights-of-way, and provide property taxpayers with benefits for allowing private, for-profit use of the public rights-of-way.
About the author: Curt Witynski is the assistant director of the League of Wisconsin Municipalities