Save Access

Note: An op-ed piece placed by a AT&T consultant

from: Madison.com

OPINION Letters to the Editor
Joe Mettner: Video bill is pro-consumer and supports public access

Joe Mettner — 11/05/2007 7:42 am

The Wisconsin Video Competition Act has deservedly attracted strong support from the public and legislators because the bill is pro-consumer. The recent column on the bill by John Nichols contained many serious inaccuracies that need correction. While relatively rare to read this extent of factual license in Nichols' columns, the record should be set straight concerning the purpose, content and effects of the video legislation.

First, the video franchise legislation aims to provide consumers a choice in video service providers, and in selecting bundled packages of broadband, video and telecommunications services. The consuming public favors video service competition by large margins.

Despite the unfounded claims of some, neither the purpose nor the effect of the video franchise legislation is to consolidate control over communications in Wisconsin, undermine consumer protections, threaten public access channels, or do away with basic standards for service -- quite the opposite, in fact. Similar legislation has passed in 18 other states by overwhelming bipartisan majorities. Several legislative chambers and a few states have passed versions of video franchise legislation unanimously.

Second, any fears that the bill might compromise consumer protection, standards of service, and the future of public access channels are misplaced in light of the achievements that legislative negotiations have produced in these areas. If the bill should pass in its current form, all video service providers, including cable television providers, telecommunications companies, and even satellite video providers would be subject to the stringent requirements of the current and successful Cable Subscribers' Bill of Rights. These include tough service standards for minimum times required for service installation, repair and restoration; time benchmarks for the responsiveness of customer call centers; and mandatory customer credits for time out of service. These are solid legal standards of service quality and guarantee that competition does not come at the expense of consumer protection.

In addition, the enhanced competition that the bill encourages will force providers to give the best possible service or face losing customers to competitors.

Similarly, the negotiated legislation requires video service providers to continue to collect and give to municipalities 5 percent of gross revenues from customers. Providers would also be required to continue to carry public access channels and mirror financial support provided to existing channels for up to three years or until current franchises expire. Video service providers would also be required to extend free transport of public access programming signals, at their substantial expense, which was an amendment agreed upon to respond to concerned municipalities.

Finally, the statewide video franchise legislation has been the subject of thorough hearings before standing committees in the Senate and Assembly, as well as the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee and the full Assembly, through which dozens of amendments have been considered, and in some cases adopted. It is time that the bill receive the approval of the Legislature, so that customers might begin to receive the substantial benefits of the competition it will bring.

Joe Mettner served on the Wisconsin Public Service Commission from 1996 to 2003. He is an attorney and principal of Found Lake Consulting, whose clients include AT&T Wisconsin.

Joe Mettner — 11/05/2007 7:42 am

Community Comments

Mon. Nov. 5, 2007 11:44 am

snowbeltliberal says:

'Joe Mettner ... is an attorney ... whose clients include AT&T Wisconsin.' says it all.

Joe, do you understand that no thinking individual should trust anything that you have to say about this bill?

Joe, you may really be telling the truth here but the behavior of the legal profession and this state's legislature in recent years leaves someone writing from your position zero credibility with the public.

How do I know that you are not lying on behalf of the powerful corporation that you represent? Other people in your position have told bigger lies on this paper's editorial page.
back to top
level-1 comment
Community Comments

Mon. Nov. 5, 2007 6:50 pm

John Foust says:

Of course we all want competition and choices. There are no exclusive monopolies. There's no obstacle within existing practices for ATT to enter any city on the same playing field as any incumbent provider. Any city's hands are bound by Federal law: they must offer the same terms to all comers. So why does ATT want to change the playing field?

If this bill - as-is - supported public access channels, then why is the Wisconsin Association of Public Access Channels opposed to it? See www.saveaccesswisconsin.org for their side of the story.

For one example, the bill wouldn't allow for adding or creating any new public access channels in growing cities like Johnson Creek. Why is that a good thing?

All the land-line-based video and telecom providers should be judged in the same way, under the same rules, under laws negotiated fairly and after listening to all concerned parties. Their businesses are using the public rights-of-way, and it's fair for cities to want local control over wires and digging. Laws shouldn't be created just because ATT says so, and laws shouldn't be drafted by ATT lobbyists, as the sponsors of this bill allowed to happen in Wisconsin.

What Wisconsin needs is the Illinois version of this sort of 'video competition' law.

back to top
level-1 comment
Community Comments

Tue. Nov. 6, 2007 9:47 am

John Q. Public says:

'Providers would also be required to continue to carry public access channels and mirror financial support provided to existing channels for up to three years or until current franchises expire.'

Up to three years - and then what? Nothing.

You call that 'support?'

What if your employer promised to pay you for up to the next three years? What if your life insurance policy covered you for up to three years? What if your wife had promised at the altar to love, honor, and cherish you for up to three years?

Do any of those sound like supportive situations to you? Video franchises under this bill last forever - and you're talking about three years.

Thank you for making our point for us - this bill is terrible. Your bosses at AT&T settled for better in Illinois and other states. If our legislators have any integrity at all, they'll insist you do the same in Wisconsin.
back to top
level-1 comment
mikee

Tue. Nov. 6, 2007 12:43 pm

'Finally, the statewide video franchise legislation has been the subject of thorough hearings'

Yeah right. I was at the supposed 'Public Hearing' on this bill. The only people who got listened to were from AT&T or the Cable Companies. That's pretty much the way it's worked all the way down the line.
back to top
level-1 comment
Community Comments

Tue. Nov. 6, 2007 1:15 pm

says:

When AT&T say 'Jump', Wisconsin asks 'How high?'

I still don't understand why we need a bill to evoke video competition? A. no city can deny another video service provider from entering their service area. B. There is already competition in the market and the current video service providers don't seem to care much about it, especially in the form of lower prices, better service, or quality programming options.

I'm excited about the possibility of calling DATCP for my complaints about video service providers and eagerly waiting for a result. Also, as a tax payer in the state of Wisconsin, I really can't wait until we need to raise taxes on everyone, so we can pay for some over site of these wonderful, consumer carrying video service providers.

After the first year, if all the 50 applicants speculated do actually apply, there is no money to cover the $100,000 cost for DFI. This seems like the bedrock of solid thinking.

I just keep wondering to myself, what are we getting...more competition for TV...AWESOME I can't wait. I'm sure that's going to keep the cost down, the customer service high, the programming is going to be non-stop wall to wall award winning. I mean people love Charter, TW, Dish, and Direct TV, what would a few more Big Business do to muck up the water. And let's not forget AT&T is always at the for-front of consumer protections, and corporate citizenship, as well as Charter and the rest of the video service providers.

I'm sure that once this bill passes, Charter and Time Warner are going to go right out the their headends and add the Big Ten Network, and NFL Network.

The best part of the whole stupid bill, is the only people who are really pushing for this bill are lobbyist, lawyers, and politicians...some of our great citizens.

It's hard to sleep I'm so excited over all these upcoming changes. YEAH!