Save Access

from: Hometown Life

Mayor wants to know why Knollenberg voted for cable bill

BY STACY JENKINS
STAFF WRITER

Farmington Hills Mayor Vicki Barnett wants to know why U.S. Rep. Joe Knollenberg, R-9th District, voted for U.S. House Bill 5252, the cable franchising bill known as the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006.

Barnett sent a letter June 26 to Knollenberg, on behalf of the Southwest Oakland Cable Commission, the Michigan Municipal League and the city of Farmington Hills. She posed eight specific questions relating to his vote "to federalize video franchising and access programming, reduce local government revenue and limit local rights-of-way authority."

ADVERTISEMENT

The COPE bill is a re-write of the federal telecommunications act that supporters say would increase competition by allowing telephone companies to provide video and cable services without local franchise agreements. Knollenberg said the legislation would "create competition, lower prices for consumers and meet consumer demand while preserving local authority."

Barnett disagrees, calling Knollenberg's response a bunch of platitudes.

"This (response) letter still does not address our specific questions," she told Knollenberg staffers during a heated discussion at Monday's council meeting.

Barnett asked why Knollenberg voted to support federal legislation that she said would:

# Federalize all issues relating to public educational and governmental channel capacity and funding.

# Create incentives to multi-billion dollar companies by reducing revenue presently paid to local government.

# Create a special set of rules for video companies' use of public rights of way, that do not apply to any other utility or other users of the rights of way.

And, why he believes:

# Michigan's consumers' interests can best be addressed by the state Public Utilities Commission or the FCC, as opposed to their local governments.

# The FCC is the proper entity

to determine consumer protections for Michigan communities.

# It is appropriate that local governments could not defend themselves in local court, but instead must hire counsel to go to Washington, D.C., before the FCC to defend their case.

# Michigan's telecommunications act, known as the Metro Act is a failure.

# He supports legislation that "eliminates a local government's rights to require private entities using local government property to serve all members of our communities."

Knollenberg is the only congressional member from southeast Michigan to vote in favor of the COPE Act. Reps. John Conyers, John Dingell, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Dale Kildee, Thaddeus McCotter and Candice Miller voted against the bill.

Knollenberg said he voted for the bill to protect consumers, increase competition and allow advanced technology to be readily available.

"This will help strike a balance between emerging technologies that are taking place and consumer protection," said Shawn Ciavattone7, district field director for Knollenberg. "I think consumers in the 9th District are going to benefit from this legislation."

Barnett said it seems Knollenberg has sided with big business on this bill, because the provisions for national franchise fees of 1-5 percent would only apply to cable providers. AT&T, for example, is expressly not considered a cable provider and would not be subject to the rules and fees contained in the Act.

There is no specific requirement that all citizens of a community would be offered the same services from the providers, Barnett noted. She is also concerned about the fate of public access TV and government access channels.

Ciavattone said while the bill passed the House, 321-101, June 8, the issue is far from being resolved. The Senate will take up its version of the legislation, then a draft Senate bill will go to conference.

"This is not the end of the story on this bill," he said.

He defended Knollenberg's decision to vote in favor of the COPE Act.

"Congressman Knollenberg stood up for consumers in this vote," he said. "The congressman voted for this legislation because he wanted to see that consumers are protected."

Barnett, on behalf of the council, said she expects a more thorough response from Knollenberg.

sjenkins@hometownlife.com | (734) 953-2131

Originally published July 27, 2006