Save Access

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Joe Fivas – MML
Monday, May 8, 2006 (517) 485-1314
Dave Bertram – MTA
(517) 321-6467

Michigan communities to AT&T: Can you hear us now?

Phone giant fails to respond to more than 600 invitations and resolutions throughout state asking AT&T to sign local franchise agreements and compete for cable TV customers.

LANSING — The Michigan Municipal League (MML) and the Michigan Townships Association (MTA) today formally requested a response from AT&T to more than 600 invitations and resolutions issued by local communities and communities represented by local authorities throughout the state, asking the telephone giant to sign local franchise agreements and compete fairly for cable television customers. These communities and authorities represent approximately 60 percent of Michigan’s population.

“Local communities are ‘open for business’ and the only thing stopping AT&T from entering Michigan’s cable market is AT&T. AT&T says it wants to do business in Michigan, but it has ignored local communities across Michigan that have welcomed the company to sign a local franchise agreement and begin offering cable television and broadband service within a matter of days,” said David Bertram, a legislative liaison for the Michigan Townships Association.

“We call on AT&T to explain to Michigan consumers why AT&T is withholding local competition by not signing local franchise agreements and why they don’t want to serve ‘low-value’ residents as they told their Wall Street investors,” said Joe Fivas, assistant director of state affairs for the Michigan Municipal League. AT&T told its Wall Street investors when rolling out their video product that they were going to serve 90 percent of ‘high value’ residents, and serve only 5 percent of ‘low-value’ residents.

“Local franchise agreements ensure all families and businesses in a community have an opportunity to purchase cable telecommunications services, and also helps to ensure local consumer protection measures are enforced,” Fivas said.

The request by the MML and MTA was announced before Mr. Ed Whitacre, AT&T Chairman and CEO was scheduled to deliver a speech on Monday, May 8, to the Detroit Economic Club touting why local cable franchising should be eliminated. As Whitacre spoke, a 10-foot-tall, 20-foot-wide mobile billboard circled outside The Masonic Temple in Detroit with the message “AT&T: Why won’t you call us back? — Michigan’s communities.”

Whitacre also was expected to discuss during the speech his support of Michigan Senate Bill 1157, and House Bill 5895, which would eliminate local cable franchising, and would allow AT&T to bypass, on a street by street basis, serving ‘low-value’ residents which are those that buy less than $110 per month in telecommunication services.

The Detroit City Council, the Wayne County Board of Commissioners, the Michigan Legislative Black Caucus, the Conference of Western Wayne County, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, the Detroit Council of Black Pastors and Grand Valley Metro Council in West Michigan have joined hundreds of local communities in adopting resolutions urging lawmakers to reject any legislation that would discriminate against cable TV consumers, or interfere with local economic development efforts.

“Michigan is a great state that is proud of having many diverse communities that are responsible for identifying and meeting local residents’ needs. It’s clear that Michigan’s locally elected officials are fighting for the right of all community residents to get more competition, not who AT&T deems as ‘high value’ residents. We believe everybody matters,” Fivas said.

The statewide cable franchise legislation backed by AT&T could allow them to discriminate against anyone who buys less than $110 per month in telecommunication services, which would primarily discriminate against senior citizens, minorities, fixed-income and rural citizens by promoting redlining and cherry-picking, Bertram said.

“Without local franchise agreements, cable providers will be unaccountable to the communities they are supposed to serve,” Bertram added. “Franchise agreements level the playing field so that all companies play by the same set of rules.”