NEWS
Cable bill garners support
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Jessi Polsky:
- Democrats pick up control in state Assembly (November 5, 2008)
- Beyond our borders (October 29, 2008)
- Woes on Wall Street (October 2, 2008)
- New assistant dean to aid veterans (September 16, 2008)
- Wiley leaves with a bang (September 16, 2008)
Related Stories:
- State wants control of cable (March 12, 2007)
- Mayor dislikes cable proposal (November 13, 2007)
- Cable bill reaches governor's office (December 13, 2007)
- Cable bill could turn off city public access channels (April 20, 2007)
- Assembly to pass cable bill, try to up competition (May 8, 2007)
Share This:
by Jessi Polsky
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
A committee of legislators heard testimony Tuesday concerning a bill that would transition control over video franchises in Wisconsin to state government.
The bill aims to increase competition within the cable television market throughout the state by encouraging multiple companies to provide cable access to Wisconsin citizens.
The bill, authored by state Rep. Phil Montgomery, R-Green Bay, addresses about 1.6 million cable customers in the state.
At the public hearing, Montgomery said increased competition in the video franchise market would allow consumers to obtain the best product at a lowest cost.
"The bill is about consumers and choices," Montgomery said. "This is a simple issue. … Families all over the state of Wisconsin want options when it comes to their video service."
Scott VanderSanden, president of AT&T Wisconsin, wrote a statement to the committee, saying the bill would encourage competition that will bring more benefits to the consumer.
Tom Moore, executive director of the Wisconsin Cable Communications Association, said passing the bill would also create a level playing field for all providers.
"Anyone in Wisconsin can readily choose their provider," Moore said in an interview with The Badger Herald. "Do not choose a regulation that will lock today's technology in place because the market and technologies are constantly changing."
Moore said the video industry also constantly faces new competition through rapidly expanding technologies — mainly satellite and the Internet.
Janet Jenkins, administrator of the Division of Trade and Consumer Protection for Wisconsin, said the idea of competition created by the bill is a good one, in theory.
"The primary objective for this bill is to provide competition, which, in and of itself, is a good thing," Jenkins said. "However, not everyone has to or will have a competitor in every location in this state."
Smaller municipalities throughout the state may not be able to entice new cable providers, Jenkins added.
The bill also takes away consumer protections, which are safeguards currently granted to cable customers. If approved, cable companies will no longer be legally required to fix their product within 72 hours of receiving a complaint, nor will they have to give 30 days notice for fee increases.
"Many families will have the same provider they have now charging the same rates because there is not competition, yet will not have any consumer protections," Jenkins said.
Barry Orton, professor of telecommunications at the University of Wisconsin, said the bill aims to eliminate local franchises and replace them with a single statewide franchise — in which local governments would not have any authority.
He said passing the bill would result in an increase in taxes to make up for monies formerly made through franchise fees.
Orton said franchise fees — dollars paid by private companies to local governments in exchange for use of public rights-of-way — provide great benefits to the entire community.
"[Franchise fees] pay for services that benefit all citizens, who jointly own local rights of way," Orton said.
He added passing the bill will result in a decrease of the total amount of income from franchise fees and force many former cable customers to use a satellite product, thereby removing citizens — and income — from the franchise fee base altogether.
"The bill would achieve a 15-25 percent reduction in the franchise fee gross base," Orton said. "[It] will cause local property taxes to rise."
Anonymous (March 28, 2007 @ 11:35am):
i do anything to get rid of charter.
Anonymous (March 28, 2007 @ 4:20pm):
This article has the same photo as the Austin King/Lighting Efficieny piece.
But, that "Exit Sign" does seem appropriate for those folks who want to get rid of Charter.
kap (April 10, 2007 @ 12:46pm):
Is there any doubt that AT&T wrote the bill for Plale and Montgomery? It sounds like a great idea until you actually read the bill and find all the blatant anti-consumer provisions.
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 4:18pm):
Choiceless in America
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS "PROTECT THE INCUMBANT'S INVESTMENT"
"By managing the deployment as we do, we protect the incumbent's investment in existing infrastructure, we protect the public from unnecessary disruption to private business and to their safe use and enjoyment of the public right-of-way, and we ensure that new entrants are provided with unfettered access in a reasonable and timely fashion, while ensuring that they comply with all safety requirements. This system has worked well for cable, traditional phone and other providers for many years, and is necessarily performed by the local government."
-- Arvada Colorado Mayor Ken Fellman's Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet Wednesday, April 27, 2005 (Fellman is also a cable franchise lawyer and VP at NATOA)
"PROTECT THE INCUMBANT'S INVESTMENT", YOU BET THEY DO, SO WELL THAT YOUR CABLE BILL SHOT UP 93% INCREASE (1995-2005 FCC source)
WHY DO THEY JUST JACK UP THE TV BILL
Comcast is raising the price of the average metro-area customer's cable bill by 6.9 percent starting March 1, yet they held the line on prices for high-speed Internet and phone services. -- RMNews January 2007
THEY "PROTECT THE INCUMBENT'S INVESTMENT", THAT MEANS NO COMPETITION. RESULT FOR YOU IS A 93% INCREASE IN YOUR CABLE BILL.
Comcast Profit Triples - Reuters, 2/1/07
How's that for a double whammy -- one week after Comcast announces a 7% increase for its captive cable customers, the cable monopoly announced record profits.
And as they rake in the cash and their executives get richer and richer, they fight every effort by their employees to get fair wages and benefits -- all the while milking customers for everything they got!
As American Rights At Work found in a special report, wages for Comcast's cable techs are a third lower than wages in traditional land-line telephone companies like at&t, where unions represent about three-fourths of the workers. Benefits are less generous and jobs are less secure, with annual turnover about twice as high.
Worse, Comcast fights tooth-and-nail to keep unions out, or decertify them once their in. Northwest Labor Press reports of a 37-page Comcast anti-union management training document that stated: "Comcast does not feel union representation is in the best interest of its employees, customers and shareholders."
But it gets worse. Comcast is waging war against union employees -- literally. During the AT&T days, unions made headway organizing in a handful of cities, including Beaverton, OR. But once Comcast acquired AT&T's cable systems they began to systematically dismantle union shops...and show union workers the door. In Beaverton, Comcast vice president Curt Henninger made the company's intentions crystal clear when he told commissioners in videotaped testimony: "I will tell you we are going to wage a war to decertify the CWA."
Cable is anti-consumer & anti-competition
Legislators must send them the message that their days of pillaging customers and exploiting workers are over.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
