Impact of bill on local TV worries councilman
Are happy days here again? Will competition force cable TV prices down and TV choices up?
Or will Wisconsin cities lose a valuable source of income? Will consumers have even less clout when it comes to getting the cable company to respond to their problems? Will the local cable-access TV stations disappear?
No one seemed to have the answers this morning, the day after the state Senate passed a bill that could change how local consumers get their TV service.
AT&T lobbied intensely for the bill and is expected to take advantage of is provisions.
Similar bills have been passed in 13 other states, but the promised benefits have not come true in those states, said Paul Williams, a Janesville City Council member who testified against the bill.
The Janesville city council opposed the bill. Williams said this morning that he worries that the $550,000 annual fee the city receives from Charter Cable will be cut back and that the local cable-access channels will have to shut down for lack of funding.
AT&T’s 15 lobbyists promised lower rates and more choices for consumers. AT&T spent $205,451 lobbying the bill through June 30, state records show.
“I doubt if (the lobbyists) are up there looking out for the consumer,” Williams said.
“This is not about choice, this is not about consumers. ... It’s about profit. It’s about big multinational corporations coming into Wisconsin,” said Sen. Jon Erpenbach, D-Middleton.
Erpenbach and Sen. Judy Robson, D-Beloit, voted against the bill. Sens. Neal Kedzie, R-Elkhorn, and Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, voted for it. The vote was 23-9.
The Senate rejected attempts to change the bill by bolstering consumer protections, helping fund community-access channels and keeping call-center jobs in Wisconsin.
“There are always winners and losers, but on the whole the big winners are residents of this state who want to be able to have competition when it comes to their video product,” said bill sponsor Jeff Plale, D-South Milwaukee.
The proposal passed the Assembly earlier. It does away with local cable TV franchise agreements. Instead, a single statewide lifetime license costing $2,000 a year would be issued.
The bill calls for local cable deals to remain in effect for three years. The state, instead of local governments, would oversee cable TV providers.
Gov. Jim Doyle has generally supported the proposal. He could sign it as early as December.
Nov 10, 2007 at 11:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mr Williams is worried about the loss of 550,000 to rhe city ! . Where does he think the money came from ? Out of our pockets , when we pay our cable bill, NOW maybe we can see a reduction on our Cable bill and not another HIDDEN tax. If the City Council really wants the Local Access channels-let them VOTE on it. HEY maybe we can trade the local access channels for the Big 10 Network??
Nov 9, 2007 at 11 p.m.
Suggest removal
The battle between the cable companies and the phone companies only serves to distract people from the fact that BOTH are doing a disservice to the public. City AND state regulation of tv franchises needs to acknowledge that today's technology allows for individual channel choice, rather than having to select from the tv signal providers padded packages and bundles.
============ New Paragraph ===============
Choosing between Charter or AT&T is like choosing between the Republican or Democratic party and voting a party ticket. Either choice includes too many bad channels and overpriced channels.
============ New Paragraph ===============
People should insist that local and state officials demand consumers be offered ala carte channel selection.
Nov 9, 2007 at 5:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
No Mr. Williams, the lobbyists are not looking out for consumers, but, neither are you. All you're trying to do is protect revenue from cable companies that might be kept by consumers instead. Then you may have to do that which politicians hate to do most, decrease spending or raise taxes, which is the only legitimate source for government revenue and much harder to conceal that fees from cable companies et al.
Nov 9, 2007 at 11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Prior to IL passing approval of AT&Ts new video service, my IL suburban town passed approval of allowing AT&T to offer their new service to residents. The approval came after many Board meetings with presentations by AT&T and negotiations between their counsel and our Village counsel. Although the AT&T service has not yet come online, many of their video service boxes have been installed throughout the community, all of which include landscaping, etc. In addition, we were allowed much input on the location of their boxes. Our franchise fee revenue rate from current cable vendor (Comcast), via State law, will not be affected. If actual revenue decreases it should be made up by the AT&T new revenue source. This is about giving residents a choice as well as creating competition. Prior to AT&T coming to our community, residents had two choices - cable and satellite. Comcast is ferociously preparing for AT&Ts entrance in to the video service arena by offering consumers huge reductions in package plans from their prior rates. Thusfar, in my opinion, offering AT&T has been a win/win for all.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.