State Democrats blocked Republican efforts in the Assembly and Senate Tuesday to pass legislation that aims to increase cable competition in Wisconsin. In the Democrat-controlled Senate, legislators voted along party lines to send the bill to the Joint Finance Committee, which handles bills with significant financial implications. "We have a rule that any bill that costs more than $10,000 gets referred to the Joint Committee on Finance," said Senate Majority Leader Judy Robson, D-Beloit, defending the motion. Joint Finance Committee co-chair Russ Decker, D-Weston, requested the referral as a matter of protocol since he said the bill would affect the finances of local municipalities. At its most basic level, the bill gives the state Department of Financial Institutions the power to grant statewide franchises to certain video service providers. Cable franchises — or revenue-sharing agreements — are currently handled by local governments. Supporters of the legislation say creating a single franchise will streamline the process and encourage video providers to enter new markets, increasing competition and reducing cable rates. Opponents say it will undermine funding of local access channels — most of which are funded by franchise agreements — and worsen customer service standards. After passing the utility committee of each legislative body last week, the bill would also extend cable consumer protection rights to satellite video providers, which have remained largely unregulated. Although estimates vary, one report prepared by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection — which, under the bill, would oversee all complaints by video service subscribers — said the bill could cost state and local governments $312,000. Arguing against the referral, Senate Minority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, said there has been plenty of discussion and public debate since the bill's introduction just more than a month ago. "At this point, it seems useless to send it to committee for hearing," Fitzgerald said. "I'm very concerned. … There's no assurance it may ever get a hearing." The Joint Finance Committee, composed of eight Democrats and eight Republicans, is currently deliberating its version of the state budget, a process that usually takes several weeks. On Tuesday, it was unclear whether Decker would place the video franchise bill on the committee's agenda before or after the budget's completion. In the Republican-controlled Assembly, Democratic legislators also pushed for the bill's referral to the Joint Finance Committee, but they were unsuccessful, as legislators voted along party lines. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, and others said passage of the bill would violate state statutes because legislation expected to have a financial impact of more than $10,000 might not be approved before the state budget. The new fiscal cycle does not begin until July 1, though the state budget may be approved before that date. "This bill is not properly before us today," said Pocan, a member of the Joint Finance Committee. "It's very clear that there's a fiscal impact." Between several hours of caucus recess and other informal breaks, the Assembly eventually made its way through nearly 30 amendments late Tuesday night, approving some proposals but rejecting most. After another hour of discussion, Republicans attempted to suspend procedural rules to pass the bill but were blocked by Assembly Democrats. Before voting against the procedural suspension at nearly 11 p.m., Rep. Gary Hebl, D-Sun Prairie, made his final remarks on the legislation. "It's really too complicated for us to just pass along. … We don't know how this bill is going to affect us, even after three weeks," Hebl said. "The work has to be done in committee. It can't be done on the floor."
News
Lawmakers delay cable bill decision
By Keegan Kyle
Wednesday, April 25, 2007 12:00 a.m.
Updated Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:43:49 a.m.
Top Classified Ads (view all)
Place your classified ad online and have it show up here. Your ad will hit thousands of viewers a day!
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Related stories:
- Decision could decrease competition in cable industry (March 19, 2002)
- Legislator calling for TV arbitration (October 31, 2007)
- Lawmakers target lobbyist deception (November 16, 2007)
- Mayor dislikes cable proposal (November 13, 2007)
- Lawmakers reinstate cable rights (April 18, 2007)
Also by Keegan Kyle:
- Bringing it all together (December 13, 2007)
- Recruiting isn't easy on campus (December 7, 2007)
- Doyle set to sign off on ethics (February 2, 2007)
- Volunteerism on the road (October 19, 2007)
- Down and dirty on campus sanitation (October 11, 2007)
3 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment



IP hash: 9217b27f
Typical. Democrats blocking passage of a bill that might add competition.
IP hash: e6849bb9
I’m not a democrat, but I’m glad this bill was delayed. Competition is needed, no doubt, but this billl has major flaws.
IP hash: 11e475b6
This bill does nothing to enrich the possibilities for competition for video services.
The reality is, for more than thirty years, there has been no significant obstacle for any video competitor to enter any of the more than 300 Wisconsin cities with an existing cable franchise. As per decades of FCC rulings, existing franchise agreements are non-exclusive, meaning any video provider has been free to enter these cities to offer competition. It’s not a hard process, especially for any huge telecom company. Franchise agreements are 99% similar from city to city. They often last a decade or more. Cities are required to offer the same terms to all comers. So have video providers chosen to compete with each other? No. You can’t snap your fingers and change the laws of economics or the reality of our markets.
Yesterday’s video providers didn’t like the prospect of sharing a market with a competitor. On average you’ll have about 75% of the households subscribing to an incumbent video service - probably coaxial cable-based. Enter a market with an existing video provider, and they’ll split the market at best. So how can this bill change that reality? It can’t. This bill eliminates local control and past requirements for build-out and offering a service to the entire community, meaning a new video provider is free to cherry-pick the richest neighborhoods where customers will pay more than $120 a month for a bundle of video, phone and Internet. In fact, that’s what AT&T has said it intends to do. This bill won’t make rural Wisconsin cities any more potentially profitable than they were yesterday.
This bill removes local control over the public right-of-way, too. If three video providers wanted to put fridge-sized boxes on the grass between your front lawn and the street, neither you, City Hall or Madison could do anything about it. Local franchising authority gives cities that local control over who’s digging where, who’s responsible when the sewer main is broken, and where they can place their equipment on the right-of-way. But this bill dispenses with all that unpleasant local control.
This bill also guts the mechanisms that have created hundreds of public access channels. These channels are run on a shoestring, bringing you local coverage that the big networks don’t touch. City council meetings, county board meetings, high school football games and plays - everything that’s special about your home town. The bill has a half-dozen loopholes to give new video providers reasons to never carry these channels. There’s no value in an informed electorate?