H 23°, L 4° | Tomorrow: 
H 22°, L 6°The Wisconsin State Assembly passed the Video Competition Act Tuesday night, making Gov. Doyle’s signature the last step before the bill becomes law.
If signed by Doyle, the bill will take the power to grant video franchises from local municipalities and place it in the hands of the state government.
The legislation was introduced to address issues in the cable industry stemming from technological advancements, Rep. Phil Montgomery, R-Ashwaubenon, said Wednesday.
"This landmark legislation will reform Wisconsin’s archaic cable franchising process by promoting competition, not stifling it, as the current process has done for years," Montgomery said in a statement.
Under current law, local municipalities maintain control over video franchises through revenue sharing agreements. Montgomery said this act will improve the existing system by "streamlining and centralizing the application process at the state level."
But George Twigg, spokesperson for Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz, said the mayor feels the legislation is unnecessary, adding Cieslewicz requested Doyle veto some aspects of the bill before signing it into law.
"It causes more harm than good," Twigg said. "Statewide legislation was not necessary."
Among other issues with the act passed by the Assembly, Twigg said it does not address public access programming.
"The bill would eliminate [public access programming] funding after three years," Twigg said. "The bill also does not really contain adequate consumer protection provisions."
Yet Montgomery said consumer protections would increase if the legislation becomes law because the act will lead to increased competition.
"Customer service will be enhanced as video service providers fight to retain existing customers and lure new customers," Montgomery said. "Competition will also translate into increased programming options."
Madison will also lose power if the bill passes, because "regulation of the city rights-of-way would be diminished under the bill," Twigg said.
Twigg said Doyle has indicated he will sign the legislation.
IP hash: 6139241e
who cares about public access channels anyway. i will be very happy once this is signed.
IP hash: 1b21f596
“who cares about public access channels anyway”
Exactly, First Amendment speech is meaningless in a country at perpetual war. Who cares about Free Speech anymore? And do we really care what’s going on in our schools or in our local town councils - hell no - not when we could be watching professional bumper pool on ESPN4 in HD. Besides, we might actually save $2-3 a month with AT&T’s service, though their customer support makes cable look like hand servants.
IP hash: 01e9d8c9
There must be competition in the cable industry. Public access tv is not anything but a joke. It’s what happens when money doesn’t drive results. It’s just a bunch of idiots learning how to use the camera’s zoom. The free market system will improve cable service for consumers.
IP hash: 1b21f596
In the 18 states where “state-wide video franchising” has passed, cable pricing has remained the same. Only introductory special pricing has created the appearance of lower pricing, but these expire in six months or less. In fact Verizon, which raised prices 7.5% last year, now projects a rate increase of 12% this year. The free market argument of “competition=lower prices” just doesn’t hold true, especially in the case of a duopoly where prices are easily fixed.
Local video franchising requirements never prevented competition, it was the industry that recognized that such overbuilding in cable systems was not cost effective or profitable. Only satellite TV competitors have been able to sustain a competitive model (since they need less infrastructure on the ground).
The only instances where competition in broadband cable TV services have demonstrated substantially lower pricing are in areas where municipalities themselves have begun offering such services - something to think about.
Finally, if Wisconsin passes this bill, within months the FCC will lift the last remaining price cap on cable TV - ‘basic cable’ rate regulation, which is still overseen by municipalities to ensure low-income families and seniors have affordable access to basic TV services. All other cable TV price regulation was lifted by Congress in the 96 Telecom Act. You can thank that Congress for your high cable prices.
In six months you’ll be reading about the millions in political donations that AT&T primed your state legislators with to get this bill passed. In a year you’ll start to see AT&T service rolled out (if you live in a fairly affluent community). Then you’ll discover that the prices are the same or higher and the service offerings the same or worse (AT&T’s roll-out has been dismal in other states). Then you might decide to address this injustice on a local public access program or at a televised city council meeting - only to discover that those channels and democratic media platforms no longer exist…
IP hash: 951dceb9
“There must be competition in the cable industry.”
Read the bill. What on God’s Green Earth is about competition in this bill? It’s written by AT&T and the Cable companies. For their exclusive benefit.
IP hash: 53a16d92
If things were fine the old way, I wouldn’t be paying charter an arm and a leg for an antiquated service. Internet Protocol television and fiber optic lines are the future, and charter will never move past their mid 90’s technology. I will pay the same price for a better service….