Save Access

from: Callahan's Diary

Foley pushes SB 117 amendments to prevent digital abandonment, create state broadband partnership

I mentioned the other day that there are a few dozen amendments proposed for Senate Bill 117, the state video/broadband franchising bill, as it nears final House markup… possibly as soon as next Tuesday.

Four of those amendments are being proposed by Rep. Mike Foley, whose 14th House District includes the far West Side of Cleveland and a few adjacent suburbs.

Two of Foley’s proposals are small but significant changes to the bill’s anti-redlining language. One would change the definition of “low income household” from a flat $35,000 to 150% of the Federal poverty level (that’s $31,000 in 2007). The second would eliminate low-income access percentages as a legal defense against charges of racial discrimination by a video/broadband provider.

The other two Foley amendments are aimed at bigger targets.

1. No abandonment. Under the bill passed by the Senate, a cable company that switches from its local franchise to a state Video Service Authorization is no longer bound by any requirement of the old franchise to provide community-wide access. In effect, this is a license to abandon less profitable communities. Foley’s amendment would require such a company to continue to provide service everywhere it does under its local franchise, for the entire ten years of its initial Video Service Authorization.

2. Connect Ohio. Foley’s fourth amendment requires the state’s Office of Information Technology to set up a public/private partnership that includes several state agencies as well as local governments, telecom companies and unions, community technology centers and other community nonprofits, farm groups, etc. This “Connect Ohio” partnership (modeled to some extent on Connect Kentucky) would have the following responsibilities:

(a) Creating a geographic statewide inventory of high speed internet service and other relevant telecommunications and information technology services. The inventory shall:

i. Identify geographic gaps in high speed internet service through a method of GIS mapping of service availability and GIS analysis at the census block level; and

ii. Provide a baseline assessment of statewide high speed internet deployment in terms of percentage of households with high speed internet availability.

iii. Provide annual updates to these data;

(b) Tracking statewide residential and business adoption of high speed internet, computers, and related information technology; identifying barriers to adoption; and measuring progress on these data annually;

(c) Facilitating in each designated region the creation of a local technology planning team with members representing a cross section of the community, including but not limited to representatives of business, telecommunications unions, K-12 education, health care, libraries, higher education, community technology centers and other community-based organizations, local government, tourism, parks and recreation, and agriculture. Each team shall benchmark technology use across relevant community sectors, set goals for improved technology use within each sector, and develop a tactical business plan for achieving its goals, with specific recommendations for online application development and demand creation;

(d) Working collaboratively with high speed internet providers and technology companies across the state to encourage deployment and use, especially in underserved areas, through the use of local demand aggregation, mapping analysis, and the creation of market intelligence to improve the business case for providers to deploy; and

(e) Supporting and expanding community technology centers and other local and statewide initiatives to improve computer literacy, computer ownership and Internet access for disenfranchised populations across the state.

So, in essence, “Connect Ohio” would be the state’s strategic council for universal broadband access and digital inclusion. Compared to its Kentucky namesake, the partnership proposed by Foley is tied more closely to the state administration (thus, presumably, aligned with Governor Strickland’s “Broadband Ohio” commitments) and includes more grassroots representation, i.e. from the state’s 100+ nonprofit community technology centers. It also specifies the participation of telecom unions, which makes sense, since the Communications Workers of America has been “Connect Ohio”’s major proponent. (Cloning Connect Kentucky is a goal of CWA’s national Speed Matters campaign.)

There are biq questions the amendment doesn’t answer… the biggest being how “Connect Ohio” would be funded. (Connect Kentucky costs $3 million a year just to staff its mapping and community planning tasks.) But I think it’s a pretty good move nonetheless. The Governor needs a broad, diverse policy group to get his broadband strategy moving toward implementation. There are a lot of conflicting interests in this field; better to get them inside the tent talking to state policymakers and each other, rather than leave them outside slinging rocks at each other. And the better the information available to everyone, the more useful that discussion is likely to be.

****

Will any of Foley’s amendments actually get attached to SB 117 before it goes to the floor? I get the feeling it’s not out of the question.

But of course you could improve his odds by calling your State Rep and expressing your support.

Just do it before Tuesday.

---

SB 117: Amendments in the wings

The Ohio House Public Utilities Committee will meet tomorrow at 11 for what may be the final hearing on Senate Bill 117. They’re planning to take more testimony and mark up a final bill, so it’s likely to be a long day.

Various Committee members are planning to offer significant amendments. Here are a few I know about:

* Anti-abandonment. An amendment to require a cable company that switches to a state “Video Service Agreement” to continue serving the whole territory it was serving under its municipal franchise.
* Competition “trigger”. Several Reps whose districts are served by phone companies other than AT&T will try to preserve local cable franchising in communities where there’s no actual competition for video/broadband customers.
* I-Nets and public network services. There will be a proposal to preserve communities’ “institutional networks” and free public cable service agreements (schools, libraries, public safety, etc.) for some period of time.
* PEG channels and PEG fees. Local Voice Ohio has a number of proposals to mitigate the bill’s impact on public, educational and government access in situations where cable providers walk away from local franchise agreements. Examples: A local option to charge a dedicated PEG support fee (up to 2%) in addition to the 5% municipal franchise fee allowed by SB 117, and a requirement that VSAs keep all PEG channels in their basic service tiers.
* “Connect Ohio”: An amendment pushed by the Communications Workers, who are strong SB 117 advocates, to create an Ohio version of Connect Kentucky — a “public/private partnership” to promote more broadband deployment through in-depth, public access mapping and county-level broadband planning teams. This is CWA’s answer to the criticism that SB 117 does nothing to promote broadband deployment outside of AT&T’s mostly urban service area. The amendment will not include funding (a mistake, IMHO), but its version of “Connect Ohio” will be reasonably well aligned with the Governor’s Broadband Ohio strategy, so it could be a positive step.

That’s not all… the Committee will be asked to beef up the Commerce Department’s capacity to enforce the bill’s buildout and anti-redlining sections, and a couple of Committee members have their eye on the provision that allows Video Service Providers to appropriate private property.

Like I said, it’s going to be a long day. But some good may come of it. Stay tuned.

Update Tuesday evening: Apparently the Utilities Committee will not mark up the bill or do any voting tomorrow, after all. Word is that Committee members have more than thirty proposed amendments (some duplicative). So the Committee will take testimony tomorrow, and get to amendments and voting next week.