Save Access

This Week's News

Ohio House Public Utilities Committee considers cable bill

Thursday, June 14, 2007

By MICHAEL J. MAURER
ThisWeek Staff Writer

A bill moving through the Ohio House of Representatives would supersede an estimated 1,400 cable franchise agreements in the state and instead would authorize the Ohio Department of Commerce to grant single, statewide video authorizations.

S.B. 117 already has been approved by the Ohio Senate and was the sole topic Tuesday before the House Public Utilities Committee. it would prohibit local governments from stopping cable providers from offering services and would stop renewals of current contracts that call for cable providers to subsidize "public access" channels, paying additional fees or providing equipment and support to government and educational-access television facilities.

State Sen. David Goodman (R-New Albany) was one of only four senators who thinks the bill is a mistake.

"There are some very good points to be made to allow these companies (lobbying for S.B. 117) to roll out their services with as little government intrusion as possible, to make Ohio as competitive as possible, having the communications infrastructure," Goodman said. "That's how it's been sold, and that's a good point. But I think we've proven we've been able to provide these services with the rules and regulations we currently have."

Goodman concedes, nonetheless, that he is in a minority and that the bill almost certainly will pass.

State Reps. Jay Hottinger (R-Newark) and Kevin Bacon (R-Minerva Park) said the bill will enable cable providers to invest in more equipment and to compete for customers.

"A number of states have already done this," Hottinger said. "It's the wave of the future, and it's a lot of investment in infrastructure. We're looking at upward of $100-million toward $1-billion in investment."

Bacon said the bill would ensure a faster pace of investment.

"You'll have a much more rapid buildout of the new technology," he said.

The bill requires cable providers to offer public-access channels to transmit any content provided by eligible government or educational institutions, but they no longer would be required to provide support for the production of video content.

Local governments would be allowed to impose a fee of up to 5 percent of the cable providers' gross revenues. According to legislative documents, the city of Columbus received more than $6-million annually in cable franchise fees from 2003 to 2005.

Other provisions of the bill are as follows:

# Cable operators would be given eminent-domain authority to condemn private property "when necessary to provide the (cable) service."

# The Ohio Department of Commerce would be prohibited from regulating prices or terms of service.

# Cable service could be denied to neighborhoods if the cable provider demonstrates that certain access percentage requirements are met based on the income levels of the households.

# Townships would no longer be allowed to enter cable agreements.

Goodman said one problem with the bill is that cable providers might not have to serve some communities that are served now, thus denying those residents access to services that should be considered basic utilities.

"There's a possibility that providers can cherry-pick communities that they want and not provide services to other communities they don't think would be as profitable," Goodman said. "I'm all for the free market, but ... when it comes to communications and cable television, I think people have come to expect certain types of services. It's more than a commodity. It's something people depend upon."