Save Access

from: Daily Cardinal

State Sen. Kathleen Vinehout explains why the cable competition bill should not be passed

The Daily Cardinal

Vinehout offers reasons to hold off now and wait for a better version of the bill

When you write the rules, you win the game. This week in the Senate, the fight will be over the rules governing the delivery of cable television, internet and telephone services for the foreseeable future. What kind of companies will get to compete? What rights will consumers have? Will local government have a say? At stake are billions of dollars.

The battle is over “video franchising,” a bill that would change the way cable and video companies operate. According to news stories, the bill was written under the supervision of AT&T attorneys in Washington D.C. and has been introduced in numerous other states across the country.

What are some of the rules that AT&T wants?

• No meaningful community input. • Minimal standards for quality. • No future provisions for community access television. • Loopholes to avoid serving low income and rural communities. • Fewer consumer protections. • No provisions for service to schools or other public buildings.

The bill as written gives AT&T the power to do just about anything it wants, without consequences or the public having a say. This is the ‘competition’ AT&T advertises on television and in direct mail across the state.

The bill passed the Assembly this spring on the ‘fast track’ and just passed the Joint Finance Committee on a 13-3 vote. As one senator described it “this is a bread and butter bill.”

Not every state meekly surrendered to AT&T. Illinois passed a bill with real teeth, including very specific consumer protection standards, requirements to bring services to 90 percent of the state, standards for quality and protection for community access television. The Illinois model requires AT&T and cable companies to follow the same local government rules as other companies, prohibits discrimination against poor neighborhoods and provides penalties for noncompliance.

When faced with the political will to protect consumers and the public interest, AT&T agreed to the changes. The Chicago Tribune called the agreement “that rare legislative accomplishment that ushers in competition, protects consumers, and is fair to both phone and cable companies.”

We need the same political will here in Wisconsin. And we need to put protections into law because cable companies and AT&T cannot be trusted.

Lobbyists for AT&T told me they want to continue to offer “charity” and provide service to public places, like fire and police departments and schools, but don’t want the requirement in law. In Michigan, however, when providing public cable services became optional the cables were cut to police departments, fire stations and local government. And there was no recourse.

That is why who writes the rules makes a difference.

State Sen. Kathleen Vinehout is a Democrat from Alma, Wis. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com