from: Telecom Web [1]

MI Video-Franchise Bill Draws Beltway Lobbyist Fire

Several Washington, D.C., lobbying and activist groups this week mustered Michigan residents and the network-neutrality issue to oppose pending legislation in that state that would create a border-to-border video-franchising system (TelecomWeb news break, Nov. 11).

As the Uniform Video Services Local Franchise Act (HB 6456) moves to the Michigan Senate following passage by the House, the SavetheInternet.com Coalition resurrected its pro net-neutrality advocacy moves with an estimated18,000 signatures on petitions urging stringent conditions on such new entries as AT&T and other major telcos supporting the proposed measure.

In delivering the opposition petitions to state Senate offices in Lansing, the coalition and its principal inside-the-Beltway sponsors - the Free Press organization and the Consumer Federation of America (CFA) among them - allied with local and state groups to tell legislators that new video-franchise rules and net-neutrality provisos are necessary to expand both video choice and Internet access availability as well as to help ensure consumer protections.

"This bill would make it easy for big telecom companies to ignore Michigan's underserved areas and 'cherry-pick' only the most profitable customers," said Mark Cooper, CFA's director of research, at a press conference inside the state capitol building. "To create a level playing field for all consumers, Michigan needs policies that build high-speed broadband and video networks in all communities."

The groups criticized what they called a "lame duck" vote on HB 6456 that primarily was sponsored by State Rep. Mike Nofs (R-62nd District), with backing from Reps. John M. Proos (R-79th), Frank Accavitti (D-42nd), John Garfield (R-45th) and Jacob Hoogendyk (R-61st). Much of the coalition rhetoric was directed at the likes of AT&T for pushing the bill and for allegedly attempting to gut consumer protections, to dodge local community-access requirements and to ignore network neutrality.

"Michigan's legislation would allow phone companies like AT&T to seize more control of what families see and do online," says Ben Scott, policy director for Free Press. "The video-franchising bill is backed by phone companies like AT&T. They tell legislators and the public that it will expand access to the Internet. What they don't reveal is that unless net neutrality protections are added, these corporations will be able to abuse their role as gatekeepers to the Internet."

Among the protesters were representatives of the Grand Rapids Community Media Center, the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA) Michigan Chapter, the Michigan Chapter of the Alliance for Community Media and the Public Interest Research Group in Michigan (PIRGIM). "If this bill is allowed to go forward, it will diminish local programming and destroy today's fair and equal Internet," adds David Pettit, a leader of PIRGIM. "The bill pending in the Senate does not support consumers or Internet freedom. Instead, it's a massive handout to AT&T."

They also appeared to have recruited Google to recap its national stance in favor of net neutrality in the Michigan matter. "What we're asking for is very simple: protect the consumer by making sure telephone and cable companies don't restrict the services that are available," says Andrew McLaughlin, Google's senior policy counsel. "Google would never have grown beyond a garage project if Internet providers had been able to block or slow access by individuals. It is essential for Michigan to preserve the Internet as an unmatched platform for innovation and job creation."