from: Associated Press [1]

Committee Sends Cable Bill to State Senate, but More Work Remains

From Associated Press, December 6, 2006
By David Eggert

Legislation that supporters say would give Michigan customers more choice in the cable TV market is one step closer to approval, though lawmakers say some issues may never be fully resolved.

Legislators and Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s administration planned to continue negotiating in the coming days.

“Most consumers today are unhappy that they don’t have a choice with cable. They’re locked into one provider,” Senate Majority Leader Ken Sikkema, R-Wyoming, told reporters after the panel’s vote. “This legislation, should it be signed into law, gives consumers a choice.”

Cable providers historically have had to secure individual licenses, or franchises, from each of the communities where they want to do business. The legislation that passed the House and is before the Senate would let companies get a statewide franchise without negotiating in every community.

AT&T Inc. backs the change as a faster and easier way for it to enter the cable market and compete with incumbent companies like Comcast Corp.

Local governments and others who oppose the bill worry about losing money from cable providers, low-income residents not getting new services and local access channels not being able to show programming.

“We’re the first line of defense for the average guy,” said Michael Watza of the Michigan Coalition to Protect Public Rights-of-Way, a group of cities.

The bill was amended Wednesday to clarify some issues. It would require cable providers to pay fees so the Michigan Public Service Commission could handle consumers’ cable complaints and implement parts of the proposed law.

But big issues were unresolved.

Google, Yahoo! and eBay are pushing for provisions to prevent cable providers, which also offer Internet and phone services, from discriminating against Web traffic based on which sites pay them the most.

Sikkema described the fight over the concept known as net neutrality as “World War III.”

“It can’t be resolved,” said Sikkema, who opposes net neutrality because he thinks Google and other Web sites, not consumers, should pay costs to run video-sharing Web sites like YouTube.

Michael Yang of Google testified, however, that the company already pays to send content over the Internet.

“Double or triple charging is neither good for the Internet nor is it good for the consumer,” Yang said. Groups backing Google include the Michigan Catholic Conference, which testified that the bill would stifle free speech and the Internet’s democratic nature.

Another key issue that remained unresolved was existing franchise agreements with local governments. The new bill would let incumbent providers opt out of those deals for the state franchise, as long as they plan to keep offering cable.

Critics say existing contracts shouldn’t be nullified in a community without at least guaranteeing there is competition from AT&T or another new provider. They also say requirements that providers service low-income residents are too weak.

Both Democrats and Republicans said more work needs to be done before next week’s Senate vote, and Democrats said they want to ensure the bill does more to protect consumers.

Sen. Buzz Thomas, D-Detroit, said he wants his constituents to benefit from more cable competition, but he had concerns with the bill.

“Hopefully we can get there,” Thomas said.

The cable bill is House Bill 6456.