Don't touch that television dial

Don't touch that television dial

You can't turn on a TV these days without hearing a persuasive call for competition in TV and broadband delivery.

"Competition brings cable bills down," the ads tell us. "Isn't it time Wisconsinites had a choice?"

These ads are paid for by phone companies that want to share in the profit-making business of delivering video services to your home over their phone lines. They are pushing for legislation (H.R. 5252) that would allow them to enter into television services more easily by creating a national cable franchise system.

THE BILL, called the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 (COPE), overhauls the 1996 federal Communications Act and makes significant changes to rules related to cable television and Internet services. When our nation's telecommunications laws were last revised, the word "Internet" was never even mentioned. Times have changed dramatically and our laws must keep pace with advancing technologies.

The COPE bill is intended to increase competition by establishing a uniform national cable franchise - taking away cable franchise authority from local municipalities.

Competition in the video delivery business? I'm all for it. Lower prices for the consumer? I'm all for that. But the devil, once again, is in the details. While I support the "ends" of the COPE bill (increased competition and lower prices), I don't support the "means" and voted against the bill. Here's why:

WE KNOW that robust competition can improve customer services, reduce pricing, and spark innovation and technological advances. But this legislation does not contain adequate local controls or consumer protections. Nor does it promise "net neutrality" or aspire to universal service, assuring that every American has a chance in the digital age.

The COPE bill strips localities of their authority to establish and enforce consumer protections and customer service standards. If you're not satisfied with your cable TV service, whom would you rather call, your local municipality or the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, DC?

The bill weakens anti-discrimination language which could lead to "redlining," whereby low-income, remote, or not-heavily-populated areas are simply ignored by service providers in favor of more financially lucrative markets. While some anti-redlining language is included in the bill, other provisions in the bill render it toothless.

IT ALSO weakens funding support for local public, educational, and governmental (PEG) channels. In Wisconsin 80 such channels inform and educate our citizens on a daily basis. Preserving PEG funding is about preserving the local flavor and increasing the diversity of community voices on television; and it is about transparency and accountability in our local government. If enacted in its current form, COPE would result in funding cuts for a majority of existing PEG access channels.

I led the opposition to provisions in the bill that limit the fees local governments can collect from companies offering video services in their community in order to support PEG offerings.

A Congressional Budget Office analysis determined that under the bill some municipalities will receive significantly less in fee revenue. This amounts to an unfunded mandate which, ironically, is prohibited under the much-publicized Republican "Contract with America." Despite my strong objections, the Republican majority broke their own contract with the American people to add this extra burden to our already strapped municipal budgets.

FINALLY, THE BILL fails to insure what is called the "network neutrality" of the Internet. Under the bill, a broadband service provider could discriminate against web based businesses and services by limiting the speed at which they are delivered to consumers unless the web based business or service pays a fee (like a toll) to the broadband service provider. Thus, consumers would receive different service quality from website to website depending on the financial incentives paid to service providers. In many cases, these costs may be passed on to consumers. Net neutrality has been crucial to the development of innovative and competitive Internet content and services and plays a key role in keeping the information super-highway open to all.

Do we need to update our federal telecommunications policy to respond to ever-changing technology and consumer demand? Absolutely. But not at the expense of consumer protections, municipal budgets, and the common good. The COPE bill is yet another example of the Republican majority favoring well-connected, special interests over average Americans.

http://www.beloitdailynews.com/articles/2006/07/13/editorials/edit02.txt