Advertisement
The proposal, which supporters say will not only increase competition but create jobs and lower cable rates, is expected to pass the state Senate on Thursday. The Assembly already passed a similar version and the bill could be before Doyle for his signature early next month.
The governor wouldn’t promise to sign it, saying he wanted to see what the final version looked like. But he voiced support for the key parts of the measure.
“I think there is much greater promise of competition here with this bill than right now,” Doyle said. “Right now, you take what you can get. When the prices go up, the prices go up.”
Opponents argue the bill, which will make it easier for AT&T to enter the state’s cable TV market, doesn’t do enough to ensure consumers are protected and there is no guarantee of greater competition or lower rates.
In other states that have the law, cable rates went down initially but then continued to climb, said Barry Orton, a University of Wisconsin-Madison telecommunications professor and consultant to local governments.
At least 13 other states, including Ohio, California, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan, have approved similar statewide franchising laws.
Instead of having to negotiate deals in every community they want to serve, companies like AT&T would be allowed under the bill to pay $2,000 for a single statewide license. Local deals, in place since the 1970s, would remain for the life of the contract or three years, whichever is less.
Other states with similar laws have gotten better deals to ensure future funding for community access channels, said Mary Cardona, executive director of the Wisconsin Association of PEG Channels.
Doyle said those are legitimate concerns.
But AT&T spokesman Jeff Bentoff said those concerns are misplaced since the bill requires AT&T to carry the so-called PEG channels.
“That’s similar to every other state that’s passed a bill,” he said.
The cities of Madison and Milwaukee are among 21 registered opponents to the measure, which also include groups representing the state’s towns, cities and counties. They are worried about losing the money they get under the current deals they negotiate.
There are 12 registered supporters that include the state AFL-CIO, the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce.
The bill keeps current consumer-protection laws in place and extends them to satellite telecommunication companies, but doesn’t provide any extra money to investigate consumer complaints.
Critics like Orton say protections for consumers are inadequate.
Doyle said the best protection consumers have is more competition. And AT&T’s Bentoff said the bill provides the increased competition that consumers have been calling for.
“I think I’m probably like everybody else, there are many times in my life when I wished there was another cable company I could go to,” Doyle said. “I think getting that done is really an important thing.”
Just having more competition doesn’t mean consumers will be protected, Orton said. Protections under the bill are minimal and less than what other states have enacted or what is available under current agreements with local communities, he said.
AT&T currently operates in the most populated parts of Wisconsin and Bentoff said there are no plans to expand. That means in rural areas not part of the AT&T network, the bill will do nothing to ensure there is competition with whoever is currently offering cable services.
As has happened in other states where the idea is debated, huge amounts of money have been spent lobbying the bill in Wisconsin. AT&T, which hired 15 lobbyists, spent $205,451 through June 30 and made numerous donations to lawmakers over the past 18 months, state records show.
The Wisconsin bill doesn’t address another hot topic related to cable television: how to expand areas in Wisconsin that get the Big Ten Network and the NFL Network.
Those networks are currently only available only on satellite systems or small cable companies. A separate pending bill would establish an arbitration system to settle disputes between the sports networks and cable companies over carrying those channels.
