Fast-Tracked Wisconsin "Video Competition" Bill: "Sitting on a Siding, Stinking"

It's been quiet, almost too quiet, regarding the progress of AT&T's favorite bill, AB 207, the "video competition"  legislation you're all sick of hearing about. This bill, once on the fast track, has been, in the words of a  State Senator I'll leave nameless, "sitting on a siding, stinking." 

Meanwhile, there's been further noise about Joe Wineke's lobbying for AT&T:

The Eau Claire Leader-Telegram doesn't like Wineke's position or the bill:

Wineke is chairman of the state Democratic Party, a job that should keep him busy enough. That he also should carry the water of a huge, out-of-state corporation should anger voters who want political figures as divorced from corporate pockets as possible. And Democrats deserve a spokesman who advocates party ideals such as standing up for the little guy and supporting local control, not one who twists party members' arms to vote for a bill that mainly benefits out-of-state behemoths.

The Capital Times thinks Joe's wrong:

... it is with some regret that we note Wineke's boneheaded decision to accept a $2,000-a-month contract to lobby on behalf of the AT&T communications conglomerate at a time when AT&T is trying to ram through the Legislature changes in cable TV regulations that would harm consumers, undermine local control and stifle public access programming.

The AT&T-backed proposal is a classic example of everything that is wrong with how government now works in Wisconsin. The bill was written not by legislators, but by lawyers and lobbyists for a corporation that will benefit from its enactment. It is opposed by just about everyone who is serious about lowering cable rates, reforming flawed regulatory policies and fostering democratic media discourse. It is backed primarily by AT&T, which is busy making campaign contributions to legislators and hiring former legislators as lobbyists.

In spite of what the Cap Times and some County Chairs say, Wineke won't quit.

Bill Kraus offers Fightingbob readers a half-strength defense of Wineke.

Meanwhile, remember those "TV4US" binders with all the names of their supporters that landed on legislator's desks?  Tt seems some of the names were of legislators in opposition to the bill.  Uff Da!

- Barry Orton

Comments

[Aaron]

I cant believe that our democratic leader has sold himself out to the special interests for a measly 2 grand. I mean have some principles, this bill would clear cut local cable regulation and would mean millions of dollars for AT&T, you wouldn't see a republican party leader doing this for less than 10k a month. For the love of god have some dignity!

[Darren Stucker]

A couple of reasons (there are many) about why the cable competition bill is bad.

The technology could be better. Other companies are wiring fast fiber optic cables into consumer homes. AT&T is depending on slow, telephone cabling for their connections to homes. This is a low bandwidth product that will struggle, especially with HDTV, for high bandwidth uses.

The regulation could be stronger.

The campaign kickbacks should KO those who will make their vote on the basis of their financial relation with AT&T. It is a company custom tailoring their own legislation.

Many of you have probably seen issue advertisements, in print and on tv, about how high cable TV charges are. These ads say that the cause is lack of competition. These ads say the solution is a new, so-called, cable competition act.

NOT TRUE!

It is true that there are a preponderance of ads costing millions of dollars. It is not true that the legislation these ads promote will fix any problem a consumer will face. In fact, if this bill is passed, the local boards which mitigate consumer disputes with the cable companies will likely disappear. Consumer problems with cable TV and telephone services may become much worse because there will only be a state, not a local, organization to turn to.

The ads you see are paid for by AT&T. Even their cable company competitors like this legislation. Why? Because like Enron writing energy policy, the AT&T attorneys are writing video service policy. Their goal is to be free of all regulation about what they deliver and what they charge. Their goal is to be licensed to run their businesses forever. Their goal is to make sure that their license cannot be revoked. That anarchistic escape from informed governmental oversight will apply to cable companies too. This is a bad deal for consumers.

What does the cable act try to do? It basically says that video service providers get a license, or a permit, called a franchise, to charge you anything they want for whatever level of service they want. It gives the cable and video businesses non-revokable powers to tap your pocketbook without any standards about the quality or the quantity of the products they want to deliver.
They want free use of the public right-of-way.

States issue licenses for everything from driving a car to cutting ones hair. We license businesses. We license technology. We license elevators and even department store scales. We issue licenses for fisherman, for hunters, for boaters and even for sellers of booze.

Every one of those licenses comes with standards which must be met and punishments if those standards are not met. Every licence can be revoked for just cause. Right?

Not so with the franchise that our legislators, without your intervention, are going give to AT&T and the cable companies.

According to AT&T’s one-sided, self-written legislation, the goal is for the state to give a cable TV-like franchise, without restrictions, without an end date and without much of a charge for using public property to lay their cables or place their refrigerator-sized control boxes.

No wonder that the cable companies like this. They are currently required to deliver community services. In large part, they are required to deliver a standard of good customer responsiveness. They are currently required to provide schools with connections, and in many areas they even provide channels for educational, governmental and public access TV. Cable companies have been required to be good corporate neighbors. Not so with this new bill. Their public responsibilities will come to an end.

AT&T is spending so much money on their lobbying effort that they are basically offering to bank-roll campaigns of legislators who support them. Since all that money will come out of AT&T’s tax bill, are paying for that effort? Have AT&T and their favorite legislators paved a way for voters to pay for legislation aimed at hurting voters? AT&T gets to write their own bill. Do they then get us to pay for their efforts to cram it down the throats of our elected officials.

It is important to let our elected officials know they work for the people and not for financial vultures who wish to prey on our democracy. In energy we had Enron. In communications is it now AT&T?

Cable access users beware. Cities beware. Internet users beware. Television viewers beware. Your standards of excellence may go down. Your service costs may go up. With this new bill, basic cable tiers, like we have in Fitchburg, may soon be gone.

Teachers should realize the educational futures they may lose once this bill would take effect. Cities often require that schools receive their cable connections without fee. Even in the process of writing this bill, cities have been left in the cold. Schools may be left out too.

It is important to do something. Write your legislator. Call your trade association. Let your union leaders know that legislators should write legislation rather than asking the companies they would otherwise regulate to do their work for them.

Don’t let AT&T become the Enron of the Wisconsin information highway.

[John Foust]

Aaron - I agree, it's baffling to understand legislator's commitment to this bill because of the seemingly small amounts of money handed out. It's as if we'd be happier to learn their price was far higher. I think time and thickness has something to do with it. They may think they'll continue to get small amounts in the future if they stay in office. They may think it'll mean more money for their close associates, too.

Darren - amazing summary. I can't believe the cities aren't screaming louder just because of the loss of control of their right-of-ways.

[Peter]

A quick note - on Saturday at the 2nd Congressional Democratic Party Convention, Joe announced in about a 4 minute speech (at most CD Conventions he's spoken for about 15 minutes) that he had resigned as an AT&T lobbyist as of Friday.