HB 1500
DSS...@aol.com
The following is my personal, informed opinion. I call it as I see it. They don't have to like me!
My question: Where are CUB and Citizen Action on HB 1500? Why aren't these "Citizen's" groups taking a stand?
When I asked Dave Kolata wherre CUB was on this a little while back he said they hadn't taken a position.
As I see it, this is one of those "we hang together or we hang alone" situations.
About 10 months ago, this ran in Crain's: http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=20568
Note the following paragraph:
"The measure would lock in rates on three phone plans for four years. During that time, SBC would also face caps on the fees it charges consumers to use phone lines and make phone calls. In addition, AT&T agreed to accelerate its build-out of DSL service across Chicago, and to set up a $2.5 million fund to educate consumers about the new calling plans, to be administered by CUB."
Let me repeat that last sentence:
"In addition, AT&T agreed to accelerate its build-out of DSL service across Chicago, and to set up a $2.5 million fund to educate consumers about the new calling plans, to be administered by CUB."
Ok, let me be even more pedantic and repeat the latter half of that sentence....
"[ATT] to set up a $2.5 million fund to educate consumers about the new calling plans, to be administered by CUB."
So.... a public education campaign for Illinois... to educate consumers on three (3!) specific calling plans? Cost of $2.5 million. Value of CUB's silence during the "Big Telecom Rewrite": priceless.
Do you feel educated?
I've admired CUB for some time, respecting the founding vision. Believing strongly they need a statutory update to bring them in line with the realities of communication and what should be understood as essential utilities in the digital age...
It's amazing that last year they pretty much gave up on the idea of regulating the Telecom's. They didnt see the significance of the movement generated by the Net Neutrality debates (where the grassroots fought off Congressional attempt to quash PEG and Internet in one fell swoop. That movement is growing stronger. CUB argued last year that the deal that was struck was the best they could get, looking at what happened in neighboring states. Seems terribly odd to declare a four year rate cap (three left!) and an end to regulatory oversight of pricing a victory of any sort for consumers or citizens. I mean, if we have a competitive market (ha!) aren't prices expected to go down on a regular basis? What use is a price cap in that scenario? And if it is of use now, why wouldnt we want to keep it longer than 3 or 4 years?
Who is monitoring this? Who has an interest in monitoring this? Have we seen an accelerated buildout of DSL in Chicago area? If so, by how much?
Up at the FCC we are treated as Consumers, not Citizen's, and not members of our respective Communities. I expect more from a Citizen's Utility Board. I expect more from CUB given it's legacy. I expect defense of local control, I expected defense of government oversight of pricing in non-competitive markets. I expect them to say clearly when the official terms "competitive" are based on ridiculous criteria.
I wonder what Pat Quinn thinks of CUB's position? CUB would not exist without a history of citizen organizing and civic minded leaders. The question is whether CUB should continue to exist having gone silent at such a critical moment as this.
HB 1500 needs to be stopped. All community, civic, business and municipal groups should come out in opposition to this bill.
Illinois deserves much better. Any point of leverage on the quasi-monopoly media and communications giants must be maintained and strengthened.
Is Chicago ready to trade the legacy of Public Access Television for a weak wifi network? Is the rest of Illinois ready for similar horse trading?
Have I got a bridge for you!
-Michael Maranda
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
Michael Maranda
I very much support the call for a public discourse that sheds light on this proposed legislation, and the process. This is probably one of the most important issues before the legislature this year. Certainly the two organizations I mentioned are not the only ones with relevant positions or responsibilities viz. this legislation. But there is reason to call them out specifically for not standing with others, and it is right to ask "why?".
CAN TV, Muni leaders, others are fighting a difficult battle in Springfield. There is significant money behind the pro HB1500 position. It pays to follow the money.
The safeguards Ryan mentions - being sought by some of the legislators with concerns - may not be worth the paper they are written on for any of those who are advocates on the Community and Local Rights side of the equation. This inclines me towards the position expressed by several people I respect: no bill this year might be better than HB 1500, even if amended with these purported safeguards.
Again, this year we have FCC and Congress wrangling over the central issue. Extend the sunset of the Telecom act once more?
That might be the wisest path.
-Michael
Don is right. Reviewing the pros and cons of cable franchise reform will
improve the debate. And, I'm happy to report, this is happening in the
House Telecommunications committee hearings.
Rep. Brosnahan (HB1500's sponsor) has made it very clear that he's
willing to amend the language of his bill to ensure consumer and
municipal interests are preserved. It should come as no surprise that
members of both parties in the House Telecommunications committee have
suggested they will not support the bill as it was originally written.
They (Reps. Krause, Mathias, May, Colvin and Hamos, to name a few) have
asked good questions of the bill's supporters and opponents.
The next Telecom committee meeting is this Thursday in Room C-1 of the
Stratton Building (next to the Captol) at 8am. It is open to the public.
Hope to see you there.
Ryan Croke
Office of Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn
414 Stratton Building
Springfield, IL 62706
217.558.2929
ryan....@illinois.gov
________________________________
from AOL at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000339> .
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter
Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance
Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition
President, Association For Community Networking
Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org
Collins, Peter
Peter I. Collins
Information Technologies Manager
City of Geneva, Illinois
pcol...@geneva.il.us
Phone: 630.232.1743
Fax: 630.262.0867
Cell: 630.742.7829
From http://www.geneva.il.us/att/ILHB1500.htm
AT&T LOBBIES ILLINOIS HOUSE TO REMOVE LOCAL CONTROL.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY WANTS EMINIENT DOMAIN POWER OVER GENEVA PROPERTY OWNERS?
AT&T has launched a bill at the State House level to remove local franchise control from municipalities (a power Geneva currently holds) and instead give power over Geneva's Rights of Way directly to the State of Illinois. Most important to Geneva citizens, if passed, this bill would remove full citywide buildout requirements from AT&T - something cable companies must currently do - and allow them to serve parts of Geneva that they found most profitable, and not serve others they did not.
(Sidebar: What is particularly odd about this action is that AT&T insists its product is an IP service and not cable, and therefore, not subject to local cable franchising. If that is the case, why are they pushing a statewide cable franchise bill?)
Perhaps even more frightening is that the bill, in its current form, appears to grant eminent domain powers to AT&T for not only Geneva's Rights of Way, but private property as well.
From Pages 32 & 33 of the bill:
9 (2) Any area in this State in which the Commission has
10 granted a cable service or video service authorization pursuant
11 to this Article, no property owner, condominium association,
12 managing agent, lessee, or other person in possession and
13 control of any improved or unimproved real estate located
14 within such area shall forbid or prevent the holder of a
15 State-issued authorization from entering upon that real estate
16 for the purpose of and in connection with the construction or
17 installation of that cable service or video service facilities,
18 nor shall any such property owner, condominium association,
19 managing agent, lessee, or other person in possession or
20 control of that real estate forbid or prevent the holder of a
21 State-issued authorization from constructing or installing
22 upon, beneath, or over the real estate, including any buildings
23 or other structures located thereon, hardware, cable, fiber,
24 equipment, materials, or other cable service or video service
25 facilities used by the holder of a State-issued authorization
26 in the construction and installation of those cable service or
HB1500 - 33 - LRB095 09362 MJR 31669 b
1 video service facilities; provided, however, that the owner of
2 any such real estate may require, in exchange and as
3 compensation for permitting the construction or installation
4 of cable service or video service facilities upon, beneath, or
5 over such real estate, the payment of just compensation by the
6 holder of a State-issued authorization which provides that
7 cable service or video service, that sum to be determined in
8 accordance with the provisions of subsections (3) and (4) of
9 this Section, and provided further that the holder of a
10 State-issued authorization constructing or installing those
11 cable service or video service facilities shall agree to
12 indemnify the owner of the real estate for any damage caused by
13 the installation, operation, or removal of the cable service or
14 video service facilities and service.
On March 6, 2007, the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus released a letter of opposition and concerns. That position paper can be viewed at http://www.geneva.il.us/att/hb1500/opposeilhb1500.pdf <http://www.geneva.il.us/att/hb1500/opposeilhb1500.pdf%20> .
The Illinois Municipal League also has information on their website at http://www.iml.org/dbs/legislative/nldbz.cfm .
The first of several hearings on the matter took place at the State Capitol in Springfield, IL on March 8, 2007. An audio file of most of the hearing can be listened to here <http://www.geneva.il.us/att/audio/IL%20HB%201500%20Subject%20Hearings%20-%20Day%201%20-%2003-08-07.wma> or viewed in text format here. <http://www.geneva.il.us/att/hb1500/HB1500Hearing03-08-07Text.pdf>
The next Telecommunications Committee Hearing is currently scheduled for March 22, 2007 at 8:00AM in the Stratton Building Room C-1 Springfield, IL. Actual text of the bill and the latest information regarding hearing notices can be found on the Illinois General Assembly website here. <http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=1500&GAID=9&GA=95&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=30301&SessionID=51#actions> Please make sure to check their website for current information if you plan to attend any hearings as the time and location may change.
The City of Geneva is part of a coalition called KeepUsConnected <http://www.keepusconnected.org/> that is fighting this bill and encourages citizens to join as well.
Geneva also urges you to contact your state representatives by clicking here <http://www.congress.org/congressorg/officials/congress/?district=14&lvl=C&azip=60134&state=IL> and ask them to oppose HB 1500.
See our past history with AT&T and their proposed Project Lightspeed offering here. <http://www.geneva.il.us/att/Lightspeed.htm>
I'll have a nice long piece on this tomorrow.
Pete
________________________________
All,
-Michael
from AOL at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000339 <http://www.aol.com/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000339> > .
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter
Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance
Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition
President, Association For Community Networking
Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org <http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org/>
Collins, Peter
Dear Chairman Brosnahan & Members of the Telecommunications Committee:
My name is Peter Collins and I am the President of the Illinois Municipal Broadband Communications Association, as well as the Information Technologies Manager for the City of Geneva and a citizen of Batavia, Illinois.
I write today to discuss the wide reaching problems of Illinois HB 1500 from all of those points of view and, more importantly, to ask that this bill never leave committee.
From a municipal outlook, I will concede that the City of Geneva is probably not one of AT&T’s most favorite places to do business. In fact, just to level the playing field, I am sure we have been received as a thorn in the side of their friends from “across the aisle” – Comcast – at several times in the past as well. Our local referendum attempts to serve our citizenry directly by creating municipal fiber optic broadband utilities in Geneva, St. Charles & Batavia (collectively the TriCities) met their demise under the marketing might of both companies. The municipal utilities proposed to be created by the 2003 & 2004 votes would have offered many of the same highly touted services that AT&T is just getting to today. Information concerning that process is thoroughly documented at http://www.geneva.il.us/bb/faq.htm and at the website of the citizen’s group supporting the ballot initiative – http://www.fiberforourfuture.com .
As an additional point of reference, our business plans for the operations of these municipal utilities included the path of applying for and existing under the rules of a local cable franchises because, among other things, it was the law as stated under the Illinois Level Playing Field Statue of the Illinois Municipal Code. From 65 ILCS 5/11‑42‑11
no such additional cable television franchise shall be granted under terms or conditions more favorable or less burdensome to the applicant than those required under the existing cable television franchise, including but not limited to terms and conditions pertaining to the territorial extent of the franchise, system design, technical performance standards, construction schedules, performance bonds, standards for construction and installation of cable television facilities, service to subscribers, public educational and governmental access channels and programming, production assistance, liability and indemnification, and franchise fees.
Or, short form, we cannot legally give AT&T terms different from those under which Comcast, in Geneva’s case, exists.
This brings us directly to the point Geneva and six other communities in Illinois are at – under the weight of a frivolous federal lawsuit – due to requiring AT&T to have a franchise to offer video services before they could start upgrades to allow for video services.
As Mr. Lenihan sat before this committee two weeks ago, he referred to Project Lightspeed as a “different” service that does not require local franchising because of its delivery method and that Lightspeed was just an upgrade to their “telecommunications” infrastructure.
A number of interesting questions can be posed from looking deeper into this statement.
- If AT&T is just upgrading its “telecommunications” infrastructure, would the 52B utility boxes used – affectionately termed “B-52s” by many communities – even be required if video was not a part of their planned offering? If they were just going to offer phone and internet and video were not part of their business equation at all? The answer is no.
- If Project Lightspeed is truly a “telecommunications” upgrade, aren’t all the services provided subject to federal, state, and local “telecommunications” taxes? If so, then AT&T would not be subject to franchise fees anyway.
- If AT&T truly believes that the services it will offer are “telecommunications” services, or even advanced data services – subject to an entirely different set of regulations – and completely unlike traditional cable, why then are they pushing for statewide video franchising requirements? After all, as Mr. Lenihan said here on March 8th
“We go to a city and say, “We are not a cable operator, we are telephone company. We are not providing cable service, we are upgrading our telecommunications network.”
Shouldn’t AT&T be focusing then on telecommunications law, rather that video franchising?
It seems that perhaps even AT&T does not believe what it’s trying to sell to you.
AT&T wants to bring Project Lightspeed to our area but does not want to exist under the same local and state regulatory framework that other terrestrial video providers must abide. They do not want to sign anything termed a “franchise agreement.” If memory serves correctly, one of the AT&T Representatives sat here on the 8th and said something to the effect of, “No one has even offered us a franchise-like agreement that would cover what we are.” Geneva has. We call it the "City of Geneva Cable and Multichannel Video Communications Ordinance” and it treats services like those offered by AT&T on the exact same footing as those offered by traditional cable providers, including PEG requirements. AT&T has not expressed an interest.
To say it is too hard to get local agreements in place is a little ridiculous. For example, Verizon – who also sat here on March 8th – has signed hundreds of local franchise agreements around the country. In September 2006, Verizon went as far as publicly acknowledging to its shareholders that franchising was not an issue for the company and that the process was not holding back the company in the deployment of video services.
But stepping away from the classification of what AT&T’s services really “are,” a more basic problem with their overall philosophy is present.
AT&T has attempted to paint municipal problems with this bill as tied to franchise fees, or the loss thereof. This is absolutely not the issue as far as most cities are concerned. The field is rather static, and what one provider loses another gains. The outcome for the cities is relatively the same. We agree that whatever the level that traditional cable companies provide, so should be the same for any new video entrants. End of story. The fair and level playing field is what our state law mandates for land based video providers.
We’re not really concerned about losses to satellite providers either, as we do not see it being a viable market share loss due to its technological limitations, and apparently, AT&T doesn’t really see satellite as a viable solution either. If they did, they would expand their agreement with Echostar and stop wasting money on Lightspeed upgrades and video franchise legislation.
No, among the real problems most cities have is the lack of full build out provisions. AT&T claims they cannot do this on a statewide basis. I’d tend to agree when trying to address the issue on a statewide level. Neither can Comcast, Verizon, or any other provider. But all certainly can in the world of local franchise areas by following the existing state and local regulations.
If for instance, AT&T were to offer service in Geneva, the local franchise area they would have to serve would be our city limits. When they achieved their market share in our market (and generated revenue), they could explore other cities (or franchise areas) to serve in their entirety. If it turned out to be unprofitable for them to do so, there is no requirement for them to bring their video services to that area. This is much the same reason Comcast does not serve Wayne, Illinois. They found it unprofitable to serve that franchise area, and thus, are not there. That lack of serving Wayne has coincidently allowed Wayne to legally sign an agreement with AT&T, as there is no “level playing field” to violate. Not surprisingly, that agreement has no full build out requirement.
AT&T recently has taken to confusing the full build out provision discussions as well by promoting the idea that municipalities were requiring actual full build out before any services could be offered to a franchise area. The cities wanted a full build out over a specific timeframe – in most cases from 3 to 5 years and thus inline with what cable companies received when they entered the markets years ago – but the discussions never even got that far. AT&T has been adamant about no build out requirements. Period.
What I have found most humorous during the proceeding hearings has been AT&T’s painting of themselves as new entrants to the market with no established customer base.
Mr. Lenihan went on record with the following quote:
Imposing a 100% build out requirement on a new entrant who has zero market share and is competing with an incumbent who essentially has 100% of the wired market is irrational and unreasonable.
AT&T has no “market share?” In the areas that AT&T serves via their existing “telecommunications” plant, are we expected to believe that they do not hold the majority of the existing landline telephone business? Are they not a wireline provider with a direct connection into most homes in their service areas as well? Do they not have the same trucks and same highly trained staff as the traditional cable market? It appears more that AT&T is attempting to solve its market share issues with new legislation rather than competing in the existing market.
At one point during the March 8 hearing, Representative Ramey asked Mr. LaSchiazza how many wire line video companies are in Illinois. The answer was about “8”. I would imagine that the number of actual wireline phone competitors that you’d find in Illinois – not CLECs who resell service over incumbent owned lines but actual wireline competitors – is pretty low as well.
Of course, also highly problematic for the cities is the loss of local control of their rights of way. This bill allows a state agency, the ICC, with no direct knowledge of city’s specific requirements, to grant authority to a private corporation to exist in property owned by the local taxpayers of a municipality, and in its current horrendous form even grants what amounts to eminent domain powers to that same private corporation. Granted, this seems to be a throwaway provision that even AT&T knows is awful, but even to have the audacity to propose such a clause is quite telling.
Even stranger is that the ICC, which would have the authority to issue such franchises, is then stripped of any power to enforce the provisions it has approved. It is allowed zero policing authority and instead relies on, as AT&T calls it, “self enforcement.”
Do we understand what implications that creates?
Currently, if one of the citizens of Geneva calls me to help resolve an issue, I have the ability to scream and moan to the video provider because Geneva holds that franchise directly. If this bill goes through, I will lose that ability as the city would not be the franchise holder, and thus holds no leverage. Will I then have the power to send customer service complaints directly to my State Representatives, Mr. Schmitz & Mr. Ramey, for them to resolve?
As president of the Illinois Municipal Broadband Communications Association, we try to encourage communities to step up and take control of their broadband futures by investing in themselves and the well-being of their citizens. Where a community has the will, they can build first class infrastructure that will technologically bury the current offerings of the large incumbents, from both the cable and telephone sides of the fence. These cities succeed by keeping their focus local and paying attention to what they know best – their citizens and their own back yard.
Local franchising succeeds for the very same reason. It’s locally focused and not concerned with serving a large territory partially, but rather a small footprint well. While many of the situations are similar from place to place, the specifics are unique to each area. It is not a one size fits all equation, nor is it the state’s best interest to attempt to treat its municipalities as such.
It’s important to keep repeating the word we’ve heard so many times during these hearings – Competition. Cities welcome video competition. Our citizens want it. Moreover, in Geneva’s case, we even tried to bring it ourselves. But not at the expense of giving up local control. If we are truly to believe that technology will flourish under this bill, then we can also expect to have multiple providers attempting to construct these utilities in our rights of way. In responding to Representative Ramey’s question concerning whether other providers would be able to “piggyback” on new builds, Mr. LaSchiazza’s response was, “No.” To cities, that means that any other provider that wanted to follow AT&T’s deployment model would have to roll out its own boxes, etc. or in essence, doubling the impact on local rights of way and private property. It does not make sense to try and manage this on a statewide basis. Local control is a must.
I urge you to oppose Illinois House Bill 1500.
Regards,
Peter I. Collins
President
Illinois Municipal Broadband Communications Association
913 South Sixth Street
Springfield, Illinois 62703
Information Technologies Manager
City of Geneva, Illinois
From: gio-...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Michael Maranda
Sent: Tue 3/20/2007 8:30 PM
To: cdaa...@googlegroups.com; gio-...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Brown Hodge, Carolyn; Vinck, Sean; Croke, Ryan
Subject: [GIO] Re: HB 1500