Daily Archives: August 31, 2006

City of Peoria, Insight Communications, Television

TV ads promote national cable franchise agreement

Have you seen a commercial like this one lately?

In this ad, which I got online, it lists Tennessee senators, but I’ve seen this same ad locally (frequently) with Illinois senators listed. It leaves you with the impression that some nefarious “special interests” are sabotaging a chance to lower our cable bills and allow something called “cable choice.” But these ads are totally misleading.

What the ads don’t tell you is that they’re advocating a bill in Congress known as the Advanced Telecommunication and Opportunity Reform Act. The House version of the bill (HR5252) passed 321 to 101, and is due to come up in the Senate. If passed and signed into law, this bill would allow the federal government to award cable franchise agreements.

I first brought this up back in April when Peoria’s franchise agreement with Insight expired. Right now, companies who want to offer cable television to a community must negotiate a franchise agreement with the local municipality. Peoria is still trying to negotiate a renewed franchise agreement with Insight Communications; according to city attorney Randy Ray, Insight and the City will be meeting again September 11 to hopefully hammer something out.

By law, cable franchise agreements are non-exclusive. That means no one is keeping “cable choice” from happening. Any company who wants to offer cable TV to Peoria can come in and negotiate their own franchise agreement with the city. But big telecom congomerates like AT&T don’t want to have to negotiate with every municipality, hence the push for a national franchise agreement.

The telecom-backed www.WeWantChoice.com, which sponsored the above commercial and others like it, call the current franchise system “a lengthy, expensive process that just doesn’t make sense.” By having a national franchise agreement, it will make it easier for them to compete, they claim, and that competition will lead to lower cable bills.

The Illinois Municipal League (IML) sees it differently. Local governments and their advocates like the IML are undoubtedly the “special interests” to which the commercials refer. The IML believes this legislation “would harm consumers, cities and counties in many ways, including:”

  1. It fails to keep local govemment financially whole because it strips state and local governments of tax authority over broadband and wireless telecommunications services.
  2. It would permit local telephone companies to pick and choose the neighborhoods in which they want to provide video and broadband services, while allowing them to bypass other
    neighborhoods completely.
  3. It would replace strong state and local consumer protection and customer service standards with federal standards drafted by federal bureaucrats not accountable to state and local communities and consumers.
  4. It would unilaterally preempt other carefully crafted state and local laws that encourage competition and protect the public interest.

If this process is so expensive and burdensome, how is it that cable companies have figured out a way to do it profitably? Why should telecom companies be allowed a shortcut — an end-run around local control? This is not about leveling the playing field — it’s about very large telecom companies wanting an advantage over cable companies. This is not a process that needs to be nationalized. Cable franchises should not be a federal issue; they are a local issue, and they should stay local.

Incidentally, Randy Ray mentioned that the city has been lobbying our representatives in Washington concerning this, and “the Mayor has written several letters.”

No one has admitted it, but I’m guessing this legislation is one of the sticking points that’s delaying the new franchise agreement between the City and Insight. I’ll bet Insight wants language in the agreement that will allow them an “out” if national franchise agreements are permitted in the future. Otherwise, they would be at a competitive disadvantage.

City of Peoria, Kellar Branch

Carver Lumber pleads for Kellar access

3 Comments

Carver Lumber recently wrote the Surface Transportation Board (STB) and pleaded with them to let Pioneer Industrial Railway provide them service over the Kellar Branch. It’s technically called a petition for “Alternative Rail Service.” The idea is that everyone is kind of in limbo waiting for the STB to rule on whether service over the Kellar Branch should be discontinued or not, but in the meantime Central Illinois Railroad (CIRY), the city’s current carrier, refuses to run on the old Kellar Branch, even though they have an obligation to do so until the STB gives them approval to stop.

So, during this “limbo” period that CIRY is refusing to carry out their common carrier obligation, Pioneer is offering to provide that service instead. Clear as mud? Carver writes:

Several weeks ago Carver Lumber Company requested that the board restore our rail service over the Kellar Branch in Peoria County, Illinois. On July 27, 2006, Pioneer Industrial Railway Co. filed an Alternative Rail Service Request, which we support. To date, Central Illinois Railroad Company continues to refuse to provide service over the Kellar Branch, despite its common carrier obligation to do so.

Our business desperately needs reliable rail service. We urge the board to act as quickly as possible to grant Pioneer Industrial’s Alternative Service request.

It’s kind of sad that Carver has to appeal to the STB to get any relief. You’d think that Peoria, that’s supposedly trying to become more business-friendly, would be on Carver’s side, trying to get them the rail service they need. You’d think that Steve Van Winkle, who promised Carver in writing that “the City stands ready and willing to enforce all aspects of its contract with [CIRY]” would stand by his word and actually seek relief for Carver’s unnecessary expenses due to CIRY’s breach of contract.

But no. The city lied. The city wants Carver to go away. The city wants to throw away those 50 jobs, sales taxes, property taxes, and of course the $565,000 rail asset. All for a hiking/biking trail.

UPDATE: CIRY and the City have written the STB in response to Carver Lumber’s request. They point out that once a car is placed on the new western spur by Union Pacific, CIRY promptly delivers the car to Carver Lumber. Thus, they claim CIRY is fulfilling its common carrier service. Completely ignored is the fact that Carver could have gotten that shipment sooner had CIRY (or Pioneer) picked up the car downtown and taken it up the Kellar Branch instead of waiting for UP to place it on the western spur. It would be cheaper, too. Just one more example of how the City has no interest in dealing fairly with Carver Lumber Company.

Museum Block

Museum should allow “write-in” votes

1 Comment

To follow up my earlier post, remember when they wanted to rename the Peoria Chiefs? They had all kinds of ridiculous-sounding names, and everyone wrote in “Chiefs.” Guess what? They stuck with “Chiefs.” I wish we could do that with the Peoria museum. As a recent commenter pointed out, that’s what everyone is going to call it anyway — why not formalize it?

I have some other ideas for write-in votes, too. Remember, this is all in fun, okay? My intentions are not nearly as mean-spirited as the names may sound:

  • CATastrophe Museum
  • SNOOZEum
  • Midwest Ambiguous Museum of Miscellany
  • Museum on the Old Sears Block

Incidentally, I’ve noticed on the “Name the Museum” website that they don’t use radio buttons — the kind that allow you to choose only one item in a list — but rather the little checkboxes so you can choose as many options as you like. Interesting choice of coding; I’ll have to assume it was intentional, but I don’t know why. Until they add a “Peoria Museum” or at least a “None of the Above” choice, I’m not voting.

Peoria Public Schools

District 150 responds to Royster suit

Kay RoysterThe Journal Star reports this morning that District 150 has filed their response to Kay Royster’s allegation that she was terminated as Superintendent due to racial discrimination. You can read the full reply by clicking here (PDF file).

Of most interest to me was that they denied the most damaging claim (in my opinion) — that a meeting took place among only the white board members where the black board members were specifically not invited. They didn’t give any details of their defense, just a flat denial. Of course, how does one prove a negative? It will be up to Royster to prove such a meeting took place.

Not metioned in the Journal Star article are the “Affirmative Defenses” at the end of the 25-page reply. Among the more interesting ones to me: the defendants claim that most of the allegations have been brought forward too late — that they’re past the statute of limitations time period, that the specific defendants (Aaron Schock, Sean Matheson, Vince Wieland, and Mary Spangler) have immunity from suit because they’re local legislators, and Royster “lacks standing to bring some or all of her claims as she was fully compensated under the terms and conditions of her expired contract.”

City of Peoria, Museum Block

“Peoria” not a museum name choice

21 Comments

WMBD 1470 has the scoop on proposed names for the new museum. Here they are:

  • ExploraSphere Museum
  • AMAZeum
  • Port of Exporation Museum
  • Museum on the Square

Noticeably absent: “Peoria” and “history.” These names illustrate my main criticism of the museum. From any of those names, do you know what this museum is supposed to be? What kind of museum it is? What kind of exhibits it has? Every one of them is nondescript.

The museum’s website has this description:

A new museum of art, history, science and achievement is coming to downtown Peoria. Its galleries will be full of fine art and Illinois folk art, Illinois High School achievements and replays, African American histories, plus oral and interactive history exhibits that tell the story of the entire region. There will be an Illinois River Encounter – from the Ice Age to today, a digital planetarium, and a giant screen theatre, all in a beautiful and environmentally cutting-edge new building on Museum Square.

Again, no mention of Peoria, other than its address. Perhaps the ambiguity of the museum is part of what’s hampering fundraising efforts. I have a suggestion regarding fundraising, though: If it’s going to be a place that “tell[s] the story of the entire region,” then they should ask for donations from the “entire region,” whatever that is, instead of just Peorians, who apparently aren’t worth mentioning in the museum’s name or description.

You can vote for your favorite name at www.namethemuseum.org.