Daily Archives: March 22, 2007

City of Peoria, Insight Communications, State Legislation, Television

Almost a year later, and still no cable franchise agreement

8 Comments

Cable TVOn April 15, 2006, Peoria’s 20-year cable franchise agreement with Insight Communications expired. As of today, we still have no cable franchise agreement, but City Attorney Randy Ray is hopeful that we will soon. In an e-mail I received in response to my question on how negotiations were going, he said this:

Our attorney is working on what I hope is a final version [of the proposed new franchise agreement]. We are subject to being affected by pending legislation in Springfield.

That is one, long, drawn-out negotiation. No doubt the legislation to which Ray obliquely refers is H.B. 1500, the so-called “Cable and Video Competition Law of 2007.” It’s backed by telcom behemoth AT&T which wants to get into the cable TV business without having to negotiate franchise agreements with each municipality the way cable companies have done for the past 40 years.

Under H.B. 1500, a cable provider such as AT&T would apply not to the City of Peoria or the Village of Morton or any other local municipality for a cable franchise agreement to serve those communities, but rather to the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) to get franchise authorization. Furthermore, it would preempt home rule, meaning that it would strip municipalities of any authority to regulate use of their rights-of-way by cable operators (e.g., use of utility poles, underground easements, etc.), as they do through local franchise agreements now.

Opponents of the bill, such as the not-for-profit organization SaveAccess.org, say that it does a number of harmful things, including:

  • Shuts down Public, Educational and Government (PEG) stations around the state
  • Drops requirements that companies serve everyone
  • Weakens customer service protections
  • Harms fair competitions

Granted, those are all sound-bite sized talking points, but I think they’re true. Consider:

The first point is a reference to a provision in the bill that states, “Any public, education, or government channel provided under this Section that is not used by the franchising authority or local unit of government for at least 8 hours per day of non-repeat programming for 3 consecutive months may no longer be made available to the local franchising authority….” That’s a lot of public access programming to sustain. Insight provides channel 17 (Illinois Central College) and channel 22 (public/government access), and I don’t believe the two of them combined provide 8 hours/day of non-repeat programming. So I believe it’s fair to say the effect of the bill would indeed shut down PEG stations.

As far as it dropping requirements to serve everyone, local franchise agreements were always concerned with equity — with the same service being available throughout the city (see, for example, §5.1 of Peoria’s 1986 Cable Franchise Agreement). The bill as written would not require total coverage, and in fact would only require that by five years after rollout, 30% of households accessible to the cable operator’s service be low-income.

Since complaints about service would no longer be made locally, but to the state, I think there’s no question that it weakens customer service. Who do you think is going to be more responsive to your cable TV complaint: your city staffer/council rep or a state bureaucrat?

But the last point is the kicker. As a recent article in Multichannel News points out, “As currently written, the bill [H.B. 1500] would hold only incumbent cable operators to current franchises until their statutory end dates.” Indeed, §21-301(2) of the bill states, “Upon expiration of its current agreement, an incumbent cable operator […] shall obtain State authorization from the Commission pursuant to this Article and shall be subject to the provisions of this Article.”

And this may be one reason it’s taking so long to get a new franchise agreement between Insight and Peoria. Insight will want to protect themselves against signing a 10- or 20-year franchise agreement that is going to put them at a competitive disadvantage to AT&T, which will be deploying cable services under a state-granted franchise if this legislation is passed.

The bill has been assigned to the Telecommunications Committee, and there was a hearing on it today (3/22) in Springfield. There is a website set up specifically to oppose this bill called KeepUsConnected.org.

Ray LaHood

LaHood doesn’t want to make it too easy to form a union

8 Comments

Ray LaHoodEarlier this month, Ray LaHood voted against the Employee Free Choice Act (which passed the House anyway, 241-185), H.R. 1696 H.R. 800, which would make it easier to form a union. Here’s a good explanation from a blog called The Chicagoist:

In a nutshell, the current process of administrative rules and labor laws require at least 30% of workers to sign union cards indicating that they want to have a union, petition the government for an election, and then go through a campaign before getting to vote to have a union or not. […]

The Employee Free Choice Act changes the rules regarding union representation, granting union recognition by signing up a simple majority of workers on union cards, eliminating the petition process. Furthermore, this bill creates meaningful consequences when employers violate employee rights to organize and provides for mediation and arbitration in first contract negotiations.

LaHood voted against it, telling the Pekin Times he felt it would “take away the opportunity of the worker to participate and have their voice heard through the ballot.” Wikipedia further explains why he may feel that way:

Critics contend union administered elections, with a lack of Federal oversight, will lead to coercion on the part of union organizers. Opponents of the EFCA also assert that the measure would not protect employee privacy [i.e., there is nothing requiring a secret ballot].

Thank goodness we have Ray LaHood in Congress to protect workers from those horrible unions! I mean, the current system is so much better, isn’t it, with all its protective red tape and long delays? I suppose that’s one way to fix the trade deficit — if we can get rid of the unions, then American workers can start competing for the low wages corporations are paying to workers oversees.

Meanwhile, staunch defender of the democratic process LaHood continues to defend the decidedly un-democratic federal earmark process.

Public Services - General, Radio

Pledge now… you filthy freeloader!

8 Comments

Money BagsWCBU is in their pledge drive this week (you can pledge on-line). Generally speaking, I hate pledge drives. Still, even with all the interruptions, I still think there is less time spent asking for money during a pledge drive than commercial stations spend in ad time every day, so I’m not complaining.

I do have one complaint about the method used to raise money, and that is when they stop simply asking for money and start acting like you’re obligated to give; that you somehow owe them money because they’ve chosen to provide their content for free over the airwaves. To me, this makes them sound like a “squeegee guy” — the guy who approaches cars stopped in traffic and cleans their windows without asking, then demands payment.

I guess I’m not sure what the guilt-trip tactic accomplishes. One could just as easily assuage one’s guilt by not listening to their station anymore, and what good would that do? Their costs of delivery stay the same whether people listen or not. You can draw more flies with honey than vinegar, so why not stay positive?

Nevertheless, I think it’s a good cause because they do provide good content. I’m not a big classical music fan, but I do appreciate their stellar local news coverage. So, I’m pledging this year.

And besides, this gives me an idea: Maybe I’ll conduct my own pledge drive here and try to raise some money to cover my time and expenses. Hey, I think I may be onto something…. No ads, just annual pledge drives and underwriters…. Hmmm, this could work for the Chronicle…. Thanks, WCBU!