TV bill set for passage

SB 117, AT&T’s effort to make getting into Ohio’s video market easier was unanimously approved by its subcommittee today. Here’s the Buckeye Institute Blog:

The House Public Utilities Committee yesterday unanimously passed S 117, the video choice bill already approved by the state Senate. It now goes to the full House for consideration. As I’ve stated before on this blog, this bill is a good thing as it will provide video consumers with more choices by revising the state’s antiquated video franchise law.

Unfortunately, a few amendments weakened this bill as it made its way through the Committee. One amendment, for example, forces companies to offer three government channels (also known as public access channels) on their basic tier of service. Does anyone really watch public access channels?

I don’t, but I’m not everybody. With video on the internet getting better and easier all the time, those government channels seem superfluous- a throwback to an earlier time. Here’s the Dispatch:

Ohio channel-surfers could be one step closer to more entertainment choices and lower bills, now that a bill designed to do both has been approved by the Ohio House Public Utilities Committee.

Senate Bill 117, approved unanimously yesterday by committee members, now goes to a full House vote Thursday, and, if passed as observers expect, will head to Gov. Ted Strickland for his signature. The Senate has approved it.

The bill is designed to level the playing field between cable companies such as Time Warner and telecommunication companies such as AT&T. It would create a single statewide franchise for each company instead of a patchwork of local agreements signed by cities and townships.

I think the bill is a good thing, on the whole. The best thing for consumers is competition, and the bill will make it easier for companies to enter the market. Under the current system, towns and communities negotiate with companies, and often make demands that are in their own governmental interests, rather than in the interests of consumers. And the cost of those demands show up on your bill.

A public utility monopoly should be forced to meet community demands, this in exchange for the monopoly. But when there is essentially no physical reason why many companies can’t compete in the same space, it’s much better to open it up to all comers.

The cost of negotiating with ever city and village itself also adds costs, and guess who’s been paying for that all along.

Here’s an opposing view from Callahan’s Cleveland Diary, via Writes Like She Talks.