Mich. Video Franchise Bill May Exclude Net Neutrality
AT&T and Verizon are poised to overcome some hurdles to providing their own pay TV, as a key legislator wants to exclude net neutrality from a Mich. video bill and Verizon got a franchise from the 6th richest U.S. county. Mich. Rep. Mike Nofs (R), sponsor of the bill (CD Nov 28 p5), likely wants it to remain separate from net neutrality rules, said aides. AT&T stands to benefit if net neutrality provisions sought by Google don’t become part of franchise law, said industry officials.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Meanwhile, Verizon won a franchise agreement from Montgomery County, Md. Verizon will sell FiOS fiber TV to more than 75,000 homes in the D.C. suburb before the end of Dec. Its franchise application was approved Tues. by a unanimous county council vote, as expected (CD Nov 16 p10).
The county can revise Comcast’s franchise agreement if the cable operator faces rules different from Verizon’s, said Jerry Pasternak, aide to County Executive Douglas Duncan (D). “Comcast did ask for some relief from its obligations, and my response to them was at some point in time it may be appropriate to consider granting some relief of that obligation. This is not the time,” Pasternak testified: “We feel the agreements are relatively comparable.”
The Bell agreed to build out fiber throughout suburbs in the county within 7 years, said a spokesman. It will start service to the agricultural Poolesville area within 3 years of when it has 75,000 customers in the county, he said. Verizon can activate FiOS TV to homes passed by the fiber lines within 2 weeks of a customer request for service, Verizon’s Lori Edwards told the council. The franchise is the company’s 231st, the spokesman said.
AT&T has taken the lead in lobbying for a franchise bill in Mich., where it has more wireline phone customers than Verizon, said an industry official. The franchise bill goes before a Senate committee today (Wed.). It has already passed the House. Mich. lawmakers may be shying away from net neutrality because they would be wasting their time on broadband service subject to federal oversight, said Netcompetition.org Chmn. Scott Cleland: “Has anybody said what net neutrality has to do with franchise reform? No… This one isn’t a close call.” AT&T officials declined to comment.
The Mich. Senate Technology & Energy Committee will hold an open hearing Wed. afternoon on a the bill, HB-6456. Attempts by media activists and other groups to get network neutrality language inserted probably won’t go anywhere, said legislative staffers working on the measure. House Energy & Technology Committee Chmn. Nofs, main sponsor of the bill, believes it’s the wrong vehicle to address network neutrality, said his aides, so he’s opposed to including network neutrality language.
The short amount of time left in the lame duck session may douse activist hopes for getting net neutrality legislation. There are only 7 session days before the Mich. legislature is scheduled to adjourn Dec. 14. Including a network neutrality provision now would necessitate talks between the chambers, which haven’t happened yet, said aides. Outgoing Senate majority leader Kenneth Sikkema (R) has told aides he wants to pass the video bill before he leaves, they said. Franchise legislation could be threatened if the Senate inserts net neutrality language and Nofs balked at the amendment, said aides.
The state has become a focal point of network neutrality supporters and foes because its lame duck legislative session is the only one in the country addressing video franchising. House debate on the bill centered on whether it would shortchange municipalities on video franchise fees and reduce support for public access -- not on broadband. “We wouldn’t want this bill to sink because of an 11th-hour issue that may not even be within state jurisdiction,” said an aide to Nofs. Whatever the outcome, Google may press its case in other states, said Free State Foundation’s Randy May. Google officials didn’t comment. “I suspect Google and its allies will take the net neutrality battle to other states,” said May, whose think tank has received support from Bell and cable companies: “This will be very unfortunate, because in essence net neutrality [would] impose common carrier obligations on broadband providers.”