Real competition welcomed, but this just doesn't cut it
Archives
Email this story | Print this story
The bill, which would allow telecommunications and cable companies to develop statewide licensing agreements rather than municipal agreements, was written by AT&T, who would be the prime beneficiary of the new law. The law would completely negate franchise agreements arranged between municipalities and cable companies, and in the words of Germantown spokesperson Angela Buckley, “throw local control out the window.”
Arguments emanating from Republican legislators, the prime backers of the bill, are sophisticated. They say the bill would allow for competition for exasperated consumers who just don’t have any choices. Or, they argue that the current law requiring companies to travel to the municipality and hammer out a franchise agreement is antiquated and must change to keep pace with the modern world.These are “sophisticated” arguments for a reason. The etymology of the word comes from ancient Greece, and at its core means a strong-sounding argument that, in effect, deceives or blurs the real issue at hand. In this case, AT&T wants into the lucrative cable industry without having to do the legwork or invest in the infrastructure, all under the guise of competition.
Of course, competition in any marketplace is usually good for consumers. But this bill doesn’t provide real competition. It allows cherry-picking of consumers in lucrative areas while providing an avenue for major telecoms to swoop into a new sector of the economy with massive profit potential.
“We invited [AT&T] to come here and set up a franchise agreement, but … they don’t have the infrastructure,” Buckley said.
With cherry-picking and the loss of important franchise agreements that set strong local restrictions for services and rights of way, consumers and the municipalities are potentially big losers.
Germantown, with its wealthy populace as a potential gold-mine for cable companies, receives nearly $450,000 each year from Comcast. Germantown High School Television [GHS-TV] receives more than $100,000 each year and a guarantee for its continued existence.
City of Germantown officials, not bashful in their opposition to the bill, have said that the new legislation could mean the ruin of GHS-TV because it provides no guarantees for public access channels and could mean the end of a major funding source for the town.
There is nothing wrong with competition, and if this were competition in its truest sense, it’s doubtful the bill would really cause more than a ripple. But when a sensible apparatus already exists for telecoms to enter into any given market and they would rather change the rules to get a leg up, something isn’t right.
