Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on September 12, 2006, to require the Public Service Commission to create a state video service franchise application that would be submitted to local governments by both cable TV providers and phone companies providing video through phone lines. All providers would have to offer local stations, and any "public access" stations currently provided by cable systems. Local governments would be allowed (but not required) to impose a fee (tax) of five percent of gross revenues plus an additional 1 percent for public access facilities

The vote was 80 in favor, 21 opposed and 7 not voting

(House Roll Call 1080 at House Journal 86)

Click here to view bill details.

2006 House Bill 6456 (Replace local cable TV franchising with state system). If this bill would cut the tremendous costs of cable tv access I would then wholly support this legislation. The cost of cable tv access has risen over the years way beyond the cost of inflation. We also need to have the costs of broadband internet access so that it can be affordable for all.

Just one thing that the Imperial Government does better, cheaper or more efficient than private enterprise...... I'm waiting....... I'm Still Waiting...... If you think that this will lower your cable bills then you are delusional and should not be allowed to vote. If you really want cheaper cable then get rid of all the stupid government red tape, rules, fees, taxes etc and let competition take over.

Got some spam mail today. From TV4US. Claiming lower cable bills and new services if this bill is passed. I used the postage paid mailer to tell my legislator to vote it down. Do you people REALLY think this is going to help if they put this bill into action? I'll be waiting to see my bill go down 28 to 42% as per the mailer. SCS

I just wanted to be clear on this because some of the people commenting here seem to be misunderstanding the bill. This bill does not bring about a government cable company to battle the private companies so our consumer costs will go down. This is a bill that puts a blanket statewide franchise agreement in place so companies can broadly deploy cable competiton without having to go town to town setting up franchise agreements. THIS IS NOT A GOVERNMENT CABLE COMPANY BEING CREATED. Local communities still benefit from the statewide franchise but just not from directly negotiating with the new competitors.

It is time that the consumer be able to have a choice in who provides their service. With the technology going in the direction that it is going today, was a democratic society (based on freedom of choice)we should allow for an easier process in providing these technologies to consumers. The "franchise negotiation" process is very teadeous and needs to be stream lined. There is no reason that individual communities should not be able to receive some kind of compensation for streamlining this process.

AT&T wants our state government to open widely a door that AT&T refuses to use properly now. AT&T does not/will not supply Internet service to [all] Michigan residents; just to those within a money generated area. I live in Algonac and AT&T does not/has not/will not place advertised Internet service to this area because we are a small town: approximately 8000 residents. Algonac is only 45 minutes from Detroit, but Algonac is [not] deserving of AT&T's allowable profit margin to allow Internet (High Speed) access as they advertised at $19.95 PER MONTH. AT&T is refusing to give Internet access to [all] Michigan residents and I certainly feel that AT&T should not have [all] of Michigan to plunder at their notion being enforced by Michigan State Law.

To pass this bill for his friends

AT&T wants our state government to open widely a door that AT&T refuses to use properly now. AT&T does not/will not supply Internet service to [all] Michigan residents; just to those within a money generated area. I live in Algonac and AT&T does not/has not/will not place advertised Internet service to this area because we are a small town: approximately 8000 residents. Algonac is only 45 minutes from Detroit, but Algonac is [not] deserving of AT&T's allowable profit margin to allow Internet (High Speed) access as they advertised at $19.95 PER MONTH. AT&T is refusing to give Internet access to [all] Michigan residents and I certainly feel that AT&T should not have [all] of Michigan to plunder at their notion being enforced by Michigan State Law.

I have backed this idea all along to get rid of the franchise fee, a tax NOT voted on by the tax payers. Now it appears it will cost us more not less for the same thing.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is another attempt att to by-pass the system and get the state to do their dirty work. Sounds like an Engler thing to me. Didn't he leave office to join this band of thieves?

There are already plenty of ways companies willing to build these type technological systems can do so. It is their willingness not any other impediment that is the issue.

Rep. Meisner, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: Lansing's assault on the ability of local governments to meet their many obligations -- including protecting the health and welfare of their citizens with police, fire and first response services -- has been ongoing for years. From drastic cuts in revenue sharing to the shackling effect of Proposal A and the Headlee Amendment, our local units of government face great peril and possible extinction in some cases. How does Lansing choose to help these local champions -- our constituents, our partners at the local level? By attacking the very underpinnings of their power to govern -- their ability to enter into, enforce, and protect contract rights; their ability to fight for the rights of our mutual constituents. I admire and appreciate my colleagues for their efforts at bringing the sides of this legislative issue to a reasonable compromise, and regret that the so-called compromise didn't go further to protect the important principle of local control, and even more importantly, to protect the bottom line of the cities I'm proud to represent."

Senator Basham, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of House Bill No.6456 and moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting "no." The motion prevailed. Senator Basham's statement is as follows: Let me just tell you why I will not be supporting this piece of legislation. First of all, I regularly attend a couple of groups in Wayne County, outside the city of Detroit, called the Conference of Western Wayne and the Downriver Community Conference. Those two groups alone represent every city and township outside the city of Detroit in Wayne County. You're talking about a 1.25 million people who consistently--those groups oppose this legislation. They thought their representatives through the Michigan Municipal League thought--the legislation could be made better with some amendments. I watched those amendments. Some of them were withdrawn and some of those amendments were voted "no" on, so they didn't pass. I watched my colleagues talk about competition, and I listened as the city of Dearborn was talking about competition allowing AT&T to compete in the same environment in the city of Dearborn where they currently have Comcast. They wouldn't agree to the same terms. I watched and listened to all of the arguments for several months. I even received bologna in my office from one company talking about the other company was full of bologna. I've even received flip-flops in my office. One company said the other company was a flip-flopper. One thing that this legislation has done thus far is it has created jobs. Every multi-client lobbyist in the state of Michigan is working on one side or the other on this piece of legislation. So, certainly, jobs have been created thus far. If we don't pass the bill and we deal with it next term, I would expect it would create more jobs. These are good-paying jobs. These are not like the jobs that I've seen that are subcontractors of either Comcast or AT&T that have to pay their own health care and buy their own equipment. Again, there's many, many reasons to either support or oppose this legislation, but essentially, if I could sum it up, you dance with the ones who brung ya, and certainly, my locals are opposed to this legislation.

Senator McManus' statement is as follows: Some of you know that my husband works for AT&T, and as we have deliberated today on the video franchise legislation, I just wanted to be fully conscious of Senate Rule 1.306 and disclose my family connection to this issue. My husband is an engineer with the company, not a policymaker. I want to assure all of you that I look at every single issue individually and cast my vote accordingly.

Senator Jacobs' statement is as follows: This is the same amendment that my colleague from Saugatuck offered on General Orders. I want to reaffirm what she indicated in her comments. You know, many of us support net neutrality, but we also want to see the state taking incremental steps toward increasing competition. While I know that there is strong bipartisan support for net neutrality, there is also a large measure of support for finishing this video franchising reform. I feel that at this point I'm going to ask that my amendment be withdrawn because I feel that we need to take up the net neutrality legislation separately--the concept of it. We really need to ensure that this very important safeguard is addressed in a very thoughtful and deliberative manner. Supporters of net neutrality right now are a very diverse coalition of companies and public interests groups that are spanning the entire political spectrum. They're committed and I am committed to protecting consumers and competition in Michigan. So I would ask my colleagues to expect that we can work on this in the next session. Again, I ask that this amendment be withdrawn.

Senator Switalski's statement is as follows: I rise in support of House Bill No.6456. Passage of the bill in front of us today will result in substantial investment during a time of economic stagnation. It will result in a modernization of our infrastructure during a time of rapid technological change. It will result in the employment of thousands of people during tough economic times and high unemployment. It will reduce regulations and create a market environment with competition and the promise of lower rates and better service for our constituents. But this comes at a price. By imposing a statewide contract, we are taking away the right for our local governments to negotiate what are often lucrative agreements. So that is a choice. I respect those who are philosophically committed to local regulation and control of this matter, but at this critical time, I think the state needs to clear the way for investment, employment, modernization, and competition. I don't wish to harm the locals at a time when their revenues are severely constrained. This Senate has taken a House bill that passed that chamber 80- 21 and has doubled the Peg fees that support local governments. This isn't a perfect bill, but it's a better bill than what passed the House. It is a significant incentive to economic expansion in Michigan.

Senator Birkholz's statement is as follows: As we have had some very deliberative debates today on this huge issue before us, I want to again remind my members about the net neutrality issue and how important it is to consumers across the state, especially those in the more rural and suburban areas. Yes, this needs to be addressed by the federal government. Yes, the federal government is working on it, but as we know, the federal government lately has been very slow to react to states' needs. We as states have found ourselves leading the federal government, not being behind them in the parade. Unfortunately, we do not have the net neutrality amendment on this bill, but it is still very important for us to look at in the future. It's become known as the Google amendment and they feel very strongly that Michigan needs to ensure Michigan's consumers access to all forms of video services, not just those that are offered by cable and phone companies. But they have also indicated their support of increased competition for Michigan consumers and decided they have no desire to derail the whole process. So, in deference to them and to my constituents who have e-mailed me, snail-mailed me, and phoned me about this very issue because they feel so strongly, I have decided that I would not put the amendment on, as you know. We've also been in contact with the Governor's office. It's my understanding that the Governor's office has suggested to Google and the other supporters of net neutrality that they will take up the bill again next year in stand-alone legislation. Therefore, I did not put the amendment on, but I want members to be aware of the fact that this is a huge issue facing us and we need to continue to work on it in the future. Thank you for your support.

You are right, how can our state govenment let ATT get away with offering their service in a "cherry picking" manner. The Internet will now have "class" access. SOS!!!!!

This is great news to here. Take it from me the citizen of River Rouge needs a new cable service. We have had Comcast for the last 20 years and all we see is prices going up and service going down. Comcast is the only game in town.

do you REALLY want the current "only game in town" to be replaced with the state's version of "the only game in town"? how about this... how about we dump the archaic laws and taxes currently on the books and allow a little free competition? this would entice some more companies to come in and "bid" for your business. lower rates, better service, people actually trying to keep you as a customer. folks competing for your business... wow. what a concept. how can a state that can't run a state ever hope to run a cable company?

This bill is great for communities with higher populations. For small cities and townships, cable companies will not serve the area because it would not be profitable to them. This would result in that community having no cable service at all or ridiculous rates so that the cable company could make a profit. With over 2 million people in rural areas (as of the 2000 census) we can only hope we don't see a negative impact.

Hmmm.

Whether it's federal, state, or local government, they all have the same purpose, to take in more money by taxation, also known as "investment". Less government please!

Jenny did a fine job all by herself getting this passed. What does Deevos have to do with it? What a gerbil!

Exaclty what I explained to Robertson and Nof's Office. Oh they wanted to create competition and "hopefully inspire lower cable bills." Not one state that has done this have the cable compaines lowered the cable bills. So we get less service~! They get bigger profits. Pefect.

"The cost of cable tv access has risen over the years way beyond the cost of inflation." So stop buying it. No one forces you. Nobody ever got smarter watching the one eyed idiot. "We also need to have the costs of broadband internet access so that it can be affordable for all." Please explain to me why you believe that the government should be involved in keeping your bills low. You do know that the only money they have is supplied by folks that actually work, don't you? Maybe you are one of the 49% of the usefull idiots in this country that thinks government has their own income ather than what they steal from us.

How many times can you say one thing and do another. Let me Count the Ways! The Main argument was that In order to create competition... Here's what they actually gave us. Free REIN for other video services to come into Michigan and not have to Provide PEG programming. They Claimed that this would "Possibly" lower our Comcast bills... BLAH BLAH BLAH In over eighteen other States this same basic legislation was passed. In every State PEG Programming was almost completely cut out. And guess what Cable bills went up while service went down! What made Michigan Legislators believe they could do this any better. Now silly me! For some reason I Think of Competition like a Race. When you run a race the starting point, Route and Ending point are all the same for everyone in the race. NOT IF IT IS THIS LEGISLATION!!! Here he tell Comcast they HAVE to continue to provide PEG programming, but tell the other services they do not have too. So Our legislature gave one set of rules for the company that was already here. Then gave a sweetheart deal to AT&T and VERSION. Anyone actually believe NAFTA is Fair Competition?? BEWARE the Republican BUZZ WORDS! COMPETITION, BETTER SERVICE and LOWER RATES. NONE ever happen when they Sponsor a Bill! But what is even funnier is all the Democrats that voted for this and then claimed they didn't realize what was going to happen. One gives a dumb argument and the other just plays dumb. How do we the people win? Oh and BTW, In 2009 when those lucrative franchise fees disappear because of this Legislation. Most of the people that supported it won't be in office. They can afford to play stupid! They won’t be around to hear all the local municipalities complain when these companies stop paying their franchise fees. LOL LOL LOL Call these people and tell them to FIX IT! Right now they are working in the SENATE on SB636. This is an attempt to fix the fees being paid. Nothing about requiring the new services to provide PEG programming, or access to Public programming. Really now. What do our legislators really care. They produce their shows in Lansing on the peoples tab. They can have their shows delivered at no expense to them. What ever happened to the “Public Good”. I guess that is only for those that can afford to pay themselves to be the Public.

I would like to know why WOW and Comcast aren't in Livonia yet? It seems to be that there is a cartel going on where the cable companies have quietly agreed not to invade each other's territories... I demand competition, and not AT&T... REAL competition. Let's get rid of "DIM HOUSE" and get some real choice!

What is the state doing to make sure cable companies aren't setting up cartels? Nothing has changed since the house bill passed. I have no new choices. AT&T UVerse is a joke.

j4uYTU

sweet site thx

sweet site thx

tickets_3.txt;2;2

tickets_4.txt;2;2

tickets_4.txt;2;2

tickets_5.txt;2;2

FlZx3b hi! hice site!

G7Q9zB hi! hice site!

tpvEGz hi! hice site!