More on HB 6456

I was asked for some more info on HB 6456 after my last post, so here goes.

I am on the fence about this bill. Michigan needs more than just Comcast (or whom ever may have the small part of Michigan that Comcast doesn't cover) offering terrestrial video services. But this bill isn't perfect. I think I would fully support this bill if it included provisions insisting the service be rolled out to all parts of the state not just the wealthy, most profitable parts. (The bill states that 25% of the customers enrolled in the service must be low income within 3 years, and 50% within 6 years so that is at least a start. But it also states that if proving video through the phone line, IPTV, it does not have to service an area larger than what it already services.)

Google is the entity pushing the hardest for net neutrality in this bill, and as mentioned in my previous post, for good reason. The other groups that have jumped on board over this issue have done it for much the same reason Google has, to raise awareness of the issue. Part of the problem is, the reporting on this issue hasn't been very good. Most articles about the bill only talk about Google's opposition to the bill in regards to net neutrality making it seem like this bill deals much more with the internet than it does. (It only mentions the internet four times and once it is in regards to advertising, and once in the definition of IPTV.)

Another group opposed to the bill is local municipalities. They throw around a lot of reasons why they are against it, but really it boils down to money. Local governments make the decisions right now as to who gets to operate in any given area, in exchange for a list of provisions and a nice little franchising fee, the company gets to operate in that area. A lot of numbers are being tossed around as far as how much local governments could lose if this bill passed, but all of them I have seen look largely over estimated. When those numbers do get published, all local monies are pooled into one, making the loss per city look much larger than it actually will be. The bill actually provides for some of the money collected from the franchising fees to be given to the local municipalities, but they argue that would not be as much as they would get if they themselves issued the franchise.

The local municipalities other qualm with this bill is that it will take away local bargaining control. Right now the local governments can bargain with the telecos, stating that if they want to operate in the area they have to give free cable to prisons, schools, and other public buildings. They can also request public access channels, and define the areas that the company must provide services for. This new bill will take control over these areas from the local government and give it to the state. The local municipalities argue that doing so will take away the local access channels and take way the free cable to prisons and schools, however that is not the case. It will not take local access away, but instead will make the requirement and the number that must be offered uniform across the state. The bill actually states that the same amount of local access channels that are provided now is required if the company wants to operate in a given area. Also I think this will give us more bargaining control over things like free access for schools since they will be bargaining to cover the entire state verses one town None of these issues seems to be really striking a chord with the Michigan people so now some local municipalities have jumped on the net neutrality band wagon and are stating that the new bill will leave large areas of the state not covered by any service.

There are also a couple smaller arguments they raise as well. They list right-of-away issues (where the new wires will be ran, what poles can the new wires go on, will they need new poles) that would have to be somewhat rethought as a reason against this bill. As I see it rights-of-ways have been figured out many times in the past, they should be able to be figured out again. Local municipalities argue that consumers will have to complain to the state rather than local governments in order for their issues to be heard and therefore it will take longer for complaints to be resolved. To me, this is a very bold augment to be made since my local government has been bullied in the past from Comcast. Our government complained to Comcast that we are over paying for our service compared to other towns and cities. The city council stated that Ann Arbor pays the same amount of money that we do, but gets a lot more channels, something in the order of 10-15 more than us. Comcast said they were not going to lower their rates and they would not give us more channels.

Yet another argument against this bill is, heavy opposition to and a dislike of AT&T. Right now AT&T is pushing for this bill to go through so they can begin to offer terrestrial video services (their IPTV which sends cable programing through the internet) in Michigan. People argue that this bill is really a give away to AT&T since it would allow them to expand their IPTV which right now is only in a few areas of the country. This bill really isn't designed to be any kind of giveaway, right now AT&T has shown the most interest in proving a service in Michigan that they can not provide right now. That is not to say that some other company might not went to offer their services in Michigan in the future as well.

All in all, I don't think the bill is bad, but it could use some work. I don't think it needs to be completely rewritten as some have called for (this bill already is a compromise of an earlier bill that tried to set up multiple terrestrial video services in Michigan), but a couple extra items could help making it easier for some to swallow. I love the idea of opening up competition in Michigan. As far as net neutrality goes, I am not that worried about it at the state level, yes it would send a message to Washington, but it would do little to ensure an actual neutral internet. Also, something that has been brought to my attention is that if the Telecos actually do go to a two tiered system and congress did nothing about it, they would take their fight to the Department of Justice's Anti-trust devision.

Mini disclaimer: I am not an expert on this bill, but I have read parts of it (it's 24 pages long) and have read some reporting on it prior to the whole net neutrality issue being raised, along with a bunch after the issue was raised. Also I am very, very fed up with Comcast and their very poor service and insanely high prices. But I also was Telecommunications major at MSU.

Here are a couple of links explaining the anti-trust route Google may take
http://government.zdnet.com/?p=2416
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/07/google_neutrality.html

Here is a link to the bill
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/billengrossed/House/pdf/2006-HEBH-6456.pdf

Once again cross-posted at Michigan Liberal

Net Neutrality

With net neutrality once again being talked about, I thought I should give my 2 cents about it.

With HB 6456 passing the Michigan House there has been a lot of talk about passing a bill statewide enforcing net neutrality. This is a good first step, and it sends a message but really it doesn't stop a two tiered internet. What passing a net neutrality bill in Michigan would do is it wouldn't allow any two tiered system equipment in the state. Information sent and received within the state would be treated by the telecoms as equals. However, a neighboring state may not have net neutrality on the books and therefore could cripple the traffic coming from that state. If such a thing were allowed to happen, a few states without net neutrality would effectively create a two tiered system for the entire country.

Since the Internet has no set path from point A, the server the data is stored on, and point B, the user, any kink in the system could cripple the entire system. If a switch or router your data goes through on the way to your computer is in a state that doesn't have net neutrality it could be slowed at that point eliminating the neutral net work in a state with net neutrality.

Even if every state had net neutrality on the books, but there was not national net neutrality law, the telcos could still create a two tiered system for information going into and out of the country, not to mention data crossing state lines. Each state would have different guidelines as to what passes as a neutral network which would create loopholes large enough to drive a semi-truck through.

Net neutrality is a very important issue that must be taken on at the national level to be truly effective. Passing net neutrality bills in states is a good first step, it sends a very important message to Washington.

So the question could be asked then, why would Google raise such a fit over HB 6456? Well quite simply for what is going on right now. Net neutrality is an important issue again. People are talking about it, people are getting mad over it. If Google succeeded in getting net neutrality added to the bill it would be a huge victory for them. They would have somewhat of a blueprint as to how to take the issue to other states and to Washington, their ultimate goal. They would send a very important message to the Telecom companies that the American people want a neutral network and they now have the means to fight back.

A bill allowing multiple video services in Michigan could actually help keep the Internet stay neutral. If either Comcast or AT&T decided to go to a two tiered internet, there would be a mass exodus from that service to the competing service. If that service went to a two tiered system, users would move to a third service. This would continue as the large telcos made their move to a two tiered system. We would see an increase in local ISPs again. Once the telcos got it through their greedy little heads that people are unwilling to pay for a services that cripples most of the internet they will drop this stupid idea of a two tiered system.

P.S. Also keep in mind AT&T already offers internet in Michigan. And the proposed upgrades to the system in order to offer video services as well, would actually make their internet offerings faster. Also the goal of this bill is to open up competition in video services, not just allow AT&T to operate.

My point of this post is to say that net neutrality is much, much bigger than just this HB 6456. We cannot forget that, and therefore we need to focus our efforts on the issue rather than just on this bill.

Cross-posted at Michigan Liberal

HB 6456

In Michigan right now there is HB 6456 that is being talked about. This bill didn't get much attention until Google called for net neutrality to be added to the bill.

I have to say Michigan badly need more competition in terrestrial video services. Right now Comcast has franchising rights to most of Michigan, meaning most of the places you go in Michigan they will have Comcast cable. As things stand right now only one cable operator is allowed to operate in a given town. The reason behind this is that more than one cable company operating in the same area meant that each company would need to run their own cable on the poles. Things are changing. There is now IPTV which more or less sends TV over the Internet. People are used to choices, you can even choose your phone company now, and people want a choice in who they get their terrestrial video services from. Cable companies right now are able to operate as legal monopolies and they want to keep it that way.

There was a bill offered up in the Michigan House to allow multiple video services in the state, however Comcast fought it tooth and nail and it didn't make it very far. HB 6456 was later offered as a compromise. The bill, which made it through the House, gave the power to the state, rather than local communities, the power to grant franchising rights. The underlying goal of the bill was to lay the ground work for multiple terrestrial video companies to compete.

Google saw this as an opportunity to work in something very near and dear to its heart, net neutrality. They warned that if net neutrality was not added to the bill, when the cable operators decided to move to a two tiered internet they would be able to affect the entire state, including Google's new offices in Ann Arbor.

We need net neutrality, but we also need competition in terrestrial video services. That being said, I'm not sure if net neutrality needs to be addressed in this bill, it could be addressed in it's own bill and still have the same affect.

Michigan is not the first state to take on this problem. Eight other states have enacted a bill allowing multiple video services to compete for customers. I haven't found any hard information on this (basicly because I get tired if sorting through Google results) but is looks like the other states that have passed a bill like this have not included net neutrality in them, but rather have introduced other bills to cover that issue. The way I look at it is that I would love to see net neutrality added to this bill, however I will take the victory of having multiple competing services over nothing. As I said I see net neutrality as a very important issue, but not necessarily one that has to be addressed in this bill.

I'm not saying that this bill is perfect, or even that it needs to be passed, but we do need competition in terrestrial video services in Michigan. Please don't get me wrong, I am all for net neutrality, I have even writen a letter to Senator Levin about the issue, but let's not try to make this bill into something that it is not. If passed this bill will not kill a neutral internet in Michigan. It only creates the potential of network abuse statewide if the Telecos decided to take up war against the consumers.

Remember Net Neutrality?

Remember Net Neutrality? Well it those who are opposed to it (AT&T and the Bells, and Comcast, and the other cablies) may have a harder fight when (I guess I should say if too, but really...) The Democrats take both houses of congress.

Also the Dems need to pass some laws stating if these companies are going to have services (High Speed Internet, HD television, etc) in some ares they have to have them in all areas. Right now smaller towns (like where I live) don't get the same service that towns just a few miles away.

There also needs to be laws getting rid of the monopolies these companies have over service. When I complain to Comcast right now they know I can't go anywhere else. They are the only game in town for true high speed Internet, they know we can not get AT&T's video service over the phone lines like bigger cities can. So when I complain, even to supervisors I get an assurance that my problem will be handled, but it never is. I have been told on two occasions that we would be getting free pay-per-view coupons in the mail since our digital cable isn't what we signed up for (it isn't even digital; it is the same channels, the same picture quality the same everything only now we have a box that sits there and does nothing), and they said that the service would work as advertised with in two weeks. The service still has yet to work, and we have never gotten our coupons. We have called many many times, and emailed about these issues almost as many times and still nothing has been done. We have called the 1-800 numbers, talked to the local representatives, talked to district representatives and representatives from the main office about the issue. It has been over two months and it still does not work as we have be told it would. They keep telling us that we are still in our free trial period so we shouldn't worry about not having the service they told us we would have. They also told us that the time that we do not have the service still counts toward the free trial period even though we have nothing to try. They say the service will start anytime now. I'll still waiting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061023/ap_on_go_co/internet_equality;_ylt=AhrM2DWSJve5jcuzTskqlTbMWM0F;_ylu=X3oDMTA3cjE0b2MwBHNlYwM3Mzg-