At last night’s City Council meeting, we spent at least 30 minutes debating a Council resolution on Michigan House Bill 6456 (HB 6456).

A Senate hearing on HB 6456 is scheduled for Wednesday, November 29.  The bill would eliminate local cable franchising and replace it with a statewide franchise agreement.

The resolution we finally adopted opposes passage of HB 6456.

According to the Michigan Municipal League, adoption of HB 6456 would have significantly negative impacts to local communities. It would cause a $25-35 million loss in revenue for local communities due to losses of in-kind services from the cable companies. HB 6456 would also allow cherry-picking and redlining on a house-to-house basis throughout Michigan communities.

For more on this legislation from the Michigan Municipal League, go to http://www.mml.org/legislative/bills/telecom_franchise.htm

For another perspective, see the Mackinac Center article “Ending Cable Monopolies Would Benefit Consumers.”

Here’s an excerpt…

Legislation pending in the state House would streamline the process of obtaining a cable TV franchise, which is the permission a company needs to offer services. If enacted, the measure would promote competition among video providers, which would greatly benefit consumers. Unfortunately, local government officials are attempting to block reform with false claims and twisted facts. From the time cable lines began replacing TV antennas four decades ago, municipalities have required cable firms, such as Comcast, to obtain franchises under the assumption that cable service was a "natural monopoly" in need of taming. This local regulation, which was never justified, has become destructive now that there are assorted technologies and service providers that consumers could choose from — if given the chance…

The complete article can be found at… http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7960

In my opinion, some form of cable deregulation in Michigan should be adopted. I believe that the current version of HB 6456 needs to be modified so that it fairly balances the interests of consumers, cable providers, and local units of government.