Net Neutrality Fight Moves to Pennsylvania Legislature

Now that the Stevens bill is dying in Congress, the Bells are taking a different approach and trying to sneak through bills at the state level. Federal telecommunictions bills move about once every ten years, so there's a relatively narrow window to pack all your desired pork into one of these massive hogs.

This cycle, video franchising, or letting telecom companies sell cable, is the big prize, and Verizon and company tacked killing net neutrality onto the package as icing. With the Stevens bill looking like it's going to die and a possible changeover in Congress, the telecom companies are looking for an alternative legislative vehicle so they don't have to have strong net neutrality protections tacked onto the telecom reform bill next cycle. And that means going to the states. Rather than passing national franchising, the telecom companies are trying to get a bunch of big states to pass state video franchising bills, and then they won't have to deal with a Federal bill next cycle and net neutrality can just die without legislative action. One of these states is Pennsylvania, and the bill is called SB 1247.

Now, video franchising isn't bad in itself, but this bill is horrible. It allows redlining, which means that no one will invest in building out broadband to rural areas. The only people who will get cable and internet service over fiber are in high income suburbs and dense urban areas. And obviously, there is no net neutrality protections.

There is a broad coalition opposing this bill, from local municipalities to cable interests to progressive organizers. It's beatable, and the hearing is tomorrow. If you care about net neutrality and live in Pennsylvania, please call the following legislators, and use the following script:

“This bill weakens significant consumer protections with no guarantee of real consumer choice for cable. I urge you to vote no on SB 1247 as written, and work to craft cable competition legislation that protects consumers, not Verizon.”

Republicans:

Senator Robert Wonderling (chair): (717) 787-3110

Senator John Rafferty: (717) 787-1398

Sen. Gibson Armstrong: (717) 787-6535

Sen. John Pippy: 717-787-5839

Sen Bob Regola: (717) 787-6063

Democrats:

Sen. Connie Williams (minority chair)(717) 787-5544

Sen. Vince Fumo: (717) 787-5662

Sen. Leanna Washington: (717) 787-1427

Sen. John Wozniak: (717) 787-5400

Sen. John Gordner: (717) 787-8928



Display:


Re: Net Neutrality Fight (none / 0)

This is somewhat off topic, but the Green Party U.S. Senate candidate in PA was thrown off the ballot today.


by Hesiod Theogeny on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 01:19:05 PM EST

Wording Question (none / 0)

"no one will not invest"

That means people WILL invest in putting out broad band to rural areas.

That's a good thing.

Is this misworded or did I miss something? Please clarify, thanks!


by MNPundit on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 01:29:13 PM EST

Re: Net Neutrality Fight Moves to Pennsylvania Leg (none / 0)

Wow, the baby Bells really don't get blogosphere. Some of the highest traffic blogs in lefty blogosphere come out of PA.


by Alice Marshall on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 01:34:28 PM EST

Re: Net Neutrality Fight Moves to Pennsylvania Leg (none / 0)

California passed video franchising this session.  I believe the bill, heavily backed by Assembly Speaker Nunez is sitting on Arnold's desk.  AT&T pulled out all of the stops on this one.  They were holding fundraisers for Nunez and even took out full page ads to thank him for his "leadership".

To the best of my knowledge there was no net neutrality language in it.  It would have been a heck of a fight if they tried, given Silicon Valley's location.


by juls on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 01:52:35 PM EST

Really? (none / 0)

And I thought 60% of the membership of each house of the CA lege were Democrats?

Of course, Arnie could lurch leftwards again (after having vetoed the single payer healthcare bill) and veto the franchising bill.

But, then, as I recall, his liberal-ish tilt in bill signature coincided with buddying up with - Speaker Nuñez!

Uh oh...


by skeptic06 on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 05:10:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Really? (none / 0)

Like Matt says, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with letting telecom companies provide TV.  It gives cable and satelite companies more competition.  There wasn't much outcry about it, other than the fundraising AT&T did for Nunez.

I think Arnold will sign the bill.  He has not set the stage for a veto.


by juls on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 11:02:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you really know what a mess cable is here? (none / 0)

Comcast has a near monopoly on cable in Pennsylvania. They raise prices every year regardless of how much or little profit they make.
I would venture to say Comcast is more unpopular than either Rick Santorum or George Bush in the state.

The splintered approach to cable franchising simply has not worked. Philadelphia itself was split into four "franchises" but each different franchise had a monopoly in its territory - at least until Comcast bought all its competitors out. There was no competition then nor is there any now.

It is ridiculously inefficient to ask a cable provider to have a different franchise agreement
with every municipality - no matter how large or tiny. Statewide franchising is a much better idea and the build out requirement is being vigorously debated.


by phillydem on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 03:53:31 PM EST

Re: Do you really know what a mess cable is here? (none / 0)

Right, which is why attaching a build-out requirement to this bill makes sense.


by Matt Stoller on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 04:27:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Support PAState Legislative Democratic canddiate (3.00 / 1)

Well I've been asking you guys to Donate to Pa state Democratic candidates in Pa for like 3 months now and you keep ignoring me!!!! If they had real threats that were well funded the republicans wouldn't be fooling around like ths in the Pa state legislature. Especially in the Lehigh valley where we are getting the shaft from the state party, in winnable races.

Russ Shade for pa house 183
    www.russforpa183.com
   http://www.actblue.com/page/russshadepa1 83
Russ is runing against a do nothing inc that has this district tailored for her but it has gone from +6 r to +10 D since the last time someone rand against her

187th District  
    Archie Follweiler
  www.archiepahouse.org
  https:/www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr
is more or less running in an open seat since the republican inc lost in a low turnout primary
against a republican who is more or less has no name rec

134th District    Chris Casey
  www.caseyfor134th.com
https:/secure.actblue.com/contribute/en tity/11089
Hard core Vet Candidate walking hundreds of doors a day in some of the most rural areas in Central eastern pa


by orin76 on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 08:33:26 PM EST

Re: Net Neutrality Fight Moves to Pennsylvania Leg (none / 0)

I gotta tell ya, I live in Chester County, and I don't have Verizon.  I don't even have a 610 or 484 phone number.  I have 717!  This is because we have Commonwealth Tel, the absolute WORST telephone country in creation.  I had their DSL for a year and a half, and power surges through their ancient phone lines killed 6, yes, 6 modems.  God knows what kind of cable they'd provide. @@

When we moved here two years ago, we tried to keep our 610 phone number, which has been in our family for 50 years.  No luck, even though the person at the end of the block has a 610 number. It really stinks.  My husband has lost gigs because people in town think we live in Lancaster!

I would KILL to have Verizon.   Comcast has been a godsend, we switched to their internet, but they don't have phone in our area yet.  We have to pay the Podunk Phone Company a minimum ransom of $75 a month for 600 minutes.  If you use their DSL, that adds on another $40 because you HAVE to buy another phone number.  Oh, and they don't have unlimited local calls, either.  Pay, pay, pay.  Screw that.

However, Vonage does have phone in our area.  ;)  We switch in two days.... 610 number, and cheap phone bill, here we come!


by Moi on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 11:45:50 PM EST

Re: Net Neutrality Fight Moves to Pennsylvania Leg (none / 0)

I'm surprised you've had a 610 number in your familiar for 50 years, considering they've only existed for 15.

Seriously though, I'm really curious, how is that possible?  I thought everything here was 610 or 484.   How did you wind up with a 717?  Are you very close to the border?


by Chesco Dem on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 06:08:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Net Neutrality Fight Moves to Pennsylvania Leg (none / 0)

Given the misery I went through with Verizon when my mother decided to go broadband on account of Verizon's "big sale," and the misery my husband went through with his Verizon cell phone account, I'd pick Comcast any day of the week over them. My only complaints are the sums I pay for cable TV to get 5 hours of Keith Olbermann per week.

Details on the Verizon incompetence and ripoff attempts upon request.


by joyful alternative on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 09:34:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Pa. cable bill delayed, for now (none / 0)

Thanks to everyone's phone calls, the state House and Senate cancelled their scheduled votes on the Verizon-backed cable franchising legislation.  For now.  The House has rescheduled a vote for October 16th under pressure from Verizon, despite opposition to the bill from consumer groups, local governments, religious leaders and unions.  No word on whether the Senate will take this up before the end of session this November.  

FYI, Verizon has succesfully negotiated franchise agreements with close to 100 municipalities in Pa., all before it even has a product to offer to willing consumers.  In fact, other local goverments have begged Verizon to negotiate agreements with them, only to be rebuffed.  So the argument that the franchise process is a barrier to competition is simply a red-herring to get Verizon out of complying with consumer protections.

Cable competition is indeed good for Pennsylvania consumers, but there's no need to throw away critical consumer protections to get it.


by Beth McConnell on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 03:52:15 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.