SB 117: Breaking other people’s eggs for AT&T’s omelet

Q. What do these Ohio cities have in common?

Athens. Newark. Mansfield. Ashtabula. Brunswick. Portsmouth. New Philadelphia. Lorain. Elyria. Norwalk. Hudson. Medina. Marion. Wapakoneta. Lima. Defiance. Bryan. Van Wert. Oregon. Bowling Green. Ashland. Wooster. Carrollton. Piketon. Lorain. Amherst. Oberlin.

A. These are just a couple of dozen of the hundreds of Ohio municipalities that are about to lose their home rule authority to negotiate and oversee cable franchises, and get absolutely nothing of value in return.

The House Public Utilities Committee is holding its proponent hearing on Senate Bill 117 right about now. Much is being said about the wonders of the competitive video service AT&T is ready to deliver to lucky consumers, just as soon as we get rid of those pesky local franchises. The Communications Workers spokesman is telling everyone how this is the next step Ohio has to take to get a thousand new jobs and a 21st century network. (No, I’m not there but trust me, I’ve got it memorized.)

But no one is talking about exactly where these marvels are going to take place, or more important, where they aren’t.

No one is explaining to Rep. Hottinger that SB 117 will bring Newark no closer to cable competition that it is today. No one is showing Rep. Distel and Rep. Barrett how the 21st century network will bypass Ashtabula, Lorain, Amherst and Norwalk. Unless Rep. Goyal or Rep. Stewart asks, no proponent witness is likely to mention Mansfield or Athens. It’s even less likely that any of today’s witnesses have brought along a map like this…

… showing just how much of Ohio is eligible to benefit from a law designed solely to propel AT&T into the competitive broadband video business.

Yes, to make an omelet you have to break some eggs. But normally, if the eggs you’re cracking belong to me, I expect to get some breakfast.

It’s remarkable how free AT&T and SB 117’s other cooks are with other people’s eggs.

P.S. There’s a simple amendment to SB 117 that would fix the “other people’s eggs” problem. Just make the change from local franchising to a state “video service authorization” system effective only for communities where a new video service is actually entering the market.

No competition, no change. Fair enough?