Friday, March 28, 2008

"AT&T, EBR approve TV deal"

Well, that was fast! The day before yesterday we noted here that AT&T through its astroturf subsidary TV4US had launched the public relations champaign to support its statewide video franchise law. This morning we see the first substantial political move in the upcoming battle. Baton Rouge has cut a deal with AT&T and so is taken off the board in an early first move of the chess pieces.

AT&T, according to the Advocate, has reached a franchise agreement with the East Baton Rouge City-Parish government to provide cable TV (aka "video services") in the parish. Follows a summary of what seems to be going on with the caveat that all I have to go on is the article...I can't find the ordinance or contract online as I would be able to in Lafayette—anyone have access?

AT&T will have the right to offer its new "U-verse" services (site, overview) in the parish for 5 percent of revenues to the general fund and .5% of revenues to support public, educational, and governmental channels (PEG channels). Presuming that turns out to be correct (and enforceable) its a good deal on two of the three major issues that any locale should consider: a fair price for the rental of public land and support for local media. Realizing any actual benefit from those two will depend on the third leg: the product being offered to a sizeable number of citizens. AT&T has long made it clear that they do not intend to offer this product to just anyone...instead they want to offer it chiefly to their "high value" customers and less than 5% of their "low-value" purchasers. (Fiber To The Rich, FTTR) If you figure out the implications of what they told investors back when this plan got underway they only intend to offer this product to about half of their current population base. Baton Rouge and other wealthy centers in generally cash-poor Louisiana might get U-Verse in rich neighborhoods but I'd be surprised if it went much into North Baton Rouge and Scotlandville. That might prove a difficult thing for Mayor Kip Holden to explain.

A bit of unease about the part AT&T was unwilling to promise might well, in turn, explain the secrecy with which this deal was constructed and the stealth with which it was executed. Holden received the council's blessing to negotiate on Wednesday with no (that's NO) discussion, and was able close and announce the deal on Thursday. The fix was in. (*) What didn't happen was any public discussion of the pros and cons of the deal offered by AT&T--discussion which might well have lead to uncomfortable demands that the city-parish require AT&T to actually serve the citizens whose property AT&T wants to use. Such a requirement is part of Cox's deal...but not, I have to strongly suspect, part of the deal with AT&T.

And, speaking of Cox, what about the cable companies? Where do they play in this game? A smart reporter will try and delve into that question. AT&T is using its extraordinary influence in the legislature to push two very bad video bills through the legislature. By comparison the cable companies have relatively little influence. What's curious is that Lafayette is the state's largest community to whom these bills will apply. Should Lafayette succeed, as she did two years ago, in getting herself excluded along with other older home rule communities the five largest metro areas of the state comprising the wealthiest 35-40% of the state's population will have to have local franchises anyway. Since no one (except deliberately naive legislators) actually believes that AT&T is going to provide video in rural regions the question has to be who will really benefit? One devious answer would have to be: the cable companies. They will be able to drop their local franchises with the communities that actually own the land they want to use, pick up a state franchise at a 30% discount in fees and NO local obligation to serve PEG channels. In other states like North Carolina where the phone company waged a bitter war to win the right to a state video franchise they didn't make use of it and filed few such requests. On the other hand their supposed cable opponents made out like bandits snatching up state franchises which allowed them to drop the more demanding local ones. The end result was no significant new competition, no price drops, and a huge drop in income to local municipalities.

Somebody in North Carolina got taken.....and the grifters are on the prowl here



(*)Revealing tidbit: The wikipedia section on U-Verse vailability was updated to include Baton Rouge on the 25th, two days before Baton Rouge supposedly concluded the deal and one day before the city-parish council approved negotiations. Not surprisingly, the prescient anonymous editor who added Baton Rouge to the list of cities was operating from a "BellSouth" (now AT&T) URL. The fix was in....

3 comments:

elsphit said...

hat's curious is that Lafayette is the state's largest community to whom these bills will apply. Should Lafayette succeed, as she did two years ago, in getting herself excluded along with other older home rule communities the five largest metro areas of the state comprising the wealthiest 35-40% of the state's population will have to have local franchises anyway.

elsphit said...

hat's curious is that Lafayette is the state's largest community to whom these bills will apply. Should Lafayette succeed, as she did two years ago, in getting herself excluded along with other older home rule communities the five largest metro areas of the state comprising the wealthiest 35-40% of the state's population will have to have local franchises anyway. how could that be?

______

elsphit

http://naoko-sushi-roma.blogspot.com/

John said...

elsphit,

Some states in the US union have what we call "home rule charters" for municpalities and sometimes other local units of government. Because states are the "source" of all local power legally local governments only have the powers the states grant them. (This is part of what the US means by "federalism.")

In my state, Louisiana, early home-rule charter cities have pretty much complete autonomy and cannot be imposed on by the state legislature about local issues. This is NOT true of charters granted under a later constitution.

The state of Louisiana cannot, constitutionally, impose this law on home rule charter cities.

All of the largest cities, which is where all the wealthiest people live, are home rule cities. 35-40 per cent of the population lives in the 5 largest cities that are or could be considered home rule...

So AT&T is only really shooting for the rural areas with this bill. Which we know they don't want to serve.

It really makes very little sense.