|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080505/NEWS06/805050325
Lee Gonzales said "These were unintended consequences"
John Gleason Said "I don't care what the Law said I'm working to get it back the way it was"
Brenda Clack Said "This was wasn't what was intended, I didn't know this was going to happen"
Dave Robertson said "I voted for it to lower our cable bills and increase competetion"
OK, This same ATT&T backed legislation was passed in 18 other states. Everything that was predicted to happen if passed has happened. What made any of these legislators think that it would be any different in Michigan?
Ted's response: (To Lee) This is what the Legislation allows for. WHat makes you think it wouldn't happen?
Ted's response: (To John) How do figure you can get something out of Comcast that the law you passed doesn't allow for?
Ted's Response: (to Dave) How does creating a new set of rules for ATT&T create competition and if in 18 other states thier comcast bills went up? How is this going to lower them?"
Ted's Response (to Brenda) Did you even read the legislation??
And all these people want to either be reelected or move to different positions in Government. When are we goign to wake up and elect people that can read and actually understand what they are reading? |
|
|
Mon May 05, 2008 12:45 pm |
|
|
Public D
F L I N T O I D
|
|
|
Mon May 05, 2008 12:52 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
| The SAD THING is. Not a one of them has a legitamate point in their reasoning for voting for this legislation. And why would any of them "HONESTLY" be surprised when the legislation did exactly what they were told it would do? That's what really blows me away! |
|
|
|
Mon May 05, 2008 1:49 pm |
|
|
Adam Ford
F L I N T O I D
|
I wonder how many legislators even read and understood the language of the bill before they voted for it?
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/publicact/htm/2006-PA-0480.htm is th bill.
Technically there could be unintended consequences with every bill which is why we need to look at which ones should be repealed or changed before creating new ones to add to the problem.
My personaly favorite bill to repeal would be the Michigan income tax bill.
Last edited by Adam Ford on Mon May 05, 2008 10:32 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Mon May 05, 2008 3:07 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
Well, this legislation had ample debate on the house and senate floor.
There were two main lobbist groups that AT&T paid from Illinois to tell our legislators what AT&T wanted them to hear. Everything they said was a lie. Those lobbiest will not return phone calls or email. Hmmm.
The thing that really ticked me off however, was the fact that this legislation had been passed in 18 other states.
18 other States
The same thing that is happening here happened in all of those other states! Commonsense to me would be that it would happen here also.
From reading the files online what would happen was talked about and the promoters of this Bill Said they had Gentleman agreements that these things would not happen. Hmmm Not very gentlemanly of them was it.
Now, I still haven't heard word back from Senator Cherry as to if she is willing to do anything. And Lee does seem to be willing to listen. We are still waiting for them to act on fixing the legislation. Not just bandade-ing it. |
|
|
|
Mon May 05, 2008 4:59 pm |
|
|
FlintConservative
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Ted Jankowski schreef:
Lee Gonzales said "These were unintended consequences"
John Gleason Said "I don't care what the Law said I'm working to get it back the way it was"
Brenda Clack Said "This was wasn't what was intended, I didn't know this was going to happen"
First...I thought Dems were smarter than that.
Second...I thought they were for the little guy, not big business. |
|
|
|
Mon May 05, 2008 5:45 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
| This was a mostly republican supported bill. under the guise of "creating competition".The Republican catch phrase for Bend over and kiss competition good by. Where helping another Major Corporation get ahead at te exspense of you the tax payer becauseit's for your own good, |
|
|
|
Mon May 05, 2008 9:17 pm |
|
|
FlintConservative
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Ted Jankowski schreef:
This was a mostly republican supported bill.
Last I checked Gonzales, Gleason & Clack were Dems. I say again...I thought they were smarter than that. So are they not so smart or did they vote without reading the bill? |
|
|
|
Tue May 06, 2008 2:02 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
FlintConservative schreef:
quote:
Ted Jankowski schreef:
This was a mostly republican supported bill.
Last I checked Gonzales, Gleason & Clack were Dems. I say again...I thought they were smarter than that. So are they not so smart or did they vote without reading the bill?
NOt arguing that point! Just pointing out that they were successful at pulling the wool over the Democrats eyes. They used the correct looby groups to strike fear into the hearts of their liberalism. LOL
But here is a little information: It's a Summary of what the Bill is supposed to do. The problem is. I cannot find one thing that they said it was going to do that has actually happened! If anyone can find one. Please point it out!
I may at a later date point out each individual item and why it didn't happen. With excerpts from the Bill itself that explain why!
VIDEO SERVICES LOCAL FRANCHISE ACT H.B. 6456 (S-2): FLOOR ANALYSIS
House Bill 6456 (Substitute S-2 as reported)
Sponsor: Representative Mike Nofs
House Committee: Energy and Technology
First Senate Committee: Technology and Energy
Second Senate Committee: Government Operations
CONTENT
The bill would create the "Uniform Video Services Local Franchise Act" to do the following:
-- Prohibit a person from providing video services in any local unit of government without first obtaining a uniform video service local franchise, except as otherwise provided. -- Provide that a uniform video service local franchise would be in effect for 10 years.
-- Prohibit a franchising entity from requiring a video service provider to obtain a separate franchise or otherwise imposing any fee or franchise requirement except as provided under the proposed Act.
-- Require the Public Service Commission (PSC), within 30 days after the bill took effect, to establish the standardized form for the uniform video service local franchise agreement.
-- Specify that any provisions of a franchise agreement existing on the bill's effective date that were inconsistent with or in addition to the provisions of the uniform agreement would be unreasonable and unenforceable.
-- Require a video service provider to pay to the franchising entity (the local unit of government) an annual video service provider fee, as well as an annual fee for the cost of public, education, and government access facilities.
-- Allow a video service provider to claim a credit toward the video service provider fee for its payments to the franchising entity under the Metropolitan Extension Telecommunications Rights-of-Way Oversight Act.
-- Require each video service provider to pay an assessment equal to the PSC's expenses required by the Act, not to exceed $1.0 million, until January 1, 2010.
-- Require a video service provider to provide for the same number of public, education, and government access channels that were in use on the incumbent video provider's system on the bill's effective date.
-- Require a provider to give subscribers access to the signals of the local broadcast television station.
-- Prohibit a franchising entity from enforcing any term, condition, or requirement of any franchise agreement that was more burdensome than the terms, conditions, or requirements contained in another franchise agreement.
-- Require a franchising entity to allow a video service provider nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral access to a public right-of-way.
-- Provide that a video service provider would not be subject to any civil or criminal liability for any program.
-- Prohibit a video service provider from denying access to service to any group of potential residential subscribers due to race or income.
-- Require each video service provider to establish a dispute resolution process for its customers.
-- -- Require the PSC to submit to the Legislature by June 1, 2007, a proposed process that would allow the Commission to resolve disputes that could not be resolved under the provider's process, and disputes between a provider and a franchising entity or between providers.
-- Require the PSC to file an annual report on the status of competition for video services in Michigan.
-- Prescribe administrative penalties for a violation.
Legislative Analyst: Julie Cassidy
FISCAL IMPACT
The bill would increase the administrative responsibilities for the Public Service Commission by requiring the Commission to create a uniform video service local franchise agreement; requiring the establishment of a dispute resolution process for disputes not resolved through the provider process; and requiring an annual report on the status of competition in the State. The bill would establish an assessment on video service providers to generate revenue for the Commission sufficient to cover the costs of regulation, but not to exceed $1.0 million. The authority to levy the assessment would expire December 31, 2009.
The bill would allow the PSC to impose fines for any violation of the proposed Act by a provider. Since the bill would not dedicate that revenue, those fines would be deposited into the General Fund. The amount of revenue that would be generated would depend on the number and severity of the fines imposed.
The bill would have an indeterminate effect on local unit revenue and expenditures. The actual amount of the impact on local units would depend on a number of factors that differ between local units. In local units where the franchise fee is below the level established in the bill (or nonexistent), the bill would increase revenue. In local units where the fee is higher than the level set in the bill, the bill would reduce revenue when the fee changed. Similarly, fees paid as support for the capital cost of public, education, and government access would have an indeterminate effect, depending on the fees under the bill relative to current fees.
Revenue to local units also would be affected by the interaction of credits allowed under the bill, particularly maintenance fees paid for use of public rights-of-way. To the extent that the allowed credit of five cents per linear foot of public rights-of-way exceeded the gross revenue per linear foot, the credit could eliminate any revenue the local unit might receive under the bill's franchise fee. The credit also would effectively eliminate the cost to providers of any right-of-way fees paid by providers, unless those fees exceeded the franchise fee imposed under the bill - in which case the local unit would receive no franchise fee income from the provider.
To the extent that the bill would limit the requirements local units may impose as part of franchise agreements, the bill could increase local unit expenditures to maintain or replace property or services available under current franchise agreements, if the bill excluded such property or services from the agreements.
Date Completed: 12-12-06 Fiscal Analyst: Elizabeth Pratt
Maria Tyszkiewicz
David Zin |
|
|
|
Tue May 06, 2008 4:08 pm |
|
|
Adam
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Ted Jankowski schreef:
quote:
FlintConservative schreef:
quote:
Ted Jankowski schreef:
This was a mostly republican supported bill.
Last I checked Gonzales, Gleason & Clack were Dems. I say again...I thought they were smarter than that. So are they not so smart or did they vote without reading the bill?
NOt arguing that point! Just pointing out that they were successful at pulling the wool over the Democrats eyes. They used the correct looby groups to strike fear into the hearts of their liberalism. LOL
I guess their schedules our too jam packed raising taxes and passing new bills to do full due dillegence. The phrase "cop out" comes to mind. Unfortunately about the only politician I know who hasn't had any wool pulled over there eyes is Ron Paul.
Didn't Granholm sign the bill? She ought to have people that do her due dillegence for her. |
|
|
|
Tue May 06, 2008 5:39 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
Ted's line by line response! I'm going to have to put this on my website.
CONTENT
The bill would create the "Uniform Video Services Local Franchise Act" to do the following:
-- Prohibit a person from providing video services in any local unit of government without first obtaining a uniform video service local franchise, except as otherwise provided. -- Provide that a uniform video service local franchise would be in effect for 10 years.
ESSENTIALLY THIS MEANS NOTHING! OUR CURRENT VIDEO FRANCHISE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN NULLIFIED BY THE NEW LAW. THE ONLY THINGS IN EFFECT ARE THOSE ITEMS THAT THIS LAW DOESN'T NULLIFY. WHICH IS MOST OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTIITY'S AGREEMENT.
-- Prohibit a franchising entity from requiring a video service provider to obtain a separate franchise or otherwise imposing any fee or franchise requirement except as provided under the proposed Act.
AS IF THIS WAS ALREADY HAPPENING. LET'S WRITE A LAW THAT HAS NO AFFECT ON ANYTHING. HAD THIS LAW NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED NEW VIDEO SERVICES WOULD HAVE HAD TO DO THE SAME THINGS COMCAST DID WHEN TI CAME TO TOWN. NOW ACCORDING TO THIS LEGISLATION NEW SERVICES CAN SET THEIR OWN GUIDELINES WHERE AS "TECHNIQALLY FEASABLE' DETERMINED BY THE COMPANY WANTING TO SELL NEW SERVICES. IT'S IN THE LAW CLEAR AS DAY!
-- Require the Public Service Commission (PSC), within 30 days after the bill took effect, to establish the standardized form for the uniform video service local franchise agreement.
-- Specify that any provisions of a franchise agreement existing on the bill's effective date that were inconsistent with or in addition to the provisions of the uniform agreement would be unreasonable and unenforceable.
IT'S ALMOST TWO YEARS INTO THIS LAW AND THEY STILL DON'T HAVE A CLUE. IF THERE IS A PROBLEM WHERE COMCAST IS VIOLATING THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT. THE COMMISSION CALLS COMCAST AND ASKS THEM IF THEY ARE VIOLATING THE AGREEMENT. IF THEY SAY THEY ARE NOT. THE COMMISSION CLOSES THE CASE. lol lol lol lol
-- Require a video service provider to pay to the franchising entity (the local unit of government) an annual video service provider fee, as well as an annual fee for the cost of public, education, and government access facilities.
THIS IS NOT EVEN PROVIDED FOR IN THE LAW. NO WHERE! WELL IT IS MENTIONED BUT IT IS LATER NULLIFIED BY A LATER SECTION OF THE BILL. (THEY ARE ATEMPTING TO FIX THIS BUT THE FIX DOESN'T HAVE A CLEAR WAY OF DECIDING WHO GETS THE MONEY TO MAINTAIN THE FACILITIES. NOTHING TO DETERMINE THE DEFINATION OF FACILITY OR EVEN WHAT IS PUBLIC PROGRAMING. COMCAST OR AT&T COULD MAKE THEIR OWN PROGRAMING AND CALL IT PUBLIC THEN JUST KEEP THE MONEY. lol lol lol
-- Allow a video service provider to claim a credit toward the video service provider fee for its payments to the franchising entity under the Metropolitan Extension Telecommunications Rights-of-Way Oversight Act.
BASICALLY IT SAYS FOLLOW THE LAW ALREADY IN PLACE. IT JUST REFERS TO ANOTHER LAW.
-- Require each video service provider to pay an assessment equal to the PSC's expenses required by the Act, not to exceed $1.0 million, until January 1, 2010.
CALL ME CRAZY BUT I COULDN'T FIND ANY REFERENCE TO WHATEVER THIS IS EVEN IN THE BILL.
-- Require a video service provider to provide for the same number of public, education, and government access channels that were in use on the incumbent video provider's system on the bill's effective date.
AGAIN THIS IS ONLY WHERE 'TECHNIQALLY FEASABLE' IT IS NOT MANDATED TO PROVIDE THE SAME SERVICE. ONLY IF THE NEW PROVIDER DETERMINES IT IS TECHNIQALLY FEASABLE.
-- Require a provider to give subscribers access to the signals of the local broadcast television station.
WAS ALREADY A REQUIREMENT IN OLD LAW. DOESN'T APPLY TO PUBLIC ACCESS.
-- Prohibit a franchising entity from enforcing any term, condition, or requirement of any franchise agreement that was more burdensome than the terms, conditions, or requirements contained in another franchise agreement.
CAN SOMEONE DEFINE BURDENSOME?? YOU CANNOT HAVE TWO DIFFERENT FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS WITH DIFFERENT TERMS. BUT ISN'T THAT WHAT THIS LAW DOES??? NULLIFY'S EVERYONES AGREEMENTS AND SETS THIS ONE IN PLACE FOR ALL?? I DON'T KNOW IF I'M THAT STUPID. SOMEONE NEEDS TO TELL ME OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN A LAW THAT THIS LAW DOES THIS. WHEN THE LAW IS LAYING OUT FOR ME WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE AND WILL BE.
-- Require a franchising entity to allow a video service provider nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral access to a public right-of-way.
OK IT ACTUALLY DOES THIS. BUT WHAT DID THE OLD LAW SAY AND IS THIS REALLY ANY DIFFERENT?
-- Provide that a video service provider would not be subject to any civil or criminal liability for any program.
OK IT ACTUALLY DOES THIS. BUT WHAT DID THE OLD LAW SAY AND IS THIS REALLY ANY DIFFERENT?
-- Prohibit a video service provider from denying access to service to any group of potential residential subscribers due to race or income.
OK, SO IF I'M POOR AND CANNOT AFFORD THE SERVICES DOES THIS MEAN IT'S FREE. NO! IT DOES ALLOW FOR A PLAN WITH A TIME FRAME TO AT LEAST HAVE THE LINES RUN IN AREAS THAT CANNOT AFFORD THAT SERVICE. INCASE THERE IS SOMEONE THAT WANTS IT THAN CAN AFFORD IT.
-- Require each video service provider to establish a dispute resolution process for its customers.
GREAT THE COMPANY DECIDES HOW TO HANDLE DISPUTES. OH BUT THERE IS ALWAYS THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. BUT THEY CALL THE PROVIDER AND ASK THEM IF THEY ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING. IF THEY SAY YES. CASE CLOSED. lol lol lol lol WE NEEDED A LAW FOR THAT?
-- -- Require the PSC to submit to the Legislature by June 1, 2007, a proposed process that would allow the Commission to resolve disputes that could not be resolved under the provider's process, and disputes between a provider and a franchising entity or between providers.
STILL WAITING ON A CALL BACK. I'LL LET YOU KNOW WHEN I KNOW!
-- Require the PSC to file an annual report on the status of competition for video services in Michigan.
This survey is for all licensed CLECs and ILECs that also operate as CLECs in Michigan. The results of this survey will provide updated information to the Michigan Public Service Commission to continue to evaluate the state of local competition in the telecommunications industry in Michigan. Your participation in this survey is very important to provide a more current analysis of the state of competition in Michigan. This information is being collected pursuant to the Michigan Telecommunications Act Section 103. December 31, 2007 is the cut off date for the data with the information to be submitted to the Michigan Public Service Commission Staff by February 15, 2008. Please respond to each question in regard to Michigan CLEC operations only. The standard Commission procedures for protecting confidential and/or proprietary information are to be followed. If you are submitting information that you feel is confidential and/or proprietary, please print out this form, fill in all the sections completely, place form in a separate envelope marked confidential, and file it with the Executive Secretary of the Commission by February 15, 2008:
-- Prescribe administrative penalties for a violation.
FIRST YOU HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO ACTUALLY VIOLATE THE LAW. LOOP HOLE AFTER LOOP HOLE. NOTHING MEANS WHAT IT SAYS. SURE YOU CAN BE FINED. BUT FOR WHAT REALLY? |
|
|
|
Wed May 07, 2008 10:22 am |
|
|
Adam Ford
F L I N T O I D
|
| I'm going to take a wild guess and say AT&T lawyers helped our "hard working" elected officials come up with this legislation. |
|
|
|
Wed May 07, 2008 1:01 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
| Hey Adam, the plot is even thicker... Comcast hold like 30 or 40 percent AT&T stock. LOL Tell me this wasn't planned out. |
|
|
|
Wed May 07, 2008 1:07 pm |
|
|
Adam Ford
F L I N T O I D
|
|
|
Wed May 07, 2008 1:40 pm |
|
|
FlintConservative
F L I N T O I D
|
|
|
Wed May 07, 2008 4:41 pm |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
