Michigan State House

Senator Schauer's recent YouTube message and the new Michigan Progress TV show are both examples of elected officials in Michigan using new methods to directly communicate with the progressive community in Michigan.

There's no reason that candidates in Democratic primaries in Michigan can't do this as well. Perhaps for the first time, candidates have the opportunity to speak to us directly while incurring virtually no costs to themselves. When the time comes, I encourage each one to take the opportunity to introduce themselves to us.

The Jackson Citizen-Patriot yesterday editorialized on lawmakers who sell us out for cushy lobbying jobs as they're being term-limited out of office.

But there's a difference between a professional lobbyist whose key asset is information, and a former lawmaker who is capitalizing on relationships within the circle of back-slappin' friends and cronies he or she developed in the Legislature. That's the kind of lobbying that needs reasonable limits.

I want to make it clear:  I'm not opposed to lobbyists or the notion that they have a role to play in government.  However, the system of legalized bribery that we currently have now is only made worse by legislators who are worried about their future job prospects.

We're faced with a system of warped incentives:  If a legislator is facing term-limits, the incentive to pass legislation that favors their future employers may be greater than their desire to protect the public interest.  That's just wrong.

Surprisingly, Michigan isn't on the list of states with pending video game legislation.

Let's keep it that way.

If anything, I think that legislation modeled after Indiana's proposed system would be the most effective. Their system would match age requirements to buy games with the ESRB's rating system. Although the ESRB's system isn't perfect, it is a good indicator of the general "maturity level" of a game.

Mad props to the always-excellent Zack for pointing both of these out.

Michigan Tax Truth is a website that aims to emphasize the value that state-funded services contribute to Michigan.

In a related editorial, Craig Ruff argues that raising taxes in a fair and responsible manner can help us lower our unemployment rate. He points to Virginia as an example. Mark Warner accomplished some incredible things during his term as Virginia's Governor, and I've long felt that his approach toward governance is an ideal model to follow.

Remember, Warner raised taxes in a Republican-leaning state and still walked out with an 80% approval rating and one of the most well-managed states in the nation. It can be done.

The North Dakota State Senate today passed a bill out of committee that is modeled after the Kalamazoo Promise.

Senate Bill 2347 would require the state to pay the bulk – and eventually all – of North Dakota students’ tuition bills, if students meet certain criteria.

Requirements include being a state resident since kindergarten and completing four units of math and science in high school.

Students also must earn at least a 23 on their ACT cumulative composite score or math score.

I like this idea.  These days, higher education the key to social mobility and the American Dream.  By giving kids a path to improve themselves, we help to build a better society for everyone.  Although the ACT has its flaws, I think that it is a far better benchmark of academic potential than the MEAP.

Given our state's current economic woes, it is vital that we develop a talented workforce and keep our kids in state.  For us, increasing access to higher education is even more important than it is for North Dakotans.

Got this press release via e-mail from the Michigan House Dems (gotta love Bloglines e-mail subscriptions).  I guess its their equivalent of the 100 hours:

LANSING — House Democrats today announced a bold agenda to tackle Michigan's challenges head-on and move the state in a new, positive direction. The plan includes reducing high health care costs, expanding educational opportunities and new policies that will attract investments in 21st-Century jobs.
    "Last November, Michigan citizens sent a clear message: They want business-as-usual to end and they want a Michigan that will deal with its challenges head-on," House Speaker Andy Dillon (D-Redford) said.
    "Gone are the days of treating the symptoms. We need real change, we need to invest in our people and we need bold solutions to move Michigan forward."
    In announcements across the state, Democrats said their health and education committees will be working on major reforms to health care and education in Michigan. They also laid out their vision for a six-point plan for the House, which Democrats control 58-52. House Democrats will:

1. Fight the skyrocketing cost of health care.

    "High health care costs are breaking the backs of businesses and draining the wallets of our families," Rep. Kate Ebli (D-Monroe) said. "Lower health care costs will ease the burden on businesses, attract jobs to Michigan, and help families get the health care they deserve."
    Democrats are pursuing proposals to lower health care costs and are looking at a statewide catastrophic health care pool, as well as programs to bulk purchase prescription drugs and provide health care to more than 1 million uninsured Michigan workers.

2. Strengthen schools and open the doors of educational opportunities for all citizens.

    "Our children are competing not only with other states, but with the world, and we must give them the tools they need to succeed in a high-tech, 21st-Century economy," Rep. Marc Corriveau (D-Northville) said. "Our plan will help Michigan build a highly skilled workforce that is second to none. We must keep our best and brightest in Michigan, because this will attract the good-paying jobs of the future."
    Democrats have merged committees and formed the new New Economy Committee to strengthen schools and build the best-trained, best-educated workforce. Democrats are also looking to expand the Michigan Promise scholarship program by introducing a plan to provide student loans to all Michigan residents looking to go beyond high school.

3. Address Michigan's energy needs.

    "New electric power generators and alternative energy will generate jobs, reduce costs for consumers and power Michigan into the future," Dillon said. "Michigan must change the status quo and be a leader in energy policy to compete in a 21st-Century economy."
    House Democrats will tackle the state's looming energy shortage and promote alternative energy and conservation. House Democrats are convening work groups to study ways to increase alternative energy in Michigan, and introduce proposals to address the groups' findings. Democrats are already spearheading efforts to increase the use of bio-fuels such as ethanol and bio-diesel.

4. Protect Michigan's Great Lakes, and fight Canadian and out-of-state trash.

    "Our Great Lakes define our culture and play a big role in our economy," Rep. Mary Valentine (D-Norton Shores) said. "We must do everything in our power to protect our way of life from Canadian trash haulers and other companies who profit by putting our natural resources at risk."
    Democrats want to stop big water bottling companies from shipping out Great Lakes and other sources of freshwater out of the state. House Democrats have introduced a plan to curb Canadian and out-of-state trash. Democrats are also pursuing a range of proposals to attack the economics of the trash trade.

5. Strengthen consumer protections.

    Democrats have introduced plans to repeal Michigan's unfair and one-of-a-kind 1996 law that gives big drug companies total immunity when they sell drugs that harm or kill people, like Vioxx; and to protect consumers from identity theft, by informing consumers of security breaches and increasing penalties against violators. Democrats will also tackle the practice of redlining by insurance companies.
    "For too long, Michigan is the only state in the nation that gives big drug companies a free ride while their products harm and kill our citizens," Rep. Mike Simpson (D-Liberty Township) said. "Our plan holds the big drug companies and other industries accountable to consumers."
    Democrats will also place a moratorium on so-called mortgage tax pop-ups, which hit consumers – especially seniors – when they sell their homes. Democrats will also introduce legislation to help residents avoid mortgage foreclosures, which will help increase property values across Michigan.

6. Restore integrity to the House.

    The proposals include banning public officials from lobbying for a year after they have left office; prohibiting conflicts of interest; requiring personal financial disclosures; and banning lawmakers from getting state grants.
    "The Government belongs to the people, not the special interests," Majority Floor Leader Steve Tobocman (D-Detroit) said. "Citizens spoke loud and clear: Regardless of party, Democrats, Republicans and independents want an end to the culture of corruption in Washington and in Lansing."

###

The Jackson Citizen-Patriot, Detroit Free Press, and Gongwer have more.

Given that the Iraq war has cost Michigan taxpayers over $10 billion dollars, stopping President's proposed escalation is a priority for Michigan residents.  An escalation of the Iraq war would only serve to endanger our service men and women and increase tensions in the region.  Luckily, we can take action right here to prevent the President from implementing this misguided policy.

The Progressive States Network argues that state legislatures can play a key role in influencing the debate on national issues.  I remember many months ago when the Michigan Legislature passed a resolution on rising oil prices, which was a national issue.  Given that there is a precedent for our Legislature to weigh in on national problems (some as irrelevant as the Terri Schiavo case), I believe that a resolution condemning the President's plan to escalate the Iraq mess is appropriate.

Please contact your State Representative or State Senator and urge them to sponsor the following resolution on the proposed escalation.

WHEREAS, The President has proposed an escalation in the number of US troops deployed in Iraq; and

WHEREAS, U.S. involvement in Iraq has resulted in the deaths of more than 3,000 U.S. soldiers and the wounding and disabling of more than 22,000 U.S. military personnel to date; and

WHEREAS, This proposed escalation will further extend National Guard tours in Iraq, that the costs to the states of the call-up of National Guard members for deployment in Iraq have been significant, as reckoned in lost lives, combat injuries and psychic trauma, disruption of family life, financial hardship for individuals, families and businesses, interruption of careers and damage to the fabric of civic life in our communities; and

WHEREAS, The American troops have valiantly upheld their duty in Iraq under dire circumstances; and

WHEREAS, More than $357 billion has been appropriated by Congress to fund military operations and reconstruction in Iraq to date, money that could fund desperately needed education, health care, housing, nutrition and other social services in our communities in the United States or humanitarian assistance abroad; and

WHEREAS, Previous budgets that have prioritized Iraq have led to cuts in critical block grants for states and have increased the federal debt, which compounded by interest payments, will likely lead to even larger cuts in funding for critical needs in the States; and

WHEREAS, Polls show that the vast majority of Americans do not support increasing the number of troops in Iraq; and

WHEREAS, Most military experts oppose escalation in Iraq and press reports indicate that even the Joint Chiefs of Staff have opposed such a strategy; and

WHEREAS, Legal experts on all sides have determined that Congress has not only broad authority, but a long tradition of limiting escalation or forcing redeployment of troops through the Constitutionally-designate power of the purse.

BE IT RESOLVED, That the state of ________, on behalf of its citizens, urges that in a period when the Iraq Study Group, leading military and diplomatic officials and allies around the world are calling for a reduction in troops and withdrawal of the US from Iraq, the United States government should not escalate its involvement in Iraq or increase troop levels; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That, at a minimum, the President should obtain explicit approval from Congress if he wants to send more American troops to Iraq.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Congress should pass legislation prohibiting the President from spending taxpayer dollars on an escalation in Iraq unless he first seeks Congressional approval.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That a suitable copy of this resolution shall be sent to George W. Bush, President of the United States, to the Congressional delegation of ________state, and to the United States Congress.

SSP: Skinner Should Run Again

Here's what the Swing State Project had to say about Nancy Skinner:

Nancy Skinner MI 9
This is probably the greatest under-target in the nation and for that very reason Nancy Skinner should be given another shot in this district should she want it. One huge accomplishment of hers was to run through the considerable about of money Congressman Knollenberg had stored up over years and years. She ran a very good race and needs another chance. It also be noted this race was missed almost completely by the mainstream blog's that could have pushed it higher up. We might have missed a win here, as surely as the DCCC did.

However, DavidNYC disagreed with the diarist's assessment:

I would like to see someone with more experience take on Knollenberg, who has been in the House for over a decade. Beating an incumbent in a non-wave year is almost impossible - you need to have as strong a candidate as possible.

Also, Skinner raised only $400K, which strikes me as quite weak. By way of comparison, Eric Massa and Tim Walz, both first-time candidates without prior political experience, raised $1.4M and $1.2M respectively. And Massa's district is quite poor. They are sort of my benchmark.

If you can't raise somewhere in the realm of that kind of money in a strong Dem year, what were you doing? And I should note that MI-09 is a 50-50 district, while both MN-01 and especially NY-29 have a notable GOP tilt. NY-29 went for Bush 56-42.

Joe Knollenberg already announced that he was running for re-election, so he's obviously worried about something.

Mark Maynard: Sacrificing for our kids

Not really politics related, but a good read nonetheless.

TCM: Help WJR become the Great Voice of the entire Great Lake State again

Fantastic post on the lack of balance at WJR, especially considering its target audience. Make sure to read the comments too.

Dave Dempsey: Fresh Water: Protect the Public Trust

Dave discusses the "small container loophole" in terms of future water diversions from the Great Lakes. In his essay, he touches on a very important point: we all collectively own the Great Lakes, which are held in trust to us by our state governments.

WK: Michigan Legislature officially adjourns for the year

WK comments on the Legislature's last day of session. Its pretty funny.

This is the statement on net neutrality put out by the Governor's office:

I support net neutrality and will continue to fight for it on the
state and federal level. HB 6456 creates over 2,000 jobs in Michigan,
improves competition and services for Michigan residents, and it
includes a number of provisions to safeguard consumers. The issue of
net neutrality is far bigger than this one bill. I believe it is more
desirable to pursue the protections necessary to maintain net
neutrality as stand-alone legislation in the coming year rather than
as an amendment to this year's legislation. I am committed to
ensuring that citizens are protected from greater expense or slower
service because of the entry of phone companies into the video/
internet space, and I look forward to working on securing continued
open access to the Internet in the year ahead.

Here is the text of the Governor's letter to Larry Page:

Dear Larry:

Thank you for all of the expertise Google has brought to Michigan on the issue of net neutrality. I have certainly appreciated our conversation on this subject. While I am pleased we were able to extend some of the consumer protection provisions in HB 6456, I believe it may be more desirable to pursue stand-alone legislation to further extent consumer protections by enacting net neutrality next year, rather than as an amendment to this year's legislation.

I strongly agree that consumers should not be charged extra for, or otherwise disadvantaged from, reaching certain sites on the internet that those providers wish to provide for free. Nor do I believe that service providers should be able to restrict access to sites that their consumers have always been able to access. I believe strong consumer protection is important for government to provide, as well as an effective tool to stimulate economic growth in Michigan and elsewhere.

In the interest of taking incremental steps towards improving competition and services for Michigan consumers, it's best that the Legislature complete work on video franchising this year. I look forward to working with Google and others next year to ensure continued open access to the internet for all Michigan residents.

Sincerely,

Jennifer M. Granholm
Governor

Matt Stoller weighed in on InterrupT's response to his second post on MyDD. I decided to copy it to the front page:

Here's my response to InterrupT. You guys couldn't more wrong, and more than that, your failure to take these arguments seriously is going to really hurt our ability to save the internet. You have no reason to trust me, and it's not personal against your Governor, but the choices she's making are going to hurt us badly.

No amount of bargaining would change the telecoms minds about setting up a two tiered Internet. It would take a lot more than just allowing AT&T to provide terrestrial video services in Michigan to get them to change their minds.

Their entire strategy is predicated around getting video franchising. That's what they want, and if they get it they will dedicate all their power to preventing any other legislation from coming through.

People who have been around the lobbying business for a long time tell me that this is how they operate. You can't just beat these guys, you have to outflank them.

Let's give the new Democrats in congress a chance to address this important issue at the national level. I know that they are aware of the issue, I have written Senator Levin about the issue myself. He sent me a back a nice letter stating that he supports a neutral Internet and would support a bill outlawing a two tiered Internet.

The new Democratic Congress is split on the issue, and they will not affirmatively make net neutrality a priority unless they have to.

Please don't take my comments or anyone else as assault on you or on net neutrality.

But that's what they are. You're a smart guy, but you're being played by the telecoms.

Plus the titles "Governor Granholm Selling Out the Internet?" and "Why Jennifer Granholm Really Is Helping Destroy the Internet," didn't really help you with Michigan readers. I don't think anybody is saying that this bill is perfect; it still needs provisions insisting the service be rolled out to all parts of the state not just the wealthy, most profitable parts. I think most people want a neutral Internet, but in order to be taken seriously we need to make the best possible argument.

AT&T is going to fuck you guys over, you watch. You could have passed a different bill with an incoming Democratic legislature, but Granholm isn't doing that. It's just terrible negotiating because she's feeling intense heat from the telecom companies.

And here's his response to Christine.

I have a sinking feeling that there is more to this issue than what I (and we) originally thought.

After they posted their initial Granholm "sell out" post, I posted a response in the MyDD thread, and InterrupT followed as well. More discussion on it took place over at Michlib in an unrelated thread. We let them know that we weren't totally on board with what they were doing, and the general sentiment was that it wasn't fair of them to attack Granholm or get involved without at least talking to us first.

Matt (Stoller) initially replied to the comment in my thread, and then created a follow-up post based on some of my and InterrupT's comments on the MyDD Granhom "sell-out" post. I also got an e-mail from someone at MoveOn (not a mass e-mail) responding to what I wrote. On one hand, its great to see that they actually listened to us and acknowledged that we weren't comfortable about this, as opposed to dismissing us outright. On the other hand, I'm becoming increasingly more aware that this issue is very complex and tough to figure out based on secondhand info only. They are clearly making an effort to reach out to us now and explain their side of things, which I appreciate.

We're talking about this on the MI-bloggers list a bit, and my "gut feeling" is that there is validity to wanting to get this done now.

UPDATE: InterrupT has more on Matt's follow-up:

Your argument has a fatal flaw, it assumes that we have to bargain for a neutral network. No amount of bargaining would change the telecoms minds about setting up a two tiered Internet. It would take a lot more than just allowing AT&T to provide terrestrial video services in Michigan to get them to change their minds. AT&T already owns at least half of Dish Network, so they are already providing video services in Michigan (along with Internet and telephone services), they just also want to provide terrestrial video services. If every state that hasn't done so already, denied them franchising rights to their state, they would instead improve their Dish Network service so more people could get a better signal. Also we can't forget that Verizon isn't asking for franchising rights in Michigan yet would still be allowed to operate in Michigan even if the new bill in enacted. So what do Verizon have to bargain for? They can just as easily enact a two tiered network as anyone else.

Your argument is also flawed in that you assume that this bill allows for a two tiered Internet, and the point in my post that you link to is that it does not allow such a thing (but it also doesn't stop it). You are right however that this bill could allow for a greater abuse of the telecoms power.

It is true that the Telecoms have an insanely powerful lobby, which is why a bill has yet to be passed at the national level, but that doesn't not mean that they will always win. Let's give the new Democrats in congress a chance to address this important issue at the national level. I know that they are aware of the issue, I have written Senator Levin about the issue myself. He sent me a back a nice letter stating that he supports a neutral Internet and would support a bill outlawing a two tiered Internet.

Please don't take my comments or anyone else as assault on you or on net neutrality. This bill has been a hotly debated topic in Michigan, gaining a lot of press about it and a lot of talk on the blogs. Plus the titles "Governor Granholm Selling Out the Internet?" and "Why Jennifer Granholm Really Is Helping Destroy the Internet," didn't really help you with Michigan readers. I don't think anybody is saying that this bill is perfect; it still needs provisions insisting the service be rolled out to all parts of the state not just the wealthy, most profitable parts. I think most people want a neutral Internet, but in order to be taken seriously we need to make the best possible argument.

UPDATE: In retrospect, I may have overreacted a bit. The "selling out" title seemed kind of provocative, and I replied without thinking first.

Their argument for doing this now is that once the cable/telecom companies get franchising rights, they will no longer have an incentive to "trade" anything for net neutrality, and we'll be locked out of th process. What do you all think?

Anyway, here's the original post:

This is my response to Matt Stoller's post on MyDD implying that Governor Granholm is somehow "selling out" the Internet. I look up to Matt (I'd even added him as one of my Facebook friends), so reading that post on MyDD was disappointing.

WTF.

I read MyDD religiously. I consider it to be one of the best sources of political information for progressive activists, and the philosophy and approach of this site played a very key role in my own development as a blogger.

That's why it really bothers me to see this kind of unsubstantiated attack coming from here about Granholm. To refer to the article and imply that she is "Selling Out the Internet" is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst.

First, we don't know what Granholm is going to do with this bill yet -- to my knowledge, she hasn't given any indication as to whether she is going to sign it into law in its current form or seek changes after Google raised its concerns. When her spokesperson says that they don't want to "disadvantage consumers," they could be referring to some of the other drawbacks to the bill (such as the loss of revenue to local government). By saying that she is "selling out," you're insinuating that she wholeheartedly supports the bill and is opposed to net neutrality, which is clearly not the case.

Secondly, you can bet that the net neutrality issue will be pushed next legislative session regardless of what happens with this bill. The Google announcement was one of the major turning points of the campaign (I was there), and she is likely well aware of the critical role that Google played in her re-election. Right now (in the lame duck session), we have Republican majorities in both the MI House and MI Senate that want to concede as little territory to her as possible. Ken Sikkema (the current Senate Majority Leader) is on the record opposing net neutrality, and I'm almost positive that Craig DeRoche (current speaker) is opposed to it as well. Now that we have taken back the House and made substantial gains in the State Senate, its going to be a lot easier to deal with issues like net neutrality next term. Sikkema is term-limited (I don't know Bishop's position on the issue) and the new House Speaker has a good relationship with the Governor, so we have a much better chance of getting this through. Offhand, the Chair of the Michigan Republican Party is on the record as supportive of net neutrality.

For the record, I support net neutrality and would like to see it adopted here in MI as soon as possible. If we were able to tie it to this bill, I'd be thrilled. Given the current political environment (everything is about jobs), it is simply not realistic to block this bill because net neutrality has suddenly become an issue. The bill does have several other drawbacks unrelated to net neutrality that need to be addressed, but that's another debate entirely.

You do not have the unanimous support of the Michigan netroots on this. There are a lot of progressive bloggers here in Michigan who support net neutrality but don't think that this bill is the place or way to do it. Matt of Michigan Liberal is probably the most widely read progressive blogger that talks state politics -- he thinks that net neutrality should be a should be dealt with separately from this bill. Also worth reading is InterrupT's thoughts on HB 6456 from the day the article you refer to was released.

Its also worth noting that while a lot of people perceive Granholm to be a "DLC" or "establishment" type, she understands the potential of the netroots and is more supportive of us than any of the rest of the party establishment here in Michigan. She reads us every day, reaches out to us personally, and supports our work while understanding that we aren't under her control and are going to be critical of her from time to time.

When the time comes, I look forward to fighting for net neutrality in Michigan. I just don't think that this is the way to do it.

According to the most recent Gongwer, Julie Rogers picked up 11 votes in the recount of her race against Jack Hoogendyk. This still puts her at a loss of over 400 votes. I'd be interested to find out what voting problems occurred on election day.

The 32nd State Senate District (Roger Kahn vs. Carl Williams) and 9th State House District recounts will be held this Monday.

Via the Associated Press, the Michigan House passed Governor Granholm's $4,000 scholarship for Michigan students opting to continue their education beyond high school.

LANSING (AP) -- College-bound students in Michigan would be able to receive up to $4,000 from the state under legislation that soon could be headed to Gov. Jennifer Granholm for her signature.

The state House passed the proposal Thursday night by a 90-12 vote. The Senate has already passed a similar version of the legislation, which has been one of Granholm's highest priorities for the lame-duck session of the state Legislature.

I wonder what was traded so that DeRoche went through with this.

When I was in high school, the test to get this scholarship money was the MEAP. To me, the MEAP test was a breeze. Still, I don't think that the MEAP is a good measure of how well students are doing or school performance. The MEAP is poorly constructed and poorly worded, and its very easy to "teach to the test." Schools concerned about the MEAP will spend time teaching their students how to "beat" the test instead of actually learning things. When I took the MEAP, one of the questions required interpreting a map of the United States -- the only problem was that their compass had East and West backwards, making it impossible to answer the question.

Despite the flaws of the MEAP, I think that this is a good program. Higher education is the key to social mobility in today's society, which is part of what the "American Dream" is all about. By making higher education more accessible, we can help to create a more equal society. I also think that spacing out the aid given over the first two years and creating a way to help kids that don't do well on the Michigan Merit Exam are necessary components of any program like this:

Students who do well on the state's standardized tests would get $1,000 for their freshman year of college and another $1,000 for their sophomore year. If they complete two years of college, they would get another $2,000.

Students who don't do well on the Michigan Merit Exam still would be able to claim the entire $4,000 after completing two years of post-high school education.

In other news, Granholm's Single Business Tax replacement plan probably won't be considered this session.

Ari Adler, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Ken Sikkema, R-Wyoming, said it's at best a long shot that lawmakers will take up the business tax issue before they adjourn for the year. Dec. 14 is the final scheduled session day.

These guys eliminated $2 billion out of our general fund and said that they would replace the SBT. After all of the politics that was played with this issue, its just shameful that they haven't taken the responsibility to fix this problem. Ah well... although Granholm will have an easier time of this when the new legislature convenes in January, Democrats will be blamed for introducing a "tax increase."

The Progressive States Network sent out an e-mail detailing their opposition to HB 6456, citing concerns about lack of commitment to universal build-out of services, net neutrality, and loss of revenue for local government.

On the other hand, InterrupT argues that Michigan badly needs more competition in terrestrial video services. He also argues that the issue of net neutrality could be more effectively dealt with in a new bill or in the next session with a Democratic legislature.

I've copied the text of the e-mail below. If you're interested in this issue, you should also make sure to read InterrupT's post.

[E-MAIL TEXT FOLLOWS]

MI: Opposition to Video Franchise Bill that Fails Michigan's Communities

Like many other states, Michigan is struggling with how to build a technology infrastructure that can grow the state's economy and educate its children. Unfortunately, meeting in a lame-duck session, the Michigan's State Senate is considering an industry-backed bill, HB 6456, to create statewide franchises for video services by cable and telephone companies that will just increase company profits at the expense of consumers, low-income families, and technological innovation. Opponents of the bill range from the Michigan Municipal League protesting the destruction of community control to groups, led by Free Press, demanding Net Neutrality in access to Internet services.

The Progressive States Network outlined its full concerns about the bill in a letter sent to Michigan legislators, but the summary of problems with the bill -- like so many of these statewide "video franchising bills," includes:

• No real commitment to universal build-out of services: In exchange for abolishing existing local franchise agreements for video services, the bill requires that no more than 50% of households get service from these new statewide franchises. This will just institutionalize the digital divide where companies cherry-pick the most profitable areas within the state without having to serve all consumers, a recipe for continuing monopolies in many regions.
• Ignoring how broadband Internet is reshaping the video environment and key issues like Net Neutrality: Given the emergence of YouTube and other Internet-based video services, the bill is oddly fixated on past regulatory issues involving telephone versus cable companies, but does not specify build-out requirements for high-speed broadband Internet access to deliver these emerging video options. And while the bill creates "must-carry" provisions for broadcast television, there is no parallel discussion about assuring Net Neutrality and non-discrimination in access to Internet-based video sources for those using high-speed Internet services.
• Undermining municipal innovation in providing Internet services: The Michigan Municipal League has estimated that local governments may lose between $25 million and $35 million in in-kind services as part of franchise agreements (plus additional cash franchise fees), a loss that could undermine a range of local experiments underway in Michigan to promote universal broadband Internet access.
• Lacking an adequate regulatory structure: The bill eliminates the ability of local communities to negotiate fair treatment of consumers through local franchise agreements, yet fails to give the Michigan Public Service Commission adequate powers or funding to protect consumers and the public interest. And by exempting cost studies, customer usage data and other vital data from state Freedom of Information Act disclosure requirements, the public will be denied crucial information for public oversight of the industry.

Hopefully, the State Senate will vote down the current bill and take the time to craft a new bill in the 2007 legislative session that builds towards universal access to the telecommunications infrastructure needed for a 21st century economy in Michigan.

[END OF E-MAIL]

A lot of this depends on what direction Granholm decides to go with it.