Ever since AT&T successfully lobbied state legislators to modify the antiquated law which governed how video providers rolled services out to customers, they’ve been on the side of unfair attacks by many municipalities.
My first blog entry EVER here questioned why Novi had only one cable provider. I argued that even though no one was actively keeping providers from coming in to our city, the rules made it financially unfeasible for new franchises to compete with incumbent ones. AT&T should be commended for doing what it took to bring choice to consumers.
Recently, Novi city officials proposed to council that communication lines be purchased and installed so that AT&T’s U-Verse customers could watch PEG (Public Education and Government) programming. This was a great turn of events, as I’ve always felt that the city treated AT&T unfairly. The money for these lines would come from PEG fees (not taxes) that subscribers of the U-Verse service have been paying for some time now. They’ve been paying, even though they have not been receiving any PEG programming. Brighthouse Cable subscribers have had PEG programming available to them since cable first came to Novi.
Recently, my good friend Scott Olson of Novi.org published an editorial which took the city to task for the communication line expenditures. Mr. Olson has been a watchdog for wasteful city spending for quite some time, so I have much respect for him. Still, I could not disagree more with him on this particular issue.
After reading his editorial, I was left a bit confused and question where he got his information from. This issue seems to have been unnecessarily complicated. It seems to be driven by the same outside influences who wish to protect what’s left of the cable monopoly that existed here for some time.
I want to take this opportunity to respond to 5 issues that Mr. Olson brought up in his column:
1) The author questions whether we shopped around the lines. Maybe, maybe not, but why would we want to purchase this from outside of AT&T? Although someone out there might offer the lines a bit cheaper, why would we want to get tangled into that web? Under that scenario, when there are PEG service transmission problems, you’d have 2 entities pointing fingers at each other, AT&T and the line provider. With AT&T as the line provider, there is only 1 person to call if there are problems. Having employees involved in debugging a transmission issue in order to determine which vendor to call is cost ineffective. I’m comfortable with this decision. I should also add that AT&T conceded almost $10k worth of equipment to the city for this venture.
2) With regard to using one of the 2 lines as an emergency internet backup for the city, I see no problem with that either. This is just an “additional benefit” of purchasing the lines as mentioned by head of Novi Technology department, Rob Petty. The line in question is earmarked for live programming from the council chambers to AT&T U-Verse customers, although it could have additional uses. In the rare case that a switchover was ever needed, it’s as simple as swapping 2 cables and would only be done during normal business hours. Live meetings from council chambers take place AFTER hours.
By the way, since the city uses Brighthouse as their Internet Service Provider, do we really expect this to be an issue anyway? 
3) Mr. Olson questioned the need for 2 lines, yet he seemed to ignore the fact that there are 2 communication lines currently used to support the Brighthouse PEG infrastructure. To imply that the city (who again has been unfairly tough on AT&T since they came to Novi) is giving them an unfair advantage is just wrong. Will this give AT&T an the ability to offer more programming than Brighthouse (as he mentioned)? No. At least not as a direct result of these line purchases, but simply be as a result of better technology.
4) He questioned who is responsible to pay for the lines. As I mentioned earlier, AT&T U-Verve Customers have been paying paid PEG fees (without service), so obviously they deserve some of those dollars to go to infrastructure. It’s certainly possible that PEG dollars that were collected many moons ago were used to purchase the 2 lines that currently support the Brighthouse PEG infrastructure. Also, I’m certain that future AT&T customer’s PEG dollars will go to SWOCC for programing purposes, but I’ll leave that for the SWOCC board to negotiate with the city.
5) I agree with the editor that contrary to what was communicated to city council, there is indeed some programming by SWOCC that is available online. This is a good thing, especially for someone like me who spends MANY hours in front of a computer. Still, at the end of the day, I want to sit in my recliner, turn on my TV, and watch in comfort, just like Brighthouse customers do.
Although I am not yet an AT&T U-Verse customer, I fully expect to be shortly. I have had the opportunity to see and play with the AT&T service and I find it superior to anything available to Novi residents today.
I respect the editor of Novi.org and his concerns on this issue. Unfortunately, he’s been misinformed.
In a previous post, I indicated how AT&T has been collecting PEG fees from its customers while not providing PEG channels. It turns out my complaint was pointed at the wrong entity.
The Uniform Video Services Local Franchise Act) was signed into law. The act (among other things) requires video service providers to collect PEG fees on behalf of municipalities and turn 100% of those fees over to them. In many cities, this has added up to tens of thousands of dollars.
I changed video providers last September, switching from DirecTV to AT&T Uverse. Outside of a few initial issues, I’ve been happy with my new service.