The Senate Technology and Energy Committee was unable to agree on changes to the bill on Tuesday so reported the measure with recommendation that the Government Operations Committee, chaired by Senate Majority Leader Ken Sikkema (R-Wyoming), act on the measure.

The action is ironic given that Sikkema led a mutiny of the Technology and Energy Committee in June 2000 to move a telecommunications bill when the then committee chair tried to stall a meeting so amendments more favorable to the then-company Ameritech could be considered. Ameritech is now AT&T Michigan.

Sikkema has listed final action on the cable bill as one of his top priorities for the lame duck session.

The Technology and Energy Committee did meet Tuesday morning after it failed to work on amendments to HB 6456 on Monday.

Meanwhile, last Friday AT&T Michigan put added pressure on the Michigan Senate to approve the new cable TV legislation by announcing plans to invest $620 million in Michigan over the next three years and hire 2,000 employees because the Michigan House approved the bill on Nov. 14.

AT&T President Gail Torreano, citing House Bill 6456 as the catalyst, said AT&T plans to bring next-generation video and broadband services to local consumers. To do so, AT&T will need to hire 2,000 employees across Michigan to upgrade its fiber-optic network and install its next-generation video products in consumers' homes. Approximately 1,200 of these high tech jobs are expected to be in place by the end of 2007.

"The legislative leaders supporting House Bill 6456 deserve high praise for their bipartisan effort to reform our state's antiquated cable franchising system," said Torreano. "We stand ready to make a historic investment in network and human capital in Michigan. Video reform legislation holds great promise for our state, and we look forward to delivering new video options to Michigan consumers."

The Michigan House passed the cable TV bill 80-21 vote on Nov. 14. The bill is now under debate in the Senate Technology and Energy Committee.

Under the bill, new cable television providers would be required to seek a 10-year license from the Public Service Commission. But they would also be required to notify the communities where they plan to offer service.

The local communities could then charge the new provider essentially the same franchise fee they charge the incumbent provider with adjustments made for the right of way fees. Those fees would be paid directly to the local government.

The bill also requires that any new provider develop a plan to offer service throughout each community it serves. It would be prohibited from excluding poorer neighborhoods, but would be allowed to use wireless and other technology to reach various parts of the community as long as the programming choices are the same.

The bill also includes provisions for communities and incumbent cable providers to agree to end current franchise agreements early.

But local governments intend to push amendments that were rejected in the House that will give them greater protection over the abrogation of cable contracts and to ensure they do not totally lose revenues cable TV licenses now generate.

Meanwhile, Google leaped into the fray last month when it announced its concern over the bill's potential effect on net neutrality. The company, which is opening its Midwest headquarters in Ann Arbor, ran a newspaper advertisement urging readers to contact their Michigan Senators to urge support for "an open Internet."

Last month, an organization called SavetheInternet.com said it plans to file petitions signed by 18,000 residents challenging the bill as it came from the House.

But the Michigan Chamber, in a memo sent Senate members, said that wholesale changes should not be made to the bill. "A small number of genuine technical amendments" could be made, but the bill as it passed the House largely meets the goals the chamber set for the legislation.

The issue of net neutrality should not be decided by the state, but by the federal government, the chamber said in its memo. Any attempt to deal with the issue at the state level should not be attempted until separate legislation can be introduced next year, it said.

This story was provided by Gongwer News Service. To subscribe, click on Gongwer.Com