By Todd Abrajano

Recent Tribune opinion pieces by J. Scott Christianson and others imply that Senate Bill 284 – the video competition bill – is anti-consumer. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As the spokesman for the Missouri Communications Alliance, I speak on behalf of nearly 23,000 individual consumers from all across Missouri. Our organization has supporters in nearly every community in the state. In the state senate district encompassing Columbia, over 1,000 consumers have joined us in supporting SB 284. Overwhelmingly, these consumers want one thing: choice in their video service provider. And choice is exactly what this legislation hopes to bring.

Opponents of the legislation who have voiced their opinions in the Tribune are incorrect on several fronts. First, Mr. Christianson is terribly misguided when he makes the claim that SB 284’s main objective is “letting companies cherry-pick the areas where the most profit can be had.” On the contrary, the video competition bill is about just that: bringing Missouri consumers much-needed competition. At its core, SB 284 provides Missourians exciting new choices and opportunities that benefit consumers. History tells of numerous examples of how competition brings consumers lower prices, better service, and more choice. The video services market is no exception.

Additionally, others in these pages have questioned whether these benefits will be realized by consumers in Missouri. In his February 11 Tribune letter, Jeff Bassinson stated, “Proponents of this bill – cable and telephone companies – claim that this will increase competition and lower cable bills. Of the 11 states that have passed similar bills, however, I know of no state in which either of these things has happened.” I would encourage Mr. Bassinson to do some research and take a closer look at the facts.

Just last month, a policy study released by the nonpartisan Reason Foundation concluded, “Where enacted thus far, franchise reforms benefits have been undeniable. Consumers have enjoyed greater choice and a range of new services, including on-demand video and ‘a la carte’ content selection, at lower cost. Legacy cable providers have responded to new competition by lowering costs and improving service.” Moreover, Bank of America studies have concluded that prices have dropped by over 42 percent in various communities across the country where statewide video franchises have been introduced and new competitors have entered the market.

Finally, Mr. Christianson misrepresents the facts when he claims that continuing deregulation of cable and telephone companies has not resulted in the benefits outlined above. The evidence proves his claims are incorrect. In a Federal Communications Commission report released on December 27, 2006, Chairman Kevin Martin stated, “In 1996, Congress passed a comprehensive statute that embraced the idea that competition was preferable to regulation. Since then, the price for every service the Commission regulates has decreased—except for cable.” Chairman Martin offered that the reason why cable prices have not decreased is that there is not enough real competition for video services.

The bottom line is that Missouri consumers want a choice. SB 284 will enable competitors to bring that choice to Missourians as soon as the bill becomes law. Members of the Missouri Senate, both Republican and Democrat, have worked tirelessly with telephone companies, the Missouri Cable and Telecommunications Association, consumer groups, and even representatives from Columbia’s public, education, and government channels to craft a bill that takes all interests into consideration. The time for video competition is now. The Missouri legislature should quickly pass SB 284.

Todd Abrajano serves as spokesman for the Missouri Communications Alliance.

categories position