The question someone should be asking in regards to the current telco legislation in Ohio, Senate Bill SB 117, is this….

Is TimeWarner profitable?

I believe the answer is yes.

So if they have been able to make a profit under the current law, why should we assume another company could not be as equally profitable? Why would we modify a law that is working for business and for consumers?

The argument over the high rates is because no other competition has challenged the current provider. But again, if the current provider was able to make a profit under the current law, why then would we assume a second company could not be as equally successful and why would the rules of supply and demand not apply under the current law?

Just because it is difficult and expensive to start up a business does not mean that the laws need to be changed. If the public is well served by the current law and the provisions in it providing for public use and compensation, just think how much more we can do if all providers are held to the current standard. This should be a time to discuss what other great services could be offered with the additional resources a second provider would be required to supply for the public.

I am not one to defend TimeWarner, but if they could do well under the current system why can’t another company? And this is itself is not a matter of a direct public interest issue, because cable tv is not right or even a privilege. It is a service provided by a third party to the citizens. The government’s only involvement is in the control of the use of the public rights of way. A citizen can choose not to have cable service. I am one of them because I think it is too expensive, but I do not look to my government to change that. I look to market forces to eventually lower the cost.

On a level playing field all companies can compete freely, under the same laws and regulations. The fact that one company got there before the other is a non-issue. It was and is difficult for the current providers to do what they do, but they are doing it because they can make a profit. When they raise the rates high enough that another company decides that they can provide a better product and win over customers, then they will enter the market and free market forces will control the price.

The laws should treat all companies fairly and changes might need to be made to correct current inequities. But to reduce the current level of resources allocated to the public in exchange for these company’s usage of public property in order to make a profit, all in an attempt to simply lower cable bills is to miss the point. This is not equal to lowering taxes for all citizens. All citizens benefit from the current public access. To reduce cable rates will only benefit a subset of citizens to the detriment to the entire body of citizens on a whole whom are compensated for the use of their collectively owned public space.

- Posted by Doug Fritz for USTV Media