Sherrod Brown's statement explaining his "yes" vote on the COPE Act in the Energy and Commerce Committee is similar to Ted Strickland's, with two interesting additions: Sherrod acknowledges explicitly that the point is to "make it easier for phone companies to enter the cable television market" (i.e. this bill is all about AT&T), and he plays the "good jobs" card:
Increased competition will play an important role in job creation. New infrastructure and services and the workers to maintain those services will be needed when competition gets off the ground. Ohio needs jobs, and these are good ones.I won't repeat my response to Strickland -- you can read it here, and it all applies. But Jill asks an excellent question for both Congressmen/candidates. Which leads me to a few more follow-up questions:
1) Can you explain why eliminating the local franchising role (including all local oversight of cable rates, consumer practices, service availability, etc.) is a necessary precondition to the competition you (and everyone else) wants?
2) Can you explain why you think the FCC is an appropriate body to have ultimate jurisdiction over all these day-to-day issues?
3) Understanding that AT&T is a unionized company, so their entry in the video market against non-union Time-Warner and Comcast will increase organized labor's presence in the market -- which you and I would agree is a good thing and will probably make the jobs "better" -- what evidence do you have that this whole maneuver will "create" new jobs in Ohio? What jobs? How many?
4) Does it bother you at all that you're helping to strip local communities of a source of bargaining power for digital inclusion, media access and economic development? Do you feel any obligation to compensate Ohio cities and villages -- as well as community-based organizations -- for this loss, and if so, do you have any proposals to do so?
5) Are you going to vote for this bill on the floor in its present form, with none of the changes you say you support?