LANSING – Michigan legislators should add further competition and customer protection provisions to the cable franchise bill passed last week by the Michigan House, a Google official said Monday, to ensure residents have unfettered access to YouTube, the video Internet service recently acquired by the California-based search engine, which is building its Midwest headquarters in Ann Arbor.

Google Senior Counsel Michael Yang in a release to the media said that customers should benefit from competition “between all forms of video services, not just those offered by cable and telephone companies. What we’re asking for is very simple: protect the consumer by making sure telephone and cable companies don’t restrict the services that are available.

“Google wouldn’t be the success story it is today if our ability to reach users had been limited by Internet providers,” Yang said. “The next Google could easily come from Michigan, as long as the Legislature protects full and fair competition. As one of Michigan’s newest employers, we simply want to ensure that our services, and the services of promising young companies, receive fair and equal treatment.”

Representatives from Google have met with the administration of Gov. Jennifer Granholm and about a half-dozen legislators on the issue, and intend on holding further meetings with interested parties after the Thanksgiving holiday, a spokesperson said.

The legislation was classified as a work in progress by a Granholm spokesperson.

“Obviously we are very engaged in discussions about this legislation,” Liz Boyd said, adding that besides meeting with Google representatives, the administration has sat down with officials from AT&T and plans to meet with municipal organizations soon to discuss their concerns directly.

The governor is concerned about ensuring that consumers are protected, Boyd said, so the administration will certainly be focusing on those legislative provisions.

But the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Mike Nofs (R-Battle Creek) said Monday that it would be hard to get everyone up to speed on the intricacies of Google’s argument for “net neutrality” – whereby cable and phone companies would be prohibited from restricting access to certain websites or charging online companies a fee to have their site open faster across the network. Nofs said having any proposed amendments to that effect would be on a difficult timeline as the Legislature only intends to be in session for a few more weeks.

He suggested Google’s concerns could be dealt with in a new bill next term, adding that it appears companies like Google are seeing net neutrality, debated in Congress for over a year, is not likely to come to fruition this term and are now approaching the issue state-by-state as legislatures make changes to their telecommunication laws.

“They’re a little too late,” he said, adding that lawmakers are focused on providing more competition, encouraging quicker deployment of services and providing less administrative barriers to cable service.

That was a sentiment shared by several in the telecommunications industry as well.

“HB 6456 has been publicly debated for nine months now and Google has been nowhere in that debate,” said AT&T spokesperson Mike Marker. “Net neutrality shouldn’t be brought in at the last minute.”

Marker also said that it is wrong for Google to suggest that consumers won’t have to same access to websites as they currently do if the legislation is approved.

“AT&T will not block access to any lawful website (e.g., Amazon.com) or web-based service (e.g., Vonage’s VoIP, YouTube, Yahoo Video), nor will it take any step to intentionally degrade the customer experience offered by unaffiliated content providers,” the company’s Mike Marker said in an email. “Applications and software providers will be free tomorrow as they are free today to deliver services to customers who purchase Internet access.”

Marker said that the legislation passed with bipartisan support (80-21 in the House) because it attracts innovative technology to the state and will allow for new choice in video for consumers.

Mike Nowlin, a spokesperson for the Michigan Cable Telecommunications Association, said the debate over net neutrality should continue to be handled by Congress.

And Scott Stevenson, Telecommunication Association of Michigan president, said Google’s 11th hour pitch “has nothing to do with the issues at hand.”

“HB 6456 simply reforms an outdated, anti-investment local franchising system with one that recognizes how competitive the industry has become,” Mr. Stevenson said in a statement. “We look forward to working with Google when the legislature convenes next year so that there can be a full and fair opportunity to debate their proposal, which has many highly controversial aspects that deserve more than a passing glance at the end of a lame duck session.”

Municipality groups are still trying to have HB 6456 amended in the Senate (though there has been no decision made on what committee it will be assigned to).

A significant issue that local government groups hope to have addressed is what they said the bill allows for the abrogation of cable contracts. “I’m not sure that’s not unconstitutional. It’s certainly bad policy,” said Summer Minnick of the Michigan Municipal League.

Under the bill, a cable operator in a rural area could decide to end their contract with a locality and it could be months, or even years, before another operator decides to move into the area.

Another major concern of local governments is the revenue loss they say they could face. David Bertram of the Michigan Townships Association said officials estimate that cities, villages and townships earn as much as $35 million in cable revenues. That figure could actually be larger, Bertram said.

Senate Majority Leader Ken Sikkema (R-Wyoming) has said he wants to see the bill completed during the lame duck session, but Bertram said the Senate might find itself somewhat overwhelmed by the issue once it looks at it. Most other states that have tackled the question have taken months to try to resolve the different issues, so completing it in just three weeks will be a tall task, he said.

In addition to Google, a number of school organizations has stepped up its efforts to raise issues that could affect them in the bill, HB 6456.

The group – the Michigan Association of School Boards, the Michigan Association of School Administrators, the Michigan Association of Intermediate School Association, the Middle Cities Education Association, Wayne RESA, Oakland Schools, Macomb ISD, Grand Rapids Public Schools, Michigan Elementary and Middle School Principals Association, Region 8 Legislative Consortium, Kent ISD, Anchor Associates and Michigan Small and Rural Schools – said in a letter that was distributed to House members last week that they worried the bill would interfere with cable services provided to municipal and public schools.

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