Comments for Eye on the Statehouse http://www.eyeonthestatehouse.org Tue, 13 May 2008 21:15:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.1 Comment on Government Aid for Big Ten Network and NFL? by Marc Kilmer http://www.eyeonthestatehouse.org/2007/11/02/government-aid-for-big-ten-network-and-nfl/#comment-8412 Marc Kilmer Tue, 06 Nov 2007 00:38:11 +0000 http://www.eyeonthestatehouse.org/2007/11/02/government-aid-for-big-ten-network-and-nfl/#comment-8412 True, the cable industry has been termed a "natural monopoly" and has been regulated as such. In reality, however, cable television providers only achieved monopoly status due to laws that make it very hard to compete against them. Earlier this year, however, legislators and Governor Strickland ended this situation in Ohio and enacted legislation that opens up the state cable television market to more competition. The laws that gave cable company monopoly status are gone. The comments above trying to justify government micromanagement of the cable industry do not reflect the reality of Ohio's current cable laws. HB 377 is indeed needless government intrusion in this industry. As was clearly indicated by Representative Blessing's words, he thinks the cable companies need to be forced to carry these the Big Ten Network and the NFL Network. Personally, I don't really care if Time Warner (or any other cable company) carries the Big Ten Network or the NFL Network. This is a fight between two corporations. There is no justification for using the government's power to tilt the balance in favor of one or the other, however. Ultimately, sports fans will decide the contest by using their purchasing power. As to the contention that I somehow misled readers about the specifics of the bill, I'm unclear as to why the point you bring up somehow would change the arguments against the bill. So the bill's arbitration requirement would only apply to cable companies that own and operate a channel that competes against the company bringing the complaint. That may actually make it worse. The way I read this provision is that if a company wants its competitor to carry its programming, and that company feels it is being treated "unfairly" (and what competitor wouldn't feel this way?), then that company can bring the government in to harass its competition. This provision is in the same spirit as the rest of the bill -- using the government to try and tilt the balance of power in a situation that is best resolved by market forces. True, the cable industry has been termed a “natural monopoly” and has been regulated as such. In reality, however, cable television providers only achieved monopoly status due to laws that make it very hard to compete against them. Earlier this year, however, legislators and Governor Strickland ended this situation in Ohio and enacted legislation that opens up the state cable television market to more competition. The laws that gave cable company monopoly status are gone. The comments above trying to justify government micromanagement of the cable industry do not reflect the reality of Ohio’s current cable laws.

HB 377 is indeed needless government intrusion in this industry. As was clearly indicated by Representative Blessing’s words, he thinks the cable companies need to be forced to carry these the Big Ten Network and the NFL Network. Personally, I don’t really care if Time Warner (or any other cable company) carries the Big Ten Network or the NFL Network. This is a fight between two corporations. There is no justification for using the government’s power to tilt the balance in favor of one or the other, however. Ultimately, sports fans will decide the contest by using their purchasing power.

As to the contention that I somehow misled readers about the specifics of the bill, I’m unclear as to why the point you bring up somehow would change the arguments against the bill. So the bill’s arbitration requirement would only apply to cable companies that own and operate a channel that competes against the company bringing the complaint. That may actually make it worse. The way I read this provision is that if a company wants its competitor to carry its programming, and that company feels it is being treated “unfairly” (and what competitor wouldn’t feel this way?), then that company can bring the government in to harass its competition. This provision is in the same spirit as the rest of the bill — using the government to try and tilt the balance of power in a situation that is best resolved by market forces.

]]> Comment on Government Aid for Big Ten Network and NFL? by CableCustomer http://www.eyeonthestatehouse.org/2007/11/02/government-aid-for-big-ten-network-and-nfl/#comment-8344 CableCustomer Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:45:21 +0000 http://www.eyeonthestatehouse.org/2007/11/02/government-aid-for-big-ten-network-and-nfl/#comment-8344 As an Ohio cable customer who admires the free market, I must disagree with Marc Kilmer's analysis of H.B. 377. On both the overall picture and specific details, I believe Eye on the Statehouse (EOTS) is misguided. EOTS paints this issue as an example of the government meddling in the affairs of private businesses. In reality, the situation isn't so black and white. Since the 1940's, the cable industry has been known as a "natural monopoly," which is why it has <b>always</b> been actively regulated by the government in the form of franchising agreements and the like. Therefore, H.B. 377 isn't needless government intrusion, but simply the state government tweaking the process and operations by which it <b>currently</b> regulates the cable industry. As to the specifics of H.B. 377, Mr. Kilmer isn't telling the whole story. Not only does H.B. 377 require channel providers to show they have not been treated in a fair manner, but <b>it also </b> stipulates that arbitration can occur only in the circumstances where a cable operator owns and operates a channel that would compete against programming owned by an indepedent channel programmer. This is a detail that EOTS failed to report. To sum it up, I take an opposing view to EOTS. This isn't an issue of free-market interference. Rather, it's a clear example of the state telling the cable industry (which is already government-regulated, public-focused, and monopoly-oriented), to play fair with cable programmers. As an Ohio cable customer who admires the free market, I must disagree with Marc Kilmer’s analysis of H.B. 377. On both the overall picture and specific details, I believe Eye on the Statehouse (EOTS) is misguided.

EOTS paints this issue as an example of the government meddling in the affairs of private businesses. In reality, the situation isn’t so black and white. Since the 1940’s, the cable industry has been known as a “natural monopoly,” which is why it has always been actively regulated by the government in the form of franchising agreements and the like.

Therefore, H.B. 377 isn’t needless government intrusion, but simply the state government tweaking the process and operations by which it currently regulates the cable industry.

As to the specifics of H.B. 377, Mr. Kilmer isn’t telling the whole story. Not only does H.B. 377 require channel providers to show they have not been treated in a fair manner, but it also stipulates that arbitration can occur only in the circumstances where a cable operator owns and operates a channel that would compete against programming owned by an indepedent channel programmer. This is a detail that EOTS failed to report.

To sum it up, I take an opposing view to EOTS. This isn’t an issue of free-market interference. Rather, it’s a clear example of the state telling the cable industry (which is already government-regulated, public-focused, and monopoly-oriented), to play fair with cable programmers.

]]> Comment on Dann charges state for employee’s home security system by Dann’s Assistant Receives Taxpayer-Funded Security System After “Unfounded” Telephone Threat « Right Angle Blog http://www.eyeonthestatehouse.org/2007/07/13/dann-charges-state-for-employees-home-security-system/#comment-751 Dann’s Assistant Receives Taxpayer-Funded Security System After “Unfounded” Telephone Threat « Right Angle Blog Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:14:55 +0000 http://www.eyeonthestatehouse.org/2007/07/13/dann-charges-state-for-employees-home-security-system/#comment-751 [...] Eye on the Statehouse notes,  Dann’s office has 1,300 employees. Hopefully, Dann won’t waste more taxpayer [...] […] Eye on the Statehouse notes,  Dann’s office has 1,300 employees. Hopefully, Dann won’t waste more taxpayer […]

]]> Comment on Spending tax dollars to appease conspiracy theortists by Lincoln Logs » Blog Archive » The Neverending Story: Ohio Voting Machines http://www.eyeonthestatehouse.org/2007/06/25/spending-tax-dollars-to-appease-conspiracy-theortists/#comment-694 Lincoln Logs » Blog Archive » The Neverending Story: Ohio Voting Machines Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:00:21 +0000 http://www.eyeonthestatehouse.org/2007/06/25/spending-tax-dollars-to-appease-conspiracy-theortists/#comment-694 [...] Eye On the Statehouse points to an interesting AP article about testing voting machines.  The suggestion is that testing the machines is getting ridiculous since it has been done over and over again.  Of course, with their focus on fiscal matters, the Buckeye Institute asks if it is a waste of money. [...] […] Eye On the Statehouse points to an interesting AP article about testing voting machines.  The suggestion is that testing the machines is getting ridiculous since it has been done over and over again.  Of course, with their focus on fiscal matters, the Buckeye Institute asks if it is a waste of money. […]

]]> Comment on State budget almost wrapped up by zoster910 http://www.eyeonthestatehouse.org/2007/06/26/state-budget-almost-wrapped-up/#comment-690 zoster910 Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:44:12 +0000 http://www.eyeonthestatehouse.org/2007/06/26/state-budget-almost-wrapped-up/#comment-690 Two unfortunate aspects to this budget: 1. Republicans once again demonstrate that they cannot be trusted with our money and are fiscally irresponsible. 2. The majority of Ohioans are asleep at the wheel. Two unfortunate aspects to this budget:
1. Republicans once again demonstrate that they cannot be trusted with our money and are fiscally irresponsible.
2. The majority of Ohioans are asleep at the wheel.

]]> Comment on The Ohio Investment in Training Program by Senate wants no oversight on corporate welfare program at Eye on the Statehouse http://www.eyeonthestatehouse.org/2007/06/21/the-ohio-investment-in-training-program/#comment-689 Senate wants no oversight on corporate welfare program at Eye on the Statehouse Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:58:15 +0000 http://www.eyeonthestatehouse.org/2007/06/21/the-ohio-investment-in-training-program/#comment-689 [...] week, Eye on the Statehouse drew attention to the Ohio Investment in Training Program (OITP), a corporate welfare program at the Ohio Department of Development (ODOD). Under the program, even [...] […] week, Eye on the Statehouse drew attention to the Ohio Investment in Training Program (OITP), a corporate welfare program at the Ohio Department of Development (ODOD). Under the program, even […]

]]> Comment on Slots-like passes Senate Committee by Carole Cohen, Realtor® http://www.eyeonthestatehouse.org/2007/05/23/slots-like-passes-senate-committee/#comment-684 Carole Cohen, Realtor® Mon, 25 Jun 2007 03:46:06 +0000 http://www.eyeonthestatehouse.org/2007/05/23/slots-like-passes-senate-committee/#comment-684 <strong>Slot Machines At Ohio Racetracks Even Though It Was Voted Down?...</strong> I was tired after a long day yesterday and heard a blip on the evening news about Governor Strickland signing something about slots at Ohio racetracks. And the news anchor was so matter of fact about the issue; it rolled off his tongue like it was just... Slot Machines At Ohio Racetracks Even Though It Was Voted Down?…

I was tired after a long day yesterday and heard a blip on the evening news about Governor Strickland signing something about slots at Ohio racetracks. And the news anchor was so matter of fact about the issue; it rolled off his tongue like it was just…

]]> Comment on Ohio Historical Society wants more tax dollars by Freedom1034 http://www.eyeonthestatehouse.org/2007/06/01/ohio-historical-society-wants-more-tax-dollars/#comment-637 Freedom1034 Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:56:52 +0000 http://www.eyeonthestatehouse.org/2007/06/01/ohio-historical-society-wants-more-tax-dollars/#comment-637 While I am currently attending Illinois State University, I can certainly attest that our historical society is very well maintained and backed by the people of Illinois. Every historical site that I have witnessed is run efficiently without the need of state funding. Ohio's government seems to think that throwing money at a problem will ultimatley make the state a better place. Although the amount of dollars the state is spending seems small, that money could be back in the hands of Ohio taxpayers'. This suggestion by Ms. Chandler should be brought to it's knees. While I am currently attending Illinois State University, I can certainly attest that our historical society is very well maintained and backed by the people of Illinois. Every historical site that I have witnessed is run efficiently without the need of state funding. Ohio’s government seems to think that throwing money at a problem will ultimatley make the state a better place. Although the amount of dollars the state is spending seems small, that money could be back in the hands of Ohio taxpayers’. This suggestion by Ms. Chandler should be brought to it’s knees.

]]> Comment on What’s a tax-laundering lobby? by zoster910 http://www.eyeonthestatehouse.org/2007/05/07/what%e2%80%99s-a-tax-laundering-lobby/#comment-541 zoster910 Tue, 08 May 2007 13:09:23 +0000 http://www.eyeonthestatehouse.org/2007/05/07/what%e2%80%99s-a-tax-laundering-lobby/#comment-541 Additionally these groups are siphoning money from taxpayers through their affiliation with the Ohio Municipal League: Municipal Finance Officers Association of Ohio The Mayors Association of Ohio The Ohio Municipal Attorney Association The Ohio Association of Public Safety Directors Ohio City/County Managers Association Ohio Municipal Clerks Association I assume we are paying, through the fees, all of the overhead and salaries to run these organizations. Brian Duffy Miami Valley Conservative Alliance (MVCA) Additionally these groups are siphoning money from taxpayers through their affiliation with the Ohio Municipal League:

Municipal Finance Officers Association of Ohio
The Mayors Association of Ohio
The Ohio Municipal Attorney Association
The Ohio Association of Public Safety Directors
Ohio City/County Managers Association
Ohio Municipal Clerks Association

I assume we are paying, through the fees, all of the overhead and salaries to run these organizations.

Brian Duffy
Miami Valley Conservative Alliance (MVCA)

]]> Comment on Members of the Ohio House, again by zoster910 http://www.eyeonthestatehouse.org/2007/05/04/members-of-the-ohio-house-again/#comment-537 zoster910 Fri, 04 May 2007 20:48:55 +0000 http://www.eyeonthestatehouse.org/2007/05/04/members-of-the-ohio-house-again/#comment-537 I guess the goal of the ORP is to be the minority party, because they are certainly not trying to garner favor from conservative voters. I guess the goal of the ORP is to be the minority party, because they are certainly not trying to garner favor from conservative voters.

]]>