Hello Downriver,
You have to be of a certain age to remember the arrival of cable TV Downriver and especially the city-by-city negotiations to grant a franchise in your community.
Yep, long before the explosion of online platforms and streaming we were captives of talks between emerging cable TV providers and out-of-their-depth local officials.
In too many instances, those officials fell prey to influence peddling that included junkets to faraway locales and who knows how many personal perks.
In every case, it came down to which company was going to have the rights to run cable lines through a city on existing utility poles, hooking up as many homes along the way as possible.
It was a Wild West of competition, with most national cable companies employing local firms and personalities to negotiate on their behalf.
In Taylor, for example (which I covered at the time), something called “Wayne Cablevision” led in talks for getting that city’s franchise — seen by many as the crown jewel of Downriver because of its size.
If I remember right, well-known local attorney Bill DiBiasi was the face of Wayne Cablevision — which was actually owned by Canadian-based Maclean-Hunter.
The real battles throughout the area pitted Wayne against United Cable — with the Downriver area ultimately carved up into swaths of ownership.
Wayne ended up with Taylor, Allen Park, Brownstown, Ecorse, Flat Rock, Grosse Ile, Melvindale, River Rouge, Rockwood and Southgate.
And United Cable got Gibraltar, Lincoln Park, Riverview, Trenton and Woodhaven.
The rest of the area got a smattering of other providers.
Today, of course, we have the behemoth, Comcast (Xfinity) — which acquired McLean-Hunter in 1994 —WOW! (WideOpenWest), AT&T (U-verse/fiber) and Spectrum.
So why the history lesson?
Because after the accusations of bribery and other nefarious dealings to land those initial franchises, the state finally realized it might be better if there were a better way, a more comprehensive way, of managing cable TV franchising.
Unfortunately, it took more than 20 years for that to happen, with passage of the Uniform Video Services Local Franchise Act in 2006.
Which brings me to today — and Artificial Intelligence.
You see, right now we’re in yet another Wild West show, but this time it’s all about how to explore, use and expand AI in our lives.
Today, each state is trying to negotiate those waters — as ill-equipped as our cities were when dealing with something called cable TV in the late 1970s.
When Michigan passed the cable law, it, among other things, replaced individual city-by-city negotiations with a single, statewide franchise agreement to foster competition and simplify the process for providers.
It also created a more uniform system for cable and video services, setting rules for franchise fees, public access channels and local control over rights-of-way.
And while I don’t agree with Trump about much of anything, his recent Executive Order that bars state laws on artificial intelligence may be the right thing to start the right conversation.
I’m going to ignore all his blather about state-by-state laws slowing innovation, and the industry’s complaints that state-by-state laws will hinder competition with China; AI proponents won’t let anyone stand in their way, so both arguments are lame.
The problem, of course, is that Trump’s Executive Orders don’t mean much; they carry no weight of law.
But he’s on the right track, if for all the wrong reasons.
There’s little doubt that we need a unified national strategy when it comes to AI, data centers and anything else that involves our digital future.
We can’t have a hodge-podge of regional, parochial rules and laws governing something that has global implications.
For as was the case 45 years ago with local council members trying to understand the emerging cable TV industry, we now have ill-prepared local, state — and even national — officials trying to grasp a world they don’t even begin to understand.
In many ways, that’s why we’re having such a struggle with debates over data centers being built in our back yards — and for good reason: data centers need water to cool acres of hot servers.
How much water?
According to research, estimates range from 300,000 to more than 5 million gallons a day for large facilities.
And Michigan has water, water everywhere.
In Saline, a 575-acre, $7 billion AI facility is planned, but is already facing strong local opposition and a lawsuit.
Unfortunately, Gov. Whitmer and data center developers are on the wrong side of this argument, pushing for indefensible super-fast approval by the MPSC of DTE’s plans to provide energy to the site — without impacting our water resources or the energy rates for the rest of us.
Then there’s the small, “edge” AI data center proposed for Allen Park by a company named Solstice. The project is currently awaiting Planning Commission approval.
The differences between the AP project and Saline are that in AP, the facility is designed to use a waterless, closed-loop cooling system featuring dry coolers and chillers.
And it will have 12 on-site backup generators — yet will still have access to DTE power.
Oh, and forget promises of jobs: once construction of both sites is finished, the centers are designed to run on — wait for it: AI, not humans.
And in case you thought these were the only two projects of their kind worth talking about, Michigan already has 59 data centers around the state, a number that doesn’t include projects being drawn up.
From my perspective, the problems with these projects is that they’re beyond the scope of understanding for local officials — hence the pushback and lawsuits.
It’s not just a “not in my backyard” argument; it’s about doing it right — if at all.
Which brings me back to the cable TV wars: In the end, what we need in our area, in our state, in our country, is a unified approach to AI — in the theoretical, experimental and implementation.
We can’t allow an AI Wild West — quite possibly supported by a Wall Street bubble about to pop — to run roughshod over our communities, our state and our nation.
What we need are top-notch professionals who are NOT beholden to the AI behemoths to help craft reasonable, future-looking legislation that provides a road map for our country and our states to follow.
This shouldn’t exclude local input; it should codify it.
Of course, there will be the inevitable challenges to Trump’s EO, but what’s new: he shoots first and asks questions later.
And his “stick, no carrot” approach sucks: One of his EO’s enforcement mechanisms directs the Commerce Department to block states with onerous AI regulations from the $42 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program.
Of course, it doesn’t define “onerous,” but who cares about details?
Trump never does.
But that shouldn’t stop Congress from doing its job.
It’s time to start controlling AI before it starts controlling us.
Yes?
To read my essays, check out Substack.com and look for me at “Farrandipity.” It’s free. Craig Farrand can be reached at craig.substack@gmail.com.
