Save Access

There's been much activity of late at the municipal level in response to the House and Senate Bills, a summary below. Remember that AT&T and Verizon started the whole state and national franchising push because they claimed that negotiating with local municipalities (as cable companies do) was just too burdensome and slow (for their desired business plan). The cities have a different story to tell . . .

Michigan
In response to the current AT&T push in Michigan for a state-wide franchise, the Michigan Municipal League and Michigan Township Association released a press release today asserting that AT&T has failed to respond to more than 600 invitations and resolutions throughout state asking AT&T to sign local franchise agreements and compete for cable TV customers. It is a very pointed question; "Michigan communities to AT&T: Can you hear us now?" The press release goes on to say “We call on AT&T to explain to Michigan consumers why AT&T is withholding local competition by not signing local franchise agreements and why they don’t want to serve ‘low-value’ residents as they told their Wall Street investors.”

Texas
How badly do the Telcos want state and national franchises? In Texas alone it is estimated that AT&T / SBC spent seven million dollars (see article). They had 112 lobbyists on the payroll, almost one for every state legislator. The end result, the franchise passed.

New York City
Meanwhile in New York City, the City Council is poised to pass a resolution on May 10th that sends a strong message to Congress to say NO to the House and Senate Bills and to say YES to maintaining local control and local franchises. NYC is served by five vibrant public access facilities in each borough, four municipal channels and one educational channel, all of which will face an uncertain future under the House and Senate legislation. The New York City Independent Budget Office estimates that the loss of local franchising could cost the city as much as 75 million if voided. "The city could also lose funding for its public access television production networks as well as five of the nine channels it has for government and educational broadcasting." The city takes this seriously, Borough President Scott Stringer lays it out simply; "This is a clear case of the federal government interceding into a local system which operates well and best serves the needs of local residents in order to demand a one-size fits all approach which will benefit corporations not residents". In the seventies, during a budget crisis, the word from Washington to NYC was 'Drop Dead', on May 10th that message is being sent back, albeit more politely.
Note: on May 10th The New York City Council unanimously approved the resolution (read)urging Congress to reject proposed legislation that would restrict or eliminate local video franchising at the community level, the vote was 50-0.More news here.

National Organizations Respond
Local governments oppose the proposed Communication, Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE) and say national franchising would limit video competition to well-to-do neighborhoods, threaten local budgets, and undermine their ability to protect their residents and manage public rights of way.

An unprecedented coalition of organizations representing U.S. cities have issued the following joint statements. The coalition includes; National League of Cities (NLC), US Conference on Mayors, National Association of Counties, National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisers (NATOA), Government Finance Officers Association, National Conference of Black Mayors and the International Municipal Lawyers Association.

Documents:
Coalition Letter to Congress (PDF)
Truth Versus Telephone Industry Spin (PDF)

Local Governments Urge Congress to Vote 'No'
04/28/06 SOURCE

The telecom reform bill, as it now stands, will, in effect, silence the voices of consumers and local governments. If enacted, consumers will be at the mercy of telecommunication giants and the federal government when faced with concerns about their television and advanced Internet services. This measure leaves the door wide open for service providers to pick and choose which neighborhoods get premium services and which get no service at all. Local governments continue to urge Congress to protect our taxpaying consumers and maintain local government oversight of service providers. We urge them to vote "no" on the COPE bill when it comes before the House. Specific concerns are:

• The bill strips local governments of their authority to franchise the use of public rights-of-way for video/cable services and gives that authority to the federal government. The FCC has never had the authority to regulate local public rights-of-way and has no expertise concerning local streets, sidewalks, public safety or traffic patterns.

• The bill gives the federal government the authority to oversee and second-guess all local rights-of-way management practices and all customer service issues.

• The bill allows broadband-video service providers to pick and choose which neighborhoods they want to serve while bypassing all others completely. The bill would even allow broadband/video providers to avoid maintaining or upgrading facilities in poorer neighborhoods while affluent neighborhoods receive cutting-edge services and lower prices.

Local governments want their consumers to have meaningful competitive services – not higher rates and no consumer recourse.

Sent by the National League of Cities, the US Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, Government Finance Officers Association, the Intermunicipal Lawyers Association, TeleCommUnity, and the National Conference of Black Mayors.

Contacts: Sherry Conway Appel, NLC, 202-626-3003; Elena Temple, USCM, 202-861-6719; Jim Philipps, NACO, 202-942-4220; Libby Beaty, NATOA, 703-519-803