Save Access

from: Tampa Tribune

Cable Legislation Shafts Consumers

May 15, 2007
By Michael Sittig

For the past two years, the telecommunications industry has stated that local government regulations have prevented them from providing a competitive alternative to “monopolistic” cable franchises.

Meanwhile, they have negotiated countless local agreements with cities and counties. Presently, there is absolutely no state statute or local ordinance that prohibits the provision of competitive cable or video services.

The current local franchising process protects potential subscribers and communities from being carved up into technological “haves” and “have nots,” protects property owners and occupants of the taxpayer-owned public right-of-way from destruction of private property and overuse of a public resource and allows individual communities to set aside capacity for community programming in an effort to provide sunshine to local government and access to educational opportunities.

House Bill 529 does its best to eliminate these benefits and protections under the guise of competition.

At best, less than 10 lines of the entire bill, which totals 1,240 lines, are devoted to the benefits, discrimination protections or rights of consumers. Based on the testimony and lobbying efforts of the telecommunications industry, one would expect a long list of companies lining up to invest in new fiber optic systems, broadband and the like. However, upon reading the legislation carefully, it is abundantly clear that the industry foresees very little head-to-head competition. The primary competition will be which company can be the first in the ground.

In fact, while the local franchising process is being dismantled under the auspices of competition, nothing is done in this legislation that would prevent or deter bulk agreements between the industry and developers, which typically exclude competition altogether. The end result is Florida’s 412 municipalities and the neighborhoods therein will be carved up among providers based on profitability.

The legislation also would basically suggest that local communities have nothing to say about the taxpayer-owned right-of-way.

The legislation sets up countless legal challenges and strategies to delay the repair of private property or the public right-of-way when it has been damaged. In addition, House Bill 529 allows cable and video service providers, rather than a community, to decide the future of existing public, educational and governmental access channels. Existing channels will be subject to utilization criteria the industry intends to use as excuses to eliminate availability of existing public, educational and government access channels.

Michael Sittig is executive director of the Florida League of Cities. This is an excerpt from Sittig’s letter to Gov. Charlie Crist, requesting he veto the bill.