from: Bitchslappin [1]

Choice and Competition in Cable and Telecomm, Take Two

I've been following the heavy handed and well funded lobbying of the Telecomm Giants to get into the IPTV business by pushing (and some say WRITING) the new State Level Legislation that has been introduced in a bunch of different States across the US.

For those of you who haven't followed the "Cable Choice and Competition" bulldoody, the basic gist of this thing is that it doesn't matter if the area is served by AT&T, by Verizon, or by Qwest, it doesn't matter if the State is Illinois, Wisconsin, Massachussetts, Georgia, Iowa, Tennessee, Florida, Ohio or any other. The Legislation, usually called "Cable Choice and Competition" or some variant, that has been introduced at state level, in every case will, if passed, take TV franchising out of the hands of local municipalities, and make it a statewide franchise, without specifying who is responsible, or a path to recourse if a consumer has a complaint. It, in every case, fails to address the needs of Local Emergency Management or Emergency Planning. It will, in every case, ensure that the Telecomms have the right to redline since these state legislation bills contains no buildout requirements. It will, in every case, allow the Telecomms to do whatever they want in public right of ways, with no recourse if there are damages caused to private property, and in one specific case of extremely bad wording in the Ohio bill, override local governments’ authority over public rights-of-way, constructing where they please, and even, "when necessary to provide the service, appropriate private property" which, in essence, allows the telecomms to appropriate ANYONE'S property for whatever reason they wish. It will, in every case, threaten the ability of municipalities to provide Public Access Programming. It will, in every case, ensure that franchise fees paid to municipalities will have less value, whether by recalculating off a different base, discontinuing revenue sharing agreements that were negotiated as part of muni franchises, and/or removing free connections for public buildings such as libraries, schools and municipal services that'll then need replacing with paid service provided by said telco or cable franchise holder. And, if a recent study done by the Texas Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors is to be believed, there is NO reason to believe that "Cable Choice and Competition" will result in lowered cable bills. Texas was the first State to pass the Telecomm written State Cable Franchise legislation over a year ago, and cable rates have either stayed the same or gone up.

Though the Telecomms have gotten some States to roll over and play dead, through sheer steamroller tactics, heavy lobbying budgets and the fattening of campaign coffers, they're starting to meet with resistance. Tennessee recently put aside a vote on this legislation. In other States (Wisconsin, Illinois, Massachussetts, New York, and others) there is a huge groundswell movement against these bills as written, and mudslinging and threats from the Telecomms in States where it looks like the bills won't be passed unless consumer and municipal right of way and public access protection is written back into the bills. Massachussetts has been the most interesting fight to watch, with Verizon threatening to pull back on FiOS deployment and State Legislators threatening to discontinue tax incentives to telecomms. New York has also been a study in the down and dirty legislative street fight.

But recently, in North Carolina, there has been a new and ominous twist in the Telecomms' effort to protect their turf, though no one has said the Telecomms have had anything to do with this. It's ironically called "The Local Government Fair Competition Act". According to The Wilson Times, "The bill, which is in committee in the N.C. House, would establish a series of hurdles for local governments seeking to provide communications services, including telephone, cable television and Internet connections. While some of the provisions can be justified, others are transparently intended to discourage cities or counties from creating competing networks, such as the fiber-optic network the city of Wilson is already installing." How does it do this? "The bill forbids securing or repaying the bonds (to build these networks) with anything other than revenues generated by the enterprise. It forbids paying any costs related to the bonds from 'the local government's general fund or public enterprise funds.' Because those are the only kinds of funds a municipality has, the bill essentially forbids making bond payments. And because it requires these networks to pay the equivalent of corporate and other taxes to the general fund, it requires the enterprise to subsidize the city."

All you state and muni level legislators who are now involved in this issue, take heed. I'm sure that North Carolina is just the first in line for this legislation, which, if it wasn't written by the telecomms, should have been. And with the upcoming FCC spectrum auction coming up, passage of legislation such as this could be devastating to our future as a broadband economy, a future that's already been jeopardized by the telecomm's reneging on their 1996 promise to build out the broadband network despite billions of dollars in tax incentives they received to do so.

I think it's time to stop bending over for the Telecomms.