Save Access

Also worth noting is that Verizon has had no problem securing local franchises in NY and MA where there is no state franchise law.

from: Commercial Appeal

Is cable TV law really needed?
Friday, December 28, 2007

When it was making the rounds in the Tennessee General Assembly last spring, a bill dealing with cable television franchising was jokingly dubbed "the Lobbyists Full Employment Act."

The legislation would have allowed cable companies to get statewide franchising authority, which means they wouldn't have been required to negotiate separate agreements with individual cities and counties.

The Competitive Cable and Video Service Act, as it was officially known, earned its nickname because so many high-powered lobbyists were involved in arguing the bill's pros and cons. Even though the legislation didn't win approval this year, AT&T Inc., the bill's primary supporter, wants the debate to resume next year.

However, based on what's been happening across the border in Mississippi, it's fair to question if that would be a good use of Tennessee legislators' limited time.

In arguing for the Tennessee bill, AT&T has claimed that it's impractical for a company to deal directly with each local government in each town where it might choose to offer cable service.

Statewide franchising authority is the best way to ensure that cable operators already entrenched in local markets across the state get some competition, AT&T officials have said. Yet in DeSoto County and elsewhere in Mississippi, AT&T doesn't seem to mind dealing directly with city governments.

Horn Lake city officials initially approved a franchise agreement with AT&T, then rescinded it earlier this month after the Mississippi Municipal League advised them that there were some additional points they should have considered in their negotiations with the telecommunications giant.

Other DeSoto cities -- including Southaven, Hernando and Olive Branch -- have been either been negotiating directly with AT&T or at least thinking about allowing the company to provide cable service to their citizens.

There are plenty of good arguments for giving local governments input over cable franchise agreements.

City leaders might want some say-so over the size, appearance and location of the service boxes a cable company would need to put along neighborhood streets or other public property. City leaders might want to require a cable company to set aside one or more channels dedicated to community service or educational programming.

And city leaders might want to require a cable company to make service available to their entire community, not just select parts of it.

On customer service issues, some cities have historically done a better job than others of holding cable companies accountable. But cities would undoubtedly have less control if cable franchising is handled at the state level.

AT&T seems to be content to negotiate franchise agreements city-by-city in Mississippi. Before Tennessee legislators get into another protracted debate on this issue, maybe they should ask why AT&T can't do the same in the Volunteer State.