Save Access

from: tennessean.com

Friday, 02/09/07
Local control ensures competition is fair

By STACEY BRIGGS
Stacey Briggs is executive director of the Tennessee Cable Telecommunications Association.

Metro Council member Lynn Williams is rolling out the red carpet for AT&T/BellSouth, inviting the company to meet with Metro government and begin the process of gaining a franchise to provide video services to Davidson County residents.

"… Metropolitan Council hereby goes on record as requesting BellSouth to enter into negotiations for a local cable franchise in Davidson County," a resolution introduced by Williams states, in addition to suggesting the company's service is desired and would be approved promptly.

Even with such a generous invitation, it's probable that AT&T/BellSouth will decline the council's offer, just as it has avoided the local franchise process for the past decade. Current federal-local law allows companies to contract for a franchise with local governments to provide service, and yet AT&T/BellSouth has never applied for a franchise in Davidson County, or any other Tennessee city or county.

So why would the company pass on such an invitation, when it publicly expresses interest in entering the video market, and Metro and nearly every other Tennessee city want competition for their residents? This is the question local and state elected officials, and taxpayers, should be asking.

'Cherry-picking' its customers

Instead of entering markets through an existing process, AT&T/BellSouth is pushing for a special exception so that it could apply once (with the Tennessee secretary of state) rather than work with each local government. While this would be convenient for AT&T, it would be an unfair exception to the long-term set of rules followed by Comcast, Charter Communications, New Wave and other providers who have made major investments in communities statewide. This set of rules is easy to navigate and working just fine.

The answer is that AT&T/BellSouth wants to bypass many requirements that currently exist to protect consumers, local governments and public rights of way. For example, local franchises insist that cable providers build networks so that all residents have access to service; under the bill AT&T/BellSouth was pushing last year (and presumably will again this year) the company is expressly relieved of that requirement and responsibility.

This means that while AT&T/BellSouth promises competition for all, it could and would "cherry-pick" its customers — serving affluent neighborhoods and essentially discriminating against lower income and rural areas where it does not and has no interest in building a network. AT&T/BellSouth officials are on the record in other cities saying that providing video service to all doesn't make good business sense. In Nashville, this will mean competition in Belle Meade but not Bordeaux, in Green Hills but not Joelton.

The Tennessee Municipal League is opposed to AT&T's short-cut proposal. In addition to ensuring access to all, local control protects public rights of way. The local franchise lets local governments enforce quality and service. With a state approval, they lose this right.

Again, the question must be asked why AT&T wants to avoid the local agreement process. We welcome fair competition that protects consumers and local governments, but we cannot support a blatantly unfair advantage to companies that can afford the investment to play by the existing rules.