Save Access

from: The News-Journal

Hollow promise to viewers
Cable provider plan unlikely to spread the wealth

March 17, 2007

Competition can provide consumers with greater choice and lower prices. It can also give lawmakers a cover for consumer-unfriendly legislation.

Unfortunately, the state House of Representatives is looking for cover. Fueled by a major push from Florida's biggest telephone companies, the House is fast-tracking legislation that could throw the state's cable-television market into turmoil.

Under current law, cable companies sign agreements with the counties and cities they serve, called franchises. When negotiating these agreements, local governments routinely negotiate public-access channels and define service areas. Florida's existing cable companies have been following these rules for years, and every single company manages to make money.

Phone companies and other would-be players in Florida's cable market want the ability to bypass local officials and, more importantly, to cherry-pick which neighborhoods they serve.

Advocates see a strong possibility that new cable competition would target the most affluent neighborhoods, giving them access to choices (and likely promotions and price cuts) that poorer, mostly minority districts wouldn't see.

Local governments would no longer be allowed to incorporate "build out" requirements (giving companies a timeline to install their service throughout the franchise area) because all regulation of new providers would shift to the state.

As a result, new cable companies might not carry local-access government programming -- including Flagler County's broadcast of its County Commission and School Board meetings, or the Volusia County Council's plans to air its meetings.

In fact, that programming could disappear entirely. Removing the local-government negotiation requirements for new providers in a city or county would let existing cable companies opt out of the requirement to negotiate locally as well.

There's a way to manage competition, but the bill being pushed through the House doesn't even make the attempt. Other legislation, filed by Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Ritchey, and Rep. Rene Garcia, R-Hialeah, would allow competition without the move to trample local services -- but those consumer-friendly bills haven't been scheduled for a hearing.

Friday, the anti-consumer bill cleared another House committee. Cynically, committee members tacked a provision on that would fix one of the Legislature's previous gaffes by undoing a mandatory phone-rate increase approved in 2003. It's almost as if they expect Florida consumers to trade one bad policy for another.

Lawmakers should listen to consumer advocacy groups. If lawmakers decide to allow other players into the cable market, they should make sure the benefits are spread among all Floridians. The Fasano-Garcia legislation does that. But it would be better to do nothing (as the Legislature has done in previous years) than to adopt legislation that creates an unfair playing field and is likely to leave people in low-income areas with little real benefit from competition.

To comment on HB 529, which allows cherry-picking, or SB 1772/HB 855, which preserve local connections, contact your legislators by visiting flsenate.gov or myfloridahouse.gov.