TMCnet News
Groups Weigh in on Telecom Franchise BillVideo Choice Act lauded by conservative and consumer groups, criticized by municipal organization By TED GLANZER TMCnet Communications and Broadband Columnist It didn’t take long for various groups to weigh in on last week’s introduction of the Video Choice Act of 2005, a bipartisan bill that would enable telecoms to offer their IP-based video services without having to obtain local franchise agreements, before the Senate. Telecoms such as Verizon, SBC and BellSouth have lobbied extensively to be relieved of having to obtain individual local franchises, a lengthy process that figured to add significantly to the billions of dollars already invested in preparing to launch video services. By eliminating the local franchise roadblock, the argument goes, telecoms will be able to compete in the video service arena, an area long dominated by cable companies. The proposed legislation, introduced by Sens. Gordon Smith (R – Or.) and John Rockefeller IV (D - W.Va), attempts to address several concerns that municipalities have expressed over the potential losses of revenue and control over their rights of way. (A companion bill was also introduced before the House of Representatives.) Specifically, the bill provides that: • All vital social policy obligations of current cable television operators shall be met by others in the video industry; • Video providers shall continue to pay fees similar to those charged to cable providers – protecting the revenue stream for municipalities; • Video providers shall carry all local public, educational and government use channels and all local broadcast stations; • Video providers shall adhere to strict consumer privacy obligations and comply with all consumer protections and customer service requirements. • Prohibits redlining, denying services to any group of potential subscribers because of community income levels. Several groups, such as the conservative think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), praised the proposed measure, proclaiming that better video services will be offered to consumers as a result of the additional competition. “Congress should be commended for addressing this issue,” CEI technology counsel Braden Cox said in a prepared statement. “A national rule that exempts existing franchises from the franchise application process will give consumers more competition in the video market.” CEI went one step further, calling on municipalities to eliminate local franchise agreements for all video service providers. “[L]ocal municipalities should take a hard look at whether franchising should be required for any company, be it a cable or phone company,” says the statement. “In a world where voice, video and data are served up in the same network, governments no longer need to negotiate service agreements on behalf of consumers. Governments should level the playing field by reducing regulatory barriers for all services, not regulating new barriers like the old.” Consumers for Cable Choice (C4CC), a national advocacy group that promotes choice for consumers in cable, video and broadband services, also praised the measure. “If all the companies that can provide cable television service were allowed to compete, consumers would immediately have access to high-definition, digital video content delivered faster than they can currently imagine,” Rob Johnson, executive director for CC4C, said in a prepared statement. “They would no longer be constrained by technological limits. The Video Choice Act has the power to bring positive changes for every American.” According to its prepared statement, CC4C claims that, should the bill pass, myriad services would immediately become available to consumers, including: • Multi-channel offerings to ethnic and special-interest communities; • More local programming; • Easy-to-use remote control units to assist with parental supervision; and • Interactive educational programs for children. Not everyone, however, rolled out the welcome wagon for the Video Choice Act. Specifically, municipal organizations object to the proposed bill because it effectively removes from municipalities the authority over local rights of way, an area traditionally within the province of local governments, according to an official from the National League of Cities (NLC), a national organization that represents 18,000 cities and towns. “The League has grave concerns over the efforts to nationalize cable franchises,” Cheryl Leanza, NLC principal legislative counsel, policy and federal relations, told TMCnet. “A significant part of that is the management of local space. There is insufficient capacity to manage local rights of way on a national level.” Leanza noted that she appreciated the bill’s recognition and protection of some municipal areas of concern; the concerns, however, were not adequately address. “We’re certainly grateful that there was some attempt to address the concerns, but without closer consultation with cities, those attempts miss the mark,” Leanza said. “The problem with the bill is that it treats [cable and telephone] companies differently. It creates more arbitrage rather than an even-handed playing field.” Furthermore, federal regulation of areas that generally fall within the province of local officials figures to create more headaches than they’re worth, Leanza said. “I can’t imagine a federal agency addressing [a local right of way issue] at the corner of 34th and Main in Anytown, U.S.A.,” Leanza said. At least one person, however, believes that the bill’s negative reaction from municipal groups is akin to Chicken Little screaming that the sky is falling. CC4C’s Rob Johnson said that municipalities used the same argument when local phone services were deregulated years ago. If municipalities had their way, “we wouldn’t have local phone competition,” said Johnson, adding: “I’m not saying [that the municipalities’ concerns are] not legitimate; but [they’re] not paramount, either.” ----- Ted Glanzer is assistant editor for TMCnet. For more articles by Ted Glanzer, please visit: http://www.tmcnet.com/tmcnet/columnists/columnist.aspx?id=100033&nm=Ted%20Gl anzer |