Competition and lower rates GOOD, Hurting Public Access BAD

FROM OUR FRIENDS AT MASS ACCESS:

In the past few years, Verizon and AT&T have been trying to eliminate or weaken local, municipal cable franchising, arguing that the current structure of negotiating franchises with individual municipalities is too burdensome. Legislation WRITTEN BY VERIZON, mandating that franchising be done at the state level, was filed in Massachusetts by Senator Panagiotakos (Senate Docket 1987) and Representative James Vallee (House Docket 1298).

Verizon’s effort to have the Commonwealth’s Department of Telecommunications and Energy reduce franchise negotiations, drafting and proceedings to 90 days resulted in a packed hearing in August at which opponents outnumbered those in favor by 15 to 1. The DTE never issued a ruling.

• Everyone wants competition
Of the 40 communities targeted by Verizon for franchising in Massachusetts, 37 franchises have successfully been completed through local, municipal franchising. Clearly, Verizon is not having a problem obtaining new licenses. If Verizon would meet the contractual obligations of incumbent cable providers, most communities would gladly expedite a competitive license. In fact, Verizon has been unable to build out the systems for which licenses it has already received franchises.

A switch to state franchising, in which Verizon would not be required to meet the same conditions of the incumbent cable operators, might result in the suspension of the hundreds of existing local licenses, effectively removing the many benefits currently utilized by citizens throughout the Commonwealth.

• Local control over the public rights of way should be maintained.
Each community should benefit from the commercial use of its rights of way, through franchises that meet the particular cable related needs and interests of that community, including:
Build-out requirements (to prevent red-lining, “cherry picking”)
PEG access operating and capital grants
Institutional networks
Emergency override capability
Consumer protection/customer service standards

• Verizon is seeking to avoid build out requirements that ensure that everyone in the community has access to services.
Verizon wants to cherry pick which communities and neighborhoods it serves – bypassing those that may not be as financially lucrative.

• The past 30 years of local control have resulted in the involvement of thousands of volunteers as overseers of their telecommunications systems.
Countless volunteers have served on local cable committees – many of these individuals know more about their cable systems than the cable companies!

• Cable companies are doing well financially under the current system – why do things need to be changed?