Cable Franchise

In today Worcester Telegram announces a huge loss for the people of EAST BROOKFIELD .

The Board of Selectmen last night signed a five-year cable TV contract renewal with Charter Communications, but the town will remain one of a few in the area not to provide local cable TV programming.

“We’re camera shy,” quipped Selectman Lawrence S. Gordon and Selectman Joseph R. Fish would have too much trouble trying to find someone to run the equipment.

Link to Telegram article

The attachment of this COMMON CAUSE article, written a few short years ago will tell you the story of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its aftermath.

The political environment may have slightly changed since 2005, but if Republicans
were to gain a stronger footing, community media, public access, and the ownership of the rights of way that allow cable and phone companies to profit from along with our right to participate and control such ways will be lost. Adding republican seats may continue the devastating trends revealed in this report. Thanks to William Houston for passing it on to us and to Common Cause the source of the report.
regulatory control does not always translate to bigger government.In the case of telecommunications and maintaining local cable franchises and support for public access television/community media, it can mean empowerment to the people.

Cable deregulation has failed. Some states have moved local franchise authority over to state control and are now feeling the negative results. This has lead to a substantial decrease of public access centers , while, at the same time, there has been no strong evidence to prove cable deregulation has decreased prices or improved cable services or create jobs. In fact, in numerous states, many public access centers were forced to close due to a lack of appropriate franchise funding, culminating in a loss of jobs as well as citizen access to channels and community media resources.The cable companies will have you believe consumers will have more access to providers, but that is not the same thing as the type of empowerment that citizens benefit from a PUBLIC ACCESS television community media center. Saving public access is saving your voice, your capacity for empowerment, through a public electronic forum.

I read this in the Telegram the other day Questions are raised about cable TV contract" and I couldn't resist at least writting a little comment to pass on to our public access friends in Dudley, MA

I often wonder it cable executives believe that if they put on a three hundred dollar ($300) suit and others will believe what ever they say. ( apparantly sometimes they do, I guess but that's another blog story for another time )

According to the T&G article, during a public cable licensing renewal hearing , Dudley selectmen raised questions concerning the capital grant provisions to fund the PEG channels. It appears Selectman Steven P Sullivan was insightful to point out something that usually gets overlooked during the public hearing process. Mr Sullivan was keenly focused on the capital grant portion of the which, like the rest of the franchise provisions is a cost of doing business, cable companies pay in exchange for rights of way.

Kelly M. Teal writes on exchange mag ( xchangemag.com) ,"Cablecos seeking customers in multidwelling units (MDUs) now will have to woo those potential users just like any other business trying to land a sale. In other words, the era of cable exclusivity in MDUs is extinct – that is, except for deals already in place. But for the most part, from here on out, operators will have to compete against telco and satellite for MDU tenants’ eyeballs, and property owners won’t be able to dictate who their occupants rely on for pay TV."

For more you can read how the Court Nixes Exclusive MDU Deals.

Another thing for muni's to consider while companies like Verizon lobby to give themselves more of what seems to be an unfair edge over cable providers. Anyway, this does seem like it could open the door to LESS local programming in the long run.

Rob McCausland sent this to us from: Keep Us Connected [
Subject: Rep. Serrano urges action on PEG

(Washington D.C. ) - PEG Access was discussed as a key concern at a U.S.
House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing held Wednesday on the Federal
Communications Commission's 2010 budget. Subcommittee Chairman, Rep. Jose
Serrano (D-NY) and Acting FCC Chairman, Michael Copps, agreed about the
importance of PEG channels to the public, and Serrano urged action on the
PEG Access Petitions for Declaratory Ruling before the Commission.

In his written statement to the Subcommittee, Acting Chairman Copps said:

"I know that a number of the members of the Subcommittee are concerned about
recent developments regarding the carriage by multichannel video programming
providers of PEG channels. I share those concerns. PEG is a valuable source
of diverse and local programming that not only provides an outlet for local
voices, but also nourishes the civic dialogue and gives citizens the
information they need to govern themselves... it is my hope that the
Commission will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that PEG remains
a vibrant and valuable service."

"AT&T, Comcast and Verizon -- the nation's largest ISPs -- don't want to have to build networks constrained by so-called 'net neutrality' provisions that would ban them from giving preferential treatment to some services (such as their own streaming video server) over others (such as YouTube)." Read how wonderful these benevolent giants are.

Also, check out how Verizon, Comcast, AT&T and other large wireless carriers and cable companies are behind lobbying efforts in state legislatures around the country to prohibit local governments from using federal stimulus money to build and manage their own broadband networks, critics contend. So far, they seem to be succeeding.
These are the ones lobbying in Massachusetts claiming they want to keep municipal controls and inspire competition. Don't laugh too hard.

It a day and age where people are loosing trust in government. One thing legislators can do to mitigate that is encourage public access TV. Which is why what is going on in California puzzles me. This is what happens when government does more to serve the interest of giant corporations as opposed to the people and local communities. If companies here , like Verizon, are successful in changing cable franchise laws in Massachusetts this could be happening here too. Stay Awake! Read More

Since when????

The Telegram editorial board shared their opinion regarding a recent bill being sponsored by Sen Steven C. Panagiotakos. The driving force behind the bill is Verizon. It seems that Verizon is apparently looking for quicker process to file for a local cable TV license and possibly an opportunity to evade having to meet the individual needs of each community it profits from. The T&G unfortunately may have been misinformed on some important points.

Worcester and many other cities in Massachusetts has had at least a 30 year template to follow. There has been little changes in Federal, State law or the industry, to precipitate any modifications to justify a prolonged franchise process. The current existing legislation already provides an equal opportunity for cable and phone companies to compete in Massachusetts. Any new competitor simply has to apply, and the city can require the new competitor to agree to the same conditions and terms as the incumbent cable company's franchise agreement. A process that could take less than 90 days. To claim a new bill is needed to better encourage competition is a bit disingenuous. They said the same thing before. Same song different dance party.

The devil is in the details. Read more.

For anyone wishing to present themselves as knowledgeable about what is going with broadband or cable issues, one must read, in my opinion is Bunnie's Blog You will need to read more. The National Cable Telecommunications Association (NCTA) recently produced a white paper on broadband deployment that read like Greek to her and it will to many. Apparently confusion is often a tool used by swindlers and some lobbyist. When I am in conversation with activist, many of them local, the saying which pops up often, usually masked as a joke, regarding legislative matters is that here in the US it's " the best legislation money can buy". I certainly know there are governments that are much worse.