tampa and franchise fees
tommyMeanwhile, (and I don’t remember seeing this locally, but I could certainly be wrong) along with organizations and local governments nationwide, the City of Tampa has sued the FCC for siding with media outlets regarding cable franchise negotiations saying the FCC forces local governments to “speed the approval process for new competitors, cap fees paid by new entrants to local governments and ease requirements…”
This after Trey Traviesa is found pushing a bill (surrounded by puppets) to do away with franchise fees altogether. A move that the St. Pete Times says “would erase virtually all consumer protections“:
The bill has so much weasel language that customer service requirements are either unclear or reduced to the federal minimum, which itself is inadequate. Lawmakers seem to forget competition is already taking place. Federal law forbids exclusive franchises; local governments cannot even unreasonably restrict competition…
If local governments lose franchise fees, you will likely lose your community cable stations (PEG). These attacks are happening all over the country.
Tags: county, Florida, government, media, online, tv
Loading ...
April 27th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Tommy — it’s great that you are writing about this. The consequences of this bill do include the possible loss of public access channels, poorer neighborhoods not given access, and higher prices for everyone. And these higher prices will not be for only cable services but also phone and data services.
What frustrates me is that this discussion loses site of what brought us to this point. Two things happened in 1995 and 1996 that changed the paradigm under which telecoms operated. In 1995 VoIP was invented — instantly allowing for any company that provides an internet connection to compete directly with phone companies. In 1996, congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The FCC does a great job explaining the meaning of this act, “The goal of this new law is to let anyone enter any communications business — to let any communications business compete in any market against any other.â€
In 1996, the cable infrastructure compared to the plain old telephone system was like comparing a model-t to a hybrid – technology separated by almost 100 years. The change in the business environment was a few large companies competing in exclusive markets, to thousands of companies competing throughout the US. The telecoms were forced to re-invent themselves as not only Voice providers, but Data and Video providers as well. Here in Tampa, Verizon’s solution was laying a brand new network based on fiber optic technology. And now we come to the problem – this stuff isn’t cheap to lay. Here in lies the problem. When a cable company negotiates with local governments they are held responsible for building out their services into poorer neighborhoods – sometimes at a loss. Laying cable infrastructure is significantly cheaper than laying a fiber infrastructure and the telecoms REALLY want to avoid being forced to service an area that might result in a loss. Remember, telecoms can provide video services in the state of Florida RIGHT NOW but must negotiate with local governments. This is not an issue of ‘fair competition’.
Treviesa didn’t write this bill, sections of it are identical to legislation written by the phone companies for the state governments of Texas, Tennessee and Connecticut. Last I had heard, the senate bill that came from committee still had the build out requirement even if the negotiations happen at a State level.
Essentially there are many losers here:
-The phone companies have paid Treviesa thousands of dollars to champion this legislation and he has somewhat failed them because what probably will be law doesn’t address their build out exemptions.
-Local governments will have no ability to impact the direction the fiber network is expanded. What if we have a need to create a data infrastructure for a new technology park? Now we will have to go to the State and ask them to negotiate on OUR behalf with the telecoms?? That is a HORRIBLE idea.
- The residents of District 56. We need traffic solutions, we need bigger, better schools, our priorities should not be in assisting enormous corporations in creating loop-holes so they can neglect poorer markets and local needs.
I wish there was a required economics class for all state reps so they learn and understand what OPPORTUNITY COSTS are – they only have 2 months per year to represent you – and they should be dedicating 100% of their time to that responsibility.
April 27th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Thanks for covering this, Tommy.