|
|
|
|
Public Policy, Media Theory, and Alternative News Links
Keep It Local Website for information about the Verizon Bill in Massachusetts. Contact your legislators from here.
Ten reasons the Verizon Bill should be stopped: Ten Reasons
Telecommunications Bills Threaten Public Access
February 13, 2007
As we follow the continuing saga
of Verizon’s full frontal assault into the video market, the multi prong,
never ending push to change the “playing field” goes on.. Verizon
has, over the last few years, been instrumental in attempting to change the
way cable franchising has been done for the last 30 years.
The model of cable providers negotiating with local municipalities for their
use of public rights of way and then providing compensation by franchise fees
and support for public, educational and government (PEG) access channels, has
been successful for all concerned. Cable has seen constant and steady growth
in their bottom line with an average of 5 to 7% increase every year. PEG access
facilities have flourished and serve their communities well and municipalities
benefit by having local accountability in customer service and support. In short,
the system works.
Verizon has entered the market promoting “consumer choice and competition
of cable service” and claims this will bring lower cable rates. They claim
a distinct disadvantage if required to negotiate with every city and town in
which it offers cable service and wants a state or nationally issued franchise.
Verizon claims the process is cumbersome, unnecessary and blocks completive
entrance into the marketplace.
They want a “one-size-fits-all” license and have worked at every
level to “get ‘er done.”
Everyone wants cable competition. The current laws permit competition and ensure
local control over the public rights of way, and that cable systems are responsive
to the particular needs and interests of each unique municipality. While claiming
that the local franchising process is burdensome, Verizon has already successfully
negotiated and signed 38 franchises in the Commonwealth. If Verizon would substantially
match the contractual obligations of incumbent cable providers, most communities
would gladly expedite the granting of a franchise. In many cases, Verizon has
been unable to build out cable systems to keep pace with towns and cities wanting
to accelerate the licensing process and at this time, there are no plans to
deliver service to Somerville.
Verizon has worked to institute national legislation with House and Senate bills
and FCC policy changes to insure they have an easier entry into the video delivery
market with rules that let them provide less to communities while insuring even
greater profits. This effort is ongoing.
In Massachusetts, this past summer, Verizon proposed rulemaking changes to the
Department of Telecommunication and Energy to reduce the amount of time to only
90 days that a municipality had to grant or refuse franchise approval. This
met with an overwhelmingly negative response among the cable advisory committees,
selectmen, town administrators, municipal leaders, state representatives and
public access leaders testifying. Alicia Matthews, chairman of the Commonwealth’s
Cable Division was so overwhelmed with the volume of testimony against the proposed
rulemaking changes. Representatives of Massachusetts access centersI testified
on the detrimental effects this would have to community communication, PEG access
facilities, and local municipalities.
The biggest threat to date is happening right now with the introduction of the
new Verizon proposed state cable licensing bill to eliminate local franchising.
Although not assigned a regular bill number yet, the bill can be accessed at
the Statehouse as Senate Docket 1987, sponsored by State Senator Steven Panagiotakos
of Lowell.
The highlights (or lowlights) of the bill include an incredibly short 15 day
period for state level review and approval, elimination of existing per subscriber
franchise fees that goes to the state and local municipalities (although there
is some % of gross to be determined “by ordinance”), no possibility
for capital dollars for PEG, no consideration for local INETS and limiting the
number of cable channels depending on town population.
Verizon’s proposal is bad for our towns and would adversely affect municipal
communications and public access television. This bill is written in the interest
of one corporation, Verizon, and will surely not serve the consumers in this
state.
There is much discussion and collaboration among groups such as Mass Access,
Massachusetts Municipal Association, Comcast and Mass PIRG in stopping this
destructive bill.
Cable television is big business; Comcast has made record profits this year
and Verizon would also do well without this special treatment. The public rationale
behind all the Verizon bills is “enhanced competition to benefit consumers.”
The real motive behind the bills is to give Verizon an advantage in the race
for market share, and the negative effect of the bill will be no LOCAL control,
diminished free speech, diminished non-corporate speech, and diminished independent
political speech. Consumers will be the losers; these bills erode our freedom
of speech, limit our voice and threaten our democratic way of life.
Thanks to Terry Duenas, Executive Director of Cape Cod Communtiy TV and Susan
Fleischman, Executive Director of Cambridge Community TV for their contributions
to this article.
Links 4/04
Sites
General Public Access TV Issues
See a recent relevant article you found interesting? Let us know at SCAT and we'll post the link here.
Somerville Community
Access Television
90 Union Square,
Somerville, MA 02143
Phone: 617-628-8826 | Fax: 617-628-1811
Email: info@access-scat.org
(Need Directions? Click HERE.)