Agenda - 08-16-2005-5u - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Gwen Harvey -IMPORTANT Information Regarding Cable Franchises! ~ Page 4 Finally, the bill prohibits municipalities from building their own communications networks except upon alevel-playing field with any interested commercial provider. The language of section 15 protecting commercial providers from undue government competition is particularly unclear regarding the rights of existing cable television and telecommunications companies in such a situation. SBC and Verizon have announced plans to begin offering video services over their networks using Internet protocol technology. Verizon is seeking local franchises in some places across the country. In others, its going ahead with construction and upgrading its system without doing so, explaining that it would obtain any franchise needed before it starts offering video service. SBC is not seeking franchises anywhere, saying they are not needed because they already have statewide franchises to use the public right of way to install wires and provide telecommunications service. Meanwhile, both SBC and Verizon are pressing hard across the country for legislation creating new state and federal regulatory schemes preempting local cable franchising by putting into place a model statewide or national franchise. Efforts at the state level in Virginia and Texas have, so far, failed. However, Senator Ensign's bill and others introduced in the U. S. Senate and House of Representatives which would rewrite telecommunications laws to have one set of rules for telephone companies providing voice, broadband and video services. Cable operators are opposed to the idea but are asking that any such legislation include them, too. U.S. House and Senate leaders have expressed support for changes in the law, which would speed competition by easing the burden on SBC and Verizon of obtaining thousands of local franchises. Existing municipal franchises held by cable television companies are contractual obligations, which could not be unaffected or preempted by changes in state law under the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits states from impairing the obligation of contract. However, changes in the federal law may do so in ways limited under the Commerce and State Reservation of Rights Clauses of the U.S. Constitution because the U.S. Congress may regulate interstate but not intrastate commerce. Therefore, for example, the U.S. Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 preserved local franchising, franchise fees, PEG channel, facility and equipment requirements, bonds, insurance, relocation, and other right-of-way related matters while broadly deregulating cable television service itself, Any law adopted by the U. S. Congress should balances local, state, and federal authority in a manner that respects the Commerce and State Reservation of Rights Clauses. Clearly, Senator Ensign's bill does not. So, I am less concerned about pending action in the U.S Congress than some others. Encouraging competition in the telecommunications marketplace is a very high priority across the country. National policy has for many years sought to build a nationwide broadband system for the delivery of voice, data, and video, I know that most municipal leaders