by WendyBlom in Government Reform, Media
Posted on April 15, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Last Modified on April 15, 2009 at 10:06 pm
loading…
As Executive Director of Somerville Community Access Television, I am concerned that the community may lose resources and benefits from changes to the cable TV franchise rules. After failing in 2007, Verizon is trying again to modify the rules to their benefit with a new bill put forward in the MA House and Senate. Although this bill does not call for a state-wide franchise, it takes away much of the negotiating power from the municipalities under the pretense of improved competition and efficiency.
The bill requires commencement of negotiations ten days from receipt of a license application from the cable company. That is not enough time for a municipality to identify its needs and priorities, let alone conduct a careful ascertainment process. The bill calls for approval or denial of a license in an absurdly short five days after a public hearing. Ninety days are given to hold the public hearing, from the time of application. These requirements work against municipalities because they cause the holding of the hearing regardless of whether the application is complete, and regardless of whether the Town/City has the information it needs.
Under the new bill, approval of the contract would be based on the qualifications of the applicant. Cities would not be allowed to deny a cable company’s application for a franchise even if the company refuses to provide for the city’s cable related needs. And if the city does deny the application, the company can sue in court. In addition, it sets new, strict limits on the amount of money a city can request for capital improvements to its cable facilities. In Somerville, based on Comcast’s last franchise agreement, the bill would provide $120,000 less in capital funds to the City from Comcast for its three channels over the ten years of the contract.
The current franchise process has worked well in MA since 1973 and there is no need to “fix” it. There is no consumer or grass roots demand to change it, and the other cable companies do not even support it because it creates a an unfair market advantage for Verizon. Mayor Curtatone has publicly invited Verizon to apply for a cable TV franchise in Somerville but so far the company has not been interested. If they were, the franchise process would be fast and easy if the company agreed to a level playing field with Comcast and RCN.
There will be a committee hearing at the Statehouse on July 22 for which the the public access community will rally the troops in opposition, as we did in 2007. People can call me at SCAT at 617-628-8826 for more information.
loading…
Wendy, thanks for bringing this to the public’s attention! It is absurd to think that the legislature could mandate that municipalities act on and accept commercial contracts against their will!
The title of your post plainly states that this bill would only benefit Verizon, but why wouldn’t it equally benefit the other cable providers as well?
Do you know the bills’ numbers in the House and Senate? Who are the sponsors in each chamber? Any clue as to whether these bills have a better chance of passing this time than the previous attempt? Thanks!
loading...
It would benefit the other companies financially when their franchise contracts come up for renewal. However, they see the bill as Verizon’s attempt to get into new markets without competing on a level playing field. I imagine that the cable companies also appreciate the good will generated in towns that have mutually beneficial contracts.
The bills are Senate Bill #1531, sponsored by Sen. Panagiotakos and House Bill #3765, sponsored by Rep. Michael Rodriguez.
If a grass roots movement develops as it did in June 2007 I think we can stop the bills. The difficult part is that Se. Panagiotakos is the Chair of the Senate Ways and Means Committee and holds a lot of power. I understand that the CEO of Verizpn in New England lives in his district in Lowell, and that they are friends.
loading...
Why wouldn’t the playing field be level with this bill? Surely, a city or town couldn’t consider a Verizon proposal until their previous cable contract had expired, and at that time all providers would need to compete equally under the new rules, right?
Can you substantiate your claim about where Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg [link to his BusinessWeek profile] lives and his friendship to Sen. Panagiotakos?
Is there any known connection between Verizon and Rep. Rodgrigues (8th Bristol District)?
Were these two representatives the same sponsors of the 2007 legislation?
What was the 2007 grassroots movement like? Did it defeat the measure in a landslide?
Thanks!
loading...
A city can certainly consider a Verizon request while the other cable contracts are in effect. Many cities have added Verizon in the middle of the other companies’ contracts. That is why this is not a level playing field. For example, Comcast may have agreed to provide a level of funding for capital expenditures that Verizon wants to limit in their contract. That gives Verizon an advantage in the start-up franchising process. The bill provides for a level playing field when the other companies’ contracts expire but it does not provide for a fair negotiation process.
I cannot confirm Sen. Panagiotakos’s or Rep. Rodrigues’s relationships with any Verizon employees. Sen. Panagiotakos also sponsored the 2007 MA Cable Bill for Verizon. I am not sure who sponsored the House Bill.
The largest Statehouse hearing room was packed in June 2007, with heartfelt testimony from many mayors (especially Mayor Curtatone), State Representatives (Denise Provost), Senators (Pat Jehlen), access supporters, staff, and Board members. Sen. Panagiotakos spoke in favor, but acknowledged the overwhelming opposition. The bill was tabled in committee and never came up for a vote.
loading...
Well, it sounds like Verizon is trying to give itself a competitive advantage with this bill, and that would be a corruption of our legislative system.
I wish someone would investigate the connections between the bill sponsors and Verizon to figure out why they might have submitted this unpopular legislation.
By the way, I discovered that Verizon is (unsurprisingly) publicly campaigning for the passage of this bill according to its public policy page. I wonder how much money they are spending on this campaign?
Have we heard public comments about this legislation yet from members of Somerville’s state delegation?
Thanks again, Wendy, for raising this important issue!
loading...