I noticed that one of the items on the agenda for tomorrow night’s council meeting is a request to hire an attorney to negotiate a new cable franchise agreement. I learned from CableFAX’s Cable World website how Insight is positioning itself for the renewal process:

Insight presents its customer service improvements–as well as details of its rebuilt cable plant and new service–as proof to city officials that it is living up to the commitments in its franchise agreement, which is coming up for renewal in 2006. Randy Ray, the Peoria city attorney who handles the franchise renewal negotiations, says it’s too early to tell if there are any demands the city might have. He is looking for more input from the community in city council meetings leading up to the negotiations. He expects the franchise term will be shorter than the 20-year agreement that expires at the end of this year. “This is the city’s first opportunity to even really look at this,” Ray says.

Relations between Insight and the city of Peoria are “relatively trouble free,” he says. “I hesitate to comment on plant or any other infrastructure issues because…we haven’t really addressed them yet. But I know when I go home and turn my TV on, I have cable.”

Kim Sheetz, Insight’s Peoria district community and public affairs manager, is gearing up for several other franchise renewal meetings this year in communities outside of Peoria proper. She’s not expecting to field angry demands at any of the meetings.

“With all the advanced services, they are pretty willing to agree to new franchises,” Sheetz says.

Specifically, Peoria’s franchise agreement with Insight expires April 15, 2006. The article doesn’t say how short Ray would like the new franchise agreement to be, but Galesburg’s most recent franchise renewal with Insight in May 2002 was for only five years. One fee in particular the city would like to avoid is mentioned in the request for council action: The city currently pays $32,000 per year to broadcast the city council meetings on Insight’s public access channel. In the new franchise agreement, the city wants to eliminate that fee.

I wonder what else could be included in the franchise agreement that would benefit Peoria.

Back in February of this year, the FCC rejected proposals that would have required cable companies to provide (a) enough space for broadcast stations’ analog and digital channels during the transition to digital television (“dual must-carry”), and (b) enough space for multiple signals from each broadcaster (“multi-cast must-carry”). Could or should the new franchise agreement in Peoria require dual or multi-cast must-carry provisions?

What about television decency? Could or should there be a provision in the new franchise agreement that the cable company provide a family-friendly package lineup for basic cable subscribers?

One of the provisions in the city’s municipal code calls for public, educational, and governmental access channels, and that these channels be “available for all forms of public expression, community information and debate of public issues.” They also are required to provide facilities for producing public access programs. Should the new agreement include a requirement that sound and video be upgraded in these facilities? Public access programs have notoriously poor sound and video quality.

Another provision in the city’s municipal code allows the city to buy the cable company and own/operate it itself. Since the city is trying to get into the water business, should the city try to get into the cable broadcasting business, too, for the sake of saving Peorians money and having another revenue stream? (Okay, that question was tongue-in-cheek, if you couldn’t tell.)

According to the Cable World article, Randy Ray is “looking for more input from the community” regarding the new franchise agreement. So, what do you all think? Let me know and I’ll pass your serious comments on to Mr. Ray.