Have you seen a commercial like this one lately?
In this ad, which I got online, it lists Tennessee senators, but I’ve seen this same ad locally (frequently) with Illinois senators listed. It leaves you with the impression that some nefarious “special interests” are sabotaging a chance to lower our cable bills and allow something called “cable choice.” But these ads are totally misleading.
What the ads don’t tell you is that they’re advocating a bill in Congress known as the Advanced Telecommunication and Opportunity Reform Act. The House version of the bill (HR5252) passed 321 to 101, and is due to come up in the Senate. If passed and signed into law, this bill would allow the federal government to award cable franchise agreements.
I first brought this up back in April when Peoria’s franchise agreement with Insight expired. Right now, companies who want to offer cable television to a community must negotiate a franchise agreement with the local municipality. Peoria is still trying to negotiate a renewed franchise agreement with Insight Communications; according to city attorney Randy Ray, Insight and the City will be meeting again September 11 to hopefully hammer something out.
By law, cable franchise agreements are non-exclusive. That means no one is keeping “cable choice” from happening. Any company who wants to offer cable TV to Peoria can come in and negotiate their own franchise agreement with the city. But big telecom congomerates like AT&T don’t want to have to negotiate with every municipality, hence the push for a national franchise agreement.
The telecom-backed www.WeWantChoice.com, which sponsored the above commercial and others like it, call the current franchise system “a lengthy, expensive process that just doesn’t make sense.” By having a national franchise agreement, it will make it easier for them to compete, they claim, and that competition will lead to lower cable bills.
The Illinois Municipal League (IML) sees it differently. Local governments and their advocates like the IML are undoubtedly the “special interests” to which the commercials refer. The IML believes this legislation “would harm consumers, cities and counties in many ways, including:”
- It fails to keep local govemment financially whole because it strips state and local governments of tax authority over broadband and wireless telecommunications services.
- It would permit local telephone companies to pick and choose the neighborhoods in which they want to provide video and broadband services, while allowing them to bypass other
neighborhoods completely.- It would replace strong state and local consumer protection and customer service standards with federal standards drafted by federal bureaucrats not accountable to state and local communities and consumers.
- It would unilaterally preempt other carefully crafted state and local laws that encourage competition and protect the public interest.
If this process is so expensive and burdensome, how is it that cable companies have figured out a way to do it profitably? Why should telecom companies be allowed a shortcut — an end-run around local control? This is not about leveling the playing field — it’s about very large telecom companies wanting an advantage over cable companies. This is not a process that needs to be nationalized. Cable franchises should not be a federal issue; they are a local issue, and they should stay local.
Incidentally, Randy Ray mentioned that the city has been lobbying our representatives in Washington concerning this, and “the Mayor has written several letters.”
No one has admitted it, but I’m guessing this legislation is one of the sticking points that’s delaying the new franchise agreement between the City and Insight. I’ll bet Insight wants language in the agreement that will allow them an “out” if national franchise agreements are permitted in the future. Otherwise, they would be at a competitive disadvantage.