Cable competition must benefit all communities
By Micheline Wilcoxen / Chair of Angelenos for Equitable Access to Technology Steering Committees
The telecommunication revolution is ushering in a brave new world. The convergence of telephone, cable, satellite, and Internet services is as significant as the corporate mergers within the different industries that spawned these technologies. The new capacities and the competition to offer better, faster, and more telecommunication services to the average consumer in our homes, on our cell phones, on our computers and MP3 players are dizzying.
The value of this marketplace competition, however, is less about consumer choice and more about the powerful new applications that are possible. Access to these state-of-the-art technologies opens up new possibilities for strengthening civic engagement, education, health and economic opportunities in our communities. But, we are in serious danger of giving away the right to use our public assets and permitting private firms to enrich themselves without guarantees that we will be better off as a state.
The State Assembly is proposing to give AT&T, Verizon and other firms new access to our public rights of way and expedite telecom’s entrance into the “video service” business. Currently, each city is able to award TV franchises and can set conditions for ensuring that the telecommunication needs of its community are met. This proposal would enable phone companies and cable operators to bypass cities and opt instead for a state-granted franchise and to compete for subscribers.
Clearly, competition is good; we all have our cable stories. And there is a need to increase governmental efficiency in how franchises are awarded so that we do not discourage new “video services.” In its present form, however, this proposal could be disastrous for consumers, particularly in diverse cities such as Los Angeles.
Los Angeles has been negotiating for progressive new cable television franchise agreements in an effort to ensure top quality service to all of its citizens. But the Assembly’s proposal threatens to derail local oversight and replace it with a statewide franchise system administered by a rubber-stamping Department of Corporations, an agency that has no expertise in the matter and that will be given no mandate to enforce violations of the law.
This proposal, while well intentioned, is woefully inadequate to meet its stated objectives, and may severely harm consumers. For example, it purports to protect against “redlining” less affluent communities. But the proposal actually institutionalizes discrimination by permitting franchisees to define their own franchise areas and to serve some communities with different (less expensive) technology than that which is provided to wealthier communities.
Thus, an operator could provide West Los Angeles residents with state-of-the-art, fully interactive, broadband cable or fiber optic technology while the same operator serves South or East Los Angeles residents with slower, lower-capacity satellite-based service. In other words, the proposal enshrines a “separate but unequal” principle in the provision of cable and video service within the state and risks widening the “digital divide.”
In addition, providers of cable or video service would be required to allocate a minimal (and potentially insufficient) number of channels or hours of programming for Public Access TV use. But without any ongoing requirement to provide studio facilities for community use, there will be no public access programming to be distributed on the dedicated Public Access channels. The proposal provides for entities to contribute one percent of their gross receipts towards funding Public Access TV. Instead the proposal should specify that these funds go into a Technology Trust Fund to be administered by a local governing board. The Fund would finance the creation and operation of “Community Media Development Centers” throughout a franchisee’s service area so that the community has a genuine opportunity to create local programming for the Public Access channels.
The Fund also would ensure that our schools, libraries, hospitals and other government and nonprofit agencies keep abreast of rapidly changing developments so that the public will continue to realize the promise of technological advances.
Entities that have traditionally provided only telephone service or electric power have the potential to offer needed competition in the cable or video service marketplace. But the state should not push through telephone industry-drafted proposals without thinking through its implications and ensuring that all communities will truly benefit from the new regulatory scheme. This is the most important technology proposal for the next half century. It deserves careful public and government scrutiny.
Reprinted with permission from American Forum.