Ex Parte

Ms. Marilyn Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20554


Re:     Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, MB Docket No. 05-311

Dear Ms. Dortch,


This letter is to record the topics discussed in meetings with Commission staff on December 13, 2006.  Face-to-face meetings were held with staff from offices of Commissioners Adelstein, MacDowell and Copps.  The attached comments letter for the meeting was dropped off in the offices of Chairman Martin and Commissioner Tate.


In addition to discussing the comments in the attached letter, the following items were discussed:

Net Neutrality   The PEG Access community is forced to take an interest in strong net neutrality enforcement.  This is made necessary by the suggestion that, in the proposed IPTV or similar environment, Access operations would have responsibility for delivering our signals to the new entrant using internet resources purchased from the provider.  Further, the to-the-home delivery system also makes use of the internet.  Our small, generally under-funded operations would be subject to the prohibitive fees charged for the high-speed, priority video carriage necessary in the operation of a television channel.  The provider would have two motivations for charging the highest fees possible:
    To increase profit; and
    To regain the bandwidth abandoned by PEG operations unable to meet the costs of transmission.
Only Net Neutrality provisions can prevent this scenario in the absence of clear transmission requirements of video providers with regard to PEG.

Parity   We discussed the need for parity between the new entrant and incumbent providers.  It is clear that the incumbent will demand to compete on equal terms with the new entrant and will seek to abrogate any agreements which place them
 at a competitive disadvantage.  If the requirements of the new entrant are lower than those of the incumbent, we will initiate a race to the bottom with regard to public obligations.  This could affect issues of PEG channel capacity and support, the ability of PEG and I-Net to serve the entire community, transmission of PEG signals to the video providers and more.


Pre-Emption of Democratic Process   Special emphasis was placed on the need to honor the legislative process of the past year.  We also expressed the belief that the questionable legal authority supporting some proposed rules would lead to substantial and unnecessary legal costs for public interest organizations, governmental offices and the private sector.

We appreciate the time given us by the Commission officers and remain available to provide any further information or clarification needed in your deliberation process.

Sincerely,




Anthony Riddle
Executive Director
December 13, 2006

Mr. Kevin J. Martin
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20554

Mr. Jonathan S. Adelstein, Commissioner
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20554

Mr. Michael J. Copps
Commissioner
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20554
 


Mr. Robert M. MacDowell
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20554

Ms. Deborah Taylor Tate
Commissioner
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 2055
 

Re:   Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, MB Docket No. 05-311

Dear Chairman and Commissioners,

On behalf of the more than 3000 Public, Education and Government Access (PEG) channels nationwide, the 250,000 community organizations we serve, the 1.2 million volunteers who make it work, and the tens of millions of viewers who benefit and enjoy their offerings, the Alliance for Community Media calls on the FCC to promote competition only while preserving the treasure of local, community controlled media.

The Alliance supports completely the fundamentals presented by NATOA in its ex parte filing on behalf of NLC, NACo, USCM, ACM and ACD on December 12, 2006, two of which fundamentals may be summarized as follows:
    The proposal lacks clear legal authority and will result in litigation.
    The deadline structure for franchise negotiations will likely result in bad faith negotiations and may be followed by potentially dangerous use of public rights-of-way without local oversight.

The purpose of our meeting today is to emphasize several matters of extreme concern to the national Access community.

Geographic Discrimination    The proposed rule lacks a remedy for geographic discrimination.  Our local communities use PEG facilities every day as a means of 
engaging our citizens in the democratic process.  PEG provides access to city services, educational resources and job training.  Democratic participation in PEG activities should be for all and should be not based on any company's business plan.  The public-right-of-way is owned by all in our community, not just those in an area lucky enough to be served.  We believe that inevitable market imbalances must be anticipated by the FCC, as they were by Congress, and that any rule-making must provide these three elements:
A)    A standard for identifying imbalances in service.
B)    A party responsible for identifying the imbalance-logically, the municipality.
C)    A means for prevention or remedy of the imbalance if it occurs


Reduction of PEG Support   The proposed rule reduces the support for PEG or other community media services from what is allowed by current Federal law.   This is a somewhat arbitrary reduction which will hurt our communities.  It is even in direct contradiction to language authored by telephone companies and already passed in key states such as California and Texas.

Attached to this letter is a chart which shows the disastrous effect this reduction would have on PEG facilities around the country.  Many facilities would be completely wiped out.  This is made doubly destructive by the lumping together of PEG, I-Net and other communications services into a single category with the video provider left to determine their market value as a deduction from franchise fees.

Furthermore, history shows that reduced PEG support has had no demonstrable effect on either subscriber price or level of competition in municipalities where it has occurred.  Subscription rates are not tied to incremental program costs, but to the maximum amount a customer is willing to pay for cable.

These reductions would disrupt and destroy a valued community resource with no positive effect on either competition or rates.


PEG Channels and New Providers    It is essential that new video entrants be required to provide channels for PEG.  We understand that such a requirement may not be included in this rule-making.  This would be a mistake that would hurt democratic public dialogue.  It would create an advantage for new entrants over existing providers who have such an obligation.  It would do nothing to encourage more robust roll-out of bandwidth or of technologies which make more efficient use of exiting facilities.


Our Noisy Democracy   For the past several years, we have all been engaged in a powerful political process at both Federal and State levels in order to determine where we as a people-both business and citizenry-ought to go in the next decade of technical change.  It has been exhausting for all:  proposals and counter-proposals, organizing and advertising, pleading, demanding and negotiating.  But it has also been exhilarating.

As you survey this country from the heights of the Commission, you should be deeply moved by the way that your country has taken up these issues of communications-issues which, at one time, would have been beyond the gaze of average citizens are now recognized by millions as vital to our national character.

We hope that the Commission will recognize this noble process of community decision-making and allow it to find completion in the venue which was intended for it by the framers of the Constitution-in the Legislature, to be decided by representatives elected by and directly accountable to the people of the United States.

We look forward to working with the FCC to determine a community franchising process which supports both competition and community fairness.  Please feel free to contact us if you have questions or comments.

Sincerely,




Anthony T. Riddle
Executive Director
Alliance for Community Media


CC:    Christina Pauze
Chris Robbins
Heather Dixon
Rudy Brioche
Bruce Gottlieb
 
Annual PEG Support Funding From Cable Companies

MINNESOTA
Franchise Area    Current PEG Annual Funding
(excluding franchise fees)*    PEG Annual Funding
If 05-311 Allowed
1% of gross revenues    PEG Annual Funding Loss
If MB 05-311 Allowed
1% of Gross Revenues
St. Paul    $1,437,000 ($761,000 for operations, $676,000 for equipment)    $361,000    $1,076,000 (75%)
Arden Hills, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Little Canada, Mounds View, New Brighton, North Oaks, Roseville, Shoreview, St. Anthony    $1,046,023 ($951,629 operating grant, $94,394 equipment grant)    $218,022    $828,001 (79%)
Birchwood, Dellwood, Grant, Lake Elmo, Mahtomedi, Maplewood, North Saint Paul, Oakdale, Vadnais Heights, White Bear Lake, White Bear Township, Willernie    $811,000 ($771,000 for operations, $40,000 for equipment)    $222,000    $589,000 (73%)
Blaine, Centerville, Circle Pines, Ham Lake, Lexington, Lino Lakes, Spring Lake Park    $591,190 (for operations and equipment)    $139,188    $452,002 (76%)
Eagan, Burnsville    $647,982 (for operations and equipment)    $225,237    $422,745 (65%)
Andover, Anoka, Champlin, Ramsey    $357,000 ($311,000 for operations, $46,000 for equipment)    $125,506    $231,494 (65%)

 
Annual PEG Support Funding From Cable Companies

MINNESOTA
Franchise Area    Current PEG Annual Funding
(excluding franchise fees)*    PEG Annual Funding
If MB 05-311 Allowed
1% of Gross Revenues    PEG Annual Funding Loss
If MB 05-311 Allowed
1% of Gross Revenues
Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Golden Valley, Maple Grove, New Hope, Osseo, Plymouth, Robbinsdale    $716,266 (for operations and equipment)    $500,000    $216,266 (30%)
Inver Grove Heights, Lilydale, Mendota, Mendota Heights, South St. Paul, Sunfish Lake, West St. Paul     $293,000 ($235,000 for operations, $58,000 for equipment)    $135,000    $158,000 (54%)
Cities of Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Bayport, and the Townships of Baytown and Stillwater    $109,000 (for operations and equipment)    $38,300    $70,700 (65%)

MARYLAND
Franchise Area    Current PEG Annual Funding
(excluding franchise fees)*    PEG Annual Funding
If MB 05-311 Allowed
1% of Gross Revenues    PEG Annual Funding Loss
If MB 05-311 Allowed
1% of Gross Revenues
Montgomery County    $3,703,519 ($2,013,993 for PEG operations plus $236,100 for PEG capital plus $1,453,426 for I-Net operations)    $1,787,200    $1,916,319 (52%)

WASHINGTON, DC
Franchise Area    Current PEG Annual Funding
(excluding franchise fees)*    PEG Annual Funding
If MB 05-311 Allowed
1% of Gross Revenues    PEG Annual Funding Loss
If MB 05-311 Allowed
1% of Gross Revenues
Washington, DC    $2,160,000    $1,080,000    $1,080,000 (50%)
 
Annual PEG Support Funding From Cable Companies
MASSACHUSETTS
Franchise Area    Current PEG Annual Funding
(excluding state law-mandated franchise fee
of $1.20/sub/year to State and LFA)*    PEG Annual Funding
If MB 05-311 Allowed
1% of Gross Revenues    PEG Annual Funding Loss
If MB 05-311 Allowed
1% of Gross Revenues
Barnstable, Yarmouth, Chatham, Dennis, Harwich    $1,714,482 ($1,663,982 [4.5% of gross revenues] plus allocation of $505,000 in initial grants)    $369,774    $1,344,708 (78%)
Cambridge    $1,215,148 ($965,148 in 2005, plus $150,000/yr. grant, plus allocation of $1,000,000 capital grant)    $193,030    $1,022,118 (84%)
Newton    $974,502 ($833,502 [4% of gross revenues], plus $80,000/year in other grants, plus allocation of $610,000 in initial grants)    $208,375    $766,127 (79%)
Worcester    $985,000 ($900,000 [3% of gross revenues] plus allocation of $850,000 in initial grants)    $300,000    $685,000 (70%)
Billerica    $594,721 ($539,721 [5% of gross revenues] plus $55,000/year in capital grants)    $107,944    $486,777 (82%)
New Bedford    $591,098 (3% of gross revenues)    $197,033    $394,065 (67%)
Malden    $457,500 ($400,000 in 2005 plus allocation of $575,000 initial capital grant)    $96,970    $360,530 (79%)
Plymouth-Kingston    $443,050 ($410,000 [3% of gross revenues] plus allocation of $330,500 in initial grants)    $136,667    $306,383 (69%)
Norwood    $335,000 ($305,000 [5% of gross revenues] plus allocation of $300,000 in initial grants)    $61,000    $274,000 (82%)
Fall River    $385,000 (2% of gross revenues)    $192,500    $192,500 (50%)
Holliston    $131,998 ($106,998 [5% of gross revenues] plus $25,000/year in other grants)    $21,400    $110,598 (84%)
Carver    $82,300 ($74, 000 [3% of gross revenues] plus allocation of $83,000 in initial grants    $24,667    $57,633 (70%)
 
Annual PEG Support Funding From Cable Companies
OREGON
Franchise Area    Current PEG Annual Funding
(excluding franchise fees)*    PEG Annual Funding
If MB 05-311 Allowed
1% of Gross Revenues    PEG Annual Funding Loss
If MB 05-311 Allowed
1% of Gross Revenues
Portland    $3,000,000 (3% of gross revenues)    $1,000,000    $2,000,000 (67%)
Multnomah County    $561,000 (3% of gross revenues)    $187,000    $374,000 (67%)
Salem    $400,000 (1.5% of gross revenues)    $265,000    $135,000 (34%)
McMinnville    $73,297 ($1.00 per subscriber per month)    $43,215    $30,082 (41%)

VIRGINIA
Franchise Area    Current PEG Annual Funding
(excluding franchise fees)*    PEG Annual Funding
If MB 05-311 Allowed
1% of Gross Revenues    PEG Annual Funding Loss
If MB 05-311 Allowed
1% of Gross Revenues
Fairfax County    $4,500,000 (3% of gross revenues)    $1,500,000    $3,000,000 (67%)
Arlington County    $1,439,000 ($855,000/year; plus $584,000 in 2005 -- 1% of gross revenues)    $591,500    $847,500 (59%)

ARIZONA
Franchise Area    Current PEG Annual Funding
(excluding franchise fees)*    PEG Annual Funding
If MB 05-311 Allowed
1% of Gross Revenues    PEG Annual Funding Loss
If MB 05-311 Allowed
1% of Gross Revenues
Tucson    $1,500,000 ($1.35 per subscriber per month)    $700,000    $800,000 (53%)

MICHIGAN
Franchise Area    Current PEG Annual Funding
(excluding franchise fees)*    PEG Annual Funding
If MB 05-311 Allowed
1% of Gross Revenues    PEG Annual Funding Loss
If MB 05-311 Allowed
1% of Gross Revenues
Bloomfield Township    $313,243 (3% of gross revenues plus $33,500 annual grant)    $97,910    $215,333 (69%)
 
Annual PEG Support Funding From Cable Companies

CALIFORNIA
Franchise Area    Current PEG Annual Funding
(excluding franchise fees)*    PEG Annual Funding
If MB 05-311 Allowed
1% of Gross Revenues    PEG Annual Funding Loss
If MB 05-311 Allowed
1% of Gross Revenues
Santa Maria & Lompoc    $464,000 ($395,000 in 2005; plus allocation of $69,000/year, from $828,000 initial grant)    $142,200    $321,800 (69%)
Glendale    $613,333 ($600,000 in 2005; plus allocation of $13,333/year, from $200,000 initial grant)    $300,000    $313,333 (51%)
Ventura    $350,292 ($263,625 in 2005; plus allocation of $86,667/year from $1,040,000 in Yrs. 1-3 grants)    $146,050    $204,242 (58%)
Gilroy, Hollister,
San Juan Bautista    $259,471 ($189,471 in 2005; plus allocation of $70,000/year, from $700,000 initial grant)    $63,157    $196,314 (76%)
Monterey    $231,622 ($151,622 in 2005; plus allocation of $80,000/year, from $800,000 initial grant)    $68,571    $163,051 (70%)
Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton    $304,295 (88 cents per subscriber per month)    $163,902    $140,393 (46%)
Humboldt County, Eureka, Arcata, Fortuna, Ferndale, Blue Lake, Rio Dell    $293,750 ($200,000/year; plus allocation of $93,750/year, from $750,000 in Yrs. 1-2 grants)    $180,000    $113,750 (39%)
Oceanside    $487,333 ($214,000 in 2005; plus allocation of $273,333/year from $4,100,000 in Yrs. 1-3 grants)    $389,538    $97,795 (20%)
Santa Rosa    $316,667 ($150,000/year; plus allocation of $166,667/year, from $2,500,000 in other grants during franchise term)    $260,000    $56,667 (18%)
Monrovia    $83,000 ($46,000 plus 1% of gross revenues)    $37,000    $46,000 (55%)
Lawndale    $60,000 (2% of gross revenues)    $30,000    $30,000 (50%)
 
Annual PEG Support Funding From Cable Companies

OHIO
Franchise Area    Current PEG Annual Funding
(excluding franchise fees)*    PEG Annual Funding
If MB 05-311 Allowed
1% of Gross Revenues    PEG Annual Funding Loss
If MB 05-311 Allowed
1% of Gross Revenues
Cincinnati    $756,000 ($0.96 per subscriber per month)    $497,956    $258,044 (34%)
Forest Park, Greenhills, Springfield Township    $161,665 ($1.06 per subscriber per month)    $118,682    $42,983 (27%)

WISCONSIN
Franchise Area    Current PEG Annual Funding
(excluding franchise fees)*    PEG Annual Funding
If MB 05-311 Allowed
1% of Gross Revenues    PEG Annual Funding Loss
If MB 05-311 Allowed
1% of Gross Revenues
West Allis    $200,000 (annual grant)    $104,400    $95,600 (48%)
River Falls    $44,500 ($1.32 per subscriber per month)    $15,790    $28,710 (65%)
Madison    $388,000 ($0.60 per subscriber per month)    $360,000    $28,000 (7%)

ILLINOIS
Franchise Area    Current PEG Annual Funding
(excluding franchise fees)*    PEG Annual Funding
If MB 05-311 Allowed
1% of Gross Revenues    PEG Annual Funding Loss
If MB 05-311 Allowed
1% of Gross Revenues
Urbana    $162,536 (2% of gross revenues)    $81,268    $81,268 (50%)

KANSAS
Franchise Area    Current PEG Annual Funding
(excluding franchise fees)*    PEG Annual Funding
If MB 05-311 Allowed
1% of Gross Revenues    PEG Annual Funding Loss
If MB 05-311 Allowed
1% of Gross Revenues
Salina    $135,000 (70 cents per subscriber per month)    $95,549    $39,451 (29%)

COPE Bill Passes in House 321-101 Fri., Jun. 09, 2006 category/public access news See www.saveaccess.org and www.alliancecm.org for details. Verizon cable deal in Anne Arundel Co. to provide 5 public access channels Thu., Jun. 01, 2006 category/public access news The Baltimore Sun reports that the pending franchise agreement for Verizon to provide cable TV in Anne Arundel County would provide five public access channels (this probably means PEG channels), 5% of cable revenue to the county, and free cable service to schools, libraries, fire and police stations, and for other municipal uses. Deadline for Public Access TV Board Nominations: Wed., May 31, 2006! Wed., May. 24, 2006 Nominations for the initial 13-member Board of Directors of Community Media of Baltimore City (CMBC), the organization that will run public access Channel 75, must be delivered to the Mayor's Office of Cable and Communications by Wednesday, May 31, 2006. The nomination form and details are posted at www.cmbc.tv.

The initial CMBC board will be chosen from these nominations by the public access Board of Incorporators, which has been meeting monthly since the fall of 2005. Baltimore Sun: "Verizon gets cable deal in Balto. Co." Wed., May. 03, 2006 category/public access news According to an article in today's Baltimore Sun, the phone company Verizon has reached an agreement with Baltimore County to build a fiber-optic network and potentially offer cable TV to county residents in direct competition with Comcast, but the Baltimore County Council still has to approve the deal with a vote scheduled for May 15, 2006, and a cable franchise agreement must also be worked out between the County Council and Verizon. Councilman Kevin Kamenetz negotiates franchises for the council. There is no mention in the article of provisions or funding for public access channels.

Update 5/4/06: Tom Peddicord, secretary and legislative counsel to the County Council confirmed that there is no public access channel in Baltimore County and added, "I never get any questions about it. Maybe there's a lack of interest."

Peddicord said Verizon has been invited to submit an application to provide cable TV services, but they have not responded. Perhaps they are waiting for the COPE Act to go through. Public Access TV and Internet Neutrality Under Imminent Threat from COPE Act of 2006 Sat., Apr. 29, 2006 category/public access news The euphemistically named Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006, a federal bill backed by the telecom industry, passed in the House Commerce Committee 42-12 and is being fast-tracked for a full House vote as early as the week of May 8, 2006! This overhaul of telecommunications law could be more devestating to community interests then the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

To take action now and get more information, go to these sites:
www.saveaccess.org
www.mnn.org/saveaccess

The bill text, formally introduced May 2, 2006 as HR5252: Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006

> Hello, Congress held hearings last week on giving
>AT&T and VERIZON the channels that public access
>currently uses. I have sent you the NATOA site where
>you can get a free DVD that you can convert to tape
>and broadcast concerning this actual threat. Please do
>this, because if we don't , others won't know about
>this move afoot. The networks don't care if their "
>competition" dissappears. Thanks!
> Bill Shickler-Producer-"Media Watch On Hunger & Poverty"
>Welcome to the NATOA Web Site  ACM- News Release-Tony Riddle  ACM- News Release-Dallas Commun  ACM- S. 1349  ACM- H.R. 3146

ACM Position on HR3146, S1349 and S1504 The members of the Alliance for Community Media request that you announce your support for media localism that builds diverse communities across our nation.

We ask that you strongly oppose House 3146, Senate 1349 as well as the bill proposed by Senator Ensign last week -- Senate 1504.

Each of these bills is a National Video Disenfranchisement Act -- undoing years of progress in connecting the people of our communities to important local institutions and services. These bills are anti-competitive taking resources away from our local communities and giving them to giant and remote corporations without fair compensation. These bills are technically flawed and unworkable in the real world. We request that the Congress take the time to develop a reasoned framework that will serve the public interest and function effectively for years to come.

The cable bills before Congress are wrong for three reasons:


The Bills Take Resources From Our Communities: Communications Facilities - While the bills continue some aspects of franchise fees to municipalities, they eliminate essential communications facilities our local governments have negotiated as part of franchise agreements. Gone will be the distance learning this affords our schools. Gone will be the institutional networks used for public safety and homeland security. Gone will be the resources which have provided for cheaper, more efficient delivery of health and social services.
Franchise Fee Off-Sets - Under the Ensign bill franchise fees-fees paid in recognition of the value of public rights-of-way -- are eliminated. Instead, cities and towns are reduced to recovering the cost of maintaining rights-of-way for use by these corporations. Even collection of real costs is limited to 5% of gross revenue or less. This means that none of what used to be called the franchise fee will be available to support Public Access, Educational Access or Government Access programming. Funding will be eliminated for public networks including public safety communications.
These Bills Are Technically Deficient: Jurisdiction -- PEG - The local cable franchise is the negotiation and enforcement tool for communities. Under the proposed legislation, there is no entity to determine PEG channel capacity, placement, interconnection or support. The City has no relationship to the provider. Furthermore, while the bills anticipate creation of PEG capacity in towns where there is none, they do not identify a negotiating partner to establish the request-and if they did, the partner would have no authority from which to negotiate the community interest.
Jurisdiction -- Right-Of-Way - Local communities are reduced to having little legal enforcement authority over a national corporation operating in their public roads. Local differences of opinion in the placement of poles, equipment of the digging up of roads may have to be settled at the state level, by the FCC or in the courts instead of at face-to-face meetings.
Jurisdiction -- Ensign - This bill in particular designates that the cable provider can dig up the public roads without notifying the city, much less obtaining permission, in the case of an undefined "emergency" -- an unacceptable derogation of the city's public safety obligations.
One Size Does Not Fit All - Our communities are beautifully diverse. One national regimen cannot possibly cover the technical, communications, cultural and construction needs of all cities, large and small.


The Borough of Manhattan, New York alone has more than 550,000 cable subscribers, more than 5,000 producers of Public Access, one of the most ethnically diverse communities in the world, very broad, permissive community standards, extremely dense geography, and the most intense media coverage in the country.

The Town of Rhinebeck has under 10,000 total population -- a population 358 times geographically less dense than Manhattan, has more sensitive community standards, has less commercial coverage of local issues, less demand on public channel capacity, greater likelihood of satellite penetration and different opportunities for economic development.

A one-size-fits-all approach to franchise negotiations does not adequately allow either of these two New York Cities to determine what use of its publicly owned rights-of-way best serves the local public need.

Further, a national franchise authority moves us rapidly toward the creation of a single, homogenized national culture-one with little difference between Hollywood CA and Hollywood, FL.


Channel Capacity - Nowhere is the term "channel" defined. This deficiency will lead to confusion and litigation between all parties. This lack of clarity shows the haste in which these bills were patched together. Currently, a channel occupies 6MHz bandwidth. Five channels would occupy 30MHz bandwidth. As systems digitize, more "channels" occupy less bandwidth. A digital signal typically occupies 1/10th as much space now and may occupy 1/100th as much in the near future. The commitment to public interest bandwidth in payment for rights-of-way would, therefore, shrink as the system capacity grows!

More importantly, the number of functions associated with a channel are increasing as the size of the signal decreases. A "channel" such as Disney, for instance, may include programming as we currently understand it, but may also include interactive services, sales, side-bar information sources, audience measurement -- it is impossible in 2005 to imagine what may constitute a channel in 2020.
These Bills Are Anti-Competitive: All three bills absolutely favor the existing cable and telecommunications providers over all potential competitors at a time when the Supreme Court decision in "Brand X" signals that neither has any "open platform" obligations for their information services. Every community will be controlled by one or two dominant players who have legal authority to act as gatekeepers for most voice, data and video to the home. This is non-competitive and anti-democratic.
The Ensign bill awards "veto" control to any corporation over municipal development of communications facilities -- without any corporate commitment to create that structure! This absolutely eliminates the need to compete. The community has no legal ability to ask for content or services and loses the ability to provide them on its own -- a fundamental means of encouraging the commercial provider to do so.
How The Bills Can Be Fixed:
The simplest solution for telecom entry into cable is to mirror existing cable franchises in each locality. It eliminates the burden of negotiating new agreements from scratch. This is fair to telecom, fair to existing cable providers, fair to PEG operations and, most importantly, fair to your constituents who own and maintain the land upon which these enormous profits are to be made. (For a successful example of this, see the agreements between Time Warner, RCN and the Borough of Manhattan, NY.) Solution - Financial support for Public, Educational and Government (PEG) Access must be maintained-including both operating and capital support as outlined in the existing federal laws.
Solution - Municipal use of channels should maintain system proportionality with 2004 levels or 30 MHz, whichever is greater.
Solution - Non-monetary payments of the franchise agreements, including public networks and other community media infrastructure must be protected.
Solution - Franchise fees, if limited to 5%, must stand alone. They should not be offset by other values, nor should they be tied artificially to unrelated costs of the municipality. These fees are in recognition that great profits are being made on land owned by the people of the town -- in addition to any costs of maintenance.
Competition is good, but it must be smart. These bills lack adequate rudder. A balance must be struck between community need and corporate desire. This balance cannot be reached if every means for the community to speak as a group is eliminated.

The Alliance for Community Media and the hundreds of thousands of organizations we support and represent throughout this great country implore Congress to maintain the wise and proven policy of Local Franchising Authorities for cable broadband and other broadband service. It is a system which has for more than thirty years encouraged diversity in programming and structure based on the needs of our local communities. It is a system that has encouraged vibrant competition and innovation, while allowing local government to serve constituents more efficiently.

As you consider proposed legislation, please protect the existing policy of community reinvestment through Public, Educational and Government (PEG) Access, including those funds and bandwidth being used for public purposes, by: Allowing the local community which owns the public right-of-way to franchise and determine the best use of the community's property. This principle must be protected by Federal law. Dedicating 10% of public airwaves and capacity on communication facilities that occupy public rights-of-way for PEG use for local programs, community-based education, free speech, political processes and diverse points of view. Mandating funding of 5% of gross revenues from all infrastructure or service providers and spectrum licensees to support PEG equipment, facilities, training and services. Making PEG access universally available to any consumer of advanced telecommunications services capable of full-motion video.

The NewStandard, http://newstandardnews.net, is an excellent, advertising-free
web news organization that one can subscribe to in place of the Sun, and others
to support. It featured this pertinent story on federal telecom legislation
and public access.

Maybe you should try have a presence at the January 24th hearing on video
franchising before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee,
mentioned in the final paragraph.

Happy New Year!


#######

Telecom Laws Overhaul Threatens Public-access TV, Services
by Tara Tidwell Cullen

Lawmakers looking to encourage competition in television provider markets are
insisting on bills that would undermine local governmentsâEUR ability to force
cable companies to pay for essential public services.

Dec 29 - When Ralph Montefusco left IBM in Burlington, Vermont to become a
full-time union organizer, he struggled to communicate with other workers.
Mainstream television reporters reduced his ideas to sound bytes, and he never had control over his message.

Then Montefusco was invited to appear as a guest on a labor-themed
public-access television show, and he discovered community TV. He now produces a monthly show about his union's activities and helps other Burlington-area community
organizers create their own public-access shows.

"It's a way for us to get our story out without it being filtered and chopped
up by the mainstream media," he said.

Now, with a wash of telecommunications legislation wending its way through
Congress, public-access television users like Montefusco may have to fight for its
survival in 2006.

Throughout the United States, people working for social change use
public-access television to bypass corporate media and reach broad local viewerships. Constituents use public-access TV to discuss what they expect from politicians.
Immigrants use it to share news from home. Small cities shadowed by big cities use
it to report stories that never make it into the major-market newscasts. People
from every background use public-access channels as training ground for media
production skills.

The funding for public-access stations usually comes though "franchise
agreements" between local governments and cable companies. Through these contracts, cable companies pay fees for laying their wires under sidewalks and streets, or
"public rights of way."

In Vermont, these negotiations bring in about $4 million per year for public
services and community television networks like the one Montefusco and his
colleagues use for community and union organizing.

As technology evolves, companies like Verizon and AT&T âEUR" which already use
public rights of way to provide telephone and Internet services âEUR" want to offer
TV and video services over their telephone wires. These companies are not
currently regulated by local franchise agreements.

In order to address this issue, lawmakers have introduced four bills in recent
months that could dramatically alter, or even eliminate, the funding sources
for local public-access channels.

"Seventy years of regulation is really in question," said Lauren-Glenn
Davitian, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy in Burlington. "For
70 years [the cable and telecommunications] industries were regulated as if
they were different industries âEUR" which they were âEUR" but they can no longer be
considered entirely separate because they are all engaged in the same broadband
business."

The Video Choice Act, introduced in the US House of Representatives last summer
by Marsha Blackburn (RâEUR"Tennessee) and in the Senate by Gordon Smith
(RâEUR"Oregon), would require cable companies to continue paying franchise fees. But phone and Internet companies already using public rights of way for non-video
services could begin providing video services without entering into the same kind of
contracts, leaving local governments little room to charge fees and negotiate
for compensation.

Public-access supporters say that both cable and phone companies should be
required to compensate municipalities for public rights of way, and local
governments should be able to negotiate those payments. They worry that by exempting
phone and Internet companies from the fees, "level playing field" clauses common
in current franchise agreements could put municipalities in breach of existing
contracts with cable providers. These clauses state that if a competitor is not
required to meet the same obligations as the cable franchisee, the cable
company does not have to meet its obligations either.

Two other Senate bills call to eliminate franchise fees entirely. John Ensign
(RâEUR"Nevada) introduced the Broadband Consumer Choice Act in July, and Jim
DeMint (RâEUR"South Carolina) introduced the Digital Age Communications Act on
December 15. Presumably, legislative analysts say, control over public rights of way
would shift to the Federal Communications Commission.

Susan Fleischmann, executive director of Cambridge Community Television (CCTV)
in Massachusetts, says local governments' ability under current laws to
negotiate franchises is crucial to maintaining valuable public services. CCTV operates
three public-access channels, 70 percent of the funding for which comes from
franchise fees that are put at risk by the current versions of the House and
Senate bills.

"Cable-related needs and interests differ among cities," Fleischmann said.
"There are franchise fees and additional capital requirements that we negotiate
for, but there are also other, more nuanced needs."

For instance, in Monroe County, Indiana, local cable-franchise negotiations
also fund the tornado warning system and an intuitional network (I-Net) used by
public-access channels for live election-night and public meeting coverage.

Michael White, who directs Community Access Television Services in Indiana,
said that residents in the town of Elletsville have been known to rush to
televised public meetings in their pajamas after seeing important topics arise on the
public-access channel. Monroe County and the City of Bloomington could lose
about $1 million per year in cable franchise money that maintains the tornado
warning system and I-Net system.

These specialized obligations are what cable and video service providers hope
new legislation would help them avoid.

In a statement on his website, Sen. Ensign said his bill intends to make the
United States a world leader in telecommunications by changing what he calls
"burdensome and outdated government regulations," which he accuses of slowing
innovation.

Senator John McCain (R-Arizona), who is co-sponsoring the Ensign bill, says
that deregulation is needed to "encourage the rapid deployment of new
technologies." The Telecommunications Industry Association, USTelecom, Alcatel North
America, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, US Internet Industry
Association, and Verizon have all endorsed the bill.

Local government representatives say they welcome increased video competition,
but do not want it at the expense of public services.

In testimony before Congress, Montgomery County, Maryland council member
Marilyn Praisner said that for three decades local governments have used cable
franchising authority to make sure that cable reaches nearly every household in their
communities. In her November testimony before the House Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Praisner represented a coalition of local government entities, including the National
League of Cities, the US Conference of Mayors and the National Association of
Counties.

"We also know that only wire-line competition reduces cable rates and enhances
service," Praisner said. "Therefore, let there be no mistake, local governments
want competition, as fast and as much as the market and some state laws will
sustain."

But critics of the proposed legislation express skepticism that eliminating
local control over franchises would necessarily lower rates or offer more choices
for all consumers. They say that eliminating local regulation could allow
companies to pass over communities they deem unprofitable.

"Local government strongly endorses promoting competition for all consumers,"
says an action alert released by the National League of Cities. "But these bills
would mean that fewer citizens will receive the benefit of video competition.
The bills eviscerate local government's authority to ensure head-to-head
competition for all citizens, leaving video providers free to cherry pick the most
lucrative communities."

The Broadband Consumer Choice Act and Video Choice Act received enough
opposition from both industry and local-government advocates that they never made it to a vote in either the House or the Senate this fall. With DeMint's bill added to
the mix, the final structure of the telecom legislation overhaul is far from
clear.

"The burden is on the access channels and their partners to educate everyone so
that at the key time in 2006, Congress hears from the people," Davitian said.
"The only solution to the power of industry on Congress is people power, and the
thing the public-access channels have is people power. You've got a built-in
constituency."

Cambridge resident Jacques Fleury has already used his weekly show on Cambridge
Community Television's Channel 9 to tell his Haitian immigrant community about
the threats the bills pose.

"Public-access to the Haitian community is everything," he said. "When I came
here all my mother watched was [public-access] television, to find out what's
going on in the Haitian community."

Fleury said his live show, "Dreamweavers w/ Jacques," allows him to introduce
Haitian community leaders to the rest of Cambridge, where Haitians are one of
the smaller populations. Most public-access stations offer religious and
foreign-language programming for immigrant communities.

"It's a way for us to keep together and make sure we're not silenced," Fleury
said.

Fleury, whose mother still lives with fears ingrained from living most of her
life under an oppressive Haitian dictatorship, said her concern for his safety
when he makes political statements reminds him of public-access TV's value in a
free society.

The Senate bills have been assigned to the Senate Commerce, Science, and
Transportation Committee, which has scheduled a full committee hearing on video
franchising for January 24. Blackburn's bill is in the House Energy and Commerce
Committee, which has not yet released a schedule of 2006 hearings.

© 2005 The NewStandard.

House Moves for All-Digital TV by 2009 Mon Dec 19, 7:58 PM ET

House lawmakers approved legislation early Monday that would complete the transition to all-digital television broadcasts by Feb. 17, 2009.

The measure also would allocate up to $1.5 billion to help consumers with older, analog TV sets purchase converter boxes so they would continue to get service in the digital era.

The date for all-digital and the subsidy were included in a broader deficit-cutting bill that the Senate could take up later Monday.

The Feb. 17th deadline - the so-called "hard date" to end traditional analog transmissions - was a compromise between House and Senate legislation that called for different end dates.

The House initially proposed ending analog transmissions on Dec. 31, 2008; the Senate had backed a hard date of April 7, 2009 - after the March Madness college basketball playoffs.

The Senate had also proposed a much bigger converter box subsidy of $3 billion. The compromise figure of $1.5 billion is meant to help the 21 million households who rely on free, over-the-air television. Cable and satellite customers would not be affected by the switch to digital.

The new House bill would initially provide up to $990 million for the converter box subsidy, including about $100 million for administrative costs. If more funds are needed, another $500 million would be made available.

The move to all-digital will free valuable radio spectrum, some of which will be allocated to improve radio communications among fire and police departments and other first responders. The rest of the spectrum would be auctioned by the government for an estimated $10 billion, though private estimates put that number higher.

The House bill also would set aside up to $1 billion for public safety agencies to upgrade their communications systems.

>  Please take a moment to read through the following email (sent by the
> Alliance for Community Media).
>
>  Amanda Ault
>  Program & Membership Associate
>  National Alliance for Media Arts and Culture
>
>
>  *****************************************
>  From: Alliance for Community Media
>  Subject: Urgent!  The Perfect Storm, Congressional Action Needed
>
>  The good news first:  Tonight's SNOWSTORM! is a
>  perfect storm.  Immaculate timing.  We need voices
>  now.  Hearings are being scheduled for the House Staff
>  Bill on Wednesday.
>
>  The bad news is the public has been largely cut out of
>  the hearing and the bill has not been changed to
>  address your needs.  Action is needed now.
>
>  The second draft of the BITS bill- also known as the
>  Commerce Committee Staff Draft-came out late last
>  week.  It is not good.  While the Commerce
>  Subcommittee met with ACM and others fro the
>  community, none of our suggested changes were picked
>  up.  In fact, the bill has become significantly weaker
>  with regard to public interests.  
>
>  The Subcommittee has not yet responded to our request
>  to have a speaker on the hearings planned for
>  Wednesday.  We are being told that it is important for
>  your voices to be heard now. We urge you to take
>  action TODAY, TOMORROW and WEDNESDAY.
>
>  Call or email House Commerce Committee Members.  Tell
>  them:
>  1) The public interest must be strongly represented at
>  all hearings and in all legislation.
>  2) The Alliance for Community Media and the municipal
>  organizations represent the needs of tens of thousands
>  of communities and millions voters who deserve to play
>  a more meaningful role in this process.
>
>  At the bottom of this email is the Subcommittee member
>  email list.  Also attached is a document which lists
>  of all House subcommittee members' phones and their
>  legislative aides. Please let us know via email if you
>  have contacted someone and how it goes.
>
>  We need thousands of folks contacting Subcommittee
>  members directly to tell them to stand up at the
>  hearing and simply say:
>
>  "I support Telco-cable competition, but I cannot
>  support BITS as written for, among a number of
>  reasons, it does not protect PEG channels or keep
>  local government whole."
>
>  Absent such expressions of concern, the Committee
>  leadership will move BITS to mark-up at the
>  Subcommittee the week of November 15 and then move the
>  bill out of Committee upon returning from the
>  Thanksgiving break.
>
>  Please forward this request for action widely. Visit
>  ACM, NLC, NACo, NATOA or USCM's websites for more
>  talking points.
>
>  General Talking Points:
>  The Alliance for Community Media and other
>  representatives of the public interest must be
>  included in hearings and conversations about this
>  bill.
>
>  Local governments want broadband for their communities
>  and embrace innovations in technology that make
>  possible competition in video, telephone and broadband
>  services.
>
>  Community resource obligations of communications
>  providers must continue to apply.
>  EUR Public, education, government access capacity.
>  EUR Institutional networks.
>  EUR Economic redlining should be prohibited.
>  EUR Public safety and community needs.
>
>  Consumers must receive a choice of broadband providers
>  with a guarantee of net neutrality.
>
>  State and local governments should maintain public
>  right-of-way management control and be kept whole in
>  terms of social obligations and user-fees.
>
>  Problems with the current legislation and process:
>  While the Telco's gets their fast-track franchising
>  process, everyone else loses.
>
>  Consumers are no longer guaranteed choice of broadband
>  providers.  Competitors can now buyout their
>  competition.
>
>  There is no more net neutrality.  Broadband providers
>  can block competitive information services from the
>  system.
>
>  Cable is required under this bill repay cities with
>  support of community such as PEG and I-Nets, while
>  Telco's are not.
>
>  BITS limits franchise fees to the recovery of public
>  right-of-way management costs.  Furthermore, franchise
>  fees are limited to 5% of subscriber revenue, not the
>  5% of gross revenues which is standard today.
>
>  Franchising is not and never has been a barrier to
>  competition.  In fact, Cable companies are
>  out-deploying Telco's even though Cable companies have
>  local franchises.  More broadband has been deployed
>  under local cable franchises than by Telco's.
>
>  Current law is a light touch regulatory approach.
>
>  *****************************************
>  *****************************************
>  House Commerce Subcommittee Members
>  Fred Upton, Michigan, Chairman
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Upton.htm 
>
>  Michael Bilirakis, Florida
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Bilirakis.htm
>
>  Cliff Stearns, Florida
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Stearns.htm
>
>  Paul E. Gillmor, Ohio
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Gillmor.htm
>
>  Ed Whitfield, Kentucky
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Whitfield.htm
>
>  Barbara Cubin, Wyoming
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Cubin.htm 
>
>  John Shimkus, Illinois
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Shimkus.htm
>
>  Heather Wilson, New Mexico
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Wilson.htm
>
>  Charles "Chip" Pickering, Mississippi
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Pickering.htm
>
>  Vito Fossella, New York
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Fossella.htm
>
>  George Radanovich, California
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Radanovich.htm
>
>  Charles F. Bass, New Hampshire
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Bass.htm 
>
>  Greg Walden, Oregon
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Walden.htm
>
>  Lee Terry, Nebraska
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Terry.htm 
>
>  Mike Ferguson, New Jersey
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Ferguson.htm
>
>  John Sullivan, Oklahoma
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Sullivan.htm
>
>  Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Blackburn.htm
>
>  Joe Barton, Texas
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Barton.htm
>  (Ex Officio)
>
>  Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts, Ranking Member
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Markey.htm
>
>  Eliot L. Engel, New York
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Engel.htm 
>
>  Albert R. Wynn, Maryland
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Wynn.htm 
>
>  Mike Doyle, Pennsylvania
>  http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Doyle.htm 
>
>  Charles A. Gonzalez, Texas
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Gonzalez.htm
>
>  Jay Inslee, Washington
>  http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Inslee.htm
>
>  Rick Boucher, Virginia
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Boucher.htm
>
>  Edolphus Towns, New York
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Towns.htm 
>
>  Frank Pallone Jr., New Jersey
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Pallone.htm
>
>  Sherrod Brown, Ohio
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Brown.htm 
>
>  Bart Gordon, Tennessee
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Gordon.htm
>
>  Bobby L. Rush, Illinois
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Rush.htm 
>
>  Anna G. Eshoo, California
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Eshoo.htm 
>
>  Bart Stupak, Michigan
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Stupak.htm
>
>  John D. Dingell, Michigan
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/members/Dingell.htm
>  (Ex Officio)
>
>
>  Anthony T. Riddle
>  Alliance for Community Media
>  666 11th Street NW, Suite 740
>  Washington, DC 20001
>  202.393.2650 p, 202.393.2653 f
> 
>
>
>  
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  Receive our free electronic newsletter
> http://www.namac.org/signup.cfm
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  For membership information
>  http://www.namac.org/join.cfm
>  JOIN/RENEW ONLINE!
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  NAMAC
>  145 Ninth Street, Ste. 250
>  San Francisco, CA  94103
>  415-431-1391 (x303) phone
>  415-431-1392 fax
> amanda@namac.org
> http://www.namac.org

 New House Commerce Committee Draft Bill - A
 Setback for PEG Access, Local Governments and Consumers
 Importance: High
 
 Last Thursday, the House Commerce Committee staff released a new draft
 bill dealing with broadband Internet transmission services, VOIP
 services and broadband video services.  The bill would preempt all
 local and state regulation of these services.  Here's a  link to the
 new draft bill, which will be the subject of Committee hearings on
 November 9.   http://www.natoa.org/public/articles/BITS_Staff_Draft_110305.pdf

 The bill is a disaster for PEG and local governments (and other
 elements of the public interest).  The Alliance (and  local
 governments and their organizations) were not successful in having the
 Committee staff address any of our concerns that were raised in
 connection with an earlier draft which had been put out for comment. 
 In fact, the new draft is a significant step backward.  The bill would
 effectively grant a national franchise to provide video services to
 companies who provide video programming packages that use an Internet
 based delivery platform. 

 A major change from the earlier draft bill is in the definition of
 Gross Revenues (on page 31) because, unlike the earlier draft, it is
 limited to revenues "collected from the subscriber and attributable to
 the video programming packkage provided" by the broadband video
 service provider.   In other words, non-subscriber revenues such
 as advertising and home-shopping, which account for roughly 15 to 20%
 of current local franchise fee revenues, would not be includible in
 the revenues to which franchise fees are applied.  Among other issues,
 in addition to the loss of revenues, are the allocation problems that
 will be encountered and the claim of discrimination from cable
 franchisees whose franchise fee obligation is calculated on a
 different basis. The draft does not provide for PEG payments above the
 5% franchise fee (calculated on a reduced gross revenue base) and does
 not have a mechanism for increasing PEG capacity (which is limited in
 the bill to what is in the current cable franchise).  Interestingly,
 the bill appears to only apply to the kind of delivery platform that
 SBC envisions and would not grant relief for Verizon's
 fiber-to-the-home architecture.  

 A couple of  positive public interest aspects of the bill are Section
 409 dealing with government authority to provide services, which
 preempts state laws that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting
 any public provider of broadband video services,  and very good
 provisions dealing with disability access.   On the other hand, the
 minimal consumer protection language language in the prior draft has
 been weakened considerably.

 Other provisions that are adverse to local governments are those that
 state that the FCC, rather than the courts, would have jurisdiction to
 adopt rules with respect to all provisions of the Act and to resolve
 all disputes under the Act. See Section 411(a) and, especially, 414. 
 This means, among other things, that all right of way management and
 compensation issues will go to the FCC, which in turn will mean: (a)
 the FCC will become a national ROW management oversight authority, and
 (b) "compensation" will be construed to be limited to costs.

 The Alliance will be issuing a call to action urging you to contact
 members of Congress to oppose the bill as currently drafted.

 Jim Horwood
 james.horwood@spiegelmcd.com
 Spiegel & McDiarmid
 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
  Washington, D.C. 20036
  (202) 879-4002
  www.spiegelmcd.com

New telecom legislation and public access Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:58


The new legislation we've been hearing about. Indeed, these are bad bills,
premature and carelessly written (for example they speak of "channels"
when the idea of broadband may render channels obsolete). They are
being opposed by a broad range of, especially municipal groups,
city councils and the like, for reasons of public safety, usurpation of
local control over rights-of-way, and other reasons which may have
nothing to do with public access programming per se but does provide
a wide political base opposing these bills. If you Google the bill numbers
you will get a large listing of municipal web pages and city council strategy
documents giving their talking points.

Specific notes on the bills:

- The correct bill numbers for the "Video Choice Act of 2005" are
H.R.3146 and S.1349. These bills are carbon copies of each other,
and are created in response to these findings:

Congress finds the following:
 (1) Cable rates continue to rise substantially faster than the
 overall rate of inflation.
 (2) Wire-based competition in video services is limited to very few
 markets. According to the Federal Communications Commission, only 2
 percent of all cable subscribers have the opportunity to choose
 between 2 or more wire-based video service providers.
 (3) It is only through wire-based video competition that price
 competition exists. The Government Accountability Office has confirmed
 that where wire-based competition exists, cable rates are 15 percent
 lower than in markets without competition.
 (4) It is in the public interest to further wire-based competition in
 the video services market in order to provide greater consumer choice
 and lower prices for video services.
 (5) To spur competition in the communications industry, Congress has
 decreased the regulatory burden on new entrants, thereby increasing
 entry into the market and creating competition.
 (6) The United States continues to fall behind in broadband
 deployment rates. According to a recent study by the International
 Telecommunications Union, the United States is now ranked 16th in the
 world in broadband deployment.
 (7) The deployment of advanced high capacity networks would greatly
 spur economic development in rural America.
 (8) The deployment of advanced networks that can offer substantially
 higher capacity are critical to the long-term competitiveness of the
 United States.

The response, as embodied in the bills, is to simply wipe out all new
franchises:

 Video Choice Act of 2005 - Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to
 prohibit a competitive video services provider (CVSP) from being
 required to obtain a franchise in order to provide any video
 programming, interactive on-demand services, other programming
 services, or any other video services in an area in which the CVSP has
 any right or authority to access public rights-of-way independent of
 any cable franchise obtained pursuant to any federal, state, or local
 law. Makes the CVSP be subject to the payment of fees (with limits) to
 a local franchising authority based on the gross revenue of the CVSP
 in that area.

 Prohibits the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or any state or
 political subdivision thereof from regulating the rates or any other
 aspect of the services provided by a CVSP.

 Makes current franchise agreements entered into between a franchising
 authority and a CVSP exempt from this Act for the term of such
 agreement.

The other Senate bill, S.1504, the "Broadband Investment and
Consumer Choice Act" is much more involved, and the info on that bill
may be found by going to http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d109query.html and
entering "S.1504" in the search field. It goes into more detail than the first
bill and covers access to wires, etc.

All of these bills are in committee: the House bill is in the
Telecommunications & the Internet subcommittee
(http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/subcommittees/
Telecommunications_and_the_Internet.htm), and the Senate bills are in
the Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee
(http://commerce.senate.gov/about/index.html). This would seem to be
the time/place to implement changes, though they are swamped with
post-Katrina stuff at the moment, and there is no action scheduled.
Some vigilance would be in order to see if hearings come up, and of
course letters could go in now. There is one Maryland congressman on
the House committee (Albert Wynn). John Kerry is a ranking member of
the Senate committee.

Like said, these are bad bills and should be defeated, but the
question is, how? A look at Al Gore's recent speech can give some good
talking points there in terms of the danger to democracy of losing the
citizen voice in television media.

With the Republicans' political fortunes waning, there may be a push to
get these bills slipped through before a new Congress comes in. One
strategy against that may be to attack the bills in terms of Republican
values. For example, local governance is a concept that has currency
with them clear back to Reagan and before. Another thought is to
target Republicans who voted against big media in that stunning
reversal of the FCC rules change back in 2003. The related House
resolutions, in case someone wants to pursue that, are:
H.RES.212, H.RES.218, H.J.RES.72, H.R.1035, H.R. 2052 and
H.R. 2062, and if any of them came up for a roll call vote,
the names should come up. And H. RES 218 had 135
co-sponsors! (NOTE: be sure to search records for the
108th Congress to find these.)

Should the bills look like they will pass, testimony and letters could
demand specific amendments to them. In addition to the general
franchising questions, the issues that touch specifically on public
access are these:

1. Limitation on number of access channels. S.1504 only
provides for four channels of public access per municipality.
This is clearly insufficient. Montgomery County, for example,
has 12. And as noted, the concept of "channel" may go
away soon, and we could expect that to become the pretext
for end runs around providing access at all. Point to the
Austrian "Buntes Fernsehen" project for an example of
broadband, fiber-optic, on-demand TV with public access
built right in.

2. Insufficient fees. All the bills limit fees to be paid to
localities for use of right of way and do not mention any
amounts for public access production, etc. Parity with
current fee levels, at least, should be demanded.

3. There is no accountability built into the bills at all, no
provisions for penalties for noncompliance, etc., which could
eventually clog the courts with lawsuits in the event of such.
Clear penalties with the force of criminal law are clearly
needed in an environment that includes companies such as
WorldCom and others whose interest in the marketplace
is clearly predatory.

Newsflash
... virtually propose the same things and should be opposed by supporters of public
access television. They are Senate bill S-1349 and House bill HR 3146. ...
www.citizenstv.net/new_page_4.htm - 13k - Jan 19, 2006 - Cached - Similar pagesAction Alert
National Legislative Threat To Public, Education & Government Access Television
... Recently introduced bills presented to both the US Senate & House ...
mediabridges.org/actionalert.html - 11k - Cached - Similar pages

Afterimage: Is community TV in jeopardy?
If passed House Bill HR3146 and Senate Bills S.1349 and S.1504 will transform the
... He notes that about 5000 public access television stations around the ...
www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2479/is_2_33/ai_n15927839 - 31k - Cached - Similar pages

GovTrack: Bills by Subject: Television stations
S. 1932: Digital Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005, Passed Senate, ...
of 1971 to provide for public funding for House of Representatives elections, ...
www.govtrack.us/congress/subjects.xpd?type=crs&term=Television%20stations - 27k - Cached - Similar pages

MediaRights: News: ACTION ALERT! Publiv Access under attack!
Tell Congress to oppose Senate Bills S.1349 and S.1504, and House Bill HR3146!
... Existing Public, Educational, and Government (PEG) access facilities will ...
www.mediarights.org/news/2005/10/06/action_alert_publiv_access_under_attack - 20k - Cached - Similar pages

[PDF] CALL TO ACTION
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
representatives, both House and Senate, for face-to-face meetings ... HR 3146
does not serve the public interest. The ACM and ...
www.newtv.org/images/pdf/ACMCalltoAction1.pdf - Similar pages

LINKS
... making its way through the Senate and the House that threatens to dismantle
public access TV. ... HR 3146/S.1349 Video Choice Act of 2005. SAVE ACCESS! ...
www.channer.tv/wednesday.htm,%2012-29-04.htm - 67k - Cached - Similar pages

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
House Reports: 109-64 Latest Major Action: 11/17/2005 Referred to Senate ...
of 1971 to provide for public funding for House of Representatives elections, ...
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d109&querybd=@FIELD(FLD001 @4(Television stations)) - 25k - Cached - Similar pages

Public Access TV 75 Community News
The Video Choice Act, introduced in the US House of Representatives last summer
... HR3146 and S.1349. These bills are carbon copies of each other, ...
www.bpatv.org/13901.html?*session*id*key*=*session*id*val* - 55k - Cached - Similar pages

Chicago Media Action
S. 1349 does not serve the public interest. The ACM and thousands of its members
nationwide urge ... CALL TO ACTION Senate Bill 1349 House Bill HR 3146 ...
www.chicagomediaaction.org/news.php?id=332 - 18k - Cached - Similar pages