What They're Saying

Cox: Keep cable local
By Ron Cox/Video Voice, GateHouse News Service | June 13, 2007

CHICAGO - On June 5, I participated in a special public hearing at the State House regarding the pending vote of the Massachusetts Senate Bill 1975/House Bill 3385. The so-called "Act Promoting Consumer Choice and Competition of Cable Service" would essentially alter the state's cable franchising law and create a special deal for Verizon. It would neither promote competition nor would it promote consumer choice. In fact, in an already thriving cable TV business, the bill would take cable-franchising authority away from local governments like cities and towns and give this power to the state.

During the hearing, the Gardner Auditorium was filled with many city and town officials, as well as community television professionals and volunteers who came to speak out against this bill. Their main concern was the fact that local control of the cable franchising authority would be lost and with it the participation of local citizens and their local community representatives in negotiating for better content, high-speed access to broadband and quality digital services – as well as the funding of neighborhood media centers such as Malden Access Television (MATV).

This bill is a clear threat to local community access centers and does not benefit the consumer. It does, however, represent a considerable assault on local media by the telecom giant Verizon as it tries to persuade the Legislature to support an expedited, but self-serving, single statewide franchise license that would essentially change the licensing process in favor of cable providers.

Parts of the bill are so deliberately vague that they leave little opportunity for any oversight by state and local officials. The way the bill reads now would require less information from any applicant for a franchise than something you would complete to join your local YMCA.

What was also very interesting at the hearing was the alliance of PEG (Public, Educational and Governmental) professionals with cable providers, Comcast and RCN, who are also opposed to the bill. The main reason they have joined the opposition of the bill is that it changes the rules of the game during the game. For almost 20 years, these cable companies have had no problem establishing franchises in many communities in the state of Massachusetts. But now that Verizon wants to get into this very lucrative business, they want to tilt the cable TV market in its favor, to spare it from the real competition that exists on the level playing field of today.

The paradox is that Verizon has had nothing but success in signing local franchises in our state. As some of you know, before I left Wakefield Community Access Televison (WCAT) I had worked with local town leaders in negotiating a very good deal with Verizon and Wakefield that essentially brought $450,000 in capital funding over 15 years and a third revenue stream to support local community programming. I say a third because Wakefield has three cable providers – Comcast, RCN, and now Verizon. Competition seems to be working in this small town north of us.

However, during the hearing, the current WCAT executive director, Tom Stapleton, complained that after over a year has passed Verizon has yet to provide the WCAT programming promised. Out of frustration with their non-compliance to the agreed contract, he said, "I don't trust them." Stapleton added that a lot of viewers who picked Verizon over the other providers are upset that they cannot receive the signal of their community television station and have complained.

If the current bill were to pass, this accountability to the municipality it is providing service would be lost. Customers who were dissatisfied with their cable providers would have to call their state legislators instead of their local selectmen or city councilors. Who do you think would be more responsive?

The other problem with the bill is that it doesn't provide any mechanism for negotiation of better terms, such as service area or institutional networks. Verizon could pick and choose what neighborhoods it wanted to serve (such as the more affluent areas) and would not be required to install INETs in schools or community buildings. It is not a coincidence that Verizon has picked wealthier suburbs to negotiate franchises rather than Boston, Cambridge or Somerville. The Mayor of Somerville, Joe Curtatone, was strongly advocating that the Legislature kill the bill because of these reasons. He didn't want to allow the phone companies to provide cable services only where they wanted.

Of course, there were plenty of Verizon employees and supporters present to give their side of the argument. They were out numbered almost three to one. Most argued that the bill would bring competition and jobs to the state; they suggested that opposing the bill would be anti-labor.

This is not a jobs bill. It is a sweetheart deal for Verizon, one of the biggest telecommunications company in the country. It would weaken the state's commitment to the proven time-honored principle of local control over rights of way.

The Verizon bill may be good for Verizon, but it's bad for the rest of us. In the interest of all the communities in Massachusetts, it is important that we keep cable franchising at the local level, where it belongs.

Call your local state representative and senator, and ask them to oppose the bill. Keep the control in the hands of the citizens who watch, use and are informed and entertained by community media.

Keep it local.

Ron Cox can be reached at ron@matv.org.