What They're Saying

Verizon's bill to eliminate local control in cable franchising has drawn strong opposition from city and town officials and consumer advocates from across Massachusetts.

"This is a special interest bill," said Geoffrey Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association. "This is not a bill to foster competition." – Worcester Telegram & Gazette, April 4, 2007

"Geoff Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, said his group will oppose the legislation. He called it an effort by Verizon to disenfranchise cities and towns.

"'Clearly the intent is not to protect municipal rights,' Beckwith said. 'The intent is to circumvent cities and towns, which for decades have been the leading advocates for competition and for offering affordable and widespread cable television services for their citizens.'" – Boston Globe, January 10, 2007

"Lowell City Manager Bernie Lynch said he is concerned about giving the upper hand in negotiations to large telecommunications companies such as Verizon.

"'It does limit local control and puts a very short time span on negotiations,' he said. 'It has the potential to short-circuit local governments' ability to negotiate and get what's in the best interests of their city.'" – Lowell Sun, January 10, 2007

"It would be a real kick in the teeth." Norwood Commissioner Joan Jacobs in the Daily News Transcript, January 18, 2007

"NPA (Norwood Public Access) President Scott Murphy said yesterday he is very concerned about potential changes to existing licensing regulations and payment structure that enable local programming to function.

"'No one seems to know what's going to happen at this point, but if this means we lose the ability to get funding (from cable companies) for local programming, all people are going to see is maybe selectmen and School Committee meetings,' said Murphy. 'We won't have money for anything else.'" Daily News Transcript, January 18, 2007

"Framingham selectmen Chairman Dennis Giombetti, who would be responsible for casting a vote to approve any new cable deal with Verizon, said he thinks Verizon is 'trying to change the rules.'

"'We have in our contract that all residents are covered,' Giombetti said. 'Who knows what the state would negotiate.' ..."Each community is different, and the needs and wants of each community is different,' he said" Framingham Tab, January 19, 2007

The Bells' – including Verizon - plans to make their new fiber optic network available only to their most privileged customers are drawing poor marks from opinion leaders around the country … Read More About What People Are Saying

“They are insisting that lawmakers bless their proposal to roll out new digital television and advanced broadband services only to the more affluent … If the pols accede to this special-interest pitch, it will represent a sea change in the bipartisan telecommunications policy of the past 20 years that has required companies that provide video services -- such as cable TV -- to serve the entire community through local franchise agreements…

“The telephone companies' proposal is made precisely for the purpose of allowing them to invest less, and in fewer communities -- rather than more, as the current rules require. And as for their perennial promises of more investment in exchange for legislative favors: Legislators around the country have derided SBC and Verizon for never fulfilling such pledges.…

“…potential benefits should not transform our elected officials into marionettes for two monopolies that want to trample our civil rights traditions.”C. Delores Tucker, Co-founder of the National Congress of Black Women, Washington Post Op-Ed (October 19, 2005)

“In 2006, Congress will set out to rewrite the nation's telecommunications laws. … [I]f lawmakers misfire, the digital divide could explode into a digital abyss. … [C]ompanies willing and able to accelerate the expansion of broadband and video choice and to deploy alternative types of technology to provide more options for relevant content to the Hispanic community should do so in a nondiscriminatory manner. As Congress considers updating our nation's telecom laws, it should do so by creating a national broadband policy with a legislative and regulatory framework for the rapid, nondiscriminatory deployment of video services to every neighborhood to ensure that the process is competitive and fair. In short, any reform must ensure that Hispanic neighborhoods get access to these new services as quickly as non-Hispanic neighborhoods.” Hector Flores, President of League of United Latin America Citizens, Op-ed Miami Herald (January 5, 2006)

“Dispense with local franchises for the phone companies and ‘if you live in a poor neighborhood, they won't serve you," said Mark Cooper, director of research at the Consumer Federation of America in Washington, D.C.” Raleigh News & Observer article by David Ranji (Aug. 22, 2005) Hector Flores, President of League of United Latin America Citizens, Op-ed Miami Herald (January 5, 2006)

“Most recently in Texas, telcos were given what they wanted, fast track franchises. But Verizon and SBC, months after the law was put on the books, have offered to provide competitive choice to less than one percent of Texas households. Is the nation giving up the consumer protections and community benefits in the current franchising system just to provide choice to one percent of the population?” Testimony of the Honorable Marilyn Praisner on behalf of the National League of Cities, United States Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, Internet Subcommittee (November 9, 2005)

“… regulatory reform should embrace, and not undermine, these core social responsibilities including, in particular, the antidiscrimination rules which ensure that underserved communities will obtain equal access to the latest digital and broadband services… any new legislation enacted by Congress should require all new entrants in the video marketplace to offer their broadband and [video] services to all consumers within their services[sic] territory on a non-discriminatory basis.” National Black Caucus of State Legislator Resolution (Adopted December 8, 2005)

“[Verizon executive William] Roberts also did not mention that FiOS is being deployed to communities in Prince George's County [Maryland] that have a median household income of about $80,000 or above. Meanwhile, Verizon is leaving communities such as Oxon Hill, Temple Hills and District Heights out in the cold. Rather than obscuring its discriminatory practices, Verizon should pledge to abide by the antidiscrimination laws that apply to other providers of video services.” Mark McClarey, Chairman, National Black Church Initiative's Ministers Alliance, Letter to the Washington Post (November 3, 2005)

“NHCSL urges Congress to update our nation’s telecom laws by creating a national broadband policy that provides a legislative and regulatory framework for the rapid, non-discriminatory deployment of video choice, ensuring the benefits of competition in the video marketplace for the Hispanic community. … any new legislation enacted by Congress should apply the same Federal prohibition of discrimination that currently applies with respect to cable to new competitors as well.…” National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators Resolution (adopted November 12, 2005)

“We fear that many of the complaints mask the true intent of supporting a repeal of the anti-discrimination rules — namely, to roll out new broadband and video services solely to customers that have the luxury of paying for their most expensive services. … We therefore urge you to oppose any legislation that would be a setback for competition and the closing of the digital divide in the Hispanic community.” Letter from the Hispanic Federation to U.S House and Senate Commerce Committees (December 7, 2005)

“You have Lightspeed for the well-off and ‘snail-speed’ for everyone else, which is the bottom 50 percentile.” U.S. Representative Ed Markey, U.S. House Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee (quoted) Dallas Morning News (April 20, 2005)

“Qwest and its sister Bell telephone monopolies - SBC, Verizon and BellSouth - are seeking exemptions from time-honored civil rights laws that require companies providing cable services to serve all neighborhoods in their service area. The telephone companies - whose networks were built with more than a century of government subsidies and handouts - now want our local lawmakers to bless a business plan that will largely exclude African-American, Hispanic and working-class communities from the latest 21st century advanced broadband services.” Rev. Patrick L. Demmer, Political Vice President of the Greater Metro Denver Ministerial Alliance and Senior Pastor at Graham Memorial Community Church, Denver Post Op-ed (December 9, 2005)

“The stakes are especially high for SBC, which doesn't want to have to wire entire towns. It plans to target 90% of high-spending customers, 70% of ‘middle-value’ subscribers and 5% of ‘low-value’ consumers. ‘The last time I looked, that was called red-lining,’ says [Marilyn] Mohrman-Gillis [of the National League of Cities.]” USA Today article by Paul Davidson (December 9, 2004)

Back to Top

“If Verizon is installing these [fiber] lines for voice and data service anyway, it is fair to ask why it still cannot get non-exclusive cable TV franchises one town at a time. This really has nothing to do with the newer technology. Verizon really wants a cost-saving regulatory shortcut.” Gloucester County Times editorial (December 2, 2005)

"The demographics of areas Verizon is targeting are raising some questions about . . . ‘broadband redlining’ by telecommunications giants cherry-picking affluent areas for advanced service offers.” Boston Globe article by Peter Howe (February 9, 2005)

“It's strange that the leadership in Austin is rushing to pass a bill riddled with problems and guaranteeing unequal access to communication.” Houston Chronicle Editorial (July 14, 2005)

“At a time when everyone in the country realizes it is vital for our future generations to bridge the digital divide, SBC seems to be doing all it can to widen it.” Rev. James L. Demus III, Ministerial Alliance Against the Digital Divide Multichannel News (January 7, 2005)

“It comes down to pure and simple greed.” Rev. James L. Demus III, Ministerial Alliance Against the Digital Divide quoted in Multichannel News (January 7, 2005)

“The [legislation] unfortunately does not ensure that new television services are provided to consumers throughout the state and therefore is likely to leave out minority and low-income communities . . .

“The United States Conference of Mayors supports the continued requirement for providers of video services using the public rights of way to obtain cable franchises, whether the provider is a cable company, a telephone company or some other entity.” U.S. Conference of Mayors, Adopted Resolutions, Transportation and Communications (2005)

“In 1999, U S West - now Qwest - came out strongly against what it called ‘cherry picking’ of telephone customers by competitors. ‘If you have new competitors coming in and only taking the cream of the crop, who's there to help the little guy?’ said then-U S West spokesman David Beigie.…

Now that it wants to get into the cable TV business, Qwest argues that ‘second entrants’ in that market shouldn't have to offer their new service equally to all residents in a community. Qwest is essentially saying - in a twist on its own position - that it shouldn't have to serve ‘the little guy.’ Who does Qwest want to serve? Its activities so far suggest it wants to provide cable TV to new and affluent neighborhoods - what Beigie called ‘the cream of the crop.’” Cathy Reynolds, Former President of Denver City Council, and a Past President of the National League of Cities and the Colorado Municipal League, Rocky Mountain News Op-ed, (December 3, 2005)

“It doesn't help me when the Bells say it will take them 40 years to deploy this service … [starting in 1978] it only took 10 years for the cable industry to wire 80 percent of America. The Bells sit here telling us it will [take] 40 years for them … which again [leaves] observers wondering whether or not -- whether and how high their sincerity coefficient is. And by the way, the cable companies served every single customer in America which the Bells say they can't do. They need 40 years to do something without promising that they're going to serve every consumer.” Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) U.S. House Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee (November 9, 2005)

“They are promising to ‘compete’ for television customers, if they can build their new fiber networks without first obtaining a local franchise agreement. What they really want is license to bring these new services only to the wealthy; an entitlement local leaders around the state are refusing to give them.” Manuel Diaz Garza, Edgewood Neighborhood Association San Antonio Business Journal Op-Ed (May 27, 2005)

“[O]ur opposition also stems, in part, from our belief that [the legislation] could allow telecommunications companies to redline in California cities and deprive municipalities of franchise fees. . . . If they are allowed to do this, then communities which the telecommunications companies feel are less profitable will fall further behind in the deployment of new technologies.” Greater Sacramento Urban League Letter to Chairman Lloyd Levine, Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee (May 2, 2005)

“This is another discriminatory scheme disguised as technological progress by SBC . . . SBC is planning to deprive poorer customers of access to...vital new technology.” Rev. James L. Demus III, Ministerial Alliance Against the Digital Divide (quoted) Multichannel News (January 7, 2005)

“Some analysts estimate that less than 20 percent of Verizon’s entire 29-state territory will ever be served with the fat fiber-optic pipes. So far (their rollout) is mostly targeting affluent towns.” Bergen Record article by Martha McKay (February 13, 2005)

“Verizon doesn't need to have a strategy to give fiber to everybody — they need a strategy to make money.” Tom Nolle, Telecom Analyst quoted in the Bergen Record (February 13, 2005)

“The former Bell telephone companies desire the right to pick which neighborhoods they serve, which probably would leave many low-income residents without spirited competition. The Legislature should approve a bill that requires competition for all, especially for low-income residents who most need competitive rates.” Houston Chronicle Editorial (May 7, 2005)

“Like me, I think most mayors around the state want to negotiate a franchise with Verizon. More competition for cable service is a good thing for consumers. But allowing Verizon to compete should not come at the expense of other important priorities for our communities, especially when it is clear that consumers can have both.

“Verizon's new network raises a host of questions, including how our public rights-of-way will be used. As the company looks to tear up our streets, or install huge new boxes in front of residents' homes, local governments have a role in making sure that public safety and aesthetic concerns are met. These are what franchise agreements and local oversight are designed to accomplish. . . .

“Now I'm not sure whether Verizon considers working with local community leaders merely a nuisance or just wants to avoid these responsibilities altogether. Regardless, it is time for the company to put its cards on the table.” G. Thomas Donch, Mayor of Franklin Lakes Letter to the Bergen Record (July 17, 2005)

“The phone companies argue that . . . legislation is needed . . . so they can ‘compete’ for video consumers without being required to build out their networks everywhere within a franchise area. What they really want to do is compete in wealthy neighborhoods. . . . ” Jaime Martinez, Texas President of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement Austin American-Statesman Op-Ed (May 17, 2005)

“At the expense of minority communities, big telephone monopolies' desire for special interest legislation that allows them to redline minority communities as they build out new telecom services once again reminds me how diligent we must remain against those who seek such legislation.” Op-ed by Manuel Diaz Garza, Director of the Edgewood Neighborhood Association San Antonio Business Journal (May 27, 2005)

“[T]he big phone companies have drafted state legislation that would make Jim Crow proud, freeing them of their obligation to enter into local franchise agreements, while at the same time allowing them to cherry-pick which neighborhoods – even streets – they will serve.” Mayor Pro Tem Frank Estrada and Councilman James Bertram, City of Lockhart Letter to the Austin Business Journal (May 6, 2005)