Local officials testify against bill to change cable rules
Local officials from throughout Massachusetts came to the State House today to denounce a legislative proposal that would strip local governments of their authority over local cable licenses.Selectmen, town managers and mayors from cities such as Boston, Somerville and Waltham, mid-size towns such as Amherst, Reading and Yarmouth, and small towns such as Ayer, Marion and Gill, all spoke in united opposition to legislation being promoted by Verizon Communications that would put the state in charge of cable franchising decisions.
Testifying before the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy, local officials said they are in the best position to protect local consumers and local rights of way by negotiating cable licenses.
They also said they encourage competition in local cable markets, a fact highlighted by a letter sent by 50 communities directly to the chairman of Verizon inviting the company to serve more than 1.5 million potential customers in those communities.
“This is about protecting communities and consumers, and having competition for all,” said Somerville Mayor Joseph Curtatone, chair of the MMA’s statewide Telecommunications Franchising Task Force.
• Watch video of MMA testimony
Curtatone called the proposed legislation “an attempt to avoid any need to be responsive to local needs and local concerns – not the least of which is a requirement that all parts of a community be served on an equitable basis. … This bill may be good for Verizon, but it’s bad news for everyone else.”
Northampton Mayor Claire Higgins said the legislation poses a threat to public, educational and government programming, which would weaken democracy at the local level, where many residents get their information from local access cable channels.
“Cutting local authorities out of the picture is not in the best interests of communities or their citizens,” said Ashland Assistant Town Manager Mark Purple.
Natick Selectman Josh Ostroff said Verizon “wants to have the right to use our public ways … without any accountability whatsoever.”
Local officials also objected to the legislation because it would benefit one particular corporation and fails to affect all communities equally, since Verizon plans to do business only in certain parts of the state.
The legislation, S. 1975 and H. 3385, would give authority for granting new cable licenses to the state’s Department of Telecommunications and Cable. The state would have just 15 days to approve or deny an application and could only review an application for completeness; it would not be able to negotiate terms.
The bill would not require cable providers to serve the entire community in which it does business, meaning the utility could choose to enter high-profit areas while leaving other areas without the benefits of competition.
The bill also jeopardizes the franchise fees collected by cities and towns.
Local officials pointed out that the legislation is unnecessary because the current system has been working well for many years. They disputed the claims of the legislation’s sponsors that current laws discourage competitors from entering cable markets, noting that federal law prohibits communities from granting an exclusive franchise to any provider.
“It isn’t the cities and towns that are holding up the process, it’s Verizon,” said Maynard Town Administrator John Curran, who is also a former mayor of Woburn.
To date, cable providers have signed franchise agreements with 308 cities and towns, representing more than 90 percent of the state’s consumers. Verizon, a recent entrant to the market, has obtained franchises in 49 cities and towns and is currently negotiating in 19 other communities.
In Arlington, for example, three cable companies provide service to residents: Comcast, RCN and Verizon.
“I’m not really sure what the problem is,” said Arlington Town Manager Brian Sullivan. “The system is working as it is now.”
Many cities and towns across Massachusetts have adopted resolutions opposing the legislation and contacted their legislators to urge them to oppose it.
A number of state legislators joined local officials in testifying against the legislation.
Written by MMA Publications/Web Director John Ouellette
