Getting cheaper and better cable services to consumers has been difficult because the laws governing the sector have proved tough to change. This week, officials in two states announced key decisions that may significantly change the terms of the debate. Both announcements involve cable franchise reform. That’s the issue that’s been frustrating telecom companies and threatening control freaks in local governments around the country.
By: karenguthrie Title: Re: New Stars in Cable Freedom Fight Icon: Your Comments: Dear Sonia, While I fully agree with you that telephone companies and OVS providers need an improved and faster method to secure a video franchise from local government, you are way off base when you claim that there are exclusive franchises (prohibited under federal law) and that cities extract unrealted revenue from video providers. Prior to 1984, there were cities who did seek non-video related payments for non-cable municipal services but that stopped after 1984. The franchise rules need to be changed for all, including the cable companies, but cities are a key protectors of consumers and the public rights-of-way. There needs to be meaningful balance between protecting the rights of citizens who live in cities and counties -including payment for use of public property, the rights of the video providers, and the need for a more competitive video industry. Karen
Loading ...
New Stars in Cable Freedom Fight
Posted by: Sonia Arrison May 12, 2006 05:00 AMGetting cheaper and better cable services to consumers has been difficult because the laws governing the sector have proved tough to change. This week, officials in two states announced key decisions that may significantly change the terms of the debate. Both announcements involve cable franchise reform. That’s the issue that’s been frustrating telecom companies and threatening control freaks in local governments around the country.
Title: Re: New Stars in Cable Freedom Fight
Icon:
Your Comments:
Dear Sonia,
While I fully agree with you that telephone companies and OVS providers need an improved and faster method to secure a video franchise from local government, you are way off base when you claim that there are exclusive franchises (prohibited under federal law) and that cities extract unrealted revenue from video providers. Prior to 1984, there were cities who did seek non-video related payments for non-cable municipal services but that stopped after 1984. The franchise rules need to be changed for all, including the cable companies, but cities are a key protectors of consumers and the public rights-of-way. There needs to be meaningful balance between protecting the rights of citizens who live in cities and counties -including payment for use of public property, the rights of the video providers, and the need for a more competitive video industry.
Karen