Louisiana city to mount legal challenge of state video franchise law

The Alexandria, Louisiana city council has authorized its city attorney to bring an action challenging the constitutionality of state legislation putting the state in charge of most video franchises. Alexandria says the law is bad for consumers and has placed it at a disadvantage in its negotiations with its video franchisee.

At least a dozen states have preempted local governments by enacting video franchise legislation. The legislation was sought by telcos wanting to compete with traditional cable companies but fearful local officials would require them to provide access to all residents and not engage in digital redlining.

Read the story here.

Tennessee governor says broadband build out his priority as lawmakers mull statewide IPTV franchise bill

Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen wisely understands that broadband build out is the single most important issue in AT&T's push in the current legislative session for legislation allowing it to bypass local governments in its quest to sell Internet Protocol-based TV over broadband connections.

According to this Associated Press report, Bredesen hopes to influence the legislative debate this year after similar legislation bogged down in the 2007 legislative session.

"The issue for me is not coming down on the side of cable or AT&T - it's just an issue of that I don't think we have adequate broadband coverage in Tennessee," the AP quoted Bredeson as saying.

Wisconsin lawmaker wants protections for rural areas in AT&T-backed state franchise legislation

The Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin) notes in an editorial today:

As state Sen. Kathleen Vinehout, D-Alma, notes, Plale's proposal does not contain needed consumer protections and offers no assurances that rural areas -- including the western Wisconsin region that elected her last year -- will enjoy the same access to telecommunication services as the Milwaukee County communities that elect Plale.

In proposing to rewrite the cable franchise bill to require AT&T, cable and other companies to contribute up to $7.5 million to a new "digital divide" fund to protect rural areas from being left behind, Vinehout says, "I'm representing the people that weren't at the table."

North Carolina municipalities attack proposed state franchise bill as uncompetitive

Where the private sector telco/cable duopoly won't provide broadband Internet access, local governments that have long been in the utility business want to step up. But local government officials complain duopoly-backed legislation, the Local Government Fair Competition Act, is really protectionist and would result in less competition and less densely populated areas being cut off from broadband access.

Mooresville Mayor Bill Thunburg agreed. "Folks, this bill is a pig with lipstick on," he said. "The whole notion of this being a Fair Competition Act is really absurd."

Mooresville entered the broadband Internet business after years of struggle with private industry. Town leaders haven't been able to convince Time Warner to launch cable modem Internet service—the company couldn't make enough profit, they were told.

"This is why we get into that business," Thunburg said. "Private sector's not going to build out into rural communities or poor neighborhoods because there's no money in it for them. Municipalities serve those folks, and we can serve them better than private industry can because we can be sure that they've got fiber to the home." He urged the legislators to consider the need for economic development.

"You don't do that by slamming the door in the face of the poor people or rural people, and that's what this bill does," he said. "One thing's for sure: If municipalities are in the broadband business, big businesses have competition. Right now, in Mooresville, they don't have any competition."

For legislators representing rural areas, Mooresville's dilemma has a familiar ring. Rep. Angela Bryant (D-Halifax, Nash), who sits on the public utilities committee, says Nash County has had a similar experience.

"Technology's moving so fast, some of my cities and counties say that as far as they're concerned, broadband service is almost like electricity, water and natural gas in terms of how essential it would be for citizens to have it and how much of a deprivation it would be not to, just because private industry won't do it," she says. She'd like to find some balance between the concerns of the industry and needs of local communities. As it stands, she says, the bill "is putting us too much at the mercy of the private businesses."

"Video competition" is all about broadband access

The failure of AT&T state "video franchise" legislation in Tennessee last week shows a major discrepancy between AT&T spin and perception. While Ma Bell may claim she wants to bring competition for television programming by offering a cable TV alternative called U-Verse using Internet Protocol over Television (IPTV) technology, local governments and consumer advocates correctly see the real issue isn't about a mere cable TV alternative, but more broadly -- pun intended -- broadband access itself since IPTV by definition requires broadband.

Since U-Verse is deployed only in selected areas, large areas will not only go without IPTV but broadband access altogether since these gaping broadband black holes remain on early 1990s dial up technology or a satellite, a costly, crippled poor broadband substitute. Those living in areas fortunate enough to have broadband by today's standards using Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) service may not in as little as 3-5 years as broadband applications and their bandwidth demand continue to grow.

AT&T says that the bill would have increased competition in the pay-TV sector, by presenting viewers with another option aside from cable and satellite providers.

Opponents of the legislation, however, claim that it would have allowed AT&T to cherry-pick high-income neighborhoods for the service, potentially widening the so called “digital divide” between rich and poor.

Telco's sluggish DSL deployment produces IPTV skepticism

Denver based telco Qwest wants to deploy broadband-based Internet Protocol TV in Broomfield, Colorado. But it's getting a less than welcome reception from local leaders unimpressed with the telco's slow, selective rollout of digital subscriber line (DSL) and who are concerned of a repeat performance with IPTV that would leave some neighborhoods without service.

This goes to the crux of why telcos and some cable companies have backed state legislation preempting local governments and putting the state in charge of issuing broadband "video franchises." The legislation typically allows franchisees to build out their systems to serve half or less of their service areas, leaving everyone else on the wrong side of the digital divide. Local elected leaders are more sensitive to this digital redlining than state legislators, who are often the recipients of campaign contributions from telco and cable company sources.

Protecting the telco/cable duopoly

This story out of New York state shows that telcos (in this case, Verizon) can offer broadband-based Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) in without legislation the telcos are seeking in the Empire State to put the state in charge of issuing so-called "video franchises" In this case, Multichannel News reports, the towns of West Haverstraw and North Castle approved Verizon's applications to provide IPTV over its propriety fiber optic FiOS infrastructure.

The telco/cable duopoly has pursued similar legislation in about a dozen states, claiming it would allow them to bypass local governments, bring greater market competition (pretty hard to do in a duopolistic market) and deploy broadband-based services more rapidly. However, at the slow pace at which the telcos and cable companies are expanding the availability of their broadband services, doing with local government regulation one area at a time certainly doesn't seem to be an impediment.

Rather than speed up deployment of broadband, the true objective of the state franchise measures, like a recently-promulgated Federal Communications Commission rule (which is being legally challenged by local governments), is to protect telcos and cable companies from local government demands they hasten the build out of their infrastructures in order to make broadband available to unserved areas.