AgdaPkt 2005-09-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

9� 9 In particular, the National League of Cities (NLC) and the League urge that you contact your representative and senators and talk with them about two key issues that will significantly impact cities: Threat to Local Franchise Authority and Eminenf Domain. Congressional offices are only hearing from local govemments' opponents on both of these issues - they must hear directly from local elected officials. Below are talking points on both of these critical issues to equip your local elected officials with strong and succinct messages. Further background is available on the Grassroots Action Center at www.nlc.org. Threat to Local Franchise Talking Points The telecommunications industry is successfully portraying local franchising as a significant barrier to new competition, which in fact may be anti-competitive and anti-consumer. NLC has been working together with the United States Conference of Mayors (USCM), the National Association of Counties (NACO), and the National Association of Telecommunication Officers and Advisors (NATOA) to develop a strong, unified position to counter threats to local franchising. Each organization is stepping up its grassroots efforts on this issue in conjunction with the return of Congress. Locat elected officials must immediately and aggressively counter this public relations and lobbying campaign with "localized and personalized" messages. • Cities strongly oppose S.1504 (the Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act introduced by Ensign R-NV), H.R. 3146 (the Video Choice Act of 2005, introduced by Blackbum R-TN and Wynn D-MD), and S. 1349 (the Video Choice Act of 2005 introduced by Rockefeller D- WV and Smith R-OR) or any other federal legislation that would eliminate local govemmenYs authority to manage local rights of way and ensure that the public is compensated for the use of the rights of way. Urge your members of Congress not to co-sponsor any of the pending bills and to consult with you and other city officials before co-sponsoring any legislation addressing franchising. • Local govemment strongly endorses promoting competition for all consumers. However, these bills would mean that fewer citizens would receive the benefit of video competition. The bills take away local govemmenYs authority to ensure head-to-head competition for all citizens, leaving video providers free to cherry pick the most lucrative communities. Note: If pertinent, identify communities that would not be likely targets for new video competitors, such as Iower income or rural communities in your city. • A franchise is essentially a lease and land management agreement. Cities allow for the private use of public land in exchange for compensation and services for the public. The bills would abrogate these local contracts leaving cities with no authority to manage the use of their rights of way. • The bills would significantly limit the amount of fees local govemment can collect, as well as local government's authority to enforce collection. This will directly jeopardize critical public services including police, fire, schools, and libraries. Note: ldentify the revenue your city receives from cable franchise fees and identify the public services that wou/d be in jeopardy by reductions in these fees. • The bills would undermine local govemments' authority to ensure that public safety is maintained. Citizens do not want more video services at the cost of potholes in their roads, water main breaks, and traffic jams during rush hour. The bills would also eliminate institutional networks that serve our police and firefighters. Note: If pertinent, share examples of telecom companies digging in streets without su�cient municipal oversight or describe networks that serve first responders. 9