AgdaPkt 2006-05-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Telecom Continued from Page 1... The league of California Cities continues to work with California Congressional delegation members on the committee (Reps. Waxman, Eshoo, Radanovich, Capps, Bono and Solis) and the national lobbying groups representing an array of governmental interests. Efforts focus on refining amendments that were not successful during the during the Subcommittee mark up earlier this month. (Please see "House Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee Markup of National Video FranchisinQ Bill" for a list of those amendments at www.cacities.orq/telecom). The League has sent a joint letter to members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee outlying our concerns for amendments. A copy of the letter will be available on the League's website at www.cacities.orq/telecom early next week. The bill is expected to pass out of the full committee on April 26, which means that it will likely go to the House floor in early May. League Opposes AB 2987 (Nunez/Levine) in its Current Fonn On Monday April 24, AB 2987 (Nunez/levine): Cable and Video Services, will be heard in the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee. The League is opposed to the bill in its current form. league-adopted policy on telecommunications stands considerably at odds with the provisions of AB 2987, The following issues are of specific concem: State Franchise Authority. One of the cries of the telephone industry in the telecom debate has been the so-called "speed to market" issue, As they describe the problem, the traditional local franchise process is an impediment to the telephone companies (new market entrants) deploying these new communications services in a timely manner that makes sense in the context of their business plan. However, few persuasive arguments have been made by telephone companies to support these claims. In spite of the telephone industry's claim that speed to market is critical, the model offered in AB 2987 makes little sense. The bill establishes a statewide franchise system that will be administered by the state Department of Corporations. It expands the department's responsibilities considerably and sets up a new bureaucracy to dispense franchise applications by companies interested in providing telecommunications services in local communities. The department, as with all state departments or agencies, has had no experience in what has been to date a local franchising process. The department is designated in the bill as the authority in charge of activities that are occurring at the local level, primarily on local streets and roads. League Recommends Alternative If the legislature enacts a new, expedited statewide franchise process, our recommendation is to enact a state franchise law that is executed at the local level. Under this proposal, all or most of the elements of the current local franchises would be placed in state law. This eliminates or reduces the amount of time spent negotiating the franchise with local and therefore provides the speed to market that the telephone industry is seeking. The local govemment's authority would be a "ministerial" act and could be subject to a deadline for approval, once the new entrant video provider submits its application. The state law would put clear parameters around the franchise agreement and would remove most items from local negotiations. A statewide model executed at the local level achieves the "speed to marker demand of video providers, eliminates the need for a new state bureaucracy and maintains a local government role in what is still essentially a local issue. 2