CR 05-062 Letter to Congress - IP video
May 3, 2005
Council Report 2005-062
LETTER TO CONGRESS
CONCERNING IP VIDEO
Proposed Action
Staff recommends that the Council approve the following motion: Move to authorize the Citv Manager
to send a letter to the City's congressional representatives urging local regulation of IP Video.
Approval of this motion will result in a letter urging Congress to regulate video over the Internet in the
same manner as cable television.
Overview
Mr. Brian Grogan, staff attorney to the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission, requested the member
cities of the Commission ask Congress to treat video over the Internet the same as cable television. The
U.S. Congress is considering how video over the Internet will be regulated. Mr. Grogan's fear is that if
this service is allowed to operate without the same requirements as cable television, it will not be long
before the cable companies ask to be relieved of these requirements, such as public access channels,
service requirements, and franchise fees.
Mr. Grogan's argument, which the members of the Commission concurred with, is that video IP
services appear to the customer like conventional cable service and are provided over wires located in
the public rights-of-way. Cities still need to protect their streets, their residents need the benefits and
protections provided by cable franchises, and these need to be enforced locally by those with the most
knowledge of community needs and interests.
The proposed letter would be sent to Congressman Ramstad and Congressman Sabo with copies sent to
Senators Coleman and Dayton.
Supportinl!' Information
. Draft of proposed letter
<
?-..
es A. Genellie
ssistant City Manager
DRAFT
VIA US. MAIL AND FACSIMILE
April 27, 2005
Congressman Jim Ramstad
103 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Facsimile: 202-225-6351
Congressman Martin Olav Sabo
2336 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Facsimile: 202-225-4886
Dear Congressman:
Please preserve cable franchising, localism and fees paid for use of the public rights-of-way in
any rewrite of our telecommunications laws to address Internet Protocol ("IP") services. The
fact that IP technology can be used to provide video IP services does not change the fact that to
the customer it is like conventional cable service and is provided over wires located in the public
rights-of-way. We still need to protect our streets, our residents need the'benefits and
protections provided by cable franchises, and these need to be enforced locally by those with the
most knowledge of community needs and interests.
Currently cable companies must obtain franchises from each municipality they serve. Both we
and our residents need the protections cable franchises provide. For example franchises:
Ensure that we can manage the streets so that all types of users (cars, pedestrians,
utilities) can use them with the least amount of interference with other users, including
compliance with safety codes. These provisions are tailored to our local situation.
Require providers to repair streets they harm, and relocate lines at their expense when
streets are straightened or widened.
Require bonds, insurance and other security so our city and residents are protected if the
provider causes damage or (in a competitive environment) goes out of business.
Prohibit redlining or similar discrimination, and require all areas with a certain number of
homes per mile to be served, and served promptly (no long delays in serving minority
areas).
Require cable channels (miniature C-SPANs) for local units ofgovemment, schools, and
public access and funding from the cable company to support such channels.
Provide compensation (franchise fees) to our municipality for the provider's use of public
property, and audits to ensure the correct amount is paid.
Set forth customer service protections and enforcement mechanisms, including having
our municipality resolve customer disputes when problems arise.
Require the carriage of local emergency alerts which are not carried on the federal
emergency alert system.
April 27, 2005
Page 2
These types of pro visions have been in cable franchises for 50 years, work well, are needed, and
must be continued. For example, we still have to manage the rights-of-way, no matter what
technologies are used in wires placed there. Through the franchising process, we are able to
prevent redlining and assure that all our residents get cable service. We determine how many
channels and what funding are needed for public, educational and governmental channels, and
whether and when such channels should be shared or reallocated. Similarly, we set and enforce
customer service provisions based on our situation and the problems our citizens tell us they are
havingufrom not answering the phone on time to leaving the cable drop to the house lying on
the ground where it may present a safety hazard.
We set these franchise terms so they meet our unique, local situation. There is no national "one
size fits all." Similarly, enforcement of these provisions has to be local. The provisions are
essentially meaningless if we or a customer has to go to the FCC in Washington to enforce them.
The FCC cannot manage local rights-of-way, inspect a street the cable company dug up and
poorly repaired, or help a customer who has been overcharged or denied service.
Having two (2) companies (cable company and now the phone company) providing cable service
does not remove the need for these provisions because having two (2) near monopoly suppliers is
not real competition. For example, real competition in cell phone rates and service only occurred
in the last few years when the number of providers expanded beyond the initial two (2)
providers. Competition does not remove the need for municipalities to manage the rights-of-
way, prevent redlining, have government channels, provide for local emergency alerts, and
receive franchise fees, etc. So IP technologies do not remove the need for the city, consumer and
public protections that franchises provide.
IP providers still use the streets for their wires. In fact, the phone companies will have to
replace many oftheir lines in the streets to provide IP services. So with IP the basic nature of
cable TV and need for local franchises is the same, even though the technology is improved.
Many of these cable franchise protections are needed for IP broadband service as well. For
example, the only reason broadband services are broadly available in many communities is
because the main provider is the cable operator, and that company's cable franchise typically
requires it to provide service throughout the community. By contrast, some phone companies
such as SBC are proposing to construct their broadband system so as to provide services to only
a portion (50%-60% of residents) in the communities they serve. Such redlining should not be
acceptable. Just as with cable, municipalities must be able to prevent redlining and make sure
that the information superhighway, just like regular highways, is available to all their residents.
For these reasons, we ask you to support the continuation of cable franchising for cable and
broadband services and the fees currently paid for use of the public rights-of-way.
Sincerely,
City Manager