The Congress is considering sweeping changes in how communications services will be regulated by the federal government. As currently written, the Communication, Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE Act) would fundamentally change the rights that local communities have over their local cable franchises, and the responsibilities that communication companies owe to their communities and customers.
As you are already well aware, for a number of months I have been involved in discussions and debate to create a new national telecommunications policy. I sought to ensure that the role of cities, townships, and counties is respected and that revenue is not lost. Unfortunately, after reaching agreement twice, the Republicans decided to walk away from the deals and move forward with their own bill. Although the measure, known as the COPE Act, retained some key aspects of our negotiations, on other matters this legislation raises several problems, particularly for local officials.
First, local oversight of municipal rights-of-way is not preserved. I offered an amendment during the full committee markup of the legislation that would have required an entity seeking a national franchise to certify that it would comply with local rights-of-way requirements. It would have also kept rights-of-way enforcement at the local level rather than thrusting an ill-equipped Federal Communications Commission (FCC) into a role traditionally reserved for local dispute resolution. While the FCC has a role in overseeing the Information Superhighway, I think you will agree with me that it has no business sticking its nose into highway engineering.
Second, I fear that the legislation’s definition of “gross revenues,” which is the basis for local franchise fee and public access payments, does not adequately protect the cities financial security into the future. My amendment sought to fix the definition by requiring the revenue from features, functions, and capabilities directly related to the video programming be treated just like video programming revenues for the purpose gross revenues.
Third, the FCC is required to set the rules for a national cable franchise, but it has no expertise in this area. Local authorities, however, have decades of experience which would be beneficial to the FCC. As such, my amendment would have required the FCC to consult with local franchising authorities as the agency establishes the rules to implement the national franchise.
Fourth, the legislation allows new cable operators to use the public rights-of-way to offer service in a community, without requiring that the whole community be served. Under this provision, cable operators could cherry-pick, serving only certain households or fail to upgrade service in part of a community. This would lead to discriminatory treatment of our constituents. Incumbent cable companies would also be relieved of any pre-existing contractual commitments, including buildout, and thus permitted to withdraw service from current customers upon a new competitor serving just one customer in the franchise area.
This could result in consumers losing the service that they have today. Furthermore, incumbent cable operators could escape their existing commitments to their local communities once a new entrant enters the market.
This is a reversal of current cable law and an unwise retreat from the simple premise in telecommunications policy that in return for public rights-of-way privileges in a community, all of the public should benefit. As such, I offered an amendment that required a cable operator to be able, over time, to offer service to all consumers.
Unfortunately my amendments were defeated, largely on party line votes. I did not support the measure in Committee, and do not expect to support it on the House floor. I will continue to pursue the inclusion of these priorities as the legislation continues to move through the House and the Senate and please do not hesitate to contact me during this process. I will continue to update you as events warrant.
With every good wish,
Sincerely yours,
John D. Dingell
Member of Congress
