Verizon

HERE IS WHY:
URGENT January 28, 2008

RE: Council Meeting Item: Reconsider against shortest term possible for the cable franchise renewal with Charter.

Please reconsider this request. There are many benefits to a local cable franchise authority including the asset of PEG channels that will be at risk in the balance.

Looming proposed legislation lobbied by major telecom companies threaten to eliminate municipal cable franchise authority. WCCA has presented extensive information on this subject on it's website
wccatv.com/save access

So fare with the help of a nation and state wide effort including support form various municipal groups and associations we were successful in holding such potentially damaging legislation at bay.

If the lobbyist are successful Cable Franchise licenses will be terminated either immediately or immediately upon the expiration of the current franchise. In such a case, is it worthwhile to let our frustrations and disappointment with a company such as Charter Communications, ruin the opportunity to sustain franchise assets currently benefiting our city and it's citizens?

We suggest a long term franchise written with strong language to enforce and ensure the needs of the city and it's community (including our PEG channels) and consumers are met on a timely basis.

SAVE ACCESS INFORMATION

Verizon Raises Rates Too
http://saveaccess.org/node/1877

What is in the balance:
http://www.wccatv.com/search/node/Save+Access

Mass Save Access news
http://saveaccess.org/taxonomy/term/26

Mass Access Highlights of the proposed bill sponsored by Verizon:

The bill transfers license approval from municipalities to the State, allowing the state 15 days for state level review and approval. (Section 4(D))

State review would be superficial at best with only 15 days to review a license application.
There is no provision in the bill for public hearings or public input.

The bill provides that if the cable license application is complete, it must be approved.
(Section 4(D))

The bill ties government's hands, as the State must approve the application if it is a complete application. Thus the bill provides NO mechanism for state or local negotiation of better terms regarding service area or provision of Institutional Network. Therefore a new company can pick and choose ("cherry pick") which neighborhoods it serves, and neither the state nor the municipality can negotiate better terms. There is no provision for negotiation of Institutional Networks or other community-specific benefits.

In a radical departure from decades of prior law, the bill does not provide for any state review of the qualifications of a new cable company. This would be very problematic with respect to new entrants that do not have proven qualifications. Unqualified, high risk, speculative companies could apply for and take over the last remaining pole and street space available for this important service.

Even the process of license transfer approval is eliminated so the cable licensee can transfer its system to any entity, without any public hearing or public input. (Section 4(G))

The bill provides that cable operators would pay the municipality a franchise fee not to exceed a total of 5% of "gross revenues" as defined by the bill, and as established by the municipality. (Section 7(B)). However, the bill is harsh on existing public access facilities, as follows. Although the new company would initially have to match the incumbent company's support for public, educational and governmental (PEG) access, the bill specifically provides that when the incumbent cable operator's franchise expires, then such PEG Access support shall not exceed 1% of the franchise holder's gross revenues. (See Section 8(C)). This could result in loss of funding to PEG Access facilities depending on how other franchise fees are allocated. In any event, because there is no requirement that Verizon negotiate or match other Comcast obligations, e.g., service area or INet obligations, Comcast would seek reductions of PEG obligations so that it would operate in "level playing field" conditions, as discussed below.

Existing Comcast licenses all provide that if Verizon (or any cable competitor) does not match what Comcast is providing, Comcast may seek relief and reduce what it is currently providing, going down to the competitor's level of local support. As the new bill would result in Verizon providing less than Comcast (in terms of service area construction and Institutional Network), the new bill (if adopted) could result in Comcast being able to seek relief to reduce its existing obligations to go down to the new lower level. The areas where Comcast would seek relief are PEG Access and/or INet support, because those are the main areas where Comcast can reduce monetary payments to redress level playing field inequalities.

Access Channels: The new bill requires only 2 access channels for new entrants in communities with populations under 50,000. Many communities with population under 50,000 now have 3 access channels, so the bill could result in a loss of access channels. Larger communities would have 3 access channels. (Section 8(B)). Another problem for municipalities: Under Section 8(B) the cable operator could reclaim community channels used for non-repeat programming less than 8 hours per day.

Interconnection of Incumbent and New Company Access Channels: The bill appears ambiguous about access channel interconnect, as it provides for reasonable efforts to negotiate interconnection, creating the risk of dispute concerning what constitutes reasonable effort. Section 8(H). Another problem for municipalities: the bill provides that the municipality shall be responsible for the operation and content of access channels. (Section 8(d)). The bill also makes the municipality responsible for access channel interconnections by providing, "The must municipality must ensure that all transmissions, content or programming to be transmitted over PEG access channel or facility…are provided in a manner or form that is capable of being accepted and transmitted by the franchise holder." (Section 8(E)). The foregoing shift responsibilities to the municipality that the municipality can now shift to third parties through a local franchise.

Term of License: Existing law (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 166A) provides for license of up to 10 years for renewals and up to 15 years for initial licenses. Expiration of license term has been of enormous benefit to towns and cities because at expiration, the parties have renewal negotiations to update terms and conditions. This is the practice in the overwhelming majority of states. Under the proposed new law, once a state license is approved, there is no expiration of license terms, eliminating critical renewal negotiation opportunities.

Emergency Alert System: Cable operator only to comply with FCC emergency communications standards, and FCC does not require local override capability. (Section 8(G))

Indemnification of municipality would only be for negligent acts or omissions of cable operator. Current law requires indemnification for injury caused by acts or omissions of cable operator based on causation, without requiring showing of negligence. (Section 5(E))

New bill says that in any community with 2 or more cable companies, locally mandated customer service standards would no longer apply. (Section 9(C))
Loss of renewal process (if the bill goes through). Existing cable operators like Comcast would have the option of seeking state authorization pursuant to the new legislation upon expiration of an existing franchise. (Section 2(B)) So Comcast could simply opt out of renewal if it did not like the local renewal process.

Comment: Massachusetts municipal officials made a strong and unprecedented outcry against adopting 90 day licensing (at the state DTE hearing), however, the new bill seeks to usher in a new regime of 15 day state licensing.

SAVE ACCESS INFORMATION
http://www.wccatv.com/taxonomy/term/65

Verizon Raises Rates Too
http://saveaccess.org/node/1877

What is in the balance:
http://www.wccatv.com/search/node/Save+Access

www.saveaccess.org

Mass Save Access news
http://saveaccess.org/taxonomy/term/26

In the balance
LET'S NOT REDUCED LOCAL TV COVERAGE TO 17 seconds per day:
http://saveaccess.org/node/2100

MIke from NY writes:
Note: According to our math, Verizon jacked their cable TV rates 7.5% last year and they now project another 11.5 rate increase this year. Apparently "Competition = Higher Prices". Hopefully the FCC and those folks in Congress
will take note . . .

You have to read more here

NOTE TO CITY COUNCIL be careful what you wish for.

FROM OUR FRIEND MIKE IN NY:

http://saveaccess.org/node/1653

Note: Another case of Telcos behaving badly - in this case to get out from under regulated price caps on business service. With all the talk of the need for faster and more widespread broadband build-out to facilitate struggling local economies - this should help immensely.

from: National Journal

FCC Agenda Includes 'Forbearance,' Access

By David Hatch

(Friday, September 21) Dominant telecommunications carriers are lining up to seek regulatory relief from the Republican-controlled FCC, moves that will test the agency's ability to deregulate while under the watchful eye of congressional Democrats.

AT&T, Embarq, Frontier and Qwest Communications International are seeking exemptions from price caps governing their provision of high-capacity, high-speed Internet access to businesses.

They filed "forbearance" requests after the FCC granted similar relief to Verizon Communications last year. But Verizon prevailed on a technicality after inaction due to a stalemate resulted in its proposal being granted. On Sept. 11, Qwest withdrew its petition because it lacked the votes for passage, but the company refiled it the next day.

"The Bells generally want to get rid of as much regulation as possible," said David Kaut, a telecom analyst at the investment firm Stifel Nicolaus. It views FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, a Republican, as the swing vote in these matters. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate, also Republicans, support deregulation, but Democratic Commissioners Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps oppose it.

The FCC must act on AT&T's petition by Oct. 11 but also might decide on other requests that day, sources said.

Meanwhile, in six markets, Verizon is seeking to remove federal regulations that grant competitors access to its networks at heavily discounted rates. The company says there is sufficient competition to justify the change, but carriers such as XO Communications that rely on discounted rates disagree.

On Wednesday, XO and its allies held a briefing to reiterate their concerns and urge the FCC to adopt a more transparent process for reviewing forbearance requests. In an interview, XO spokesman Jim Crawford accused Verizon of inflating data on XO's presence in Boston and New York, cities where Verizon seeks relief. "They're making up the numbers," he said.

Verizon spokesman David Fish said the criticism is "another attempt to deflect attention" from the fact that XO and other small carriers have failed to give the FCC comprehensive data about their market presence.

In 2005, the FCC eased similar regulations for Qwest in Omaha, Neb., but the move was not implemented until this spring due to court challenges. Smaller competitors say Qwest hiked its prices, but Qwest said its fees rose to market rates. It is seeking to expand the deregulation to four other metro areas.

A storm also is brewing over efforts by some wireless carriers and smaller phone providers to persuade the FCC to re-regulate markets it previously deregulated. At issue is "special access," the reduced rates that dominant firms offer competitors for telecom network capacity. Critics say rates are rising too fast where regulation was lifted.

AT&T, Embarq, Qwest, Verizon and their supporters counter that the FCC and independent analysts consider the special-access sector to be competitive. Brian Adkins, director of federal legislative affairs at Embarq, said his company would lose hundreds of millions of dollars if it is subject to re-regulation.

The FCC, under pressure from House Democrats to act, could issue a decision within weeks.

Bunnie Riedel writes:

Why is the story below important? This is something I've been hearing about
for two years. Verizon has been stripping copper wire out of houses where
it installs FiOS fiber. That means any land-line phone capability is being
stripped out.

Why are land-line phones important? When the power goes out, land-line
phones will still work. However, cable phone, verizon or at&t phone have a
limited back up battery (4 hours or so). This is a big deal for folks in FL
communities where hurricanes can knock out power and cell phone towers.
Additionally we are hearing that if a consumer wants to go back to a
land-line phone they are having to pay to reconnect the copper from the curb
to their house.

Verizon is primarily doing this so they don't have to lease their lines to
competiting phone or video service providers. The implications are huge if
you consider that it took about 100 years to build the telephony
infrastructure in this country, wiring coast to coast.

If you get Verizon service or your local equivalent insist that they not
pull out the copper wire. Also, I think it's time we get language into
franchise agreements that prevent Verizon and others from stripping out the
copper.

INTERNET/BROADBAND
VERIZON'S COPPER CUTOFF TRAPS CONSUMERS

[SOURCE: Associated Press, AUTHOR: Deborah Yao] Verizon's new
high-bandwidth, FiOS fiber lines are fully capable of carrying not only
telephone calls but also Internet data and television channels with room to
grow. But once the old copper line that once provided plain old telephone
service is pulled, it's difficult to switch back to the traditional phone
system or less expensive Digital Subscriber Line service.

And Verizon isn't required, in most instances, to lease fiber to rival phone
companies, as it is with the copper infrastructure. As it hooks up homes and
businesses to its fiber network, Verizon has been routinely disconnecting
the copper and, many subscribers say, not telling them upfront or giving
them a choice. More than 1 million customers have signed up for a FiOS
service, which is offered mainly in the suburban areas of 16 states. Verizon
spokesman Eric Rabe said customers should have been notified at least three
times - once by the sales representative when FiOS is ordered, by the
technician before copper is cut, and through paperwork given to the
customer. Some customers say that hasn't happened.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/08/ap3892179.html

* Cutting the Copper Means Less Competition for Verizon, Fewer Choices for
Consumers
http://www.consumersunion.org/blogs/hun/2007/07/cutting_the_copper_means_les
s.html

Riedel Communications
8775 Centre Park Drive #255
Columbia, MD 21045

410-992-4976
www.riedelcommunications.com

www.riedelcommunications.blogspot.com

David Newman from Keep It Local Network writes:

Congratulations on an overwhelming turnout at the State House on June 5th.

A well-deserved THANK YOU! to everyone who took the time to attend the hearing, testify, contact their legislator and send in letters to their hometown papers in an all out effort to protect local control. By filling the auditorium with hundreds of supporters sporting “Keep It Local” and “Don’t Mess with Access” stickers, we sent a clear and colorful message to the Telecommunications Committee that they ought to oppose the Verizon special deal legislation. With hundreds of municipal officials and PEG access advocates, we pointed out why changing the local franchising process is completely unnecessary and would jeopardize local authority and community access.

The numbers and arguments presented to the Committee also lead to an impressive amount of favorable news coverage.

Below are a few articles/links you may want to review, including Somerville Cable Access Television’s terrific overview of the day.

We’ll keep you posted on any future developments, but please help us continue to build support by signing up more friends and co-workers to the Network. Signing up more individuals, municipalities and organizations is the best way to maintain our strength and prepare for any new threats to local control. Just direct folks to www.keepitlocalma.com - where they can learn about the issue, review recent news, local resolutions and find a copy of the statement of support.

Thanks again for your help… it’s made a big difference.

http://www.scatstaffvlog.blogspot.com/

Somerville Cable: “Report On Verizon Bill State House Public Hearing”

http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2007/06/06/verizon_officials_catch_static_over_cable_tv_plan/

Boston Globe: “Verizon officials catch static over cable TV plan”

http://blog.masslive.com/breakingnews/2007/06/cable_tv_licensing_bill_comes.html

Springfield Republican: “Cable TV licensing bill comes under fire”

http://www.patriotledger.com/articles/2007/06/06/opinion/opin02.txt

The Patriot Ledger: “Communities must retain local cable control”

Our friend Curtis shares the following regarding how Nolan Bowie raises the issue of Verizon "economic
cream-skimming".

["fair use," "teachable moment," "archival," Section 107(a), 1976
Copyright Act and 1998 Digital Millennium Act]

NOLAN BOWIE

Consumer benefit in cable franchising

By Nolan Bowie | June 4, 2007

WHATEVER VOICE towns and cities have in their cable television service
will be at stake in a bill before the state Legislature tomorrow.

The Joint
Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy will hold a
hearing on a bill favored by Verizon Communications Inc. The so-called
Act Promoting Consumer Choice and Competition of Cable Service would
allow Verizon and other companies to preempt local control of the
cable franchising process. Instead of local municipalities -- with the
participation of local citizens and their local community
representatives -- negotiating in good faith for better content,
high-speed access to broadband, and quality digital services, Verizon
proposes an expedited, but self-serving, single statewide franchise
license that does nothing to improve choice or benefit consumers.

Currently, Verizon has licenses for and is providing multi channel
video content services in nearly 50 communities. It plans to seek new
licenses in only 67 of the 351 towns and cities, thus providing
service in approximately 16 percent of the Commonwealth's
municipalities. It appears that Verizon is not primarily interested in
providing universal service across the state, but rather in serving
only the most densely populated and potentially most profitable
markets that surround Boston. It has not applied for a license to
serve Boston itself, any of the other urban cities, or any of the
towns in Central or Western Massachusetts or Cape Cod. Verizon is
engaged in economic cream-skimming.

But what if Verizon prevails and gets its "Verizon choice" bill passed
and statewide franchising replaces the existing local franchising
process? Would consumers of multi channel video services actually
benefit by any increase in competition in the cable industry? Not
likely, since Verizon does not promise or offer any guarantee of
statewide competition or lower prices or superior services over the
long term. Nonetheless, Verizon wants to be instantly in play on a
statewide basis without sufficient local municipal or consumer
oversight or accountability.

Currently, the process of local franchising control, as established by
state regulators, takes no longer than a year for completion. Often it
is completed in far less time. Moreover, under existing procedures
that value community participation in negotiations with cable
companies, some communities have been successful in getting
commitments for public, educational, and government access channels,
and thousands of hours of locally produced programming content.

In addition, municipalities have successfully negotiated certain
monetary benefits from cable companies for use of the public rights of
way, thereby easing the local tax burden. Verizon's new proposal would
reduce the number of dedicated access channels and it would cost
municipalities more to produce locally responsive and relevant content
and operate local access channels.

Under the existing local franchising rules, Verizon has played the
game fairly. It is generally in compliance with local franchise terms
and conditions in those cities and towns where it provides multi
channel video services, as defined by the Federal Communications
Commission. In addition, there appears to be ongoing competition among
multi channel video service providers that include Comcast, RCN, and
the satellite television service providers Dish Network and DirecTV.

Verizon is a late comer that wishes to tilt the competitive playing
field with a bill that would place restrictive burdens on many of its
multi channel video customers outside of Greater Boston, especially
consumers in Western Massachusetts. They would have to travel to
Boston to register consumer complaints to the state regulatory agency.
Local accountability and responsiveness will be minimized if the
Verizon-sponsored bill passes.

In such a case where a business makes no promises of public benefit,
there are no particular performance goals expected, except, perhaps,
to shareholders for greater profits. This bill is not in the public
interest of the citizens and consumers of Massachusetts and should be
defeated.

Nolan Bowie, a guest columnist, is adjunct lecturer in public policy
and a senior fellow of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press,
Politics and Public Policy.

c Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.

Michael writes:

I remember the late Dirk Koning (of GRMC) always stressing the need for
local media activists to map the entire communications infrastructure
of their community - to ascertain what existed, what was missing and
what could be possible. The tendency now to celebrate models like
ConnectKentucky for similar mapping in regards to broadband
implementation is a misnomer. For Dirk, community mapping was about
local control and accountability - leveraging community needs and
vision against available resources and knowing what to organize for
next. For projects like ConnectKy - the end result is often a state
subsidized roll-out that benefits telecoms while giving local
communities little or no say over the eventual outcome, much less
discuss the needs for local public interest set-asides. This is one
reason Verizon is quoted as supporting the ConnectKy model - the states
pay to map existing infrastructures (often that of cable competitors),
then create state subsidies for corporations like Verizon or AT&T
to fill in the blanks or go head to head with the cable cos in urban
areas. Not that these initiatives don't deliver cable tv and broadband
(or the corporate grail - triple play) to those previously without it,
but as "public/private" initiatives, the public interest obligations
are too often stripped out ("consumer/private" would be a more apt
description).

Dee Dee's comment on the Free Press support of the NY State franchise
bill deserves a little detail since the NY bill is an aberration in
many ways - but some necessary background first. With about 11 state
franchise bills passed and about 13 more in process and looking bad -
one could say with some confidence that we're now witnessing the demise
of PEG in the next ten years for most of the country (watch Democracy
Now while you still can - you may be soon missing it). As we whine
about the loss of local media and minority produced media, we must
acknowledge we are doing nothing to save the local media infrastructure
that is actually that best expression of those principles. More hours
of television are produced by minorities and women via public access
centers than by all the corporate media combined, in fact the numbers
are more like ten-fold, perhaps even a hundred-fold. As for local
media, nothing is more localized and community based that public access
TV, and again the corporate locals pale in comparison to hourly
coverage of local issues and voices.

The way state video franchising is playing out nationally goes like
this; AT&T and Verizon dump a bill on a paid legislative sponsor
and sell it to the public via their astroturfs under the auspices of
"competition = lower prices". These bills quickly gain momentum and
PEGs and municipal organizations fight to get to the negotiating table
only to discover that every lobbyist in the state is already working
for the telcos. Cable companies feign opposition until they get their
cut - then flip positions - predictably. The only union in the game,
the CWA, will only get jobs if the telcos win (cable is non-union) -
hence their support for state bills that are frequently a contradiction
of the National's stated principles and that of their "speedmatters"
campaign (strong buildout provisions, PEG support and net neutrality
lite).

So finally, we have the NY bill, the Omnibus Telecommunications Reform
Act of 2007, (http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A03980) sponsored by
Assemblyman Brodsky with the support of the CWA. The bill creates a
statewide broadband authority with its own universal service fund to
ensure broadband build-out throughout largely rural NY state (with
echoes of ConnectKy). It creates a statewide video franchise - that so
far is the most progressive in the country in regards to PEG support.
It has a net neutrality provision - given the approval of the 'save the
internet' folks. The bill also has strong build-out provisions - to
ensure rural access and protect against urban redlining. Public
interest organizations (including PEG) have been invited to provide
input since the onset - a unique and rare occurrence. This all sounds
great, and it actually mostly is, but given the legislation in the rest
of country (and the comments above), one can't help but feel this is an
unseen twilight zone episode waiting to unravel a new unexpected
morality twist.

There are down sides to the bill of course, all state franchises by
definition usurp local municipal control and authority. This includes
direct remedies to consumer complaints, oversight against redlining
(local communities are best informed to make these determinations), the
ability to negotiate additional services (like iNets) and most
significantly the ability to revoke franchises when conditions merit
it. The NY bill protects some aspects of local oversight, but short of
protracted legal action, the ultimate control lies with the appointed
state body of the Public Service Commission (PSC). Much like the FCC,
these appointed bodies are unpredictable wild cards from state to
state, accountable first to their political and corporate patrons, and
then later, perhaps to the public. We don't yet have the regulatory
language necessary to ensure that these appointed bodies be held
accountable to detailed public interest obligations, and without that,
there are no assurances that any 'good' legislative language will
survive PSC interpretation (suggestions welcome).

Already nearly every Albany lobbyist counts Verizon as a client - but
they have yet to take their scissors to this bill (though some
fingerprints are already visible in the margins). But what passes out
of
the assembly committee and through the republican dominated senate
could be
something else entirely. Telecom/cable is big money politics, and in NY
state that alone is cause for concern. Guarded optimism may be an
understatement - yet we are trying to be hopeful.

So, yesterday a number of public interest organizations (consumers
union, freepress, citizen action, common cause, nypirg) stuck their
necks out and stood with Brodsky and the CWA in support of the current
bill at a capital press conference. I applaud all their efforts, each
have played a part in helping to shape a bill far better than what
we're seeing anywhere else. We need good models that we can rally
behind - and more importantly we need unity in principles, purpose and
action. For too long we have allowed our efforts to be driven by our
own singular campaign interests, often neglecting those of our natural
allies, and unfortunately failing to hold the line in the end. Let's
use this bill to set a new standard of what's possible, let's make New
York a united battleground for a communications policy of the public
interest.

We still have a ways to go - we need language that leverages state
power for community benefit, deferring to local authority rather than
usurping that authority. We need 'local control', 'home rule', 'PEG',
'net neutrality' and 'build-out' to resonate as the new mantras - and
not the deceptive 'more competition' and 'lower prices' PR line of the
astroturfs. If we can craft this, gain broad municipal support and not
break ranks - we may have the right bill in the right time.

- Michael

Don't let government sell US out. Call or write your state senators and reps TODAY.