| Best
Voip Service Providers Chart |
 |
|
$9.95
- $16.58 |
|
 |
|
$19.99
- $39.99 |
|
 |
|
$9.95
- $15.95 |
|
Competition for Cable Is Good, But Public Interest Must Be Protected12 June 2006
(PRWEB) June 11, 2006 -- The telecommunication revolution is ushering in a brave new world. The convergence of telephone, cable, satellite, and Internet services is as significant as the corporate mergers within the different industries that spawned these technologies. The new capacities and the competition to offer better, faster, and more telecommunication services to the average consumer -- in our homes, on our cell phones, on our computers and IPods -- is dizzying.
The value of this marketplace competition, however, is less about consumer choice and more about the powerful new applications that are possible. Access to these state-of-the-art technologies opens up new possibilities for strengthening civic engagement, education, health and economic opportunities in our communities. But, we are in serious danger of giving away the right to use our public assets and permitting private firms to enrich themselves without guarantees that we will be better off as a State.
The State Assembly has just introduced a bill (AB 2987) that will give AT&T, Verizon and other firms new access to our public rights of way and expedite telecom's entrance into the «video service» business. Currently, each city is able to award TV franchises and can set conditions for ensuring that the telecommunication needs of its community are met. AB 2987 would enable phone companies and cable operators to bypass cities and opt instead for a state-granted franchise and to compete for subscribers.
Clearly, competition is good; we all have our cable stories. And there is a need to increase governmental efficiency in how franchises are awarded so that we do not discourage new «video services.» In its present form, however, the bill could be disastrous for consumers, particularly in diverse cities such as Los Angeles.
The City (of Los Angeles) has been negotiating for progressive new cable television franchise agreements in an effort to ensure top quality service to all of its citizens. But AB 2987 threatens to derail local oversight and replace it with a statewide franchise system administered by a rubber-stamping Department of Corporations, an agency that has no expertise in the matter and that will be given no mandate to enforce violations of the law.
We are members of the Steering Committee of Angelenos for Equitable Access to Technology (AEA2T), a broad and diverse coalition of community organizations serving the greater Los Angeles area. AEA2T was formed to advocate for cable franchises that require operators to: service all communities within the franchise area equally; dedicate resources to Public Access TV and enable communities to produce and distribute local programming; promote technology training and jobs; and ensure a fair and healthy working environment for industry employees.
AEA2T believes the current legislative proposal, while well-intentioned, is woefully inadequate to meet its stated objectives, and may severely harm consumers. For example, AB 2987 purports to protect against «redlining» less affluent communities. But the proposed legislation actually institutionalizes discrimination by permitting franchisees to define their own franchise areas and to serve some communities with different (less expensive) technology than that which is provided to wealthier communities.
Thus, an operator could provide West Los Angeles residents with state-of-the-art, fully-interactive, broadband cable or fiber optic technology while the same operator serves South or East Los Angeles residents with slower, lower-capacity satellite-based service. In other words, AB 2987 legislatively enshrines a «separate but unequal» principle in the provision of cable and video service within the State of California and risks widening the «digital divide.»
In addition, AB 2987 requires providers of cable service or video service in the State to allocate a minimal (and potentially insufficient) number of channels or hours of programming for Public Access TV use. But without any ongoing requirement to provide studio facilities for community use, there will no public access programming to be distributed on the dedicated Public Access channels.
The bill provides for entities to contribute one percent of their gross receipts towards funding Public Access TV. AEA2T proposes that the bill be amended to specify that these funds go into a Technology Trust Fund to be administered by a local governing board. The Fund would finance the creation and operation of «Community Media Development Centers» throughout a franchisee's service area so that the community has a genuine opportunity to create local programming for the Public Access channels. The Fund also would ensure that our schools, libraries, hospitals and other government and nonprofit agencies keep abreast of rapidly changing developments so that the public will continue to realize the promise of technological advances.
Entities that have traditionally provided only telephone service or electric power have the potential to offer needed competition in the cable or video service marketplace. But the state should not push through telephone industry-drafted legislation without thinking through its implications and ensuring that all consumers and California communities will truly benefit from the new regulatory scheme. This is the most important technology legislation for the next half century. It deserves careful public and government scrutiny.
[Signed by]
AEA2T Steering Committee:
Denise Fairchild
Daniel M. Mayeda
T Santora
Chirag Shah
Micheline Wilcoxen, Chair
Source: prweb
All trademarks and copyrighted information contained herein are the property of their respective owners.
Related Telecom Articles
|
