Floyd
05-15-2007, 07:30 PM
In an effort to thwart the passage of the statewide franchise bill, which allows new TV/internet companies a speedier buildout into heretofore unserved communities, the cable companies have scrabbled together an effort to get the governor to veto the bill.
__________________________________________________ ____
Consumer Groups Oppose Cable Bill
FCAN joined Florida Pirg, Consumer Federation of the Southeast, Consumer Federation of America, FreePress, ACORN, and Consumer's Union is opposing the Cable Bill H 529. In a letter, FCAN and the other groups called on Governor Charlie Crist to veto the bill.
The consumer groups make these points:
A new video franchising framework must include stronger build-out requirements and consumer protections: Without build-out requirements, this bill cements the digital divide by statute. Because the legislation does not require new cable providers operating under a statewide franchise to serve all consumers within a franchise area, new entrants will be free to offer service to only wealthy neighborhoods, leaving behind middle and low-income consumers who most need cable rate relief.
Anti-redlining provisions are insufficient to ensure low and middle income consumers are not left behind. Although Gov. Crist worked to insert an anti-discrimination provision, this provision alone will not guarantee that new communications technologies will be offered throughout the state to traditionally under-served communities. The legislation appropriately prohibits redlining based on race and income. Unfortunately, in the absence of build out requirements this anti-redlining provision, on its own, will be not be sufficient to ensure low-income areas will be served by new video providers.
A new franchising process must sustain and support the continued viability of valuable local public services such as public access television, institutional networks, and consumer protection: We must not shortchange local communities with a state franchising process that undercuts the services that local governments have long secured for their citizens. In particular, public access to cable channels has long provided a voice for citizens, local cultural fare, and coverage of local government activities. These services should be supported, not curtailed.
Network neutrality should be a central component of any pro-competitive broadband policy in the state: The federal government has debated this critical policy and failed to come to a resolution. It is now left to the states to protect consumers and innovation. The issue of network neutrality is about who will control the Internet - consumers and producers in a competitive marketplace, or network owners in a non-competitive marketplace.
__________________________________________________ ___________________________
Here's the full letter: http://www.fcan.org/Press/Letter%20to%20Gov%20Crist%20-%20veto%20529%20-%20final.pdf
__________________________________________________ ____
Consumer Groups Oppose Cable Bill
FCAN joined Florida Pirg, Consumer Federation of the Southeast, Consumer Federation of America, FreePress, ACORN, and Consumer's Union is opposing the Cable Bill H 529. In a letter, FCAN and the other groups called on Governor Charlie Crist to veto the bill.
The consumer groups make these points:
A new video franchising framework must include stronger build-out requirements and consumer protections: Without build-out requirements, this bill cements the digital divide by statute. Because the legislation does not require new cable providers operating under a statewide franchise to serve all consumers within a franchise area, new entrants will be free to offer service to only wealthy neighborhoods, leaving behind middle and low-income consumers who most need cable rate relief.
Anti-redlining provisions are insufficient to ensure low and middle income consumers are not left behind. Although Gov. Crist worked to insert an anti-discrimination provision, this provision alone will not guarantee that new communications technologies will be offered throughout the state to traditionally under-served communities. The legislation appropriately prohibits redlining based on race and income. Unfortunately, in the absence of build out requirements this anti-redlining provision, on its own, will be not be sufficient to ensure low-income areas will be served by new video providers.
A new franchising process must sustain and support the continued viability of valuable local public services such as public access television, institutional networks, and consumer protection: We must not shortchange local communities with a state franchising process that undercuts the services that local governments have long secured for their citizens. In particular, public access to cable channels has long provided a voice for citizens, local cultural fare, and coverage of local government activities. These services should be supported, not curtailed.
Network neutrality should be a central component of any pro-competitive broadband policy in the state: The federal government has debated this critical policy and failed to come to a resolution. It is now left to the states to protect consumers and innovation. The issue of network neutrality is about who will control the Internet - consumers and producers in a competitive marketplace, or network owners in a non-competitive marketplace.
__________________________________________________ ___________________________
Here's the full letter: http://www.fcan.org/Press/Letter%20to%20Gov%20Crist%20-%20veto%20529%20-%20final.pdf