Letter to the Editor

Worcester Telegram & Gazette

As I See It

March 7, 2007

This is in response to what I perceive as Verizon’s corporate propaganda “Competition for cable TV not as remote”, published March 7, written by Mat Hussey. Readers should know that Mr. Hussey worked more than eight years in the telecommunications industry, most recently for Verizon Communications before his present position at the American Legislative Exchange Council. ALEC is a corporately funded free market think tank that writes special interest legislation that only benefits it funders and not consumers or municipalities.

The present local franchise system does not discourage competition or consumer choice. This twenty-five year old system has worked very well and for many communities in eastern MA there has been competition between RCN and Comcast for some ten years. Also, throughout all municipalities in the state there are two other competitors in the form of Satellite TV providers—Dish Network and Direct TV. In many communities Verizon is the Fifth provider of Multi-Channel Video Services, as defined by the FCC.

Presently, if new competitors want to enter into a city franchise they merely have to match the incumbent license terms. This is the level and fair playing field. But it appears Verizon simply wants to avoid being subject to local franchise terms. It appears that they want to move regulatory authority as far away as possible from our local cities and towns. So, when you have a complaint about customer service, or when you are not allowed access to their high speed internet or digital phone or TV service in your low income neighborhood that has been “redlined” by Verizon, you may have to go to the FCC in Washington or to the DTE in Boston to get satisfaction. Yeah, like that’s going to happen.

Are we all supposed to believe that statewide franchising will address Worcester’s specific needs? The present Verizon proposal for telecommunication reform in this state will harm our PEG channels, leave local Institutional Networks (I-Nets), which provide towns and cities with low cost telecommunication services, to wither and die after incumbent license expire. In exchange such so-called reform, there is no guarantee of statewide competition or lower prices for the long term. As of now, Verizon has only announced plans to seek licenses in 67 of the 351 towns and cities in MA, which means they will serve only 16% of the states municipalities. So, why do they need special interest statewide licensing?

Local franchise controls are necessary. The people have a right to get something back in return for the corporate use of the Public Rights of Way. Municipalities have a fiduciary responsibility to manage the PROW to our benefit and “We the People” are entitled to receive PEG services in exchange for giving these companies use of these Rights of Way.

Verizon already has licenses and is providing video content services in 48 communities in Massachusetts. They currently comply with local franchise terms and conditions in those cities and towns. The current franchise system didn’t stop them in those places and won’t in Worcester. But as of now, there is no guarantee Verizon has an interest in providing services in Worcester since they are not currently interested in urban or rural communities but only in the “495 Donut” around Boston with Boston as the hole.

What caused the cable TV bill to “skyrocket was not local franchise fees or PEG Access, but corporate profits, increased programming costs and the need to rebuild the cable networks to compete with the Satellite providers. Can the process be quicker? Of course it can! Worcester has for over 20 years set the template. During the 2006 ascertainment process for renewal negotiations with Charter, it has become very clear what Worcester’s community needs and interest are. Cable and phone companies merely have to engage in good faith negotiation. There is no reason why these negations can not be executed in a timely manner.

For over twenty-five years, cable companies have launched increasingly profitable operations in Massachusetts and given fair compensation to municipalities for the use of the public rights of way. Should Verizon now be allowed to do any less?

Chuck Sherwood

Principal

Community Media Visioning