Save Access

from: Tennessean

AT&T Wants a Dodge Despite Allowances for Franchising in Tennessee

October 26, 2007
By Stacey Briggs

Cities and counties across Tennessee, particularly Nashville, have rolled out the red carpet for AT&T, inviting the company to begin the application process for a local franchise to provide competitive television services in this market.

In March 2007, the Federal Communications Commission established a 90-day “shot clock” to ensure new entrants receive prompt action on applications to encourage competition. This order facilitates competition but retains what the FCC considers essential rights for local governments to control public rights of way and other rules that protect consumers.

So why is AT&T still pretending there are major barriers to its entry? Why is AT&T insisting it must have a new state law instead of applying for a local franchise, being approved within 90 days and working with local governments? The process has certainly not deterred Verizon, which has negotiated hundreds of agreements nationwide.

The fact is this: The only barrier stopping AT&T is AT&T. Instead of entering markets through a front-door process open to the company for the past 11 years, AT&T is pushing for a sweetheart exception so it can go to the state for a certificate rather than work with local governments on contracts specific to their communities.

Rural, low-income areas left out

While this would certainly be convenient for AT&T and beneficial to its shareholders, it would give the company competitive advantages in law that other providers in the marketplace simply have not had.

AT&T wants a shortcut that will allow it to dodge many requirements that exist in the current process to protect consumers, local governments and public rights of way. For example, local franchises require cable providers build networks so that all residents have access to service; under the bill AT&T is pushing, the company is expressly exempted of any build-out requirement — which would save the company millions of dollars at the expense of neighborhood access to service.

This means that while AT&T promises competition for all, it could and would “cherry pick” its customers — serving affluent neighborhoods such as Green Hills and not serving lower-income and rural areas such as north Nashville. AT&T officials are on the record in other cities saying that providing video service to all doesn’t make good business sense to the company.

Cable isn’t the only group critical of this legislation. The Tennessee Municipal League, the association of the state’s cities, is opposed to AT&T’s shortcut. So is the Tennessee County Services Association, which represents county governments. In addition to ensuring access to all, local control protects public rights of way from companies damaging streets and yards.

The local franchise gives local governments power to enforce quality and service. With a state approval, local governments lose this right. AT&T, of course, claims otherwise — but the legislation it wants says so in black and white. Again, why does AT&T want to avoid the local process?

AT&T can compete right now. We welcome fair competition that protects consumers and local governments, but this is simply a blatant effort by one of the world’s largest and richest companies to compete — but only on terms that favor the company, at the public’s expense.

Stacey Briggs is executive director of the Tennessee Cable Telecommunications Association.