Save Access

From: Tennessean

Should AT&T Be Able to Receive a Statewide Video Franchise?

October 25, 2007

Should AT&T be allowed to rewrite Tennessee law? No.

Here’s one reason, based on legislation AT&T offered this year, legislation in other states and reports from other states: Many Tennessee cities and towns have at least one public, educational or governmental (PEG) access channel. There are thousands of PEG channels across America. Very nearly every version of AT&T legislation offered or passed in other states does violence to those channels.

Tennessee’s PEG funding has been individually negotiated by the cities. AT&T will terminate all of those agreements and all the funding.

AT&T thinks PEG channels are YouTube: AT&T reduces PEG-picture quality. Seen YouTube? Seen basic cable? You’ve seen the problem.

Broadcasters won’t pay AT&T to carry their programming but, outside Tennessee, PEG is being charged upward of $1,000 a month to use AT&T fiber optics to deliver programming to AT&T.

Finally, if AT&T rewrites our laws, every cable operator in Tennessee can follow them and PEG channels probably will be finished.

However, Illinois’ General Assembly solved these problems, secured a healthy future for PEG, and AT&T agreed. Why not Tennessee?

I am a former broadcaster who entered the PEG world in 1972. I now hold unpaid, volunteer positions with the Educational Access Board of Directors. Educational Access in Nashville consists of Music City 9 (Classic Arts Showcase) and iQ TV 10, where much locally produced programming can be seen.

Elliott Mitchell
Nashville 37209

No, AT&T should not be allowed to secure a statewide contract. Instead, AT&T should be allowed to competitively bid for rights to provide service through individual city and county licensing as cable television does.

Schools and communities receive television station access that they would otherwise not be able to afford, thereby keeping their communities informed and providing a base for the educational system to use to teach students media related subjects.

AT&T’s current proposal eliminates this break, forcing communities and schools to fend for themselves.

Jim Bauernfeind
Mt. Juliet 37122

Why can’t AT&T use the existing system to receive the necessary franchise rights to access our public right of way and deliver new video technology? Why must the state create a new law to govern local access and circumvent municipal authority on behalf of this one telecommunications giant? Local franchise authority has proven to be effective at representing the citizens’ best interests, and in Nashville, an efficient method of negotiation to cover those needs.

There is simply no evidence that changing the law to establish a statewide franchise process will benefit consumers, communities or citizens. Telecommunication lines will still be a front-yard issue as technology runs under city streets and across neighborhood lawns. Local, municipal franchise agreements protect the rights of people who connect to that technology better than any state or federal oversight can.

Having participated in three municipal cable franchise negotiations, I know that process takes much less time than AT&T has spent working to change state law and usurp a productive process. It is time for AT&T to ask the Metro Council to negotiate a franchise agreement and quit waiting to bring competitive rates and services into Nashville.

Lynn Williams
Nashville 37215

There are many issues wrapped up in the question, “Should AT&T be able to obtain a statewide franchise for video services?”

First, is it an exclusive franchise that will, in effect, create a monopoly for those services, or is it simply a license to be one of potentially many video services?

Second, should this franchise be granted to AT&T, or should it be open to other bidders?

Third, is statewide implantation in the best interests of the state and localities that will be affected by this franchise? This includes consideration of the financial impact to both the state and the localities.

Fourth, what is meant by video services? I’ll be the first to speak out against AT&T control over the air broadcast of video, otherwise known as traditional network television.

Society should consider what is desired for the public good and how best to achieve those results. That may or may not include statewide franchising of video services to AT&T.