Save Access

from: Florida Today

Cable oversight bill advances in House
BY BILL COTTERELL
FLORIDA TODAY
ADVERTISEMENT

StoryChat Post a CommentPost a Comment
Be the first to comment on this story

Related news from the Web
Latest headlines by topic:
• African-American
Powered by Topix.net

TALLAHASSEE - -- Despite a plea by state Rep. Curtis Richardson and two prominent Tallahassee black leaders to slow down, and concerns over its impact on consumers, a House council Thursday approved a heavily lobbied plan that would let the state take over licensing of cable television franchises from city and county governments.

Richardson joined former Leon County Commissioner Anita Davis, a longtime NAACP activist, and the Rev. R.B. Holmes in warning that the pending proposal, HB 529, might wind up limiting communication choices in poor neighborhoods.

But a schoolteacher who moved to Tallahassee from Texas testified that the competition possible under state control was good for consumers in her former hometown.

Although it forbids race-based discrimination in deciding where to run cables, the bill would lead to companies' favoring rich neighborhoods with the latest high-speed services if city and county governments could no longer make them serve everyone in a region, Richardson, Davis and Holmes said.

"Access delayed is equality denied," Davis, head of the Florida Consumer Action Network, told the House Jobs and Entrepreneurship Council. "There are some provisions that raise significant red flags to those of us in the minority community."

Rep. Trey Traviesa, R-Brandon, said his bill will increase competition for a wide range of cable, Internet and fast-evolving technology services.

Associated Industries of Florida lobbyist Kenya Cory said passage of the bill is a top priority of the powerful business lobby.

But many local governments that reap revenue from franchising cable services, and the cable companies themselves, are trying to slow down the proposal. They warned that moving franchising to the Secretary of State's Office would take away consumer protections and local enforcement authority.

"This is a fixable issue," said John Smith of the Florida League of Cities. "We do not believe we are the problem."

Richardson, who cast the lone vote against the bill, said he lives in a predominantly black neighborhood with only one high-speed Internet provider available. He said he might support the bill later but wanted additional study conducted.

"We need to be very cautious as we move forward in this because there are lots of possible unintended consequences," said Richardson. "If, in fact, there is not discrimination or there is no intent to discriminate, then there should be no resistance to putting language in this legislation that if, in fact, it occurs then there will be legal redress on the part of those adversely impacted."

Holmes submitted a written statement to the council, saying video providers "won't be required to provide equal service to all but can substitute 'alternative technology' that is comparable."

"What that says to me is that new providers will be free to offer wealthy neighborhoods priority access to competitive land-based video services, while offering people in low-income areas . . . something they can already get -- satellite service," said Holmes. "This violates both the spirit and intent of anti-discrimination laws."

Katrina Doerr, who moved to Tallahassee from Keller, Texas, four months ago, testified before the council that her family had much better and less costly Internet, television and phone service when Texas let phone companies compete. Richardson asked her if she was dissatisfied with Comcast in Tallahassee.

"I personally would like another choice," Doerr replied. "Without another provider, I don't know what choices I might have."

The bill will next be heard in the House Budget and Policy Council. A companion measure, SB 1772, is pending in the Senate.