-- Coalition calls for local control, anti-discrimination provisions and full build-out requirements--
Tallahassee, Fla. – A coalition of Florida’s leading consumer groups and community advocates joined Senator Mike Fasano and Representative Rene Garcia today to unveil a list of elements that any video service competition law must contain to be considered consumer-friendly.
The legislators, along with Walter Dartland, executive director of the Consumer Federation of the Southeast; Brad Ashwell, legislative advocate for the Florida Public Interest Research Group; Reverend Ernest Ferrell, president of the Tallahassee Urban League; and Ben Wilcox, executive director of Common Cause also harshly criticized the telecom industry’s efforts to secure special treatment through anti-consumer legislation, under the guise of “choice and competition.”
“The issue of mutlichannel video service competition is one that will affect all Floridians,” said Senator Fasano. “The way that we choose to move forward will not only impact the cost and availability of video services, but will also set a critical precedent for how our state embraces the benefits of the Information Age.”
On behalf of consumers, the coalition introduced three key outcomes required of any real and effective video competition law:
• Retain the option of local control over cable franchising;
• Protect against discriminatory service practices; and
• Establish build out requirements and timelines and require franchise areas correspond with political boundaries.
“Everyone here today supports competition,” said Dartland. “But real competition must be fair, reasonable and benefit all Floridians.”
Senator Fasano has introduced legislation, Senate Bill 1772, that incorporates the groups’ public purpose elements, and urged his fellow legislators to examine their positions closely to ensure that they are backing real competition that benefits all consumers, in a fair and equitable way.
The group explained that maintaining cities’ and counties’ authority to issue cable franchises is essential to ensuring that new providers offer service to all areas and that requirements are tailored to create maximum competition in each community.
“The reality is that cities and counties have the duty and responsibility to ensure that all members of the community are served,” said Dartland. “It ensures equal access and enhances competition.”
To ensure that competition and access to service are offered equally to all residents, the group also highlighted the importance of strong and specific antidiscrimination language as well as the elimination of coverage loopholes.
Senator Fasano’s legislation differs strongly from the bill backed by the phone companies, House Bill 529. The Fasano bill requires all new cable franchises to correspond with preexisting cities, counties or other political boundaries. HB529, by contrast, would allow new entrants to carve out custom franchise areas that only include “high-profit” communities, leaving many lower-income and predominantly African-American neighborhoods outside of the service region.
Representative Garcia is the sponsor of a companion bill in the Florida House of Representatives, HB855, that shares pro-consumer elements with Senator Fasano’s legislation.
“My bill precludes new service providers from discriminating against lower-income and African-American neighborhoods and closes loopholes that would allow for the carving out of “designer districts” that include only high-profit communities,” said Representative Garcia.
Minority groups also are concerned about the potential impact of HB529.
“We’ve seen this kind of discrimination before – in lending, in home buying and in countless other consumer industries,” said Reverend Ferrell. “It is quiet; it is subtle; it is often unintentional, but it is no less damaging to the individual, the community and America’s progress toward equality. Access delayed is equality denied.”
Lobbyists for the telecom industry have made hollow assertions that anti-discrimination provisions are not necessary, and that the phone companies can be trusted to provide access to service to all residents equally.
“One look at the phone companies’ record on the issue shows these promises to be, at best, highly suspect,” said Ashwell. “In state after state, the telecom industry has promised to serve all communities, only to target their service to high-profit neighborhoods, leaving lower-income residents behind.”
The coalition also highlighted the need for preserving state and local governments’ authority to establish service build out requirements for new video service providers. In contrast to Senator Fasano’s legislation, the telecom industry’s bill would prohibit state and local governments from requiring new providers to fully build out service infrastructure.
“Again, the phone companies expect us to take their word for it that they will build out their service area to all communities, expediently,” said Dartland. “Surely we haven't forgotten the telecom industry’s broken promises about rate hikes only two years ago.”
The telecom industry also came under fire for relying on paid spokespersons, posing as consumer advocates.
“I am proud to be on the side of this debate with the organizations that truly represent Florida consumers,” said Ashwell. “While the telecom industry will point to its paid, out-of-state front groups as community supporters, these men and women here are the real champions for Florida’s consumers. They are the ones who have stepped up for Floridians in the past, going toe to toe with large corporations, to ensure that residents of our state get a fair deal.”
“Everyone here recognizes that this is a high stakes issue for both the cable and the phone industries,” said Dartland. “Those are two big dogs that can take care of themselves. Our interest is to protect Florida consumers from potential discriminatory practices.”
###
