I just finished watching the continuation of the Statewide Cable Franchising discussion in committee meeting. I want to try go get my summary typed out before it leaves me. (I also watched and took notes on last week’s session.)

The plan is to continue this conversation on Friday April 13. It sounds as if the discussion will be moved to Commerce and Labor and officially offered as a bill to be considered next year. Citizens are welcome to contact Elizabeth Emerson, Committee Administrator, at (651) 296-7175 or elizabeth.emerson@house.mn if you are interested in testifying. (They invited everyone to testify several times!)

First to speak was Randy Young from MART (MN Association for Rural Telecommunications). In fairness I want to mention that Randy is a long time friend and colleague.

MART supports the bill. There was a time when cable, phone, and Internet were 3 different industries but technology has removed those industry barriers and it is time to think of them as one industry – the communications industry. There should be parity for entrants to all new comers to each segment of that industry. This is particularly important in rural areas because rural economic development has become so reliant on broadband and telephone companies need to be able to offer triple play (voice, video, data) services to afford to build a network of fiber optics to support necessary bandwidth in rural areas.

Next came Cheryl Morgan Spencer from North Minneapolis representing the Minneapolis Urban League.

The Minneapolis Urban League opposes the bill due to fear of potential discriminatory practices. The bill, as written, states that providers “won’t deny service to any subscribers”, which is very different from saying that they will serve all citizens in a community. They specify that they will not discriminate on some grounds (race and something else I missed) but they don’t specify gender or religion. Also there is concern about the stated informal process for handling local inquiries and how the lack of formality denotes lack of concern for local perspective.

A question came from Representative Thissen asking for proof that these fears were warranted. Ms Spencer wanted time to respond.

Next came Greg Moore from the Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission (NWSCCC).

Public access is the only truly local programming and decisions about public access are unique in each area. (My details here maybe fuzzy as this is when my junior associate decided to help mommy.) The NWSCCC charges $.80 per subscriber, a line item on the bill for public access. They provide a wide range of public access programs including 24 local races and candidate profiles. Half of NWSCCC’s program producers represent minorities and many represent new Minnesotans/Americans. Public access viewers watch regularly. NWSCCC fears that the lack of a built out requirement will mean that new competition entrants will use build out as a negotiation tool and may not continue to provide universal access and/or local programming.

Next was Tim Finnerty from the Ramsey Washington County Suburban Cable (RWCSC).

The RWCSC is opposed to this legislation. Mr Finnerty provides some background on the technical details of public access. Tradition TV (and public access) is developed to fit a screen of 720 by 480 (sorry I missed the units as a web developer I heard pixels, which is probably not right). HDTV is encouraging people to shoot for a higher specification because a higher specification looks great on HDTV; lower specs on the other hand looks worse. Cable commissions can start to mandate that public access get produces to higher quality specs as part of the franchise renewal, thereby raising the technical quality of public access shows. Without the cable commissions, these upgrades will be made voluntarily or not at all.

A question/suggestion came from Representative Hoppe asking that Qwest address this at the next session.

Next came Pete Phodes from WRNB Cable Music Channel. (I’m not 100% sure that’s the right link – please correct me if you know I’m wrong.)

WRNB opposes the bill because there are no provisions for diversity of programming. Universal access is clearly an essential but so is diversity in programming. There are more than 80 ethnic groups in Minnesota and local public access programming is uniquely qualified to provide programming that reaches and represents positive, authentic, stories for and from diverse populations.

Next was Duane Reed President of the Minneapolis NAACP.

While the NAACP does not promote one industry or vendor over another they are concerned with the need for fair and equitable access to all. The current bill as written is too vague in its description of universal access and there are no specified ramifications of noncompliance. The current system seems to work well; the proposed bill is inadequate – and begs the question – why fix it if it ain’t broke.

Next came a group with Mike Martin for the Minnesota Cable Communications Association. First to speak was Bill Jensen from Mediacom in Waseca.

Meidacom opposes the bill. They serve cable to 200 communities in Minnesota and they currently compete with 36 telephone companies for triple service play. There is already competition in rural areas and the with the level playing field statue the competition is fair. Also local governments would like to retain control of local cable issues; they do not want to hand those over to the state.

Next was Tony Mendoza, legal counsel to the MCCA.

Qwest claims that the bill that they are offering is akin to the bills brought years ago to encourage local competition, bills that were primary brought up due to large telephone companies not brought up by cable companies. But this bill is not similar and the situation is not similar. This is a bill looking for a solution. Phone companies are common carriers; while with cable companies the needs of the local community are essential.

Next came Mike Martin of MCCA.

The FCC’s recent ruling did not pre-empt state laws and has not had a big impact on Minnesota cable commissions. The FCC set up standards to prevent a range of abuses but Minnesota was already compliant is preventing these abuses so there has not been much change.

Finally Ron Elwood from Legal Aid spoke.

(My youngest assistant was helping again so I don’t have the best notes here.) New entrants need a level playing field and they need time to comply with regulations. The issues experienced in rural Minnesota are very different and will remain very different from issues in the Metro area.

Whew. I think I got it. There was another exciting bill introduced which I will write about soon – after I knock a few other items off of my to-do list. Please – feel free to pitch in with comments or corrections – even with fewer distractions than I had last week there’s a lot of take in with a committee meeting and some things can get lost or misinterpreted in my retelling. Sorry no pictures this time, maybe I’ll add them later but I just can’t take the time today. As a librarian I had to go for timely access to info.

Also the video archive of this meeting is already available online!