MN House Commerce Finance and Policy Committee discussed HF4182 (Freiberg) Equal Access to Broadband Act established, and broadband services and broadband infrastructure governing provisions modified.

The bill sets up a system where local governments could charge a fee to broadband providers looking to use public networks. It is similar to cable franchising fees, which were often used for things like public access television shows (Public Educational and Government – PEG).

Con Comments:

• Preemption – nothing preempts local franchising
• Stacking – multiple layers of government could charge separate fees
• Satellite and wireless are not included in this bill
• Bills already allow wireless without a fee
• It is permissive
• Broadband providers are investing $300 million this year but franchising fees might change that
• No other state has such a fee
• Fees will be passed onto end customers
• Neither the Office of Broadband Development or Broadband Task Force was not consulted about this bill
• This creates an unlevel regulatory playing field
• Bill authorizes unlimited fees
• Changes how broadband services are regulated -moves regulation from FCC to local level
• Cable companies already pay franchising fees – and those are passed onto customers
• Feds already regulate wireless providers
• MN law already protects local government and rights of way
• The fees are revenue, not cost based, which isn’t allowed
• This will impact broadband deployment
• We need to recognize our desire to limit control with the last bill and this bill creates unlimited, uncapped source of revenue

Pro Comments:

• Cable franchising has created standards and ways to afford broadband
• Broadband uses rights of way
• Community media is an important resource and we are losing many forms
• Cable access to programs such as local sports and government have been usurped by livestreaming
• MN is a model franchising state
• We need to distribute PEG on many forms to make info available – but only tradition cable pays for access
• Franchising puts power in the hands of locals
• Viewers don’t mind paying for quality programming
• Local franchising has allowed us to do more
• Franchising will ensure border to border broadband expansion
• Local government has resources to handle customer service
• Puts power with local government. This bill is about choice

Questions:

Why would this help low income Minnesotans?
Because we need the money to invest in broadband

Why doesn’t the fund specifically call out PEG?
We wanted to leave it to the local community.

How does this compare to Internet freedom act?
The federal bills look at small cell orders. We aren’t talking about cell or wireless. Through franchising, cities can make sure all residents have broadband access. Franchising is how cable was built throughout the Twin Cities.

The bill is re-refer to State and Local Government Finance and Policy.