Charter Communications has picked its Rochester cable systems for the commercial debut of a TV set control box that can record and store programs, as well as images from a home computer.
St. Louis-based Charter is buying 100,000 units of the Motorola Broadband Media Center for its systems nationwide, with plans to offer the service this fall.
“Rochester has been chosen as the first market within Charter to launch this service and this platform,” said Bill Haarstead, director of marketing for Charter’s Minnesota Group.
Why Rochester MN?
The local systems were chosen as Charter’s premiere market because digital service has a comparatively large following here. More than 15 percent of customers order the digital tier, which delivers premium services including music channels and pay-per-view programming.
“We think it will appeal to the existing digital base (of customers) and bring new customers into that category,” Haarstead said. The roll-out is planned for November or December.
Governing posts an opinion piece from Michael Powell, president of NCTA-the Internet and Television Association, which represents America’s cable industry…
The real work takes place on the ground. Expanding broadband networks to the unserved, hardest-to-reach parts of the country is a daunting task fraught with logistical, financial and technical challenges. Across hundreds of broadband deployment projects nationwide, ISPs must tackle physical hardship, uncompromising terrain and weather, and countless other unexpected trials to bring this critical infrastructure to unconnected communities.
Take, for example, a recent build in the northern Minnesota community of Lakewood Township. Nestled on the shores of Lake Superior, harsh winter conditions with an average annual snowfall of 86 inches shut down construction for several weeks before the Mediacom Communications crews could push through the shale rock that defines this Northwoods terrain. But now more than 1,100 homes and businesses can enjoy the benefits of life-changing gigabit-speed Internet service.
Some recommendations…
On the federal level, policymakers should focus on removing regulatory barriers rather than erecting new ones. Adding more complexity and cost to a project that is already economically and physically challenging is a path to failure. Policymakers have an obligation to be good stewards of billions of taxpayer dollars and should avoid actions that would cause the experienced providers that are essential to success to sit out the program.
On the state level, policymakers should focus on making wise decisions with the influx of federal BEAD grants they will receive. They must ensure these funds are targeted for their intended use of connecting unserved areas. There will be ample temptation to stray from that focus and waste funds on unrelated objectives.
Partnerships with private broadband providers with a track record of experience, innovation and excellence have proven to be a potent recipe for states to maximize broadband funds and expand connectivity. Established private-sector ISPs understand the unique demands of rural deployments and have developed innovative engineering solutions to overcome any climate or geography.
Last legislative session, there was a bill (the MN Equal Access Bill) that set out to allow local governments to charge cable companies a franchising fee for their broadband services. The bill got support from a number of local governments, but not from providers. In the end it did not pass. Broadband Breakfast reports on national efforts to open the door to local government fees from cable providers…
Cities across the country want to impose new fees on cable operators, claiming a federal rule standing in the way has distorted the market and frustrated efforts to close the digital divide.
For decades, local governments have been able to collect 5% of a cable operator’s video programming revenue. But the Federal Communications Commission has barred imposing the same fee on cable’s broadband revenue, saving the industry billions a year.
Local governments continue to pressure the FCC to abolish its Mixed-Use Rule, which the FCC reaffirmed in 2019 as walling off cable’s broadband revenue from the traditional video fee regime.
The latest salvo in this struggle came in a June 5 letter to the FCC from the Northern Dakota County Cable Communications Commission (NDC4), which was formed by seven small Minnesota cities with about 91,000 residents combined.
“The Mixed-Use Rule frustrates FCC and local efforts to ensure equitable access to quality, affordable broadband,” the NDC4 said in the letter. “We urge the Commission to repeal it.”
NDC4 includes Inver Grove Heights, Lilydale, Mendota, Mendota Heights, South St. Paul, Sunfish Lake, and West St. Paul, Minn.
Comcast Business today announced a strategic agreement with Starlink, a leader in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite technology, to provide connectivity solutions to Comcast Business enterprise customers. The collaboration enables advanced satellite capabilities in Comcast Business’ Managed Connectivity portfolio to deliver fast and reliable connectivity that supports a range of business applications for enterprise customers, including those with locations in underserved regions.
Enterprises operating multiple, disparate locations are faced with unique connectivity challenges, particularly those with locations where traditional networks do not reach. From geographic limitations to scalability concerns and reliability issues, these companies face challenges less commonly encountered by their counterparts in more densely populated areas. Comcast Business’ collaboration with Starlink will address the demand for reliable, managed connectivity for these enterprise customers, as well as offer an innovative solution for enterprises looking to enhance network redundancy.
The Minnesota House’s Democratic majority is expected to ax a proposal Monday that would have allowed cities to charge broadband providers a fee to place internet lines in their jurisdictions.
If they chose to enact the tax — or “franchise fee” — cities would have been able to charge up to 8% of the provider’s gross revenues. The cities could spend just shy of two-thirds of that on whatever they want, though the bill mentions the costs associated with burying the broadband lines — also known as right-of-way management.
Cities should be allowed to charge a fee because companies are placing the internet lines on public land, and cities incur costs to replace streets or sidewalks after the companies bury the lines, said Rep. Mike Freiberg, DFL-Golden Valley, the bill’s chief author.
Cities could use the remaining revenue — a bit more than one-third of the total — for government media programming, such as live-streaming city council meetings.
The “Equal Access to Broadband Act” also would have allowed cities to negotiate with the broadband companies to ensure equal broadband access within their communities.
The bill (HF4182/SF4262) is included in the House’s commerce omnibus bill, but Democratic-Farmer-Labor lawmakers are expected to cut the provision on the House floor Monday. The Senate has not held a hearing on the bill this session.
Freiberg spoke to the Reformer before his DFL colleagues moved to cut the bill from the commerce omnibus package. He said it would ensure residents get equal internet access in their communities.
“This will actually be a benefit to residents, both whether they’re low-income or high-income, because a lot of low-income parts of cities are not afforded the same level of internet service that there are in wealthier parts,” Freiberg said.
The franchise fee model is similar to city fees on cable companies. Frieberg said with the decline of people using cable, cities are struggling to pay for their public programming like council and school board meetings.
Minnesota would be the first state in the nation with a broadband franchising fee.
Access to fast, reliable broadband and internet services is vital for every Minnesotan. From schoolwork to work from home, access to digital tools is an essential part of day-to-day life, not a luxury. Unfortunately, Minnesota lawmakers are proposing wrong-headed legislation that will give local governments authority to hike the price of essential internet and broadband services by as much as 8% – costing consumers more and threatening to halt the great progress made toward affordable, universal broadband access across the state.
The legislation currently moving through the House, which we refer to as the “Internet Tax bill,” will authorize local governments to enact what are essentially new taxes – which they call franchise fees – on broadband service providers. Decisions to add these new taxes to consumer bills and how that revenue will be spent would be made with very little transparency to consumers. Minnesotans are tired of additional fees and taxes being added to their bills. Ironically, this proposal allowing local governments to tack on new “fees” to internet bills comes while legislators are promoting other bills to ban junk fees.
So, what do these new taxes mean for Minnesotans? It means duplicative, burdensome taxes can be levied on consumers, making access to essential internet services inaccessible for many. Consumers won’t be getting a better or improved product — they’ll just be paying more for it.
When inflation is hitting family budgets harder than ever, and as the Biden Administration is stepping up efforts with billions in investments to close the digital divide, it begs the question of why Minnesota lawmakers want to put these onerous new taxes on essential internet and broadband-enabled services and move our state backward?
Moreover, this legislation comes at a time when more than 240,000 low-income Minnesota households are losing access to a federal $30/month broadband subsidy that is running out at the end of April. Why do state lawmakers want to compound this issue further and risk putting access to affordable internet, perhaps permanently out of reach for thousands of people, by adding layers of new fees to broadband bills? Low-income, BIPOC and underserved communities will be harmed the most by this legislation.
Hoodline reports on support from the Coon Rapids City Council for MN HF 4182, the Equal Access to Broadband bill (I have been following the bill) that would allow local governments to charge franchising fees to wired broadband providers…
Coon Rapids is throwing its weight behind a proposed bill aimed at bringing equitable high-speed Internet to all corners of the state.
The Coon Rapids City Council, in a unanimous decision Tuesday, passed a resolution supporting the call for Equal Access to Broadband at the State Capitol, as reported on the city’s official website.
Amid the push for upgrades to current technological infrastructure, Representative Mike Freiberg of Crystal (43B) underscored the merit of the bill, telling Coon Rapids’ official website that “The equal access to broadband act will level the playing field with broadband ISPs while assuring build out and minimum upload and download speeds to meet the current and future needs of the business and residents statewide.” Broadband providers could be required to pay franchise fees akin to those imposed on cable companies, to utilize city right-of-ways for fiber optic cables.
These fees serve a crucial role beyond revenue – they directly fund public, education, and government (PEG) access programming.
The MN House Committee on State and Local Government Finance and Policy discussed HF4182 (Freiberg) Equal Access to Broadband Act established, and broadband services and broadband infrastructure governing provisions modified. (I have written about this bill before.) The bill was finally called after a very long discussion on an earlier agenda item (HF4593). Bill is laid over for possible inclusion.
Notes:
Proposed Amendment A: stacking of franchise fees, is not allowed, impacts only broadband providers, not wireless, caps the franchise fees.
Question:
Why not include wireless providers?
The bill deals with ISP not others.
Wireless providers provide internet access, so do broadband providers. What’s the difference?
They have always been excluded? Because the legislature based rules one small cell and wireless that excludes wireless from franchising.
Amendment A3 is added.
Testifier from CCX Media (cable companies): They produce unique programming with PEG funding. Newspapers are not surviving. We will a need in our programs. They do advocacy for consumers. The provide tech support for cable companies.
Mayor Testifier: local s, broadband franchising should mirror the community service that cable franchising does. Franchise fees pays for regulatory services as well as programming – such as elections, local sports and government meetings.
Testifier from MN Telecom Alliance: broadband providers invested $360M in broadband. But this bill makes it harder to invest. We oppose the bill. No other state has passed this legislation. It opposes ITFA (Internet Tax Freedom Act). Cable franchising is not easily smoothed into broadband franchising. It will increase consumer bills. This will hurt broadband buildout.
Testifier from MCCA (cable association): this bill would stop broadband deployment. It puts an 8 percent tax on broadband. It makes it less affordable. It conflicts with other regulations.
Testifier from Wireless association: some of our concerns have been assuaged with the amendment. We already have lots of regulations. We want more amendments to exempt wireless.
Testifier from center for fiscal excellence: these fees function like taxes, which should go to general revenue. But these taxes are already earmarked for specific things. The question is where the fees will be used. Research shows cable franchise funding doesn’t always go to PEG or other legit cable-related services.
Questions:
I was a mayor and we worked with a provider. Why do we want to tax my residents? Most people get their info online anyways.
It is comparable with what we’ve always done with cable companies. If you have a good experience – you don’t have to charge the fee. It’s opt-in/opt-out.
How would this help offset municipal infrastructure costs? What costs?
Costs to deploying broadband. Or rent for rights-of-way.
It’s how we treat existing utilities this same way – for access to public rights-of-way.
So this is really like a rent to public spaces?
Partially – but also do raise revenue and defray municipal costs.
So this is raised revenue? Don’t we have other ways to pay for public education and information? I get a lot of bills. This is a tax.
I worked in a city. We called this a tax. Who pays this tax.
The tax goes to customers’ bill.
That is confusing to people. I see it on my bill and I think it’s the fault of the provider when really I should be made at the city.
I’ve been followingHF4182, a bill that would establish equal Access to Broadband Act established, and modify broadband services and broadband infrastructure governing provisions. In short it would borrow from the old cable franchising model to allow local government to charge broadband providers to deploy/manage broadband in the area.
KSTP reports on how the providers feel about the bill…
April 4, the MN House Committee on State and Local Government Finance and Policy will discuss HF4182 (Freiberg) Equal Access to Broadband Act established, and broadband services and broadband infrastructure governing provisions modified. (I have written about this bill before.) You can attend the meeting or watch remotely…
HF 4598 (Long) Independent Redistricting Commission established, Applicant Review Panel established, principles to be used in adopting legislative and congressional districts established, legislative members lobbying activity prohibited, convening and conduct of regular legislative sessions requirements amended, and constitutional amendment proposed.
HF 4593 (Klevorn) Advisory citizens’ redistricting commission established, redistricting principles and redistricting requirements established, constitutional amendment to establish an independent citizen’s redistricting commission proposed, and money appropriated. HF 4182 (Freiberg) Equal Access to Broadband Act established, and broadband services and broadband infrastructure governing provisions modified.
HANDOUTS: Handouts MUST BE IN PDF FORMAT and emailed to the committee administrator by 12 p.m. (noon) the business day before the hearing. If you are bringing hard copies, bring 40 copies. Note: submitted written testimony is public and will be included in the official committee record. It may be posted to the committee webpage if received by deadline.
TESTIFYING: Testimony is limited. The number of testifiers and length of time permitted is at the discretion of the chair, and is subject to change. Please plan accordingly. If you would like to testify, please email the committee administrator by 12 p.m. (noon) the business day before the hearing.
DOCUMENTS: Meeting documents may be found on the State and Local Government Finance and Policy webpage.
VIEWING: This hearing may be viewed on the House webcast schedule page. All video events are closed captioned with automatically generated captions.
*Agenda items (including bills) may be added or removed, and/or order may change.
o For further information on accommodations, please visit FAQs for Disability Access or contact the LCC Accessibility Coordinator at accessibility.coordinator@lcc.mn.gov
o If you are having accessibility or usability problems with any Minnesota Legislative website or software, please send your comments to the Accessibility & Usability Comment Form
o To request legislative services for American Sign Language (ASL), Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) closed captioning services, or live language interpretation services for Hmong, Somali, or Spanish speakers to testify, please contact the Committee Administrator as soon as possible.
Bills Added
HF4182(Freiberg)
Equal Access to Broadband Act established, and broadband services and broadband infrastructure governing provisions modified.
HF4593(Klevorn)
Advisory citizens’ redistricting commission established, redistricting principles and redistricting requirements established, constitutional amendment to establish an independent citizen’s redistricting commission proposed, and money appropriated.
HF4598(Long)
Independent Redistricting Commission established, Applicant Review Panel established, principles to be used in adopting legislative and congressional districts established, legislative members lobbying activity prohibited, convening and conduct of regular legislative sessions requirements amended, and constitutional amendment proposed.
The Worthington City Council on Monday approved a resolution of support for efforts of the Minnesota Association of Community Telecommunications Administrators to modernize public, education and government programming and public access funding.
City Administrator Steve Robinson explained that community television in Worthington is funded through franchise fees with local cable television providers. The franchise fees received by the city are based on the number of customers.
As viewing preferences have changed, Robinson continued, many individuals have cut the cable TV cord and turned to streaming services, thereby reducing the fees the city receives to continue to fund Cable 3. Worthington Cable 3 broadcasts city council meetings, as well as many of the high school’s athletic and cultural events and local celebrations.
Current state law does not require alternative streaming companies to compensate cities for use of our public right of way. Two House and Senate bills have been introduced to modernize and provide sustainable funding for community television. One would assess a fee on streaming services, collected by local governments, to fund local public, education and government community television. Another would, in exchange for private use of the city’s public right of way by broadband providers, establish a broadband franchise requirement to generate compensation.
Minnesota cities are asking the Legislature for power to slap internet providers with new fees, an idea they say will lead to more broadband in the state with the added bonus of helping to pay for basic government access programming like video of council meetings.
But the idea has caused a stir at the Capitol, where telecom groups and Republicans argue the bill — with its significant support from the Twin Cities metro area — won’t actually aid rural Minnesota in bridging the digital divide at all. Instead, it would just bring in more cash to local government at the expense of broadband customers.
The tug-of-war has become contentious at times, pitting cities and their media operations against internet providers large and small and sparking debate about whether the bill’s title promising equal access to broadband is false advertising.
Gov. Tim Walz’s broadband office declined to weigh in as officials there plan to distribute more than $750 million in state and federal money to subsidize the construction of broadband infrastructure aimed at expanding high-speed internet options.
“The added fee on consumers’ bills will tip the affordability scale in the wrong direction,” said Brent Christensen, president of the Minnesota Telecom Alliance. “This legislation is contrary to everything the state of Minnesota, the Office of Broadband Development and my members are doing to see that all Minnesotans have access to quality broadband.”
Bills for broadband
Local governments have long negotiated franchise agreements with cable TV providers and utility companies to use public right-of-ways for infrastructure like wires.
Those deals usually include franchise fees, and for cable providers, a second fee specifically dedicated to what is known as Public Education and Government, or PEG. That’s basic public access media documenting local life and government.
There are federal limits…
Federal law limits cable franchise fees to 5% of annual gross revenue in that city, though the PEG fees are additional and uncapped. The latest version of the DFL legislation restricts broadband franchise fees to 5% of gross revenue and PEG fees to 3%.
Supporters have titled the bill as the “Equal Access to Broadband Act,” saying cities can negotiate consumer protections through franchise deals. Broadband groups have argued it’s a misnomer, that the policy will slow the spread of quality internet.
CCX Media has 30-minutes episode on HF4182: The Equal Access to Broadband Act. (I also wrote about the meeting in the House Committee meeting.) Most of the episode consists of video from the meeting but the last three minutes give a view from CCX of the view. They come from a history of benefitting from cable franchising fees, which is similar to what is being proposed in the bill.
The actual meeting (again included in the episode) includes testimony from folks that support and oppose the bill.
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.
A new bill was introduced in the Minnesota House of Representatives: HF4182 Equal Access to Broadband Act established, and broadband services and broadband infrastructure governing provisions modified. It was referred to Agriculture Finance and Policy. It’s recommended modifications to an existing law that currently targets telecommunications providers. The change eliminates the word telecommunications, to widen the target to all broadband providers. It also morphs rights-of-way and franchising.
Here’s the description as introduced…
A bill for an act
relating to broadband; establishing the Equal Access to Broadband Act; modifying
provisions governing broadband services and broadband infrastructure; amending
Minnesota Statutes 2022, sections 116J.39, subdivision 1; 116J.394; 116J.399,
subdivisions 1, 8, by adding a subdivision; 237.162, subdivision 4; 237.163,
subdivisions 2, 6, 7; 412.221, subdivision 6; Minnesota Statutes 2023 Supplement,
section 222.37, subdivision 1.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
