A Narrow View of Broadband
A few months ago, Gavin Newsom made headlines with his pledge to provide free wireless internet access for all of San Francisco. Following the lead of Portland and Philadelphia, the mayor's proposal was an acknowledgement that internet access is becoming more important to full participation in civic and educational life, and an acknowledgement that the corporate telecom and cable industries have done a terrible job of serving low-income and communities of color.
Those industries are fighting back by sponsoring a report claiming that investing in internet connections for their residents is the worst thing cities could possibly do since investing in Enron.
Now, the report is not as egregious as other industry-sponsored attacks on global warming or the dangers of smoking (although some of the same folks are behind it), but it certainly picks and chooses its issues and evidence to make the idea of publicly-owned broadband look bad.
In addition to this "scientific evidence", some outfit called the American Legislative Exchange Council is pushing model legislation forbidding publicly-owned broadband. Something like a dozen states (not including California) (yet) have some version of ALEC's "model legislation" under consideration. ALEC, it should not surprise you to know, includes representatives from such well-known defenders of the public interest as Coors Beer, PhRMA, Verizon and Bell South.
That's the bad news. The good news is that San Francisco's Cable Franchise is up for renewal, and a group called San Francisco Media Advocates has organized a bunch of community, educational and media groups to fight for--among other things--free wireless access in public areas.
The group is having a meeting on February 10, at 6 pm, at the Mission Cultural Center (2868 Mission @ 25th), and here's the email they sent:
San Francisco's cable franchise agreement is notoriously terrible, and this is our last chance for a long time to ensure that we get some public benefit from the huge amount of money Comcast makes from San Franciscans.
Those industries are fighting back by sponsoring a report claiming that investing in internet connections for their residents is the worst thing cities could possibly do since investing in Enron.
Now, the report is not as egregious as other industry-sponsored attacks on global warming or the dangers of smoking (although some of the same folks are behind it), but it certainly picks and chooses its issues and evidence to make the idea of publicly-owned broadband look bad.
In addition to this "scientific evidence", some outfit called the American Legislative Exchange Council is pushing model legislation forbidding publicly-owned broadband. Something like a dozen states (not including California) (yet) have some version of ALEC's "model legislation" under consideration. ALEC, it should not surprise you to know, includes representatives from such well-known defenders of the public interest as Coors Beer, PhRMA, Verizon and Bell South.
That's the bad news. The good news is that San Francisco's Cable Franchise is up for renewal, and a group called San Francisco Media Advocates has organized a bunch of community, educational and media groups to fight for--among other things--free wireless access in public areas.
The group is having a meeting on February 10, at 6 pm, at the Mission Cultural Center (2868 Mission @ 25th), and here's the email they sent:
San Francisco is re-negotiating its cable franchise for the first
time in 40 years. The new contract will state what cable and
Internet services Comcast will provide. This agreement must serve
the needs of our communities-your needs.
These are some of the things we can win together:
-- CHEAPER CABLE RATES for seniors and low-income households
-- FREE CABLE & INTERNET access in government offices and nonprofits
-- MONEY for media production in local neighborhoods
-- MORE MONEY for Public, Education, and Government channels
-- FREE WIRELESS Internet access in public spaces
-- STRONG CONSUMER PROTECTIONS regarding rates, privacy, and service
-- WORKER'S RIGHTS to collective bargaining & prevailing wage standards
-- WHAT ELSE?
Comcast is the largest cable operator and high-speed broadband
Internet provider in the country. With 2004 revenues of 20 billion
dollars, the company should pay its fair share to meet the
communication and information needs of our community.
For more information:
San Francisco Media Advocates
Sydney Levy * 415-546-6334 ext 301
sydney@media-alliance.org
http://www.mediasf.org/ * http://www.media-alliance.org
San Francisco's cable franchise agreement is notoriously terrible, and this is our last chance for a long time to ensure that we get some public benefit from the huge amount of money Comcast makes from San Franciscans.
4 Comments:
Well said!
I never understood why it is we HAVE to give the franchise to Comcast, or any other company.
Couldn't someone form a nonprofit communications "company" that could run the cable system for the benefit of residents and subscribers, and put the money they make back into making the service useful and affordable?
San Bruno, no bastion of leftism, has had a city-owned cable company for years, and I don't see Stalin and Lenin using it as a beachead to overthrow The Man. It just means you pay a fair rate for a good service, instead of being gouged by Comcast for 100s of crappy channels no one likes.
I'm not sure the answer to this question. There are, presumably some assets that SF would have to buy to take the thing over, but the wires are ours, the streets that cover them are ours...it's a damn good question!
I'd suggest you bring that question to the Feb 10th meeting.
This post has been removed by the author.
Comcast, the latest incarnation of a many-headed hydra controlling cable in SF, owns all of the cable via which media (TV, movies, telephones, internet, etc) are delivered. Under the current contract, they are required to lay cable sheath so that the City can readily lay its own cable should it choose in the future - say if Comcast decides to pack up its marbles and go home (as they might if the City starts negotiating seriously).
Unfortunately, there are some catches. The company only lays parallel sheat when it already is undergrounding a section of its cable. In addition, Comcast has taken the position that the City must first invoke its right before the company must lay that parallel sheath, which DPW has not consistently done. That means there is not a lot of parallel sheath in much of the City.
Just like with PGE, however, the City always has the option of eminent domain. In that process, the City condemns the cable in the public interest and uses it to set up a public multi-media system. The City must then make an offer to the company in which it estimates the fair market value of the asset. The company will relexively disagree and everyone will go to court to litigate the amount owed, among other things.
At that point, the City can raise many claims against Comcast and its predecessors for failures to meet the terms of the previous contract with the City -such as the serious failure to meet its build-out requirement for cable undergrounding.
I think the path to the best deal would be by going public and taking the Comcast cable assets. But even if we decide to negotiate a new contract with this enormous monopoly, Comcast won't take us seriously unless we at least look at this option.
Post a Comment
<< Home