Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06141994 - 2.2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra CostaFROM: x�, a County DATE: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator SUBJECT: June 7, 1994 OPPOSE PROVISIONS OF H.R.3636 AND THEIR ADDITION TO 5. 1822 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION i RECOMMENDATION: AUTHORIZE the Chair, Board of Supervisors, to sign letters to the County's Federal delegation to oppose provisions of H.R. 3636, the "National Communications Competition and Information Infrastructure Act of 1994" which could eliminate local franchising of cable services and the authority of local jurisdictions to require permits for the installation of cables in the public rights-of-way, and urge Congress not to add such provisions to 5. 1822, the "Communications Act of 1994 . " FISCAL IMPACT: . The County could lose over $2 million dollars in revenue from franchise fees, rights-of-way fees and permits if these provisions are included in the above legislation. . BACKGROUND: . The National League of Cites, the National Association of Counties and the National Association of Telecommunications Officers have alerted local jurisdictions and encouraged them to oppose the provisions of H.R. 3636 which is expected to be considered by the House .of Representatives this month. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE L`��((' APPROVE OTHER, SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF.BOARD ON- `-'�-4- ) 1 sq�t APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER V' m VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT-_)_ ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED Contact: PHIL ATCHELOR,CLERK&'THE BOARD OF CC: SEE EAST PAGE SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR . BY CA-.diSL�L .idJ 'DEPUTY -2- The t,�Xee provisions of concern: allow telephone companies to provide cable services without a local franchise and may preempt the ability of the County to protect the public rights-of-way; 2) allow cable companies to offer competitive voice and data services over a cable system without a local franchise; and 3) prohibit local governments from receiving franchise fees from competitive access providers, such as, Teleport of MFS, unless the same fees apply to the local telephone company. Contra Costa County could lose over $2 million dollars in revenue and the ability to protect the public rights-of-way if H.R. 3636 passes with these provisions included. In addition, industry is making an effort to add similar provisions to S. 1822 . Therefore, it is important that the Board of Supervisors send letters to the County' s Federal delegates to oppose these provisions in both H.R.3636 and S. 1822 . Contact: Pat Burke (646-2948) Orig. Dept. : County Administrator cc: M. Shiu, Public Works E. Doten, GMEDA D. Bell, CAO Phil The Board of Supervisors Contra I Clerk ooffthe Board Costa and County Administration Building County Administrator 651 Pine Street, Room 106 (sfo)sas-2371 Martinez, California 94553-1293 County Tom Powers,1st District J Jeff Smith,2nd District Gayle Bishop,3rd District Mark DeSaulnier,4th District ':• Tom Torlakson,5th District srq-coura`{' June 14, 1994 , The Hon. George Miller United States House of Representatives 2205 Rayburn Bldg. Washington, DC. 20515 Dear Representative Miller: I am writing to express my strong opposition to provisions in H.R. 3636, the "National Communications Competition and Information Infrastructure Act of 1994," that if enacted into law, may result in Contra Costa County losing over $2-million a year in revenues from cable operators (permits, franchise fees and access channel air time), and telecommunications providers, and would reduce our jurisdiction over such operators and providers. Contra Costa County strongly supports the development of a competitive telecommunications marketplace, with its promise of job creation and low-cost, high quality service for consumers. Local governments need to play an active role in the emergence of the national information infrastructure to ensure that their communities benefit fairly and.fully in this new era. Moreover, as competing companies seek to use public rights-of-way to operate their commercial enterprises, local governments--as trustees of that property--must establish reasonable arrangements for use of those rights-of-way on behalf of the public. It is my understanding that the House of Representatives may consider H.R. 3636 this month. I urge you to sponsor or support amendments to H.R. 3636 that would address Contra Costa County's concerns and to communicate with Congressmen Markey and Fields (the chief sponsors of H.R. 3636) regarding the adverse consequences of the bill for Contra Costa County and for local governments in general. 1 We are particularly concerned with three provisions in H.R. 3636 that implicate the right of Contra Costa County to regulate and collect fees from cable operators and telecommunications providers: ► Section 102(b) of H.R. 3636, among other things, prohibits a franchising authority from "prohibiting, limiting, restricting, or conditioning the provisions of a telecommunications service by a cable operator" over a cable system and prohibits a franchising authority from collecting cable franchise fees on revenues generated from telecommunications services over a cable system. ► Section 201(c)(3) of H.R. 3636 limits the right of local governments to restrict the entry of local telecommunications providers(e.g. MFS Communications Company and Teleport) into a community, and to impose on such providers franchise fees and other assessments as a , condition for operating in a locality, or for obtaining access to public rights-of-way. ► Section 659 permits telephone companies ("telcos") to provide cable service over their telco facilities, but would not subject such telcos to the same local cable franchising requirements to which cable operators are subject. (Although H.R. 3636 permits local governments to collect franchise-type fees and from telcos providing cable service over their telco facilities, local governments may not have the right to collect such fees to the same extent as they do from cable operators.) Contra Costa County relies on cable franchise fees, among other things, to maintain the local infrastructure and other basic services. Congress must not finance the information superhighway at the expense of our local treasury; taxpayers should not be forced to dip into their pockets to make up for the over $2-million revenues that Contra Costa County otherwise might have collected from providers of cable and'telecommunications services who use our property. I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss H.R. 3636 with you or a member of your staff at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your attention to this matter of significant importance to Contra Costa County. Since ely, Gayle'Bishop Vice-Chair, Board of Supervisors GB:elh 2 Phil Batchelor The Board of Supervisors Contra Clerk offthdeBoard an County Administration BuildingCOSta County Administrator 651 Pine Street, Room 106 (510)646-2371 Martinez, California 94553-1293 County Tom Powers,1st District Jeff Smith,2nd District Gayle Bishop,3rd District Marx DeSaulnier,4th District Tom Torlakson,5th District ":^ z sr'9 COUN'� June 14, 1994 The Hon. Bill Baker United States House of Representatives 17824 Longworth Bldg. Washington, DC. 20515 Dear Representative Baker: I am writing to express my strong opposition to provisions in H.R. 3636, the "National Communications Competition and Information Infrastructure Act of 1994," that if enacted into law, may result in Contra Costa County losing over $2-million a year in revenues from cable operators (permits, franchise fees and access channel air time), and telecommunications providers, and would reduce our jurisdiction over such operators and providers. Contra Costa County strongly supports the development of a competitive telecommunications marketplace,with its promise of job creation and low-cost, high quality service for consumers. Local governments need to play an active role in the emergence of the national information infrastructure to ensure that their communities benefit fairly and fully in this new era. Moreover, as competing companies seek to use public rights-of-way to operate their commercial enterprises, local governments—as trustees of that property--must establish reasonable arrangements for use of those rights-of-way on behalf of the public. It is my understanding that the House of Representatives may consider H.R. 3636 this month. I urge you to sponsor or support amendments to H.R. 3636 that would address Contra Costa County's concerns and to communicate with Congressmen Markey and Fields (the chief sponsors of H.R. 3636) regarding the adverse consequences of the bill for Contra Costa County and for local governments in general. 1 I We are particularly concerned with three provisions in H.R. 3636 that implicate the right of Contra Costa County to regulate and collect fees from cable operators and telecommunications providers: ► Section 102(b) of H.R. 3636, among other things, prohibits a franchising authority from "prohibiting, limiting, restricting, or conditioning the provisions of a telecommunications service by a cable operator" over a cable system and prohibits a franchising authority from collecting cable franchise fees on revenues generated from telecommunications services over a cable system. ► Section 201(c)(3) of H.R. 3636 limits the right of local governments to restrict the entry of local telecommunications providers(e.g. MFS Communications Company and Teleport) into a community, and to impose on such providers franchise fees and other assessments as a condition for operating in a locality, or for obtaining access to public rights-of-way. ► Section 659 permits telephone companies ("telcos") to provide cable service over their telco facilities, but would not subject such telcos to the same local cable franchising requirements to which cable operators are subject. (Although H.R. 3636 permits local governments to collect franchise-type fees and from telcos providing cable service over their telco facilities, local governments may not have the right to collect such fees to the same extent as they do from cable operators.) Contra Costa County relies on cable franchise fees, among other things, to maintain the local infrastructure and other basic services. Congress must not finance the information superhighway at the expense of our local treasury; taxpayers should not be forced to dip into their pockets to make up for the over $2-rnillion revenues that Contra Costa County otherwise might have collected from providers of cable and telecommunications services who use our property. I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss H.R. 3636 with you or a member of your staff at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your attention to this matter of significant importance to Contra Costa County. Sincerely, Gayle Bishop Vice-Chair, Board of Supervisors GB:elh baker 2 Phil The Board of supervisors Contra Clerk ooffthe Board Costa and County Administration Building County Administrator 651 Pine Street, Room 106 (510)646-2371 Martinez, California 94553-1293 County Tom Powers,1 st District J Jeff Smith,2nd District ���- 5 E. o„ Gayle Bishop,3rd District Mark DeSaulnier,4th District _ Tom Torlakson,5th District o ----------- (T 3r'9 CU June 14, 1994 The Hon. Dianne Feinstein United States Senate 331 Hart Bldg. Washington, DC. 20510 Dear Senator Feinstein: Contra Costa County supports the development of a competitive telecommunications marketplace, with its promise of job creation and low-cost, high quality service for consumers. The Communications Act of 1994 (S. 1822) commendably moves in that direction by removing some current restrictions and establishing rules that would encourage competition. Local governments need to play an active role in the emergence of the national information infrastructure to ensure that their communities benefit fairly and fully in this new era. Moreover, as competing companies seek to use public rights-of-way to operate their commercial enterprises, local governments -- as trustees of that property -- must establish reasonable arrangements for use of those fights-of-way on behalf of the public. S. 1822 largely preserves that critical role for local officials. We are concerned, however, about industry efforts to exclude local governments from participating in the telecommunications process, and to reduce or eliminate compensation to communities for use of their property. These efforts resulted in provisions in the House counterpart to S.1822 (H.R. 3636) that are detrimental to the public interest and make the bill unacceptable to local governments. We ask you to oppose efforts to add such provisions to S. 1822, including changes that would: 1) Allow telephone companies entering the cable marketplace to not have to play by the same rules as cable companies, by exempting them from local franchising requirements; 2) Allow competitive telecommunications provides to use public fights-of-way without paying fees to the local government; and 3) Allow cable companies to provide voice and date services over public fights-of-ways without a local franchise. 1 These measures, now in H.R. 3636, would, if they became law, cost municipalities hundreds of millions of dollars over the next give;years, at a time when unfunded federal mandates are imposing new burdens on local governments. They would also deprive communities of authority over their own property. Under current Federal Communications Commission rules, telephone companies providing video service as common carriers -- in direct competition with cable companies-- do not have to obtain a local franchise to provide that service. We believe that S. 1822 should clarify that the same franchising rules should apply to such head-to-head competitors providing video service to consumers, and ask you to support inclusion of such a provisions in S. 1822. In sum, we need you to help to preserve a meaningful local role in facilitating the development of the competitive telecommunications environment. We respectfully request that you urge Senator Hollings, Inouye, and Danforth--the chief sponsors of S. 1822-- 1)to protect a locality's jurisdiction over community property; 2)to oppose the preemption efforts described above; and 3)to require franchising for the common carrier provision of cable service. This matter is of great importance because it directly affects the municipal role in the developing information age. Thank you for your attention and assistance. We would be pleased to work with you and your staff on this crucial legislation. i Sincerely, /el e U/� —6�- Gayle Bishop Vice-Chair, Board of Supervisors GB:elh 2 The Board of Supervisors Contra lerkoftheBl r Clerk of the Board Costa and County Administration Building County Administrator 651 Pine Street, Room 106 (510)646-2371 Martinez, California 94553 1293 County o u n ty Tom Powers,1 st District Jeff Smith,2nd District ��• ;5K-N Gayle Bishop,3rd District . Mark DeSaulnier,4th District Tom Torlakson,5th District yrA coiiN`t' June 14, 1994 The Hon. Barbara Boxer United States Senate 112 Hart Bldg. Washington, DC. 20510 Dear Senator Boxer: Contra Costa County supports the development of a competitive telecommunications marketplace, with its promise of job creation and low-cost, high quality service for consumers. The Communications Act of 1994 (S. 1822)commendably moves in that direction by removing some current restrictions and establishing rules that would encourage competition. Local governments need to play an active role in the emergence of the national information infrastructure to ensure that their communities benefit fairly and fully in this new era. Moreover, as competing companies seek to use public rights-of-way to operate their commercial enterprises, local governments-- as trustees of that property -- must establish reasonable arrangements for use of those rights-of-way on behalf of the public. S. 1822 largely preserves that critical role for local officials. We are concerned, however, about industry efforts to exclude local governments from participating in the telecommunications process, and to reduce or eliminate compensation to communities for use of their property. These efforts resulted in provisions in the House counterpart to 5.1822 (H.R. 3636) that are detrimental to the public interest and make the bill unacceptable to local governments. We ask you to oppose efforts to add such provisions to S. 1822, including changes that would: 1) Allow telephone companies entering the cable marketplace to not have to play by the same rules as cable companies, by exempting them from local franchising requirements-, 2) Allow competitive telecommunications provides to use public rights-of-way without paying fees to the local government; and 3) Allow cable companies to provide voice and date services over public rights-of-ways without a local franchise. 1 These measures, now in H.R. 3636, would, if they became law, cost municipalities hundreds of millions of dollars over the next give years, at a time when unfunded federal mandates are imposing new burdens on local governments. They would also deprive communities of authority over their own property. Under current Federal Communications Commission rules, telephone companies providing video service as common carriers -- in direct competition with cable companies -- do not have to obtain a local franchise to provide that service. We believe that S. 1822 should clarify that the same franchising rules should apply to such head-to-head competitors providing video service to consumers, and ask you to support inclusion of such a provisions in S. 1822. In sum, we need you to help to preserve a meaningful local role in facilitating the development of the competitive telecommunications environment. We respectfully request that you urge Senator Hollings, Inouye, and Danforth--the chief sponsors of S. 1822-- 1)to protect a locality's jurisdiction over community property; 2)to oppose the preemption efforts described above; and 3) to require franchising for the common carrier provision of cable service. This matter is of great importance because it directly affects the municipal role in the developing information age. Thank you for your attention and assistance. We would be pleased to work with you and your staff on this crucial legislation. Sincerely, Gayle Bishop Vice-Chair, Board of Supervisors GB:elh I 2