Key Lawmakers Craft Narrow Video-Franchising Bills

[SOURCE: Technology Daily, AUTHOR: David Hatch]
Apparently AT&T and Verizon have convinced House Commerce Committee members to scrape plans for passing major telecom reform this year and instead focus on legislation that would ease these companies' entry into the video market. One reason for the about-face on a broader bill, sources said, is that the two main lawmakers -- committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX) and ranking member John Dingell (D-MI) -- have close ties to the Bells. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Dingell's top five lifetime campaign contributors include BellSouth and SBC Communications, now part of AT&T. SBC was the second most generous contributor to Barton from 2003 to 2004, according to the group. SBC was based in Texas before its merger. The Democratic proposal, crafted by staffers to Dingell, would require the Bells to expand their video systems to entire communities and avoid bypassing minority and low-income neighborhoods. AT&T and Verizon strongly oppose such mandates, arguing that as competitors to dominant cable providers, they should have more flexibility in deploying services. But the firms insist that they will not "redline," or discriminate in deploying video services based on race or income, and will reach as many potential customers as possible. Cable companies, which have been subject to build-out requirements under local franchise obligations, want new entrants to face similar restrictions. A competing GOP plan does not contain build-out provisions, though it does include anti-redlining language. It was crafted by Rep Barton and Reps. Charles (Chip) Pickering (R-Miss) and Fred Upton (R-MI). Both proposals would let video providers gain nationwide agreements and require them to pay 5 percent franchise fees.
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-JDUQ1141059801909.html

See also --
* Virginia Eases Way for Telcos
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
A Virginia bill awaiting the governor's signature would make it easier for telco video services, like Verizon's FiOS, to roll out video service in the state. Essentially the idea is to agree to a set list of access and provision requirements without having to go through the time-consuming local franchise process. Unlike an earlier Texas law, which created a statewide franchising regime, the Virginia franchises remain under the control of the municipalities because the Virginia Constitution establishes municipalities' control over their rights of way. In a sort of must-carry take on the franchise process, new video entrants can opt for either a standard franchise process, or after 45 days of negotiations without a deal, officially opt for a so-called "ordinance" franchise. So long as the video service provider agrees to the terms of that franchise, which include service build-out requirements as well as fee and channel commitments similar to incumbent cable operators, the new provider may begin offering video service within 75 days and the municipality must accommodate it.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6311464?display=Breaking+News...
(free access for Benton's Headlines subscribers)