HomeMy WebLinkAboutPEGFunds_20181114_LetterToFCCCity of San Luis Obispo, Office of the City Council, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3249, 805.781.7114, slocity.org
November 14, 2018
Chairman Ajit Pai
Commissioner Michael O’Rielly
Commissioner Brendan Carr
Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
RE: MB Docket No. 05-311. Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984
as Amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992.
Honorable Chairman Pai and Commissioners O’Rielly, Carr, and Rosenworcel:
The City of San Luis Obispo is strongly opposed to the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(FNPRM), which proposes to allow cable companies to deduct the fair market value for a wide range
of public benefits from their franchise fee obligations, namely public, educational, and government
(PEG) channel capacity and transmission.
In 2006, California passed the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act, which streamlined
the deployment of cable services by making the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) the
sole franchising authority in the state and preserved many of the provisions commonly found in local
franchise ordinances. It was the intent of the state legislature to streamline deployment while keeping
local government revenues intact, ensuring that local public rights-of-way remained under control of
cities and counties, and that a sufficient amount of capacity on cable networks was preserved for
public, educational, and government (PEG) access channels.
Unfortunately, while the FCC would normally exempt from their Orders states with a centralized
franchising authority that have preserved such policies, this FNPRM provides no such exemption,
threatening to undermine such priorities. As proposed, the FNPRMs broad definition of all “cable-
related, in-kind contributions” other than PEG capital costs and build out requirements could be treated
as “franchise fees,” meaning:
• Cable operators currently paying the typical five percent franchise fee permitted
by federal law will be able to reduce their current franchise fee payment by the fair
MB Docket No. 05-311.
Comment Letter from the City of San Luis Obispo Page 2
market value of all in-kind contributions, with the exception of PEG capital costs
required by the franchise associated with the construction of PEG access facilities
and build out requirements.
• There will be significant reductions in cable franchise fees, depending on how the
“fair market” value for PEG capacity and transmission is calculated within any
given jurisdiction.
• PEG programming would be severely limited, if not altogether eliminated in some
or most jurisdictions.
PEG programming offers a host of community benefits, including public access channels, educational
access channels, and government access channels all aimed at providing locally beneficial information.
Public access channels are available for use by the general public, usually created by a diverse variety
of individuals, groups, and organizations within a community that is non-commercial in nature and
generally free from editorial oversight. Educational channels are typically dedicated for learning
institutions, such as local schools, colleges, and/or universities for school related activities, fully
televised courses of instruction, and other educational purposes. Government access channels are often
the easiest and best ways for the local governments to be transparent, often televising city, county,
school district, and other government meetings or live local election returns, town hall meetings, public
debates, and other public policy topics.
In fact, in the City of San Luis Obispo, franchise fees generate $60,000 annually that help fund
educational and governmental channel, purchase of video equipment for producing educational and
public information videos, and purchase of audio/video equipment to broadcast City Council and
Planning Commission meetings on cable Channel 20 and online.
The “fair market value” of such services may be impossible to discern and would likely be a source of
litigation between cable operators and local governments. Most regrettably, however, is that this
FNPRM threatens to limit or eliminate public, educational, and government access channels all meant
to better help inform and empower the public. The potential loss of this public benefit alone should be
concerning enough for the FCC to reject this FNPRM. Unfortunately, the FNPRM further threatens
the use of local right of ways for non-cable related purposes as well.
The FNPRM also proposes to prohibit local governments from regulating the facilities and equipment
used by cable operators in the provision of non-cable services, such as wireless communications
services. If preempted from regulating these installations outside the franchise (since these franchises
do not generally address the use of rights of way for non-cable facilities), local governments may lose
their authority to manage a cable company’s deployment of non-cable facilities, such as “small cells.”
This preemption would threaten to extend to fees for use of the rights of way, meaning:
• Cable companies can use local rights of way for any purpose, regardless of the
terms of the franchise, and avoid having to pay fair compensation to the local
government for the use of publicly funded assets in the rights of way.
MB Docket No. 05-311.
Comment Letter from the City of San Luis Obispo Page 3
• Cable companies could potentially install “small wireless facilities” with little to
no public input, without having to meet any aesthetic or equipment size
requirements aimed to mitigate blight and preserve community character.
• Cable companies would gain a significant advantage against their competitors,
including telecommunications providers even though the FCC has just adopted a
deployment strategy for both cable and telecommunications companies.
Fair and appropriate use of the public right-of-way is the fundamental policy principle for the
imposition of a cable franchise fee and any other reasonable conditions required to preserve the
character of each community. While the cable and telecommunications industry continues to attack
the responsibility of local governments to protect the public health and safety of their own
communities, our residents stand to lose the most in terms of the public benefits they receive and the
input they can provide for facilities installed in their own backyards. The FCC should instead consider
ways that cable operators can: improve their services, help close digital divides, and expand
deployment to rural and lower income communities. Unfortunately, this FRNPRM continues a recent
pattern of lowering standards and public responsibility for the communications industry as a whole.
For these reasons, the City of San Luis Obispo opposes the FNPRM and respectfully urges the FCC
to reject the deterioration of PEG services and fair use of the public right-of-way.
Sincerely,
Heidi Harmon
Mayor
City of San Luis Obispo
cc: San Luis Obispo City Council