IPcentral Weblog
  The DACA Blog

Thursday, April 13, 2006

Progress in the Debate on Local Telecom Reform?
(previous | next)

The nationwide debate regarding whether and how states and cities should help regulate digital age communications has evolved considerably in recent months. Thus, it is interesting to note how well areas of developing consensus were anticipated by a working group of university and other scholars back in autumn of last year.

The working group, part of the Digital Age Communications Act (DACA) project, examined and recommended improvements to the framework for state and local regulation. Among other things, the group proposed streamlining the franchising process to accelerate entry by new video service providers, while recognizing that cities have interests and expertise regarding various issues (e.g., rights-of-way management, consumer protection) that should not be overlooked. The group also left the decision whether to permit cities to provide WiFi or other broadband service to states and cities, even as it proposed denying municipal enterprises favorable or otherwise anticompetitive regulatory treatment. The group determined that private investment in broadband would be discouraged if regulation favored municipal broadband providers.

There seems to be growing support for some of these points even among state and local representatives. At a recent conference, for example, state legislators resolved to expedite video franchising decisions [TRDaily subscription required]. Cities have emphasized increasingly that they don't reject that goal, though they still pooh-pooh concerns that existing franchise regulation stifles regulation. And both states and cities appear to recognize that cities have some role in regulating or advising on such issues as rights-of-way and consumer protection. These views seem largely consistent with and accommodated by the working group's suggestion that franchise regulation could be streamlined while still affording states some flexibility to delegate authority for cities to address rights-of way, public safety and homeland security and consumer protection.

Similarly, states' and cities' views [TRDaily subscription required] regarding municipally-provided broadband appear to have much in common with the working group's treatment of that issue. Specifically, although states and cities may not agree on whether to restrict municipal broadband, state legislators, at least, prefer to decide the issue themselves, rather than having Congress decide. Again, these views seem largely consistent with and accommodated by the working group's decision not to urge Congress to preempt municipal broadband efforts at this time. The group recognized, however, the risk that municipal providers would enjoy preferential regulatory treatment, and thus recommended subjecting those providers to the same anticompetitive scrutiny the DACA project proposed for all communications providers.

It would be easy, of course, to overstate the apparent overlap in policy direction between state and local regulators and forward-thinking proposals like that of the working group. In particular, those who share the working group's goal of reducing regulation to enhance entry into the video market still can go to war over who gets to convert any high-level consensus that develops into specific rules or prohibitions (e.g., states asserting control over franchise streamlining in an attempt to obviate federal efforts). But if all sides continue to see merit in expediting new approvals to provide video service and in safeguarding private broadband investment, consumers will win the larger war no matter who wins the underlying regulatory battles.

posted by Kyle Dixon @ 2:24 PM | Broadband , Capitol Hill , Communications , DACA , General , Internet , Municipal Ownership , State Policy , Wireless , Wireline

Share |

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly

Post a Comment:

Blog Main
RSS Feed  
Recent Posts
  EFF-PFF Amicus Brief in Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court Videogame Violence Case
New OECD Study Finds That Improved IPR Protections Benefit Developing Countries
Hubris, Cowardice, File-sharing, and TechDirt
iPhones, DRM, and Doom-Mongers
"Rogue Archivist" Carl Malamud On How to Fix Gov2.0
Coping with Information Overload: Thoughts on Hamlet's BlackBerry by William Powers
How Many Times Has Michael "Dr. Doom" Copps Forecast an Internet Apocalypse?
Google / Verizon Proposal May Be Important Compromise, But Regulatory Trajectory Concerns Many
Two Schools of Internet Pessimism
GAO: Wireless Prices Plummeting; Public Knowledge: We Must Regulate!
Archives by Month
  September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
  - (see all)
Archives by Topic
  - A La Carte
- Add category
- Advertising & Marketing
- Antitrust & Competition Policy
- Appleplectics
- Books & Book Reviews
- Broadband
- Cable
- Campaign Finance Law
- Capitalism
- Capitol Hill
- China
- Commons
- Communications
- Copyright
- Cutting the Video Cord
- Cyber-Security
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- Digital TV
- E-commerce
- e-Government & Transparency
- Economics
- Education
- Electricity
- Energy
- Events
- Exaflood
- Free Speech
- Gambling
- General
- Generic Rant
- Global Innovation
- Googlephobia
- Googlephobia
- Human Capital
- Innovation
- Intermediary Deputization & Section 230
- Internet
- Internet Governance
- Internet TV
- Interoperability
- IP
- Local Franchising
- Mass Media
- Media Regulation
- Monetary Policy
- Municipal Ownership
- Net Neutrality
- Neutrality
- Non-PFF Podcasts
- Ongoing Series
- Online Safety & Parental Controls
- Open Source
- PFF Podcasts
- Philosophy / Cyber-Libertarianism
- Privacy
- Privacy Solutions
- Regulation
- Search
- Security
- Software
- Space
- Spectrum
- Sports
- State Policy
- Supreme Court
- Taxes
- The FCC
- The FTC
- The News Frontier
- Think Tanks
- Trade
- Trademark
- Universal Service
- Video Games & Virtual Worlds
- VoIP
- What We're Reading
- Wireless
- Wireline
Archives by Author
PFF Blogosphere Archives
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.

The Progress & Freedom Foundation