Laserfiche WebLink
MINNESOTA ASSOCIATION OF <br />COMMUNITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS ADMINISTRATORS <br />The Minnesota Chapter of NATOA/The National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors <br />Rosewood Office Plaza <br />1711 West Count' Road B, Suite 300N <br />Roseville, MN 55113-4036 <br />Telephone: (651( 635-0306 <br />Fax: (651) 635 -0307 <br />email: oei @mn.state.net <br />website: www.mtn.org / —macta <br />POINTS FOR CITY OFFICIALS TO iVIAKE <br />WHEN DISCUSSING REMOVING CITIES <br />FROM CABLE REGULATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND FRANCHISING <br />From the Minnesota Association of Community Television Administrators ( MACTA) <br />Minnesota's cities have regulated cable franchises for twenty years. Cities have had the authority to <br />negotiate and oversee nonexclusive cable franchises to suit each community. During the 2000 <br />legislative session, the Minnesota Legislature plans to consider a number of proposals which would <br />change the way cable television is regulated in Minnesota. Some of these proposals would eliminate. the <br />city's role in cable regulation and administration; franchise fees now paid to cities would be pooled in a <br />state -wide fund. The apparent goal of these and other proposals is to foster greater competition. <br />MACTA supports increased competition between modes. We oppose, however, legislative action which <br />would take us out of the cable business because: <br />• Cities in Minnesota received nearly $19 million in franchise fees in 1999. The largest portion of <br />that money went to the general fund.. Significant amounts also went to cable - related activities, <br />like televising government meetings, community access production, franchise administration, <br />etc. However the money is used, the city making the original franchise agreement has a right to <br />the franchise fees and should retain the power to allocate those resources in their city. <br />• During the first seven months of 1999, cities received nearly 4000 complaints from subscribers, <br />complaints which had to be resolved because the subscribers are constituents who deserve <br />prompt action. Installing a state -level complaint system simply won't work in dealing with the <br />multitude of specific local problems. <br />• City- administered cable systems provide some 570 institutions with institutional networks. The <br />majority of the institutional networks are for schools and school districts; others are for cities and <br />counties, nonprofit organizations and a few businesses. Institutional networks provide their <br />users with access to cable which they probably would not otherwise be able to afford. These <br />networks exist because of local control and the ability city-run systems have to respond to local... . <br />institutional needs. <br />Cable regulation by cities promotes Governor Ventura's vision in The Big Plan to have people <br />worlcing together in healthy vital communities. And, it keeps cable regulation accountable and <br />responsible to the people. <br />It's important to keep in mind that, while cities are opposed to losing their franchise authority and <br />revenue and their ability to service local subscribers and institutions, we are not in any way opposed to <br />legislative changes which address the perceived need to foster greater competition. <br />® Printed on Recycled Paper <br />Page 83 <br />