07-27-1994 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MACTA WHITE PAPER Page 7 services and Chapter 238 tailored for regulation of nonessential, non -utility communication services provided via the public rights -of -way. At this time MACTA does not have the financial resources to undertake such a project. While a coalition of interested parties might agree to accomplish this objective, MACTA would be better served by first concentrating on Chapter 238. A successful model of regulatory reform could spur much needed revision of Chapter 237 from a telephone industry statute to one meeting public policy needs of any essential communication service. Leaving Chapter 237 alone now may result in other emerging providers of telephony services being subjected to the State Public Utilities Commission regulation pursuant to Chapter 237. Arguably, any service other than traditional telephone rightfully should be classified as nonessential. Revision to Chapter 238 would apply to any provider which offered a communication service which was not traditional telephone service. The new statute would depart from traditional cable regulation. Although a statutory revision is beyond the scope of this paper, characteristics of a regulatory scheme are outlined below with the understanding that major additions and modifications will follow input from many individuals and organizations and meshing of new federal regulatory policy. Providers of communication services, including traditional cable /video providers, would not be subject to franchises; rather, they would be licensed by the State. The licensing process would include traditional examination of both the legal and financial ability of providers to do business in the State of Minnesota. Additionally, license requirements would involve an agreement by providers to comply with minimum performance standards, with the understanding that enforcement of the minimum standards would be at the local level. In order to do business at the local level, a provider of nonessential communication services would be required to receive from the municipality a permit to operate in the public easements and rights -of -way. (Permitting could be modified to meet federal "franchising" requirements.) The permitting process would resemble the franchising process, but providers would not have a contract/franchise. Instead, they would receive a permit requiring compliance with state (and federal if applicable) minimum standards, and also local requirements which may exceed or compliment the state and federal requirements such as service area, line extension policies, security/performance bonds, and penalties for noncompliance with permitting requirements. Local performance standards and requirements would not be provider specific, but would be service specific, and would be codified in local ordinances, much as building and zoning requirements apply to all who would build a city pursuant to local permitting authority. Page 8