Laserfiche WebLink
MACTA WHITE PAPER <br />Page 2 <br />BACKGROUND <br />At issue are two traditional technologies (telephone and cable television) and three distinct <br />(but interrelated) regulatory levels (local, state and federal). <br />Telephone companies have traditionally provided voice and data communication networks <br />and have been regulated at the state and federal levels. State regulation of telephone companies <br />generally exists pursuant to Chapter 237 of Minnesota Statutes. Cable television companies have <br />traditionally provided video and some data communications and have been regulated at the local, <br />state and federal level. State regulation of cable is generally pursuant to Chapter 238 of <br />Minnesota Statutes. Local regulation is via franchise. (In Minnesota, although state regulation <br />of cable was extensive during the development days of cable television in the state, except for <br />the establishment of broad policy, the state regulatory enforcement role has significantly <br />decreased, leaving local and federal regulation.) <br />With convergence of technologies, the current state regulatory scheme no longer <br />addresses the myriad of emerging technologies, services and products, or the various potential <br />providers of such technologies and services. These industries are currently regulated the way <br />they always have been while offering services they never have provided before. <br />Cities face the potential delivery of services (which historically were locally regulated) <br />at the local level by service providers not subject to local regulation. <br />SCOPE OF LOCAL AUTHORITY <br />In this confusing, emerging service delivery environment, cities must focus on the <br />traditional source of their authority, and those public policy concerns which are reasonably <br />within the purview of local policy makers for monitoring and resolution. <br />Local governments have traditionally been delegated authority over cable television <br />providers because cable services were provided by one private company (monopoly) which <br />utilized the public easements and rights -of -way to deliver a non - utility (nonessential) service for <br />the purpose of making a profit. <br />Key to this initial analysis are: <br />1. Monopoly (absence of effective competition) <br />2. Non - utility making use of utility easements and public rights -of -way. <br />3. Profit <br />Page 3 <br />