07-27-1994 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MACTA WHITE PAPER Page 3 First and strongest of the authority assertions for local municipalities is the utilization of the utility easements and public rights -of -way by an entity which is not a utility and therefore providing a nonessential service. Any regulatory scheme which envisions local participation must derive its authority from this use of utility easements. Second, yet still a basis for local involvement, is the monopolistic nature of the service provider. Any scheme should have two tiers - -one for the service provider who is not subject to effective competition and one for the service provider facing competition. Third, profit, although relevant, is not a persuasive reason to regulate at the local level. Should a monopoly exist (absence of effective competition), price regulation should be carried on at some level of government, but not local. Local price regulation would prove to be beyond the resources or expertise of local authorities (not to mention the fact that state and federal bureaucracies have traditionally viewed themselves as the purveyors of price /profit regulation). While local price /profit regulation of the cable industry currently is delegated to some degree to the local level, similar types of local control are not recommended for inclusion in any regulatory scheme developed in response to this discussion. Too much experience and "turf" related to telephone price /profit regulation is ingrained at the current state level to allow meaningful competition for such authority by the local municipality. Local authority should be derived primarily from the fact that a provider of a nonessential service is utilizing the public easements and rights -of -way. PIECE -MEAL VS. RADICAL OVERHAUL Facing both Minnesota Statutes 237 and 238, one could begin to amend various sections to meet particular needs of converging technologies. This policy discussion rejects such a piece- meal approach and advocates instead a radical overhaul of the regulatory scheme for the delivery of communication services in the State of Minnesota. Any statutory amendment on a technology -by- technology basis is doomed to failure. Public decision makers cannot keep up with the technological advances in the communications industry. Unfortunately, as soon as one technology is addressed another emerges which does not fit the regulatory scheme. Although Chapters 237 and 238 were originally intended to regulate communication technologies, they have become "provider statutes." In other words, 237 is the telephone industry statute, and 238 is the cable industry statute; therefore, the provider has inappropriately become the regulatory focus of the Minnesota scheme, regardless of the service being provided. If a provider of communications services was regulated under a previous scheme, such industry will argue that no matter what new technology or service it delivers, it should continue to be regulated as it has always been regulated and under the statute which relates to it as a Page 4