Laserfiche WebLink
Rosewood Office Plaza <br /> i fi, Q C Q 171 1 West County Road B, Suite 30ON <br /> Roseville, MN 551 13-4036 <br /> MINNESOTA AssoclAnON of Telephone: (651) 635-0306 <br /> COMMUNITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS ADMINISTRATORS Fax: (651) 635-0307 <br /> The Minnesota Chapter of NATOA/rhe National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors email: oei @mn.state.net <br /> website: www.mtn.org/—macta <br /> POINTS FOR CITY OFFICIALS TO INIAKE <br /> WHEN DISCUSSING REMOVING CITIES <br /> FRO`I CABLE REGULATION,ADMINISTRATION, AND FRANCHISING <br /> From the Minnesota Association of Communitv 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 /> 0 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 /> working 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 gr eater competition. <br /> Printed on Recycled Paper <br />