2006.04.17 EDA Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Are potential competitors obtaining from LFAs the authority to offer video programming to consumers in a timely manner? The MTA argues that new entrants have no "upfront assurances that a franchise will be awarded within a time frame that satisfies their business plan."MTA Initial Comments at page 5. Exhibit B of these reply comments sets forth the exact time frame that was required to process competitive franchises in Minnesota cities where two or more cable providers are currently operating. Exhibit B provides precisely the type of empirical evidence which the Commission requested of commenters rather than anecdotal information which is not verifiable. Moreover, it is important to emphasize that Minnesota Statutes at Section 238.081 outlines a specific franchise procedure and timeframe which must be followed prior to the award of a franchise. Section 238.081 limits how quickly an LFA can process a franchise request. While there are occasions where franchise negotiations may extend beyond the minimum statutory time frame specified in Minn. Stat. § 238.081, LFAs are not opposed to expediting the franchising process to ensure timely entry for new competitive providers. The LFAs maintain that any policies promoted by the Commission should promote competition in video services, but not at the expense of LFA authority. LFAs agree that unnecessary procedural delays should be eliminated and procedural time tables can be established to ensure a decision by an LFA within a date-certain period. However, the desire for a process facilitating swift entry should not result in a blank check for would-be competitors. Instead, LFAs must ensure that similar (though not necessarily identical) responsibilities apply to new competitors so that consumers can enjoy the benefits of such service on a non-discriminatory basis. 4