« Previous · Home · Next »

Mayor Pringle Speaks Out Against Cable Franchise Monopolies

Mayor Pringle participated in a Heritage Foundation panel last week in Wahsington, D.C. entitled From The OC To DC: Anaheim, Congress and Video Competion (forgive our East Coast fellow citizens -- they don't know nobody here in Orange County calls it "The OC").

You can watch video of the panel here or listen to the podcast here.

Here's an account how Mayor Pringle is blazing an entriely different trail from the worldview dominating local government thinking about ending cable franchise monoploies and opening the delivery of video entertainment services to competiton that lowers consumer costs and expands consumer choices:

Technology Daily PM

Mayor Bucks Local Line On New Video Franchises
By MICHAEL MARTINEZ

The mayor of one of the largest cities in California on Thursday said that local governments have denied their citizens cable television choices and choked competition by adhering to franchise rules he considers to be barriers to the marketplace.

Speaking at panel discussion hosted by the Heritage Foundation, Curt Pringle, the mayor of Anaheim, Calif., said he favors creating a more competitive marketplace by eliminating local franchising rules and allowing more companies to offer services in his city.

Earlier this year, Pringle filed comments with the FCC in support a federal proposal to streamline the video-franchising process. He has allowed AT&T to deploy fiber throughout Anaheim and to upgrade its network to offer video without a franchising agreement with the city.

His stance on the issue is diametrically opposed to that of both the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities, which are fighting fiercely to defend the franchising authority of local governments as various state and federal proposals are being considered.

According to Pringle, local governments should not prevent consumers from making video choices in their jurisdictions. But he said many cities are "pregnant" from the revenue streams created by the arrangements they have established.

"I would like to eliminate them all and step away from this completely as a revenue model," he said.

Pringle also said he finds little value in proposals to impose "build out" requirements on new entrants to his city's market in order to provide service in certain areas. He said the most difficult neighborhoods to reach in his jurisdiction, many of which have poor cellular phone service, are the wealthiest ones.

Pringle's comments were embraced by George Mason University Professor Thomas Hazlett, who said that franchising is a "dirty word" and a "needlessly anticompetitive" concept.

According to Hazlett, a lack of government regulation has done little to slow the proliferation of high-speed Internet service throughout the United States. He said the exact same approach should be taken with the deployment of Internet-based television services.

Michael Sullivan, an aide to Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said he is optimistic that a House measure to establish a nationwide franchising process will be passed Friday. He said he is confident that Senate lawmakers will be able to push their proposal to address the issue "across the goal line" before the end of the session.

The passage of a series of statewide franchising measures in states such as Indiana and Texas has given the issue more momentum at the federal level, Sullivan said. But he said many local governments remain reluctant to concede their authority on the franchising issue.

"It gets construed as a Bell issue," he said of the dominant phone firms wanting streamlined video franchises. "This is not a Bell issue."

Hazlett said consumers would benefit immensely if more local officials approached the issue from Pringle's perspective. "That's one down, 33,000 to go," Hazlett said.