Laserfiche WebLink
g) <br />Remove barriers and restrict anti- <br />competitive practices that prevent or <br />impede cities, municipal utilities, <br />schools, libraries, and other public <br />sector entities from collaborating and <br />deploying broadband infrastructure <br />and services at the local and regional <br />level; <br />h) Continuously update and verify <br />comprehensive statewide street -level <br />mapping of broadband services to <br />identify underserved areas and <br />connectivity issues; and <br />i) Recognize the crucial role of cities and <br />counties in the work of the Governor's <br />Broadband Task Force and fund the <br />Office of Broadband Development to <br />help achieve significantly higher <br />broadband speeds and to ensure that <br />robust and affordable Internet <br />connectivity is widely available. <br />LE-17. Competitive Cable <br />Franchising Authority <br />Issue: Studies and evidence to date do not <br />support that state franchising is the solution <br />for competition, lower consumer rates, and <br />improved customer service. Unlike the <br />exercise of local franchising authority, state <br />franchising models frequently make no <br />provision for staffing at the state level or for <br />consumer complaints to be adjudicated at <br />the local level. <br />The transmission of video signals, regardless <br />of how they are transported, remains subject <br />to local franchising authority. Maintaining <br />local franchising most effectively creates <br />and preserves agreements that guarantee <br />broad access to services throughout the <br />community, ensuring there is no digital <br />divide for access to available additional <br />services such as access to IP voice and high- <br />speed Internet via infrastructure that also <br />delivers video programming services. <br />Response: State policy should maintain <br />local cable franchise authority to ensure <br />franchise agreements reflect new <br />technology and are reasonably tailored to <br />the technical and operational differences <br />among providers and communities. <br />Independent studies clearly demonstrate <br />that statewide franchising does not <br />significantly increase direct competition <br />to incumbent cable franchisees. <br />The Legislature, Federal <br />Communications Commission (FCC), and <br />Congress should also continue to <br />recognize, support and maintain the <br />exercise of local franchising authority to <br />encourage increased competition between <br />incumbent cable system operators and <br />new wireline competitive video service <br />providers including: <br />a) Maintaining provisions in Minn. Stat. <br />ch. 238 that establish and uphold local <br />franchising authority; <br />b) Refraining from adopting any FCC <br />rule changes that would restrict <br />existing local authority to charge for <br />and control access to public rights -of - <br />way by all video and cable service <br />providers; <br />c) Clarifying local authority to charge <br />fees on providers to ensure the <br />provision of local public access <br />programming and to require the <br />provision of video channels for public, <br />educational and government video <br />programming with video and audio <br />quality equivalent to that of the local <br />broadcast stations; <br />d) Providing for continued local <br />government access to capacity on <br />institutional networks (I -Nets) <br />provided by local cable system <br />operators for public safety <br />communications, libraries, schools, <br />and other public institutions to use <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2015 City Policies Page 57 <br />