Laserfiche WebLink
consumer rates, and improved customer <br />service. Unlike the exercise of local <br />franchising authority, state franchising <br />models frequently make no provision for <br />staffing at the state level or for effective <br />resolution of consumer complaints. <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 and <br />oversight of the rights -of -way, as well as <br />ensure 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 />increase direct competition to incumbent <br />cable franchisees. In Minnesota, there are <br />markets throughout the state with two <br />franchised cable service providers, which <br />is further proof that state cable <br />franchising is neither necessary nor <br />warranted in Minnesota. <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, including the <br />authority to receive a gross revenues <br />based franchise fee; <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 public, educational, and <br />governmental (PEG) programming, <br />to require the provision of video <br />channels and video streaming for PEG <br />programming with video and audio <br />quality equivalent to that of the local <br />broadcast stations, and ensuring <br />programming is accessible and <br />searchable by all residents of the local <br />authority through detailed Electronic <br />Programming Guide listings that are <br />equivalent to that of local broadcast <br />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 />state-of-the-art network applications; <br />and <br />e) Strengthening local authority to <br />enforce customer service standards <br />and transparency in pricing. <br />LE-18. Right -of -Way Management <br />Issue: Cities hold local rights -of -way in <br />trust for the public as an increasingly scarce <br />and valuable asset. As demand increases for <br />use of rights -of -way for underground wired <br />and overhead wireless facilities and sites for <br />wireless communications, cities must <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2018 City Policies Page 63 <br />