Laserfiche WebLink
J) <br />broadband infrastructure using city <br />bonding authority; <br />h) Remove barriers, restrict anti- <br />competitive practices, and prevent <br />predatory action 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 />i) Continuously update and verify <br />comprehensive statewide street -level <br />mapping of broadband services to <br />identify underserved areas and <br />connectivity issues. Discuss how well <br />the FCC and state broadband maps <br />document actual broadband coverage <br />across Minnesota including wireless <br />options. These maps are used by <br />funders to determine grant program <br />eligibility so that overstatement of <br />available services is highly <br />consequential and negatively impacts <br />rural places; and <br />Recognize the crucial role of local <br />government in the work of the <br />Governor's Broadband Task Force <br />and f Fund the Office of Broadband <br />Development (OBD) through the base <br />budget at levels sufficient for it to <br />meet its statutory mandates. <br />k) Support the creation of an OBD <br />operating fund to advance and <br />promote programs and projects that <br />improve broadband adoption, achieve <br />significantly higher broadband <br />speeds, and support efforts to improve <br />digital inclusion by ensuring that <br />robust and affordable internet <br />connectivity is widely available all <br />Minnesotans. <br />On the federal level, the League urges <br />Congress to adopt laws restoring the <br />ability of municipalities to extend beyond <br />84 <br />their borders to serve unserved and <br />underserved areas. <br />LE-19. Competitive Cable <br />Franchising Authority <br />Issue: Despite claims made by some in the <br />cable industry, studies and evidence to date <br />do not support that state franchising is the <br />solution for competition, lower consumer <br />rates, and improved customer service. <br />Unlike the exercise of local franchising <br />authority, state franchising models <br />frequently make no provision for staffing at <br />the state level or for effective resolution of <br />consumer complaints. <br />Cable service provided by a cable <br />communications system that uses <br />infrastructure located in the public right-of- <br />way to transmit video signals remains <br />subject to local franchising authority. <br />Maintaining local franchising most <br />effectively creates and preserves agreements <br />that guarantee broad access to services <br />throughout the community, ensuring there is <br />no digital divide for access to available <br />additional services such as access to IP <br />voice and high-speed Internet via <br />infrastructure that also delivers video <br />programming services. <br />Response: State policy should maintain <br />local cable franchise authority and <br />oversight of the public rights -of -way, as <br />well as ensure franchise agreements <br />reflect new technology, and are <br />reasonably tailored to the technical and <br />operational differences among providers <br />and communities. Independent studies <br />clearly demonstrate that statewide <br />franchising does not increase direct <br />competition to incumbent cable <br />franchisees. <br />The Legislature, Federal <br />Communications Commission (FCC), and <br />