The Cable Division of the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy (DTE), heard Verizon's proposal to limit a local municipality's ability to negotiate cable franchising agreements to a mere—and alarmingly dismissive—90 days.

One can expect to be exposed to quite a range of perspectives at such a hearing. A standing-room-only crowd of perhaps 100 heard public comment from 10 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. For many different reasons, though for a lot of the same, an unmistakable majority of the voices present rang together.

Forty-nine speakers to eight, they strongly opposed Verizon's bid to plow into Massachusetts as cable providers without having to follow the longstanding rules that other providers had to meet upon entering towns. In 90 days, Verizon suggests, a town should be able to navigate the complex legal licensing process, ascertain the needs of the town, and negotiate Public Educational and Government (PEG) TV channel rights.

Verizon representatives spoke first. John Conroy, the corporation’s vice president of regulatory affairs criticised Massachusetts towns, for harboring a “bureaucratic resistance to change.”

The towns don’t like it

Town and city representatives, Boards of Selectpersons, cable advisory committee volunteers and PEG channel folks from across the state followed with compelling stories to counter Verizon's proposal.

The franchising negotiation process “is not like buying a copier for town hall,” one speaker remarked. Towns need the ability to hold cable providers accountable to their individual needs. Ninety days is insufficient to complete the work necessary to recognize what is fair to request of a massive corporation which will be using public rights of way for their own profit.

Representatives of suburban Canton, Lexington and Westboro spoke of their current negotiations with Verizon, each taking far more than 90 days.

They told horror stories about Verizon's reluctance to have open communication, the inflexibility they face, and Verizon's habit of straying from the honored and recognized definitions of technical terms and language.

The time it is taking to reach agreement, the towns argue, has been extended due to Verizon's lack of effort, not theirs.

The Cities of Northampton and Peabody expressed a strong desire to have Verizon enter into their towns as cable service providers. Verizon, however, hasn't moved forward in those cities.

Cambridge Community Television and The Lowell Telecommunication Corporation, among others, gave forceful testimony from a PEG channel perspective. If not for the cities’ ability to properly negotiate for station rights, the diverse and local programming that can be found on their channels—and nowhere else on television—would not be possible. In Massachusetts, PEG channels are vibrant and valued in their communities.

Many at the hearing noted that their success is due in great part to the strong provisions that have been put into the towns’ cable franchising agreement, and to a State policy that provides them the opportunity to fight for their needs.

As the corporate media continue to chase profitable rather than important programming, the voices heard on local outlets must be supported and strengthened, not stifled.

Will it mean jobs?

Support for Verizon didn't come cheap at the hearing; nor can it be taken at face value. It's no surprise that those who spoke on behalf of Verizon's proposed rule change had histories of working for, or being financially sponsored by, Verizon.

The American Consumers Institute, a Washington D.C. group which includes telecom industry consultants, bills itself as an independent consumer organization. It suggested that the “pet projects” for which towns negotiate were unmerited or undeserved.

The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) allowed money to muddle their ability to negotiate for adequate long-term resources for their constituencies. LULAC has been sponsored by Verizon in the past and NAACP's current national president is a former president of Verizon's retail division.

The Metrowest Chamber of Commerce and The International Brotherhood of Electrical workers also spoke in support of Verizon’s proposals on the grounds that they would bring jobs to Massachusetts.

This begs the question: for every job that Verizon creates, how many are lost to other cable companies? How much might be lost in other industries whose practices would be unchecked by public vigilance should Verizon and similar corporations get their way?

The turnout at the hearing spoke to the importance of this issue. Cities and towns are not willing to allow Verizon to enter their communities without properly negotiating agreements. The DTE panel appeared to respect the testimony against Verizon's request. Will they vote to support the giant corporation's interest, or will they put the interests of the public first?

Visit the DTE's website

http://www.mass.gov/dte/catv/

to read Verizon's proposed rule and to learn more. As well, as of next week, transcriptions from the hearing are public record and available at the DTE's offices.

One South Station Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (617) 305-3580