LWVCT Supports Periodic Review of Video Providers (HB5463) 3/9/10

  

 

 

 

CGA Energy and Technology Committee

March 9, 2010 Public Hearing

Comments by Pua Ford, Media Specialist

Support for RHB-5463 AAC Periodic Review of Video Providers

 

 

My name is Pua Ford.  I am the Media Issues specialist for the League of Women Voters of Connecticut.  On behalf of the League, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on this bill.

 

The League of Women Voters of Connecticut believes that community access television channels must be adequately protected, promoted, and funded, regardless of the provider of TV/video services to Connecticut residents. Government should provide opportunities for citizen participation in decisions regarding community access, or PEG, TV.

 

This proposed legislation came before the committee last year, together with many other pieces directed at other issues relating to community access TV—membership on advisory councils, competition among nonprofits to provide community access, funding for town specific organizations, and maintenance of interconnection equipment between commu­nity access providers and competitive video service.  Over the course of the 2009 session, we were persuaded by testimony from the Office of Consumer Counsel that performance review might address these problems.  Even more persuasive was the comment from the Department of Public Utility Control that it “is severely limited in its authority to act on complaints in this field.” (Both testimonies from 2009 are attached for your convenience.)

 

The old franchise renewal process did not satisfy everyone involved in community access television, but it offered everyone an opportunity to be heard in greater depth than is possible in this public hearing process.

 

The League of Women Voters supports this bill as the best method that has been proposed this session to deal with issues surrounding community access television. 

 

In 2009, opponents to the bill argued that performance review would require onerous expense (in attorneys, documen­ta­tion) from the company.  Although the old franchise renewal process (which occurred every 7-15 years) required an in-depth and very informative needs assessment, a biennial review would have to be lighter and much less of a burden to the companies.

 

Another argument against the proposal was that further regulation will interfere with competition in this area, result in lost jobs in the state, and deny choice to consumers.  The industry was already deleting jobs—consolidating customer service and advertising departments—well before PA 07-253 AAC Certified Competitive Video Service. 

 

For consumers, competition has provided satisfaction to some people who want to get away from the cable monopoly, moving from one package of hundreds of channels to another package of hundreds of channels.  But for those who were either content with their cable service or for which competition has not been an answer, many have found their favorite and basic channels—Turner Classic Movies and PEG channels are the most well-known—pushed out of reach to digital tiers that require higher fees, either for renting digital converters or for a higher-priced package of services.  Those who only wanted the most basic service find their rates still rising for fewer channels.  DPUC’s Final Decision in Docket 08-04-02 determined that the competitive video law freed the industry from basic service rate regulation and with it went community access television —the window on the local community—on the basic tier, in some cases

 

Consumer choice for television is not like consumer choice for breakfast cereal.  Con­sumers voting with their dollars cannot simply walk further down the grocery aisle when it comes to television.  Those who switch services have to make arrangements for service people to install equipment in their homes.  And there is no guarantee that costs will not rise or particular channels will remain with any service as time goes on.

 

Attached, in case you do not have these handy

1.      2009 Testimony on HB 6604 from Office of Consumer Counsel

2.      2009 Testimony on HB 6604 from Department of Public Utility Control

Link to the DPUC docket 08-04-02 Final Decision: http://www.dpuc.state.ct.us/FINALDEC.NSF/0d1e102026cb64d98525644800691cfe/5dd9058e543ca26685257488006fca1b?OpenDocument

 

To reiterate, the League of Women Voters supports this bill as the best method that has been proposed this session to deal with issues surrounding community access television.  We believe that periodic reviews of video providers by the DPUC, with input from Office of Consumer Counsel, the Attorney General, the applicable advisory council and the public at large, are an important and appropriate protection for consumers and community access providers alike.  We further believe that giving the DPUC the authority to act upon complaints is crucial to holding video providers accountable and to ensuring that the concerns of consumers and community access providers are fully and fairly addressed.   We urge your support for this bill.

 

I thank the Committee for the opportunity to comment on these issues today on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Connecticut.