Cities oppose the Ensign telecom bill (CD July 28 p1) on grounds ...

“This bill takes away most controls and protections that local governments need to monitor and ensure that the communications industry is responsible and responsive to our citizens,” an NCL spokesman said. Cities decry the bill’s proposed cap on franchise fees. By designating the FCC as dispute arbiter, they said, the bill would force local govts. to travel to Washington. Other concerns include: (1) Municipalities couldn’t charge fees for construction permits to install or upgrade facilities. (2) There’s no rate regulation for phone or video service, so companies could undercut a competitor in one neighborhood while charging more in others. (3) Video providers would have to offer only 4 PEG channels. Local govt.’s sole regulatory role would be picking the PEG channels to be used. (4) Consumer protection rules would be at the federal level, enforced by state commissions. (5) Cities would have to use a public bidding process for projects, but if a public entity were picked, any private entity would have the right to use govt. facilities such as in-ground conduits or trenches. (6) Existing govt. projects would be grandfathered unless “substantially expanded.” NLC said it will meet with members of Congress to press its case. County officials also announced their strong opposition Fri. to the Ensign bill because it weakens the local and state govt. role in communications services. “It just doesn’t make sense to preempt effective local regulation. Local franchising works, and the Ensign approach won’t,” said Marilyn Praisner, technology chmn. of the National Assn. of Counties. The American Public Power Assn. said the bill would dissuade cities and towns from investing in broadband.