MUNICIPAL COMMUNICATIONS LAW UPDATE
NOVEMBER 2006
MOSS & BARNETT DRAFTS
MINNEAPOLIS WIFI CONTRACT
On November 1, 2006, the City of
Minneapolis signed a 10-year contract with USI Wireless, Inc. (“USI”) to build,
own and operate a $20 million wireless network covering all 59 square miles of
Minneapolis. Minneapolis will become an
anchor tenant on the network committing $1.2 million per year for services
ranging from remote cameras, emergency radio services, remote meter reading and
a variety of other applications. The
network will provide residents, businesses and visitors with wireless broadband
access anywhere in the City; and allow the City to deliver services more
efficiently and effective than ever before.
Highlights of the contract include:
·
A
10-year fixed rate of $19.95 for 1-3 megabit residential service.
·
USI
will provide $500,000 to create a Digital Inclusion Fund (“DIF”) that will be
used to promote affordable Internet access, low-cost hardware, local content
and training.
·
USI
will direct a minimum of 5% of the network’s net profits to the DIF for ongoing
digital inclusion efforts. In total, an
estimated $11 million will be provided to the DIF over the 10 year term of the
contract.
·
Free
service will be available in specified public locations, such as parks and
plazas in Minneapolis.
·
A
free “walled garden” level of service will be available to people throughout
the City for neighborhood, government and community services information.
·
Designated
community technology centers will receive free wireless access.
·
Minimum
service levels must be maintained on the network or USI will be subject to
enforcement penalties from the City.
·
Mandatory
wholesale requirements and pricing to encourage open access to the network.
·
Completion
of the Minneapolis network is expected by the end of 2007.
Brian Grogan of Moss & Barnett
served a lead legal counsel for the City of Minneapolis in negotiating the 84
page contract. The contract contains
specifications regarding the build-out of the system, pricing, performance and
service level obligations, enforcement provisions, fiber construction
obligations, pole and asset use requirements and fees, and related matters. For more information please contact Moss
& Barnett.
IMPACT OF MID-TERM ELECTION
ON PENDING LEGISLATION
Local franchising authorities
have been actively lobbying members of Congress throughout 2006 in an attempt
to preserve local franchising. Major
telecommunications companies, including Verizon and AT&T have been aggressively
pursuing federal legislation that would create a streamlined application
process for entry into the video services market. On June 8, 2006, the U.S. House passed the
Communications Opportunity Promotion Enhancement Act (“COPE”) which focused
primarily on federalizing the cable television franchising process. On June 29, 2006, the U.S. Senate passed
legislation (S.2686) out of committee which also addressed the concept of
national video franchising among a variety of other telecommunications
issues. Leading up to the mid-term
elections the Senate was unable to secure floor time for consideration of the
legislation and most observers assumed that S.2686 would be acted upon during
the lame duck session following the mid-term election.
The results of the mid-term
election and the change in control of Congress, however, will likely spell doom
for telecommunications legislation in this session. The key chairman-in-waiting at both the House
and Senate will likely pursue drastically different legislation in 2007. Representative John Dingell (D., Mich.) will
chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee while Daniel Inouye (D. Hawaii)
will chair the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. Membership of both the House and Senate
committees will also change as a result of the mid-term elections with the
Senate Commerce Committee losing Senators Burns and Allen, and the House Energy
and Commerce Committee losing Representatives Bass, Wilson and Cubin.
Many industry observers
estimate that not only is the pending federal legislation dead for 2006 but
many of the issues addressed in the 2006 proposed legislation will move a
completely different direction under the new Congress. The focus will now likely shift to public
safety interoperability, funding for first responders, homeland security
communications issues and related matters.
As industry observers shift their focus away from
congressional legislation attention now is directed at a variety of pending FCC
proceedings which could have an impact on local cable franchising and issues related
to competition among the telephone and cable industries. Whether the FCC will take aggressive action
in light of the shift in power following the mid-term elections remains to be
seen.
FCC NOTICE OF INQUIRY REGARDING COMPETITION IN THE MARKET FOR THE
DELIVERY OF VIDEO PROGRAMMING
The FCC is requesting information,
comments, and analyses that will allow it to evaluate the status of competition
in the video marketplace, changes in the marketplace since the 2005 report,
prospects for new entrants, factors that have facilitated or impeded
competition, and the effect these factors are having on consumers’ access to
video programming. (FCC 06-154)
The FCC is specifically interested in receiving the
following data and information:
·
The
number of homes that have a choice of multichannel video programming
distributor (“MVPD”) services;
·
How
many households can receive service from one or more providers (e.g., DBS,
wireless cable, private cable operators) as well as an incumbent cable
provider;
·
The
number of consumers with access to wireline overbuilders, such as the number of
homes passed by more than one wireline MVPD, and why the availability is low
relative to wireless alternatives;
·
Identify
markets where wireline competition exists, where entry is likely in the near
future, and where wireline competition once existed but failed;
·
What
market characteristics affect competition between MVPDs;
·
What
effect has competition between MVPDs had on prices, programming choices,
quality of service, and the introduction of more advanced services (both video
and non-video); and
·
What
effect does bundling have on head-to-head competition, and what effect does it
have on MVPDs that do not offer bundled services due to technical or other
limitations.
Municipalities are encouraged to provide any relevant data
related to these issues particularly as it relates to the granting of
competitive franchises for the provision of video services.
Comment Due Date:
November 29, 2006
Reply Comment Due Date: December 29, 2006
Moss & Barnett will be submitting comments on behalf of
a number of municipal clients in this proceeding.
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Brian T. Grogan is a shareholder with the Minneapolis law
firm of Moss & Barnett practicing in the firm’s communications law and energy
practice group. Brian represents local
units of government throughout the country on a variety of communications
issues including cable and telecommunications franchising, right-of-way
management, municipal wireless communications, tower leasing, pole attachment
negotiations, public safety communications and litigation. He is a frequent presenter at state and
national conferences regarding communications law and he is a member of the
American Bar Association (Forum Committee on Communications Law), National
Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, International
Municipal Lawyers Association (Contracts, Franchises and Technology Section),
and is past chair of the Communications Law Section of the Minnesota State Bar
Association.
Brian T. Grogan, Esq.
Moss & Barnett, A Professional Association
4800 Wells Fargo Center, 90 South
Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4129
Telephone: (612) 877-5340 Facsimile: (612) 877-5999
Email: groganb@moss-barnett.com
Web site: www.municipalcommunicationslaw.com
The materials in this Municipal
Communications Law Update have been complied from a variety of sources and
address only a portion of the relevant issues contained within hundreds of
pages of regulations and decisions. We
have not addressed many important points that may apply to your situation. You should consult with legal counsel before
taking any action on matters covered by this Municipal Communications Law
Update.
This
Municipal Communications Law Update is available, free of charge, via email, facsimile or U.S. Mail. Please
take a moment to complete this form.
I wish to
receive the Municipal Communications Law Update newsletter via email.
Name:
Company Name:
Mailing
Address:
Email
address:
I wish to
receive the Municipal Communications Law Update newsletter via facsimile.
Name:
Company Name:
Mailing
Address:
Facsimile
Number:
Telephone Number:
I no longer
wish to receive the Municipal Communications Law Update newsletter. Please indicate name and contact information
below.
My mailing
address or contact person has changed to the following:
Name:
Company Name:
Mailing
Address:
Facsimile
Number:
Email Address:
Telephone Number:
Return completed form to:
Terri
Hammer, Moss & Barnett
4800 Wells
Fargo Center
90 South
Seventh Street
Minneapolis,
MN 55402-4129
Phone: (612) 877-5349 Fax: (612) 877-5999
E-mail: hammert@moss-barnett.com