High-speed Internet access, exclusive use or open access, are the consumers interest protected? Watch out for the traveling carnival that left San Francisco at a town near you.
Setting Federal Policy a Town at a Time
By MICHAEL YAKI
It's late and I am locked in a room with barons from AT&T, discussing a series of consumer-friendly amendments to their cable franchise agreement. Hovering outside of the room are similarly elevated executives from their rivals, SBC Communications, America Online and GTE.
For weeks I have been inundated by silk suits and cell phones, all repeating the same mantras: "The eyes of the nation are upon you." "What you do will have national implications." "You only get one chance to make the right national policy."
And all I can think about is getting this thing over with and seeing my wife for a quiet dinner.
I am a local legislator. Specifically, an elected member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. With a few colorful exceptions (which I will not bother to recount here), we spend the majority of our time in ways no different from the thousands of city, county, township, ward and borough governments throughout this country. We pass a budget, deal with homelessness, hire cops, build sports stadiums -- you get the picture.
Lately, local governments have been called on to referee issues regarding the future of America's largest corporations on a field with rules of such complexity and confusion that the United States Government, in its wisdom, has punted. To us.
Over the past 20 years, since the breakup of Ma Bell, telecommunications has probably been the hottest, most competitive industry. The latest innovation has been technology to bring high-speed Internet access (up to 100 times faster than your modem) through your cable television box.
On one side stands AT&T, which bought the largest cable company in the country, Tele-Communications Inc., in March and intends to use it for Internet access. On the other are AOL, SBC and GTE, rivals to AT&T in high-speed Internet technology. Billions of consumer dollars are at stake. AOL, SBC and GTE assert that AT&T must share its cable with everyone else; AT&T wants to use its cable lines exclusively. Both sides have legal and technological arguments to buttress their claims.
Coincidentally, our Board of Supervisors was set to debate and vote on the transfer of the TCI franchise in San Francisco to AT&T. Overnight we became ground zero for the Battle of the Communications Titans to Resolve Ambiguous National Policy.
Helpfully, the Federal Communication Commission chairman, William Kennard, had told local governments, essentially, to keep their hands off cable. In the next breath, however, he said, "You cannot ignore the concerns of the local franchising authority." Huh?
Complicating matters is the fact that the F.C.C. chairman's statements, in any context, are just that. They are not law. Congress did not say anything about this issue in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In the absence of any specific pre-emptive language, the question was open as to whether local governments could, on their own, regulate whether cable use was exclusive or required "open access."
It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the seismic tremor of the Gucci-clad feet of lobbyists, lawyers, public relations types and political consultants disembarking at City Hall hit San Francisco with a force not felt since 1906.
Money flowed like milk and honey. More than $2 million was spent on television advertisements in the two weeks before our vote. A political mailer made the rounds. Chief executives with briefing books the size of the Manhattan Yellow Pages were flown in to flatter my colleagues and inform them of the national precedent that would be set by their single vote.
Both sides hired telemarketers to call blissfully unaware consumers at home and warn them of the evils of the other side, even offering to connect them to a member of the Board of Supervisors. At times, the callers who were forwarded to me were so confused by the hard-sell tactics that they couldn't remember who or why they were calling. More than once, I heard a whispered bit of coaching from the telemarketer, who was on the line with the consumer. "Tell him you want open access," the coach said, followed by an equally hushed: "Tell who? Open access for what?"
As for the meeting itself, both sides chartered buses to supply "grass-roots" troops for the audience. Barkers, like at a circus sideshow, choreographed and cajoled people into our chamber. Our room was so full the fire alarm went off.
It shouldn't be this way. Local government has enough to do as it is. We are struggling with carrying out welfare reform, financing health care and rebuilding our parks and playgrounds. We care about good schools, safe streets and buses and trains that run on time. The resources we spent having to deal with ginned-up phone calls, E-mails and office visits could have been better used.
Sometimes I wonder, drawing upon my past experience as a Congressional aide, if this is the product of deliberate strategy. Has the stalemate that characterizes today's devolution-crazed Republican Congress resulted mainly in just passing the buck to the local level? Are companies, frustrated with inaction on Capitol Hill, urging lawmakers to let them slug it out in an arena far easier and cheaper to control? This is not devolution.
It's policy by crazy quilt. Even worse, it's abdication. I n the end, after lengthy debate on amendments aimed at protecting the consumers (remember them?), we approved the franchise transfer and exclusivity for AT&T. But this battle will be repeated in countless other jurisdictions. AT&T will win some, AOL others. The amount of money spent will accelerate. And the wheels of local government will continue to grind to a halt as this traveling carnival, courtesy of Capitol Hill, comes to your town.
Michael Yaki, a lawyer, is a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
search.nytimes.com
|
