Local communities have long had a say in the development of their communications infrastructure. In return for digging up city streets and using public rights-of-way to lay cables for television service, communities can demand via “local franchise agreements” that cable and broadband providers pay a fair rent for using public land.

But many legislatures are now under pressure -- especially from phone companies trying to get into the TV business -- to streamline the franchising process at the state rather than the local level. How will changes to franchising impact citizens and communities? And what will the terms of the new agreements be?

The problem is that the big phone companies oppose the public interest requirements that always have gone hand-in-hand with franchise deals (and the incumbent cable companies aren't too crazy about them, either).

Yet local authority over franchise agreements has brought many benefits to local communities, including public, educational and governmental access (PEG) channels, broadband access for government offices and schools, and requirements that service is offered to the entire community, not just its wealthiest neighborhoods. It’s crucial that franchise agreements protect consumers and ensure affordable access to high-speed Internet and other services.

The debate over state franchising raises a number of important questions: Will new communications technologies serve local communities? Or will local communities answer instead to the most powerful telecommunications and cable companies? Will there be agreements to provide public services? Will they be made at the local, state or national level? If consumers have problems with price-gouging or poor service, will they go to a local or state agency for help? As technological needs change, will local communities be able to obtain new technologies for public use? Will advanced services be available to entire communities?

Learn more about state franchising here [1].