Central to the current debate over video franchising is the ugly problem of redlining — discrimination in the providing of television and other communications services. Franchise agreements are often used to make sure that cable TV and other broadband providers give everyone in the community access to communications networks. These so-called build-out requirements prevent powerful cable and telecom giants from skipping over certain neighborhoods.

The telephone companies are lobbying for streamlined entry into the video market, which they say will bring competition faster. But these same companies refuse to guarantee that they will build out service to every household in the community, as most cable companies have done for two decades. If these companies get their way, they will serve only who they want, while those who are negatively affected or left off the grid will have no recourse at the local level.

As legislatures consider telecom legislation, they must confront two key questions: How will companies be required, over time, to offer video and broadband across their current service territory? And if they are to be exempted from build-out requirements altogether, how can lawmakers possibly ensure that competitive broadband and cable services reach low-income and rural areas?

The best method to ensure that redlining doesn’t occur — and to bring video competition to every household — is to require franchise holders to build out their services on a reasonable timetable. Build-out requirements are good public policy that will help bridge the digital divide and bring tomorrow’s technologies to everyone.