LOCAL GOVTS. TO COMMIT MORE RESOURCES TO LOBBYING ON HILL

Local govts and their national associations are holding briefing for staffs of Senate and House Commerce Committees Jan. 17 as part of effort to commit more resources and leaders to counter telecom industry lobbying and to push what they call “proactive public policy agenda” on Hill. Local govts. formed TeleCommUnity Alliance to focus solely on their agenda on Capitol Hill.

Montgomery County Councilwoman Marilyn Praisner, who is chmn. of TeleCommUnity Alliance and member of FCC’s Local & State Govt. Advisory Committee, will lead Jan. 17 local govt. briefing. Group is staffed in Washington by law firm Miller & Van Eaton and govt. and public affairs consultants Bracy Tucker Brown. Besides National Assn. of Telecom Officers & Advisors, alliance members include more than 100 cities in Ariz., Md., Mich., Tex. and Va., group said.

Alliance officials already have met with staff of incoming Senate Communications Subcommittee Chmn. Burns (R- Mont.), and theme of Fri. meeting will be “need to fight preemption in general and the need to protect rights-of-way specifically,” spokesman said. Group also was drafting proposed legislation to place “local governments on the offensive when it comes to rights-of-way management and the recovery of reasonable rent of the use of such assets,” he said. Group said it was time for local govts. to stop playing “catch-up” under rules set by industry, and instead of spending “limited resources in piecemeal defenses, TeleCommUnity intends to help local governments to consolidate their common interests.”

“It is really an effort to give some serious lobbying and public relations support for the local government communications agenda on Capitol Hill,” said attorney Nicholas Miller, who represents local govts. Cities joining alliance are committing elected officials as speakers and witnesses and putting “serious money” into pushing their agenda, he said. Asked whether it was first time that such concerted effort had being made on Hill, Miller said problem with local govts. in past was that even though mayors had clout with members of Congress, telecom issues weren’t high enough on agenda, as opposed to that of manager of local cable unit lobbying Congress member. Also, local govts. were outnumbered by industry in terms of lobbyists they deployed on Hill, he said. For instance, he said, League of Cities had 4 lobbyists, only one of whom spent just 1/3 of time on communications issues: “That’s not a fair fight when contending with an industry that sends as many lobbyists to Capitol Hill as they do.”

Local govt. agenda on Hill will be driven by 3 core issues, Miller said: (1) Rights-of-way management and compensation issues for both cable and telephone. (2) Cable modem and broadband deployment and regulation. (3) Spectrum allocation for govt. purposes from allocation of spectrum freed up with UHF channels moved out of 700 MHz. Much of that spectrum is earmarked for local govt. at Congress’s direction, he said, but there isn’t consensus yet on how it should be allocated. Aspects of those 3 issues get wrapped up in public safety 9/11 issues, Miller said. For example, he said, local govts are trying to get Congress to continue to push FCC to impose E-911 services on cellular industry. They also are paying attention to 800 MHz interference issues because those being interfered with are public safety agencies.

Miller said “we have a bunch of legislative ideas but as to when and how they would be floated would be in consultation with the national associations.” Decision also will be driven by telecom agenda emerging on Hill, he said. For example, he said, local govts. would be interested in supporting incoming Sen. Commerce Committee Chmn. McCain (R- Ariz.) if he were serious about cable rate regulation. As for broadband, he said Tues. Senate Commerce Committee hearing (CD Jan 15 p1) indicated there was “anything but a consensus as to what to do about broadband legislation and that the action is going to be at the FCC in the first 6 months” of year. “So whether in fact we will drop a [broadband] bill or not is going to be a tactical decision that will be made in the next month or so,” he said. Local govts. had been toying with specific legislation last year in response to Tauzin-Dingell, Breaux-Nickles and McCain bills, but “we didn’t put it into the hopper because it became clear by early fall that nothing was going to pass,” Miller said. It may be too soon this year for TeleCommUnity to decide whether to “do our own thing or join in a broader coalition” on cable modem issue, he said.

Meanwhile, local govts. are calling on FCC to resolve issue of who should deal with customer complaints about cable modem service. Ron Mallard, dir. of Fairfax County (Va.) Dept of Telecom & Consumer Services and former NATOA pres., said Commission had to resolve that residual issue from its classification of cable modem service. Agency was asking subscribers with complaints to go to local franchising authorities, he said, “but we are not now empowered” to deal with complaints because LFAs had no regulatory authority over cable modem service. Classification issue is itself moot, Mallard said: “I don’t see it worth continuing to fight that argument.” But if FCC were to empower LFAs to deal with customer service issues relating to cable modem service, then it also would have to devise ways to compensate LFAs, he said.