Press conference 12:30pm May 10, 2006 - City Hall Steps.

Speakers: NYC Council Member Gale Brewer, Michael Max Knobbe (BronxNet), Roosevelt Orphee (Picture the Homeless), Nancy Eng (Chinese Staff and Workers’ Association), Dan Coughlin (Manhattan Neighborhood Network), others TBA.

Proposed Telecoms Bill Strips NYC of Local Control of ‘Public Rights of Way’—costing NYC millions. New York City Council Plans May 10th Vote on “opposing” Resolution. NYC's five public access TV stations threatened by Telcom bills.

NEW YORK—On May 10th the NYC Council will vote on a city Resolution 0136-2006—if passed this Resolution will send Washington legislators the clear message not to change existing local cable TV and teleco franchising rules.

NYC’s Resolution is in response to the soon to be voted on “Communications, Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act (COPE Act/H.R. 5252)” in the House of Representatives. COPE will strip local communities of the ability to require Cable TV and phone companies to negotiate local franchises—in the process stripping local communities of the ability to ensure these companies meet local public and consumer needs or protections.

“If this legislation passes Congress, New Yorkers will have to call the FCC – instead of 311 – if they have a problem with their cable TV service or Internet connection. That would be an outrage and affront to the residents of New York City,” said New York City Council Member Gale Brewer, Chair of the Committee on Technology in Government.

Critics of COPE point out that it could cost NYC more than $75 million in lost franchise fees annually—it would do away with local rules preventing “service-redlining”—and it would restrict funding and channel capacity to New York City’s five Public Access TV stations. The COPE bill would replace the local franchising system with a one-size-fits-all federal system.

Franchise fees are regarded as rent-payment for the cable companies’ running of cables and other use of the city owned “public rights of way”. The existing local franchising system also provides the channel space and monies for the city’s Public Access TV stations. These stations provide New Yorkers with locally produced programming—and allow the city’s diverse communities to have a voice in the media.

On May 4th scores of New Yorkers opposing COPE crowded City Hall for hearings on Resolution 0136 by the Council’s Zoning and Land Use Committee—prominent among the testimony were comments from the public, elected officials, and community organizations that COPE could do away with the five Public Access TV stations in NYC—BronxNet, Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN), Queens Public Television (QPTV), Brooklyn Community Access TV (BCAT) and Staten Island Community TV.

“Our Public Access TV project has allowed our members to produce local, non-commercial media that reflects the life of immigrant workers in Chinatown”, testified Fun Mae Eng of the Chinese Staff and Workers’ Association. “Public Access is local TV, local perspectives and local points of views—there is nothing else like it on television, it’s a cornerstone of local New York life—and a cornerstone of democracy”, said MNN staffer Jennifer Wager as she listened to loudspeakers in the overflow room during the May 4th hearings.

Also testifying were NYC’s borough presidents—“this is a clear case of the federal government interceding into a local system which operates well and serves the needs of local residents in order to demand a one-size fits all approach which will benefit corporations not residents” testified Manhattan’s Borough President Scott Stringer. “Local government must have the power to regulate franchising… so the best interests of their constituents do not get run over by the avarice of outside business interests”, said Queens Borough President Helen Marshall.

There is growing opposition to COPE nationwide—and to the three major loopholes it creates. 1) Allowing video-service companies to “redline” low-income and rural communities they do not want to serve. 2) Dismantling Public, Educational and Governmental (PEG) TV. 3) Singling an end to “Net-Neutrality”—thereby allowing Broadband Internet providers to create a tiered “pay-as-you-go” Internet system where content favored by the service provider will be quickly accessible while other content is slowed to a snail’s pace.

The driving force behind COPE is efforts by the phone companies to enter the “video service” market—allowing them to offer video services and compete with the Cable TV companies. The phone companies seek to avoid local franchising arrangements and to play by different rules to those governing current Cable TV operation. The phone companies have launched an aggressive public relations effort to pass COPE— reportedly spending over $1million per week on lobbying efforts in Washington.

Around the country over eighty cities or towns have proposed or passed Resolutions similar to the one now under consideration in NYC. Critics call COPE a "sweetheart deal" for the phone giants—and believe it will result in poorer service and higher rates for consumers.

Resolution 0136-2006 is supported by NYC Council members Gale Brewer (Manhattan), Melinda Katz (Queens), Miguel Martinez (Manhattan), Helen Foster (Bronx), Letitia James (Brooklyn), Charles Barron (Brooklyn), Maria del Carmen Arroyo (Bronx), Yvette Clark (Brooklyn), Leroy Comrie (Queens), Simcha Felder (Brooklyn), and Annabel Palma (Bronx)— Resolution 0136-2006 was proposed March 1st 2006.