[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
By Darryn Zuehlke, Chuck Line and Ken Fellman
Recent articles in the Rocky Mountain News, The Denver Post, the News and The Denver Business Journal describe Qwest’s complaints about an ordinance adopted in metro-area municipalities requiring certain information be provided to the city when making an application for a competitive cable franchise. Qwest’s claims the ordinance is anti-competitive, imposes disclosure obligations different from those imposed on Comcast, and requires it to publicly disclose information that is proprietary. As a result, Qwest will likely only seek franchises in communities that do not adopt the ordinance. ProblematicallyYet, none of the complaints identified by Qwest are true. In March, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”)adopted an order pre-empting certain local authority regarding cable franchising, and imposing a new “shot clock,” requiring many applications for cable franchises to be acted upon in 90 days, or be automatically imposed upon the citizens. Under the FCC rules, a franchise applicant must only provide the city with very limited information unless local law requires additional information. Despite Qwest’s argument, the ordinance does not require information different from what the incumbent cable operator provided. Prior to the FCC order, the parties could negotiate over a longer period of time, so information was requested and received at various points during negotiations. Now that cities are required to act within the FCC’s shot clock, it is important that this information be provided when negotiations commence. The required information is not unreasonable. This ordinance asks for basic things such as: Is the company financially capable of deploying its network without causing damage to city streets and private property? Can the company post sufficient bonds and letter of credit to protect the public in the case of damage? Has the company ever been found in violation of relevant federal, state or local regulations in connection with the operation of its business? This information is necessary to evaluate whether to grant a company permission to use public property. Cable companies have provided this information to the cities — why shouldn’t Qwest? Qwest’s complaint that it will be required to make confidential information public is specious. Local governments already require this information to be provided by cable companies. The Colorado Open Records Act provides that entities may identify information it provides to the government as confidential, and as a result, the government is under no duty to release that information to the public. In its attacks on the ordinance, Qwest completely ignores the section that waives every single obligation of the ordinance if the applicant is willing to negotiate without starting the 90-day shot clock. And indeed, Qwest has publicly informed the Greater Metro Telecommunications Consortium that it will seek to negotiate franchise agreements with metro area communities without imposing the FCC shot clock. Therefore, under the clear language of the ordinance, none of the application requirements apply. Those provisions only apply to companies that insist that the franchise be negotiated within 90 days, and that is only because, in that short time frame, the local governments need the information to evaluate for their evaluations up front. Qwest knows that under its proposed negotiation plan the ordinance will not apply to it, yet it still complains about alleged negative impaeffects of the ordinance on its operations. Perhaps most surprisingly is how Qwest addressed a similar (and more restrictive) regulation in Portland, Oregon. Like our metro ordinances, Portland’s has a provision that waives all requirements if the applicant does not insist upon the FCC shot clock. Portland’s ordinance was adopted prior to the Denver area ordinances. Qwest did not raise objections to Portland’s regulations as it has in metro Denver. Indeed, Qwest informed Portland that it did not intend to impose the FCC shot clock when that shot requirement goes into effect, and the parties have been negotiating a cable franchise agreement outside of the scope of the new regulations. Why is Qwest attacking the ordinance in Colorado when its actions in Portland prove that the ordinance does not create a problem for negotiations? Perhaps Qwest’s complaints are less about its ability to obtain local franchises and more about casting local governments in a negative light, as it gears up for next year’s legislative battle where it will again seek to pre-empt local authority and create a special set of rules favoring new entrants that try to compete with incumbent cable companies. Problematically for Qwest, its complaints about the local ordinances don’t ring true, as demonstrated by Qwest’s own actions in Oregon. Darryn Zuehlke is the president of the Greater Metro Telecommunications Consortium and is director, Denver Office of Telecommunications.Glendale Deputy City Manager Chuck Line is the vice president of the consortium. Ken Fellman is the group’s general counsel.
READER COMMENTS
Qwest and its ever never ending search for shady deals never ends.
What are they wanting now, just another way to screw the customer, or to screw the state or even the city.
I am getting sick and tired of hearing about the shady things this comapny has done or is wanting to do.
Just as soon as my two cell phone contract is up with this rip off company, I am changing my service to some company that actually cares about its customers.
How about giving something back to your customers Qwest?
In the 20 years I have used your poor services, you have never once offered me any kind of a rebate, any kind of a refund, or anything of that nature.
You are a multi, billion dollar company, and yet all you continue to do is make profits any way you can and the heck with your customers.
YOU MAKE ME SICK.
I can't wait to get rid of you as my service provider.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]