End May Be Nigh for Existing Cable Franchise Process, NATOA Told

“At some point, I think cable franchising as we know it is going away,” said attorney Ken Fellman, a former NATOA board member. It could be in five, 10 or 15 years, but it will happen, he said on a panel Wednesday. “The cable model is simply not sustainable.” Cable companies are raising prices because programming costs are increasing as slim packages provided by over-the-top internet companies grow in popularity, he said. As a result, local governments need to think about what happens when the cable franchise fee goes away, he said. “We need to think about a world without that revenue.”

The problem could be avoided with a rewrite of the Communications Act, Fellman said. He proposed that a rewrite should have a technology-neutral provision that charges one fee of “some reasonable amount” to any entity that puts public facilities in the public rights of way.

“This system will change,” said Brian Grogan, attorney with Moss & Barnett. “I don’t think it’s going to change because of the revenue of the companies. It’s going to change because of a regulatory change.” The FCC and Congress will come up with a new model, he said. It’s a question that could alternately be addressed at the state level, and some states are asserting authority in the area of rights of way, said Gail Karish, a telecom lawyer at the Best Best law firm.

NCTA’s recent name change is not the death of cable, said Schooler. “Cable is not going to disappear from our world.” NCTA changed its brand to NCTA -- The Internet & Television Association (see 1609190017). The change acknowledges all the services cable provides, “which goes beyond what a lot of people think of as cable television,” he said.

Convergence is a reason to rewrite the Communications Act, Schooler said. The world has evolved from the days when cable provided the only multichannel video programming services and owned most of the programming, he said. Today, cable competes with phone, satellite and internet companies, he said. “A regulatory scheme that singles us out … may not make any sense anymore.” Getting Congress to act might be a “long shot,” though things might change after the election, he said: “Nothing major comes out of [Congress] these days.”

NATOA Notebook

So governors can have more than 90 days to consider FirstNet state plans, the public safety network aims to provide at least some information about the plans before the clock starts, FirstNet officials said on a panel Tuesday. By statute, governors will have 90 days to decide whether to opt in or out once FirstNet delivers a plan. Texas FirstNet Single Point of Contact (SPOC) Todd Early responded to concerns raised by attorney and former NATOA board member Ken Fellman, who asked, “Is anybody in addition to me concerned that the governor’s got 90 days to make a decision on what to do, but isn’t even going to have a mass of data to deal with the details of what the requirements are?” Early replied, “That’s a concern for a lot of folks out there,” and FirstNet knows it, but must follow the statute. But “they’ve told us that as soon as they’re able to select a partner and know what their technical architecture is, they’re going to start socializing those state plans and every detail they can” with SPOCs and governors’ staff, Early said. The Texas SPOC said he told local officials that as soon as FirstNet starts providing details, “we’ll be in front of them … possibly before the state plan’s ever delivered.” FirstNet plans to release draft plans prior to the 90-day decision window, and “information will start trickling out at that point,” agreed FirstNet senior fire services adviser Mike Worrell. The network plans to announce the FirstNet contract in November and deliver state plans in late Q2 or early Q3, he said. Later on the panel, Early shared concerns about how the FirstNet rollout will fit into local budget cycles, which he said are usually two years long. “Definitely don’t want folks going out and buying technology that in two years is going to be obsolete and not useable,” he said. FirstNet hopes to shed light on costs for local authorities as part of the “early information that’s trickled out,” said Worrell.

A Federal Aviation Administration official said localities should develop privacy rules for low-flying drones. The FAA is developing “creative solutions” on drone privacy, but plans to “push a lot of the low-altitude … stuff to local communities for them to take it up in their town hall,” FAA Unmanned Aircraft Systems Senior Adviser Marke Gibson said on a Wednesday drones panel. The FAA should act on that in the next six months, he said. Historically, the agency hasn’t looked at privacy issues, “however, we know that privacy and operations are related,” Gibson said. The Electronic Privacy Information Center sued the FAA for not developing privacy rules in recent regulations for commercial use of small drones (see 1608260020). The agency released privacy best practices for drones, said Gibson, replying to our question about the lawsuit. “The FAA itself does not see its role in privacy in a pure sense,” he said. “In the end, I think a lot of this stuff … will come down to local discussions.” Panelist Ken Fellman, an attorney on local government issues, said the lawsuit creates risk for local governments. Since it’s possible a court could restrict local drone privacy rules, it shouldn’t stop towns and cities from acting, he said. “If there’s a need to regulate, and there’s a gap … because the feds haven’t acted yet, I think it’s absolutely important for local governments to step in and address those issues.”