HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-04-06; City Council; N/A; Council Opposes AB 2742 Cable TV LegislationAB# ___ _
MTG. ___ _
DEPT.,_UT_L __
CIT\ JF CARLSBAD -AGENDA B!LL
IIILE;
COUNCIL OPPOSES AB 2742
CABLE TV LEGISLATION
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
DEPT.Ho:-~
CITY ATTY __
CITYMGR.~
Council express opposition t.o AB 2742 by minute motion and authorize Mayor to
correspond with appropriate 1egislators expressing opposition.
ITEM EXPLANATION
AB 2742 (Robinson, Bosco, Kapiloff, Maxine Waters) as proposed would preempt
local regulation of Cable TV ~Y classifying cable as a public utility and
placin9 it under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Conmission. The
Corrmission would receive 10% of all operators gross revenue as a franchise
fee and distribute the5e funds according to a formula. Rates, levels of service
and all aspects of performance would fdll under the PUC.
FISCAL IMPACT
AB 2742 would eliminate the 3% franchise fee (about S30 -$35,000) in FY 82-83.
EXHIBITS
Memo to City Manager from Director of Utilities of April 4, 1982.
April 4, 1982
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Director of Utilities
82-027
4002 W/AB
SUBJECT: Cable TV Legislation; AB 2742
The essential elements of AB 2742 are as follows:
1. Cable TV, as presently described under our code, would be
classified as a public utility and, therefore, come under
the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission.
2. 10% of gross revenues of the operators would be appropriated
to the PUC. Revenues are to be allocated as follows:
a. 1/5 or 2% of operators gross revenue for making loans
and grants to tr~ditionally disadvantaged users of
teleconmunications services.
b. 2/5 or 4% of operators gross revenue for funding local
access activities.
c. 3/10 or 3% of operators gross revenue for commission's
,<lministrative expenses.
d. 1/10 or 1% of operators gross revenue for the California
Communications Planning Consortium and others for research
and development
3. The PUC would require allocation of prograll'llling time on a percent-
age basis and set standards of performance including the number of
channels to be made available based on population, conmunity size,
and channel availablity is as follows:
up to 5,000
5,000 to 50,000
50,000 to 200,000
over 200,000
35 channels
54 channels
70 channels
108 channels
City Manager
April 4, 1982
Page 2
4. Provides that the state will not fund for local lost revenues
because of this act (No SB 90 reimbursement).
This bill will end al1 local control of cable television. It will increase
the customer cost of cable TV by 6 -7% because of the increased franchise
fee requirement. Additionally, it will cause increased rates as it will
mandate system rebuilds to meet the channel requirements --in our case,
our systems would have to be expanded to 70 channels when the present
franchise expires in 1992.
The proposed legislation would, however, provide a much higher level of
fundin3 for local access and mandate a much higher level of service throu~h-
out the state than is presently available or would be provided in the near
future based on the operators assessment of community needs. The cost,
however, would be directly borne by the consumer and the question that
is raised is whether or not the consumer wi11 benefit in direct relation to
the cost.
I am of the opinion that the costs to our local cable TV customers and the
lost revenues to the City of Carlsbad do not offset the benefits that it
will provide. It is my recommendation that the Council strongly protest
this. legislation. ·
RWG:jlc
Dear Local Official:
General Coun,el and E.ttcutive Dirertor
SPENCER h. KAITZ
April 1, 1982
AB 2742 by Assemblyman Richard Robinson will cake away your ability to regulate
cable television.
Under the Robinson·legislation, cable television would instead be regulated by
the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). No longer would you, the local official,
be able to set minimum channel requirements, enforce service standards, set
rates, or require community programming and access channels.
If you or any of your constituents had any problems with your local cable operator,
you would have to travel to the PUC offices in San Francisco to resolve them.
If your cable operator wanted to expand his system or add additional programming,
it could take months for PUC approval, thereby denying cable consumers additional
viewing choices.
AB 2742 would also put a new ten percent gross receipts tax on the cable subscriber
and take away your franchise fee which goes into your general fund.
I believe that ovP.rall in the State of California, cable operators and cities have
forged a good working relationship, Regulation at the local level is best able to
respond to the needs of the city, the cable operator, and the cable subscribe~. This
bill would tear apart that relationship.
I urge you to join the growing number of cities, religious organizations, community
groups, and newspapers opposing this ill-conceived legislation.
This bill is scheduled for its first hearing before the Subcommittee on Cable
Television on April 12.
Write your assemblyman and all ~embers of the Subcommittee and tell them that you
believe local control is best.
Working together, we can defeat this bill.
Sincerely,
~
SRK/rkj
Enclosure Serving Over 2,000,000 California Families