Item C: Telecommunications Tax Fund

Home Browse Search

franchised by municipalities. ORS 221.510 and .515 both reference franchising of 12 “telecommunications carriers.” That term is in turn defined by ORS 133.721. Local municipal authority to franchise telephone companies is also contained in ORS 759.005, which defines “telecommunications service” as “two-way switched access and transport of voice communications. . . .” Traditional franchises of telephone companies such as GTE and US West (now Qwest Communications International) were clearly included within those definitions, since customers were picking up their telephones and either cranking them, dialing them, or punching in a touchtone telephone number and only speaking to the responding party. B. Cable Systems As described above, the federal law governs all local authority to regulate cable franchising. That law, however, is limited to the definition of “cable system” to provide “cable services.” “Cable services” are defined by the 1996 Act as: (A) the one-way transmission to subscribers of (i) video programming, or (ii) other programming service, and (B) subscriber interaction, if any, which is required for the selection or use of such video programming or other 13 programming service. See the problem? The federal law narrowly defines “cable service” and provides clear local franchising authority and a detailed regulatory scheme in which that authority is exercised. Similarly, for local exchange access telephone services, voice only, there is a well-established regulatory system and decades of history in our state. For a whole new category of operators who want access to the rights of way to provide a myriad of services, municipal authority survives in home rule. C. Hybrid and Undefined Service Providers In today’s competitive environment, two things are happening: the numbers of entities competing for the ability to use the public rights of way to deliver services are multiplying rapidly, and the nature of the services they are offering has become more complex. Those new services do not fit neatly into traditional franchising categories. In addition to pure cable and telecommunications services, federal law itself recognizes interactive cable service and two other categories of services: (1) “information services”, which consist of the capability of generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications” (47 U.S.C. § 153(20)), and (2) “enhanced services,” a new category of services which was described but not directly 14 regulated by the FCC. 12 In a stroke of legislative brilliance, this statute refers the reader to ORS 759.005, which provides the actual definition, as any entity providing telecommunications service. 13 47 USC 522(6). 14 For a detailed discussion of the FCC rulings, and legislative history accompanying the 1996 Act on this topic, see Federal Telecommunications Law, 2d Ed., Aspen Law & Business, “Data Services and the Internet.” Right of Way Management and Compensation Page 6 of 15 APWA Fall Conference - 2005