(A) Under the Uniform Video Services Local Franchise Act, video service providers may obtain a franchise to provide video services in the municipality using a standardized, uniform form of franchise agreement established by the MPSC. This form includes the right to use the public right-of-way to provide the service, but does not contain right-of-way management and related provisions.
(B) Telecommunications providers who obtain a standardized, uniform form of franchise agreement generally will have previously obtained from the municipality a permit under the Metro Act to construct and maintain their telecommunications facilities in the public right-of-way. The Metro Act permits set forth the terms and conditions for the right-of-way usage; standard forms of the permits were agreed to in a collaborative process between municipalities and providers that was initiated by the MPSC and the standard forms have since been approved by the legislature and the MPSC.
(C) Because telecommunications providers typically provide video services over combined video and telecommunications facilities, the Metro Act permits generally provide adequate public right-of-way related protections for the municipality and the public when the providers are providing video services.
(D) Other video service providers, in particular new providers or existing cable companies, may not have a Metro Act permit issued by the municipality.
(E) The Uniform Video Services Local Franchise Act and the standardized, uniform franchise agreement require video service providers to comply with all valid and enforceable local regulations regarding the use and occupation of the public right-of-way in the delivery of video services, including the police powers of the franchising entity, and makes the right-of-way usage subject to the laws of the state and the police powers of the franchising entity.
(F) The Uniform Video Services Local Franchise Act and the standardized, uniform franchise agreement state that franchising entities shall provide video service providers with open, comparable, non-discriminatory and competitively neutral access to the public right-of-way, and may not discriminate against a video service provider for the authorization or placement of a video service or communications network in the public right-of-way.
(G) The State Constitution reserves reasonable control of its highways, streets, alleys and public places to local units of government.
(H) (1) The purpose of this chapter is to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare and exercise reasonable control over the public right-of-way by regulating the use and occupation of the rights-of-way by video service providers who have a standardized, uniform franchise, but who lack a Metro Act permit from the municipality.
(2) This chapter does so by setting forth terms and conditions for the usage and occupation from the forms of Metro Act permit approved by the MPSC and approved by the legislature in § 6(1) of the Metro Act, thus providing open, comparable, non-discriminatory and competitively neutral access to the public right-of-way and not discriminating against a video service provider for the authorization or placement of a video service or communications network in public right-of-way.
(Ord. 08-02, passed 4-15-2008)