CTAM Forums

You've got it. This issue requires serious, focused consideration.
--------------------------
This message sent from a handheld device

-----Original Message-----
From: Barbara Popovic <bpopovic@cantv.org>
To: Rob McCausland <rghm@verizon.net>; Sean McLaughlin <seanm707@yahoo.com>;
Sean McLaughlin <sean808@earthlink.net>; Riddle Tony
<raiseeveryvoice@yahoo.com>; Carl Kucharski <carl@pcmtv.org>; Horwood, James N.
<james.horwood@spiegelmcd.com>; Sue Buske <sue@buskegroup.com>; Michael
Eisenmenger <michael@mnn.org>; Mike Wassenaar <wassenaar@spnn.org>; Mary Cardona
<mcardona@tds.net>; Tony Vigue <ctam@usa.net>; Alan Bushong
<alan@cctvsalem.org>; Susan Littlefield <littlefields@stlouiscity.com>; Chuck
Sherwood <chuck.sherwood@verizon.net>; Joseph Lahr MCAM TV-23 <joe@mcam.org>
Sent: Thu Nov 09 13:23:18 2006
Subject: Re: federal stuff (and state stuff)

In response to Bill August's points, isn't it also possible that in the void of
federal legislation we could end up with state by state legislation that, at
least by some indications, can be even worse?

From: Susan Fleischmann <susan@cctvcambridge.org>
Date: November 9, 2006 10:42:19 AM EST

Subject: Re: federal stuff (and state stuff)

Well, why stop at killing the bills? Perhaps we should be proactive and
looking at introducing legislation that mandates our needs


Just to make life interesting: Now that Markey will be Chair of the House
telecom subcommittee, Massachusetts voters/access centers/munis can probably
play a KEY role in influencing telecommunications legislation. So Altho we need
to focus on the state stuff, and we are meeting on Nov. 20th, 11 a.m. at NewTV
to do so (Paul: did you send out directions to studio?), there are some
compelling reasons for us to include federal legislation on the Nov. 20th
agenda, to wit:   Gerry Lederer of Nick Miller's firm, who is a key lobbyist for
munis, told me that the Dems might not kill the federal bills even though they
are in the majority. This is because last year they got in the mindset of
thinking that they needed to "improve" the federal bills, not kill them, in
order to "have a seat at the table." And many of us, including ACM and NATOA
acquiesced to that mode, because we thought the Republicans would never go along
with killing the bills. NOW a paradigm shift toward kill the bills is
possible, as we can tell Markey and other Dems, we don't want any federal bill,
the only reason we were soft on "improving" the bills is because we never
imagined the Republicans would go along with killing the bills. But now that
the Dems are in control, we are in position to tell them we expect no less than
killiing the bills, or localism and community TV will suffer. So shouldn't we
be voicing and expressing a new level of expectation, a new level of opposition
to the federal bills. If we don't pursue this new level, how will Markey and
other Dems even know that we are expecting that. Of course, the focus for Nov
20th is state legislation as per Keith Thibault emails scheduling this. But
while we are together, we might as well leave some time on the agenda to figure
out whether the new Congress warrants our getting into a new mode. I believe we
should be expressing this to Markey NOW. Yes? No? (With Markey becoming chair,
you know Verizon and Comcast will be all over him, non-stop. We have to get to
work on him to neutralize some of their shennanigans.)

Bill August
Epstein & August, LLP
101 Arch Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02110-1112

tel. 617.951.9909
fax. 617.951.2717


Susan Fleischmann, Executive Director
Cambridge Community Television
675 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA. 02139
617-661-6900 x 127
fax 617-661-6927
http://www.cctvcambridge.org

Page 1 of 1

Legislative and Franchise Issues

Pending Legislation Effecting Community Television

ACM related e-m...