MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Commerce and Labor
Seventy-second Session
March 18, 2003
The Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order by Chairman Randolph J. Townsend, at 7:06 a.m., on Tuesday, March 18, 2003, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman
Senator Warren B. Hardy II, Vice Chairman
Senator Ann O'Connell
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer
Senator Joseph Neal
Senator Michael Schneider
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Maggie Carlton, Excused
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Scott Young, Committee Policy Analyst
Kevin Powers, Committee Counsel
Makita Schichtel, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Brian Sandoval, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General
Gary Deacon, Lobbyist
Foster Mullen
Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, Cox Communications Company
Steve G. Schorr, Lobbyist, Cox Communications
Marsha L. Berkbigler, Lobbyist, Charter Communications
Steven Tackes, Lobbyist, Eschelon, MCI/WorldCom
Scott M. Craigie, Lobbyist, Sprint Nevada, Farmers Insurance Group, and American Resort Development Association
Robert Bass, Lobbyist, SBC
Kent F. Lauer, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association
Samuel P. McMullen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce
George A. Ross, Lobbyist, The McMullen Strategic Group, and AIG Claim Services Incorporated
Mary Lau, Lobbyist, Retail Association of Nevada
Margaret A. McMillan, Lobbyist, Sprint Nevada
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office
Andrew L. Barbano, Lobbyist, City of Reno Citizens Cable Compliance Committee
Barbara Stone
Robert Gastonguay, Lobbyist, Nevada State Cable Telecommunications Association
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County
David Howard, Lobbyist, City of Reno
Robert H. Erickson, Lobbyist, City of Fallon
Chairman Townsend:
We need to introduce Bill Draft Request (BDR) 54-548.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 54-548: Revises provisions governing court reporters. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 395.)
SENATOR O’CONNELL MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 54-548.
SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS SHAFFER AND CARLTON WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Townsend:
We will open the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 255.
SENATE BILL 255: Makes various changes relating to telecommunications. (BDR 52-133)
Chairman Townsend:
Our staff has provided a spreadsheet comparison of S.B. 255 and Assembly Bill (A.B.) 232, the Federal Trades Commission (FTC) do-not-call regulations, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules (Exhibit C). Both the FTC and the FCC are working to combine their rules to serve the best interest. There is also a memo from our research division regarding FTC and FCC do‑not‑call lists (Exhibit D. Original is on file in the Research Library.).
We commend the Assembly for their efforts on this bill, although I do not see eye to eye with them. Some have taken the position that the public has to protect themselves in their own homes. I disagree. A person should be able to choose if they desire telemarketing calls in their homes. They should not be required to buy a device to screen calls. If a person wants to receive calls, they could put their name on a list. The burden should not be on the consumer, most of whom I believe do not wish to be called.
This bill will not financially burden either our regulatory agency or the Department of Human Resources. This is a simple bill, which states no one will call if the customer does not wish to be called. One exception is if you have a current existing business relationship that is about to be terminated. This would allow a customer to receive a phone call to remind him of payment due or service cutoff options.
Brian Sandoval, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General:
I have previously provided written remarks to the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor (Exhibit E). I support the concept of S.B. 255. The attorney general’s office has placed a fiscal note for the next fiscal year to fund staff and technology needed to implement the bill. I do not support the expenditure of General Fund dollars to operate and enforce telemarketing laws. My office has a special fund dedicated to the enforcement of unfair and deceptive trade practices which could be used for this purpose. The funds in that account are currently not to exceed $250,000. Any monies above that amount are transferred into the State General Fund. I am asking this committee to amend the bill to authorize an additional $250,000 to be carried forward in the attorney general’s special fund. This bill would strengthen our laws against phone solicitation and also provide consumers with the legal recourse needed to fight against telemarketing giants. I am submitting a written testimony today (Exhibit F).
Senator O’Connell:
Do you feel there is any possibility of a constitutional challenge to this bill?
Mr. Sandoval:
There can always be a constitutional challenge. The question is if that challenge would be valid. There are 31 other states that have do-not-call legislation, and some of that legislation has been challenged. They have withstood the constitutional challenge. This is a new bill in concept. I just returned from the National Association of Attorney’s General meeting. There is no other state with similar legislation, except Montana, which is currently considering do-not-call and do‑call legislation at the same time. The Legislative Counsel Bureau drafted the bill, and the constitutional challenge has passed State approval.
Kevin Powers, Committee Counsel:
I agree with the attorney general. We processed this legislation. This office believes the language is constitutionally defensible. By constitutionally defensible, meaning it is our opinion it is more likely than not to be constitutional. We are entering into new territory with a do-call registry. We have to presume the constitutionality of the legislation.
Mr. Sandoval:
Whatever this committee and Legislature decides to pass, we stand ready, willing, and able to defend the constitutionality of that language.
Chairman Townsend:
The original bill I submitted was substantially stronger than this bill. When I met with legal counsel, I was told it might be a problem. I worked with counsel to develop something constitutionally defensible. Senate Bill 255 is the result. I would like to bring attention to Larry Spitler’s handout (Exhibit G) which includes those concerns. He represents the American Association for Retired Persons (AARP). They support legislation that keeps exemptions to a minimum, which is available at little or no cost, includes significant penalties for violations, and is frequently updated.
Gary Deacon, Lobbyist:
I am representing myself on this issue. I have given testimony on this issue to past Legislatures. This industry operates on a 2 percent response rate, which means 98 percent of the people are outraged. The technology as it advances, such as tele-zappers and counter measures to circumvent the tele-zappers, has become a cat-and-mouse game. I have received calls at 8 a.m. from telemarketers trying to get me to switch services. I informed the caller they are in violation of the law. The caller told me he was calling from Canada. This bill will address those types of issues. In section 10, a telemarketer is defined as a person who makes or causes another person to make a telemarketing call. Those doing business like this in the State will be penalized. This technology was created for national defense. It has been abused. Now we have homeland security issues, which is where this technology is needed. When we look at the constitutionality of this bill, telemarketing calls are intrusions into our homes. They interfere with our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Complex problems have simple solutions, and this is a simple solution.
Foster Mullen:
I am the president of QM Corporation. I represent American Resort Development Association (ARDA) of Nevada, in the time-share industry. Our company made $350 million in time-share sales last year. Out of those sales, $150 million was made from telemarketing. We give away vacation packages and bring tourism into Nevada. We are regulated through the Real Estate Division under chapter 119Aof Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), and we ask for an exemption from this bill so that we may continue to be regulated by chapter119A of NRS.
Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, Cox Communications Company:
We support the effort to rein in telemarketing abusers. Those are the callers who call at inconvenient times such as early morning, dinnertime, or at bedtime. This bill goes far beyond reining in those people. We differ in opinion on how that should be done. Section 11 defines a telemarketing call. The definition is broad, and would apply to every business in Nevada that used the phone to call a customer. Cox Communications often calls their existing customers. We would like an existing business-relationship exemption. Nevada businesses call their customers on a regular basis, customers with whom they have built a relationship. For example, look at prizefighting events in Las Vegas. They are frequently blacked out. The cable company has a contractual agreement that if the fight does not sell out, then that pay-per-view service cannot be offered to the customer. We have records of customers who have bought every pay‑per‑view prizefight broadcasted. The blackout is removed 48 hours before the fight if the fight sells out. Cox Communications calls customers, who normally purchase prizefights, and notifies them of the lifting of the blackout. They offer them a chance to purchase that pay-per-view.
Steve Schorr, Lobbyist, Cox Communications:
I want to stress how important the prizefights are to a great number of people in southern Nevada. More than 8 percent of the time, fights in southern Nevada are blacked out. Lifting that blackout normally occurs 24 to 48 hours prior to the fight. This does not give companies like ours enough time to inform the general population, by advertising on TV or radio, that the blackout has been lifted. The only way we can notify those customers is to contact them by phone. We have attempted to work with major promoters of boxing events in southern Nevada. They continue to block the fights until those fights are sold out. The cheapest tickets cost $100 to $250, whereas the price of pay‑per‑view is typically $29 to $39. We do not attract the same people who attend the fight in person. It is important to us to be able to let our customers know the fight is available. When we fail to notify our customers, we are flooded by complaints. Those complaints often go to elected officials.
Mr. Ostrovsky:
The second type of telemarketing calls under this definition would be calling cable modem service customers. We know about the amount of data traveling a modem line. We have varying levels of service. We contact a person to inform them they have reached a peak in their service. They could opt to increase their data speed. We can provide that service for less money, but we have to be able to call the customer. I use a tree service company in Las Vegas who calls me every few months to remind me it is time to trim my palm trees, fertilize shrubs, and perform other lawn services. I have an existing business relationship with this company. We have provided a review of the current status of telemarketing legislation in 32 states titled “Federal and State Telemarketing Laws” (Exhibit H). Of those states, all but one has an existing business-relationship exemption. Indiana is the only state with an exception.
Cox Communication is subject to federal requirements as are many businesses. We propose an amendment to allow existing businesses to make those kinds of calls (Exhibit I). Established business-relationship exemptions are explained in two memos from Cox Communications legal counsel (Exhibit J and Exhibit K). This amendment would also require existing businesses to notify their customers, on an annual basis, regarding a do-not-call list. A customer who does not want to receive calls can notify the business to be taken off the call list.
At the State level, we prefer a do-not-call list rather than a do‑call list. We do not have experience with do-call lists. I do not believe any exist across the country. A do-call list would basically make every Nevada telephone number unavailable for calls, unless customers take the initiative to put their numbers on the list. I cannot imagine many would do so. We feel that would hurt legitimate Nevada businesses. We support the bill in concept to rid bad telemarketers who bother people. I would like to get rid of annoying calls.
I do want calls from my cable operator, my tree service, and my retailer. I appreciate those calls. I have built that relationship with that retailer, and I want to hear from them.
In our amendment, we also noted the code sections in the 32 states that permit existing business relationships. I cannot find a business that does not want to have this exemption, whether it is telecommunication companies, newspaper associations, or health care companies.
Mr. Schorr:
Cable television companies operate under contractual franchises. Cox Communications has five franchises in southern Nevada, which represent the entire southern Nevada community. In our franchise agreement we are required to install or repair cable service at the customer’s house. The current requirement says that 9 percent of the time we must contact the customer beforehand if we are going to be late. Under this bill, we would be prohibited from making those calls.
In the “Federal and State Telemarketing Laws” handout, most states have exclusion for the cable television industry. The FTC has restrictions upon cable television companies that are not held to other companies. We are required to notify, in writing, our customers yearly regarding privacy laws. The customer has the right to privacy. Our yearly written notification to customers gives them an option to be put on a do-not-call list.
Senator Hardy:
When you call regarding prizefights, are those live calls from people or automated calls?
Mr. Schorr:
We make live calls. Under current legislation, any calls, whether automated or not, are considered as telemarketing calls.
Senator Hardy:
Do you utilize the automatic dialing devices?
Mr. Schorr:
We do not.
Senator Hardy:
Do you utilize faxes?
Mr. Schorr:
No. Few of our customers use fax machines in their homes. Even if they did, a faxed notification does not meet our requirements for our customers.
Chairman Townsend:
You have addressed a current problem with frustrated customers who cannot purchase the pay-per-view fight. Perhaps you could try creative marketing where you advise your customers, in the circumstance of a blackout, it may be lifted 48 hours prior to the fight.
Mr. Schorr:
We are specifically prohibited from doing that. Promoters want to sell tickets. If we circulate marketing saying the fight could be lifted in 48 hours, they believe it harms their potential to sell tickets. Most fights are available on a digital converter box. Customers who do not have digital cable come in and rent a box. They return it the day after the fight. Around 6 percent of our customers rent the box overnight just to see the fight. This does not allow them to know the fight is lifted in order to rent the box. The last fight was not lifted. We had many customers who thought it would be lifted. They came to rent the box, installed it, and then found there was no fight. We had unhappy customers which we credited because we knew they rented the box for the sole purpose of watching the fight. We need to let people know when a fight is lifted.
Chairman Townsend:
Under this proposal, are you able to call customers at any time besides 9 p.m. to 9 a.m.?
Mr. Schorr:
I believe we are prohibited from calling 9 p.m. to 9 a.m. We do not make phone calls after 8 p.m. We agree to that provision. We are prohibited from making phone calls at any time by this bill.
Chairman Townsend:
When a customer comes in to rent a box or sign up for cable service, do they provide you with other phone numbers besides their home phone number?
Mr. Schorr:
Not typically. They normally give us their home number as a security measure. We require a home phone number, a name, and a code which is the last four digits of their social security number. That code protects the customer from another customer calling and ordering a fight in their name. Our digital customers, who make up 35 percent, can order the fight simply by using their remote control. The remaining analog customers must call in using their phone numbers and code to order an event.
Chairman Townsend:
If a current subscriber asks never to be called, do you have the capability to respond to that?
Mr. Schorr:
Customers receive notice giving them an option for privacy at any time. They must make a verbal call to request the option for privacy. We click a button on the computer and the customer’s name, phone, and all personal information is removed from all lists. The exception is for service calls informing them we will be late.
Chairman Townsend:
Here is the premise of this bill. Most Nevadans are busy in the day with work, church, and other activities. They come home and have a few minutes of the day they control. We want to protect that time. I admire some companies, such as Cox Communications, that give a do-not-call option. We are taking it one step further. We do not feel the burden not to be called should be up to the customer.
Mr. Ostrovsky:
We support the concept of this bill imposing some telemarketing restrictions. We do not wish to harass our customers. We want to ensure this bill does not handicap legitimate Nevada businesses.
Marsha L. Berkbigler, Lobbyist, Charter Communications:
I agree to previous testimony from the representatives for Cox Communications.
Steven Tackes, Lobbyist, Eschelon, and MCI/WorldCom:
We believe the federal law, U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 395 (Exhibit L), passed 3 weeks ago, overtakes State efforts in this issue. All members of the Nevada Congressional Delegation supported this law. It brings uniformity and a national approach to the do-not-call issue. The bill H.R. 395 requires the FCC to complete a current rule making proceeding regarding do-not-call lists no later than 180 days. This law mandates a national rule to be in place by sometime this summer. Section 4 of H.R. 395 states the FTC and FCC must both report back to Congress within 45 days after a final rule is in effect regarding an analysis of that process. We believe this is a preferable way to address this issue. It is a national one-call program.
If the State adopts a list, whether a do-call or a do-not-call, like other states, the reach will only go to State boundaries. For interstate business calls, this bill would be impractical. A State list would be enforced at call centers located within the State. It would be difficult to enforce with call centers in other states. Costs of enforcing out-of-state call lists would be substantial. They are not reflected in the current fiscal note.
Regarding calls coming from outside the country, I do not believe the attorney general has an international provision. Even if we could obtain the jurisdiction to enforce this law internationally, we could not enforce it under the costs in this bill. A national bill is a better way to go. International calls will be an international issue best dealt with by national government.
From a consumer standpoint, this is a preferable issue. If a person did not want to receive calls from Indiana, they would need to add their number to the Indiana do-not-call lists. It is inconvenient for a person to go through the process to put his name on each of the 32 state lists to stop calls coming from those particular states. Then, if a person still receives a call from one of those states, he could complain to the attorney general about that particular state. This is not as good a solution as H.R. 395, a single-national call list.
Senator O’Connell:
Did you present this testimony to the Assembly?
Mr. Tackes:
Yes, I did. I did receive some feedback questioning whether we should spend State funds on a program that is currently in federal jurisdiction, and funded by federal funds.
Senator O’Connell:
I believe this bill was heard on their floor today, and it was not adopted.
Mr. Tackes:
That is correct. It was not.
Senator Hardy:
You discussed federal jurisdiction over out-of-state calls. Are you suggesting other states would not have to comply with Nevada laws, or are you saying it would be difficult to enforce?
Mr. Tackes:
Both. If the company calling does not have an existing business relationship with the customer, and the call is a single interstate commerce call, there is no jurisdiction. They need not comply with Nevada law. Even if a minimal business contact was established, and the State could obtain long-arm jurisdiction over the company from out of state, it would be difficult to enforce.
Senator Hardy:
Do you take advantage of the automatic dialing devices, or does your company only make live calls?
Mr. Tackes:
My clients make live calls. I am not aware if they use auto dialers.
Chairman Townsend:
You believe no matter what we provide, we do not have jurisdiction over companies not based in our State?
Mr. Tackes:
Yes. Jurisdiction is examined under the Nevada Constitution to determine adequate existing business contacts within the State. If there are adequate business contacts, we may have jurisdiction. If the only event occurring is a telephone call from another state to an individual in Nevada, it is doubtful. It is my opinion, in this instance, Nevada would not have jurisdiction.
Chairman Townsend:
Are you saying whether we process this bill, the Assembly version of this bill, or the amendment from Cox Communications, our citizens would still need to be put on a national do-not-call list to stop out-of-state calls?
Mr. Tackes:
Nevada residents would still need to go on a national call list to prevent calls from other states. Federal law does not preempt State law. I do not want to tell you that we cannot adopt a State law; we can. The issue is the effectiveness of the law.
Chairman Townsend:
What is the closure rate of your cold-call telemarketing efforts?
Mr. Tackes:
I do not know. I will find out.
Chairman Townsend:
Given the amount of television network and cable advertisements and newsprint ads purchased by long-distance and wireless services, do they still need telemarketing to convince customers to switch to their services? Do they have to beat us to death with ads and calls?
Mr. Tackes:
Television and newsprint advertisement is somewhat effective. My clients do not wish to beat our customers down. If a customer does not want to be called, we do not want to call them. Telemarketing calls have been successful at MCI/Worldcom. There must be some value in those calls.
Chairman Townsend:
Some of us call that value intimidation.
Mr. Tackes:
A person can easily hang up the phone.
Chairman Townsend:
Yes, but that company has invaded my home by calling. Why should the burden be on the average homeowner?
Mr. Tackes:
The incentives offered by these companies are enticing to some because the calls do have a good success rate.
Chairman Townsend:
I am more concerned with our senior citizens who get fooled into agreements. They are often living alone, vulnerable, and likely to have a fixed income. This is the greater concern over my own inconvenience at telemarketing calls. I had a caller wake me up with a late call. This is not a good way to sell anything. I can get over it, but the more vulnerable citizens need our protection.
Mr. Tackes:
I agree people should be protected from harassment.
Chairman Townsend:
Have you seen the Cox Communications amendment?
Mr. Tackes:
I am familiar with the amendment. My clients support the amendment should this bill be passed.
Chairman Townsend:
If a person is not signed up with your particular long-distance service, according to this amendment, you cannot call them. You can only make calls to preexisting relationships. But if you say we cannot reach across state lines, would you still be calling unless those customers were on the federal do-not-call lists?
Mr. Tackes:
I believe my clients would comply with any law adopted by the State. My concern is with disreputable telemarketers who are taking advantage of people. These are the ones over whom you probably cannot get jurisdiction.
Scott M. Craigie, Lobbyist, Sprint Nevada, Farmers Insurance Group, and American Resort Development Association:
I have seen the amendment. At first glance, I agree with the testimony given by the Cox Communications team. The focus of this amendment is in section 15, which is where I believe it should be, specifically on existing business relationships. The telecommunications business is a dynamic, competitive, and highly regulated industry, now offering bundled services for a lower price than one might pay for a collection of individual services. It is to the advantage of the company to have a customer buy bundles as they can be retained for a longer period of time, and the company can take good care of them. The customer can get the same services at a lower price. It is valuable for us to be able to make those types of telemarketing calls. It is necessary for a doctor to call reminding a parent it is time for their child’s 6-month checkup.
Some common business relationship phone calls become questionable when looking at this bill. Some of my clients use speed dialing. For example, the phone company has some services not available in certain geographic areas until it is built into those areas. Many customers tell us they want a certain service once it becomes available in a new neighborhood. We load those customer names into our system, and when the service becomes available, we speed dial them. We have massive numbers of calls to make such as these. We still have a live person calling using the speed dial option.
Chairman Townsend:
Is there some new telemarketing rule to call a customer by their first name? This is very offensive to the customer.
Mr. Craigie:
I agree. My purpose here is to ask that we not disrupt existing business relationships.
Chairman Townsend:
You all made good points. You might advise all telemarketers, if we process this preexisting language, to show customers at home the appropriate respect they deserve. Call customers by their last names. Tell them your own name. This issue would not be the problem it is if respect were shown. If you are going to invade a person’s personal limited hours of privacy, then, at the very least, show the respect they deserve.
Mr. Craigie:
We do not hire temporary employees to work phone banks. Our telemarketers are full-time employees who have an investment in customer relationships as much as the business does.
Robert Bass, Lobbyist, SBC:
I represent SBC. I agree with those who testified. I ask that you consider the amendment by the Cox Communications team regarding existing business relationships. Our company values these relationships. We have operated in this State for over 90 years. Our customers mean much to us. We do not call to annoy them. We provide extensive training to our telemarketers. We support the amendment.
Kent F. Lauer, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association:
We support the Cox Communications amendment.
Senator O’Connell:
Will you please tell the newspaper people to check the subscriber lists before they call customers to add them to their service? This is a pet peeve of mine.
Samuel P. McMullen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce:
There are some small business implications yet to be addressed. The small business uses its customer lists when times get tough. Those are prior-purchase customers. They may not be long-term, existing relationships. The federal law gives some relief on this issue. A gift shop sponsoring a collection series might want to call interested customers when the next collection arrives. The cost of purchasing a do-call list, and then spending the resources comparing it to current customer lists, is a concern to small businesses. They are afraid of losing any marketing options during this difficult economic time.
George A. Ross, Lobbyist, The McMullen Strategic Group, and AIG Claim Services Incorporated:
We understand the need for this bill. We are all offended by abusive telemarketing calls. However, please do not throw the baby out with the bath water. We ask you to make an amendment allowing for existing business relationships. The bill, as written, would preclude some good customer-service applications. My insurance agent called me, an existing policy homeowner with his company, to ask if I were involved in coaching any sports teams. Because I was involved coaching a sports team, he suggested I get an umbrella policy to cover passengers I transported to games. I would not have known I needed such a policy if he had not contacted me. I appreciate the customer service. A life insurance agent might call to see if a family had additional children, in which case they would need more insurance. The AIG Claim Services Company markets by sending mailers to customers who would be potentially interested in a product. The mailer provides a phone number to call if they are interested. When the customer calls, AIG asks a few questions and sends them the information. This law would preclude us from a follow-up call to see if the customer obtained the information and desired to purchase the product. This is not a cold call. The customer initiated the relationship by responding to the mailer. We need to be able to continue good marketing and customer service processes. The AIG Claim Services Company has many products and a broad customer base. They know the needs of their customers and can market to those needs. We would like you to consider these relationships for marketing purposes. I have not read the Cox Communications amendment, but it sounds to be a favorable situation.
Mary Lau, Lobbyist, Retail Association of Nevada:
I have read the amendment, and my client supports the concept of the amendment. I was here in the days when we were comparing telemarketing to fraudulent behavior. Now we have progressed into annoying behavior. Our national affiliate has worked hard on the national language of this bill.
Chairman Townsend:
Is there technology for landline phones, as cellular phones have, which attach programmable numbers to a distinct ring?
Margaret A. McMillan, Lobbyist, Sprint Nevada:
There is a distinctive ringing feature available, which costs around $5 a month. We also offer call blocking. When an unidentified call comes in, frequently a telemarketing call, the recording says, “This telephone number does not accept calls from unidentified callers. Please state your name.” A legitimate caller would state his name, and then the phone rings. The customer answers the phone and hears the name of the caller, at which time they can either answer the call, send the call to voice mail, or hang up.
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office:
We request the language of the bill on page 2, lines 31 to 33, be replaced with existing language from page 6, section 6. We have reverse 911 calls, which we use in an emergency or as a safety check for an automated call back to 911 calls. The new language on page 2 is too restrictive in our ability to check the system set up for 911 calls.
Chairman Townsend:
We do not intend to prohibit any of our security or public health agencies. If there is no additional testimony, we will convene this bill to a subcommittee. My only suggestion, which was a request from the attorney general, is on page 2, line 37, to change the time from 9 p.m. to 8 p.m. We will close the hearing on S.B. 255 and open the hearing on S.B. 278.
SENATE BILL 278: Revises provisions relating to powers of certain local governmental entities to provide services of community antenna television system. (BDR 58-1127)
Senator Neal:
This bill is a consumer measure to remove restrictions that deny local government from providing cable television to their communities. It would make it possible for a city or county government to sell community cable services.
Andrew L. Barbano, Lobbyist, City of Reno Citizens Cable Compliance Committee:
I am here as chairman of my committee and as a ratepayer. This bill has yet to be presented to our panel. I spent some time researching the history of this bill dating back to 1997. I have a report titled “City of Reno Cable Television Community Needs Report” (Exhibit M), that cost the city $56,000. Charter Communications has a monopoly control of the northwestern Nevada market, with 61 percent of the general market and 51 percent of the Reno market. This bill is an insurance policy should Charter Communication’s current financial instability impair their ability to serve Reno, and there is no one else ready to take their place. Reno, Washoe County, and within 2 years, Sparks, will be renegotiating franchises with Charter Communications. Passage of this bill will give those cities leverage in their contracting all municipalities of Nevada need. I am not suggesting Reno would want to physically take over Charter Communications’ plant. That would be a problem. They would also need to include Washoe County and the City of Sparks, both of whom are on the same system, but have different franchise agreements and expiration dates.
The report prepared by Action Audit recommended Reno tie any extension on an initial franchise term to the company’s ability to provide reliable cable and Internet service, responsive customer service, and satisfy evolving community needs. It also suggested establishing bankruptcy provisions in Reno’s franchise agreement to protect the cities’ public, educational, and governmental facilities, which is the cable access system. Charter Communications’ stock values decreased 90 percent in 2002. Since December 2001, Charter Communications has lost 277,000 subscribers. The report concluded by stating Reno should take full advantage of various legal and regulatory measures to protect the community in case of financial failure, and to ensure the level of local accountability and service excellence the community expects of a business located in Reno. I would say their cable provider underserves the citizens of Clark County because there is no public access.
I also have a handout (Exhibit N) of a study of Glasgow, Kentucky, whose citizens pay $19 a month for 70 cable channels. The city-owned electric utility provides cable TV and Internet access. Mr. Schorr testified before the Senate Committee on Government Affairs in 1997 (Exhibit O). His testimony maintained that government should not be in the business of competing with private industry unless government could prove the competition was in the best interest of the public. He referenced A.B. 508 of the 69th Session, which stated if the community was involved in the cable business, the community should be required to show a reason for the involvement.
Since that time, circumstances have changed. Charter Communications’ financial condition is of great concern to everyone in the industry. I believe the municipalities served by Charter Communications need flexibility to get involved if needed. Charles McCubbins, from Washoe County, built and sold 29 cable systems, including the Glenbrook at Lake Tahoe cable system. He is an expert on cable television systems. Mr. McCubbins sent me a letter saying he is a proponent of this issue, and believes under the right leadership, this is the best way to go for communities of any size.
Barbara Stone:
I am a senior advocate. The cable companies are out of line with their costs. Most senior citizen residents do not have a choice of cable companies. They are forced to use Charter Communications. Senior citizen housing and apartments will not allow other options. Extended cable costs $40 a month. It is unaffordable for most seniors who choose a $10 package, which is comparable to using rabbit ears. The $40 extended service does not offer interesting programming. Most seniors are not interested in sports or ethnic programming. We get no movie channels. We do get public access, such as ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox. We do not get a lot of good programming from those channels. I have spoken with many senior citizens who are unhappy with their cable service. They are frustrated, and have no choice as they are up against a large entity.
Chairman Townsend:
Is there a comparable group to yours in southern Nevada who has worked with Cox Communications?
Mr. Barbano:
A former talk radio personality in Las Vegas, Tina Shaffer, helped put together a broad-based organization to add a public access channel in the Cox Communications’ franchise, either with the City of Las Vegas or Clark County, a year ago. They were denied. Every municipality must review the service ethics of the cable provided before they renew the franchise. I believe her group has been active. Only the Boulder City municipality in Clark County has a public access channel.
Chairman Townsend:
To review, if a current franchisee were to go bankrupt or interrupt service for whatever reason, the county or local entity could take over. They could either purchase or operate that facility until another provider purchased the assets.
Mr. Barbano:
I do not think the bill is explicit in the event of an interim takeover.
Chairman Townsend:
It is not. My goal is to make sure the cable company continues to operate. Also, the franchise fee bothers many on this panel. All utilities pay a franchise fee to generate local government, which is added to the subscriber bills. Last year alone, all Clark County utilities combined paid franchise fees of $80 million. The third issue is public access. Is Sierra Nevada Community Access Television, or SNCAT, a public station? I appear regularly on a show called Erasing the Stigma which is about mental health. Is that currently shown on Charter Communications?
Mr. Barbano:
I was on the founding board for SNCAT. We saved it from extinction at the hands of the Reno City Council. They wanted to put the franchise fee into a general fund. Franchise fees would be lost to the city in case of a public takeover. No one would mind if cable rates fell 60 or 65 percent, instead of 70 percent, so that extra 5 percent revenue could be used by the city. These rates can fall by that much if we follow the example of Glaskow, Kentucky. We are in the throes of facing a deregulated monopoly. If Nevada Power is taken over by the Southern Nevada Water Authority, there could be a possible automatic 20 percent drop in rates. In cable it could be a much greater drop because of the lack of competition. Satellite is gaining popularity, but in northern Nevada it only has 21 percent of the market. With respect to public access, this includes the program you have been involved with about mental health. These programs are by local people on local issues, such as public, educational, and governmental issues. I read in the papers that Clark County entities have taken $2 million to $3 million a year out of rate payer’s money to use in propaganda and reelection for incumbents in office. In Reno, Sparks, and Washoe County, we have a great public education and governmental access system. There are three channels for public education on governmental access. A fourth exists, but is not in service.
“The City of Reno Cable Television Community Needs Report” (Exhibit M) recommends three additional channels be devoted to public education and governmental access in Washoe County. Except for Boulder City, Las Vegas has no public access. Those ratepayers got nowhere when they tried to include public access in the franchise agreement. I understand neither Cox Communications nor the Las Vegas City Council were cooperative in that effort.
Chairman Townsend:
What exactly are the concerns of the seniors you represent, besides rates? What does the basic rate of $10 include?
Ms. Stone:
Seniors are not interested in the channels offered in the extended basic package. They would like programming that meets their interests, such as current and older movie channels. They say it is too bad all the money they are paying does not stay in our community. Senior citizens would like the money paid to stay in this area.
Chairman Townsend:
What about General Motors and Wal-Mart? Economically that does not work.
Ms. Stone:
True, but seniors feel the quality of cable service is not worth the money they pay. They feel there is no recourse.
Chairman Townsend:
By quality, are you referring to broadcast or programming quality?
Ms. Stone:
Programming. Sometimes cable goes out for a few minutes, sometime a few hours. When we call to let them know of the outage, the cable company offers to refund some money from that outage. Then, when the bill comes, the refund is for one dollar.
Chairman Townsend:
Are these area-based outages?
Ms. Stone:
It happens frequently. It may be due to the installation of new lines. I thought the lines were already installed.
Chairman Townsend:
There have been disclaimers about upgrading the system broadcast on a regular basis. I saw these broadcasts. Seniors are more likely to see disruption of services as they may be home more frequently.
Ms. Stone:
The cable company offers Digital Video Disk, DVD, as an option. The charge is around $60 to $75 a month. Some senior citizens did not get what they wanted when ordering DVD. When senior citizens called to ask for the DVD box to be removed, the cable company said it could not remove the box for 30 days. During this time the customer had to pay for service. They were told they could unplug the box before the 30 days and bring it into Charter Communications at which time billing would end. Most seniors cannot do this.
Mr. Barbano:
The Charter Communications’ complaint-handling and refund process is haphazard. Our committee is focusing on this concern. The 1996 cable act gave municipalities regulatory authority only over basic cable. Basic cable, 7 years ago, included more material. The cable companies immediately redefined what basic cable included, and took away the good programming. Now it includes what you get over the air, anyway, plus C Span, TNT, and Headline News. The good programs previously included were moved into expanded basic. The cable act forced people to double their cost to purchase the new tier of service, just to retain the programming they previously received. The study recommends the city involved in the franchise renewal process to bring more accountability to the process.
Mr. Barbano:
We would like the committee to see this report (Exhibit M).
Chairman Townsend:
I am amazed at the amount of capital available to create new programming. When ESPN began, people said that a 24-hour period of time could not be filled solely by sports. They said it would be repetitive, and this was less than 10 years ago. Now we have ESPN 1, ESPN 2, ESPN Classic, and Fox Sports. There are other options such as, Discovery, History, Travel, National Geographic, House and Garden, and Food channels.
Ms. Stone:
They must be offered in the package to receive those stations.
Chairman Townsend:
Yes. But there is capital flowing into the development of programming. The great thing about the American marketplace, if there is a demand, someone will fill it. Cable companies throughout this country must spend time and money determining the right types of packages to offer for profit and numbers of viewers based on demographics. I empathize with seniors who want certain programming.
Ms. Stone:
There are entities in Reno who will put those packages together for less money. Quadravision is one. It is a satellite service requiring a dish. We cannot use this satellite dish where I live because of housing restrictions. Almost all senior citizen complexes have this rule. If not for this restriction, I could purchase Quadravision for $24.95 a month and receive package options.
Chairman Townsend:
Did you know about the restriction before you moved into your housing complex?
Ms. Stone:
Most people do not understand these rules. They are desperately looking for housing. With Nevada being the fastest growing state, senior citizen housing is a scarcity.
Chairman Townsend:
I think at some point in time cable companies will allow customers to pick their own packages.
Mr. Barbano:
Charter Communications has a sophisticated computer system now that would allow this service. It was designed for interactivity years ago. An a la carte service should be offered today. This is one reason why 277,000 customers nationally left Charter Communications a year ago. Their financial condition is now weakened because they are not being consumer responsive. This bill is important in case they continue to decline. Municipalities should be prepared to run the company in the interim if the provider cannot meet the standards of the community.
Senator Neal:
I have a concern about current law. The governing body of a county of 50,000 or more, or a city of 25,000 or more shall not sell the service of a community television system to the general public. This language gives the cable industry a monopoly. I understand the problem in southern Nevada. We gave the county and city an access channel for public meetings. There is nothing there for the general public, unless you watch the city council meetings or county commission meetings.
We do not have access channels in that area, with Boulder City being the exception. Why do we not have access channels in the largest county of this State? It is because of this current statute. The public deserves the service of a public access channel. Clark County does have public television owned by the school district. We also need three or four public access channels for our largest county. This statute does a disservice to the general welfare of the community in southern Nevada.
Chairman Townsend:
The franchise agreement in southern Nevada ended in 1998. It included all five communities at once. The contention was the lack of an access channel in southern Nevada, yet those five communities did not use their right to add an access channel as a condition of renewing the franchise. They chose not to do so.
Mr. Schorr:
All five communities held public hearings addressing public/community access. Cox Communications took no position. In each community they decided they did not want public access because it is first come, first served. There is no control. They opted for community access. Southern Nevada has community access today. Cox Communications is required, by the franchise, to make a channel available. We have done so. Local governments have not utilized it. This condition is not controlled by the cable company, but by local government. Boulder City does not have a public access channel. It is funded by the City of Boulder City.
Senator Neal:
I would like to hear from a representative from Clark County and the City of Las Vegas.
Mr. Barbano:
One cable channel in the City of Reno is worth a million dollars a year to the cable company. Why would five local governments decide against providing public access to their citizens? I submit local officials are not immune to political pressure. Public access channels are in great demand all over the country. Las Vegas, however, did not get this service. If they can get this service, and the possibility is there, then Mr. Schorr has done us a service by exposing this possibility to us. I had no idea there was public access available under the current franchise agreement. If the municipalities chose not to provide it, I suggest this was a result of politics.
Chairman Townsend:
We are trying to determine any merit to this bill.
Senator Neal:
There is merit to the bill. The problem is in the application.
Chairman Townsend:
We are comparing two separate jurisdictions with two separate franchise agreements. Southern Nevada gave local government authority, who chose not to have public access. Northern Nevada is riddled by complaints against the company and has concerns about their financial trouble. Government, under this bill, should be the answer to those two contentions.
Mr. Barbano:
I feel this bill can resolve Charter Communications’ problems in northern Nevada, including financial problems. It can provide a backup option in negotiating a franchise, or a takeover in case of a closure. Cox Communications is not at risk of closing, but Charter Communications is at risk. This poses a threat of substandard or discontinued service. This bill gives us the power to correct a problem if the company does not correct itself.
Chairman Townsend:
Have you asked the City of Reno if they have worked with Charter Communications to prepare, in case of a closure?
Mr. Barbano:
I am not privy to the franchise negotiation process, but as addressed in this report, I can assume that it is a central issue in the negotiations.
Chairman Townsend:
When do the franchise agreements expire?
Mr. Barbano:
I believe Charter Communications franchise expires, in the City of Reno, October 2003. Washoe County expires this month. Washoe County granted a 1-year extension to Charter Communications to give them time to renegotiate a new franchise. Both are in flux. Sparks expires in a couple of years. The Las Vegas contract expires in 20 years.
Senator Neal:
Are you opposed to this bill?
Mr. Schorr:
I oppose the bill.
Marsha L. Berkbigler, Lobbyist, Charter Communications:
I did not prepare today to defend the financial status of the company. I would have brought some statistics had I known. I do not believe this is the purpose of the bill or an issue to the City of Reno. In the last 4 years, we have invested over $400 million in the greater Reno/Sparks market. We have upgraded the cable system to provide technological advances, including high-speed data.
From Mr. Barbano’s perspective, it sounds as if this would be a taking of private property by local government. There are federal laws preventing that. This bill does not impact that issue. Charter Communications has a $17 billion to $20 billion debt; however, we have a national infrastructure worth $14 billion. Paul Allen, a billionaire in the country, owns 93 percent of our stock. We do not believe Charter Communications will go bankrupt. I do not know the intentions of Mr. Allen. Either way, it is not an issue for the City of Reno. Should Charter Communications go bankrupt, federal law prohibits us from shutting the cable system down. We still have to operate.
Adelphia Communications, the fifth or sixth largest cable company in the nation, is currently going through bankruptcy. Their bankruptcy filing has not impacted those communities they serve. They are still in operation. If, in the unusual circumstance that Charter Communications went bankrupt, it would not impact the City of Reno’s cable system in any way.
My concern about this bill is local government getting involved. We have competition. We have 52 percent penetration, with satellite having 21 percent. This is not a monopoly. We have other satellite and wireless competitors. Our northern Nevada franchises are not exclusive franchises. The city or county may, at any time, offer a franchise to anyone else. These are not monopoly franchises. When others compete from the private sector, then we all pay the same taxes, and play on the same field.
If local government competes, the service can be undercut because government does not have to pay local taxes. They are also able to obtain free or discounted advertising. Where is it addressed in this legislation that a local government would have to play by the same rules as the private sector?
Regarding the issue of senior citizens, we have heard their concerns of wanting to pick their programming. An a la carte programming option is not an issue of technology, but of money. We have conducted surveys on cable programming services. One national survey, unassociated with the cable industry, found the cost of sports programming has increased by 133 percent in the last decade. That cost is passed on to the customers. Every multimillion dollar contract paid to a professional athlete is paid for, in part, by television viewing customers. Sports programming is not the only programming to increase. Cable company programming costs increased between 18 and 20 percent this year.
I am not sure how a local government can take over our infrastructure, which we paid for, and offer cheaper costs. They still have to pay for programming. The more customers who watch HBO, the less HBO costs. If those customers choose other channels, then the price of HBO goes up. That is why a la carte programming is so expensive. We are beginning a digital tier programming system. If you want to watch family programming, you can purchase only those channels. Each tier costs $4, basic service is $12.52, and the cost goes up per tier, adding $4 for the box. These are our attempts to help seniors, especially those who watch television as their sole form of entertainment.
We are sensitive to our customer needs. This is a business and we are in business to make money. We also like to provide our customers with the service they want, in a timely manner, and at a reasonable price. Otherwise, they do not remain our customers.
Senator Neal:
Our purpose is to protect the general welfare of the citizens. When your business threatens their welfare, then we must act. That is why we changed deregulation. Do not make money at the expense of the general welfare of our citizens.
Ms. Berkbigler:
We agree. We are in favor of caring for the customer base. Our new programming and tier process are based on customer service. We have competition. We are in the business of serving the customer as well as doing what is best as a company. My concern is that this legislation does not help the citizens. Who will pay the franchise fee to the City of Sparks, the property taxes, and the State business license fee if the local government of Reno goes into the cable business? Local government does not pay those fees.
Senator Neal:
Is it fair that 25,000 citizens cannot get cable service under this bill?
Ms. Berkbigler:
We have many cable systems that are smaller. Yerington, Battle Mountain, Carlin, and Wells are all examples of smaller areas. We provide as good a base as possible without putting those customers in an unaffordable situation.
Senator Neal:
If there is no threat, then why does the bill have those restrictions?
Ms. Berkbigler:
This legislation does not impact those small communities. This impacts Washoe County, Clark County, and Carson City.
Senator Neal:
This will not put you out of business if the government serves communities smaller than 25,000.
Ms. Berkbigler:
I am questioning the fairness of a competing local government putting an existing private sector business out of business.
Senator Neal:
Why have those numbers in the statute? We did not put those numbers in the bill, the cable companies did. Why?
Ms. Berkbigler:
I was not involved in that. You would have to ask other cable companies who were involved.
Robert Gastonguay, Lobbyist, Nevada State Cable Telecommunications Association:
I would like to counter Mr. Barbano’s statements about Glasgow, Kentucky. I will read from the Marietta Daily Journal:
A city-owned board launched cable fiber net project projecting annual profits of $27 million on $30 million in revenue. Instead, it has posted a loss for each of its 4 years of operation. The city spent $31 million to build the network, incurring more than $ 4.3 million in losses. Marietta Mayor Bill Dunway who has pledged to sell the embattled enterprise said, ‘I want to get out of this business. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is a road the city leadership should never had led us down.’
Senator Neal:
Would you respond to the issue of the Clark County cable company not having access to a public access channel?
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County:
I do not have expertise in this area. There are government access channels. I do not believe we have public access channels outside of those. I will get the information to you.
Senator Neal:
We need to know if the county commission has, within his authority, the ability to grant a public access channel in Clark County. Can it grant one public access channel, or more than one?
David Howard, Lobbyist, City of Reno:
We support any legislation enabling the city to have more flexibility. We do not desire to go into the cable business. We do, however, support the legislation.
Robert H. Erickson, Lobbyist, City of Fallon:
The City of Fallon has no intention of going into the cable business.
Senator Neal:
If you have no intention of going into the cable business, would you mind being barred from the option?
Mr. Erickson:
No sir. We are not taking a position on this bill. It was mentioned in Mr. Barbano’s testimony that we are considering entering the cable business, and I want it on the record we are not.
Mr. Schorr:
As the largest cable telecommunications provider in our State, I find it peculiar to be considering legislation adopted in 1997. The Nevada Legislature adopted clear policy prohibiting all but the smallest communities from competing with private cable operators. The overall feeling was cities and governments regulating companies like mine should not be in the business of competing with them at the same time. Cities and counties are struggling to make taxpayer dollars cover their expenses. Cox Communications currently provides more than $11.4 million annually to its franchising authorities in southern Nevada. Since 1998, we have paid over $54 million in local franchise fees for the five communities we serve. Private capital funding does not exist.
Any investment by municipalities could be made only on the basis of government bonds guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the community. Most older builders who have tried to provide another source of competition have failed financially. If a municipality fails in this business, the taxpayers will bare the brunt.
Even for companies such as mine, finding the capital funds to continue to build our ever-growing communities becomes harder. Last year Cox Communications spent over $72 million in capital dollars to extend our services to the ever‑growing residential and business communities in southern Nevada. At the same time, we were adding the latest technologies such as high-definition television, faster services, and analog and digital channels. No private money is available for these ventures. There is substantial competition. Municipalities providing cable service in a community that has existing cable providers would be a third or fourth competitor. Competitors in larger communities include the existing cable service provider, Direct Broadcast Satellite, which has more than 21 percent of the Nevada market, and Digital Satellite Line. This competition spurs Cox Communications to provide service at a great cost. It also increases the risk of additional competitive services failing.
Cox Communications continues to go above and beyond the requirements of our local franchise agreements. Statistically, we provide better service than required by those agreements. We were the first provider to offer 2-hour service and installation windows to customers, provide service and installation after 5 p.m., and first to give service guarantees.
Despite the fact we served over 400,000 customers in 2002, our official complaint numbers were less than 1/10 of 1 percent of our total customer base. As a company, we lead the nation in fewest outage minutes per customer with less than 44 minutes for the entire year. This is an unprecedented number.
If government provides competitive cable services, it is almost inevitable they will have to subsidize those services with tax revenues, and will find it impossible not to use its regulatory powers to try to disadvantage the private company. We feel these would result in bad public policy. We want to remind the committee that the interim legislative committee said it would be bad government policy to compete against private industry from government-owned businesses. There are no success stories of a private and government cable system operating in healthy competition. In most cases, the city cases have either floundered or, in a few cases, driven out the private company.
Cox Communications has been an outstanding corporate citizen. Last year, we provided $1.5 million in cash to charitable and nonprofit organizations in southern Nevada. Our Goal Getters program has over 120,000 children enrolled, helping them make and achieve goals. Our partnership with the Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy, a Cox Communications model technology school, has been awarded for its efforts to help “at promise” children succeed educationally. Our Welcome Home Program has seen the adoption of over 100 at-risk children in our community. We now support over 100 various organizations such as United Way, Latin Chamber of Commerce, and the YMCA.
I spoke to Mayor Oscar Goodman of Las Vegas, Mayor Robert Cashell of Reno, Mayor Michael Montandan of North Las Vegas, and County Manager Tom Reilly of Clark County. None expressed any interest in competing with the local franchised cable provider. Tom Reilley said, “This is nowhere on our radar screen. We have no interest in getting into competition with local franchised companies.” Mayor Oscar Goodman said “We have enough challenges already in local government. We don’t need to compete with good companies like yours (Exhibit P).”
Senator Neal:
Do you understand this legislation enables a government to provide service? It does not require anyone to do anything. Why are you afraid of it?
Mr. Schorr:
I fear local government both in controlling private industry and then competing against it. There is too much opportunity to put the private industry into a defensive position.
Senator Neal:
Does negotiating a franchise agreement put a local government into a position to bring pressure to your company?
Mr. Schorr:
As the individual who currently negotiated these franchises with the local government, I will tell you local government puts plenty of pressure on cable television companies. Our franchise requirements in southern Nevada are much more stringent than federal requirements set forth by the FCC.
Senator Neal:
The statute merely proposes an option. What did you have before this went into statute? Local government did not put this into statute.
Mr. Schorr:
No, but it was negotiated with local governments.
Senator Neal:
As I recall, the cable companies came to us and had this inserted into the statute.
Mr. Schorr:
That is not the case. There were negotiations with the City of Las Vegas, Clark County, and Washoe County. We all negotiated this. The cable company was not the instigator of this bill.
Senator Neal:
We will see what the record reflects. As I recall, when this statute went into effect, it gave you a monopoly.
Mr. Schorr:
No. We have 61 percent of the marketplace; satellite dish has over 20 percent. The rest have nothing, or maybe rabbit ears. This does not constitute a monopoly. We do not have an exclusive franchise. Any other private industry can compete with us.
Senator Neal:
You say that local government cannot sell to a community of 50,000 or less?
Mr. Schorr:
I said it is dangerous for local government to regulate on the one hand and compete on the other hand. We have to ask local governments daily for permits to be able to extend our plant. They could easily delay those permits. If local government is in the business as competition, the potential is there for delays.
Senator Neal:
Who do you think is responsible for the general welfare, you or the government?
Mr. Schorr:
The government is responsible, and this is why they have created stringent franchises. They hold franchise companies to the fire. I provide an annual report to our local government. I provide statistics quarterly to prove I meet their requirements.
Senator Neal:
Is your company a local company?
Mr. Schorr:
We are a local company in Las Vegas. We are part of a national multisystem, operator-based company in Atlanta.
Senator Neal:
As a national company, you can exercise a lot of power and influence.
Mr. Schorr:
We are still a local company, with local officers including myself. We are responsible for the local system, not Cox Communications in Atlanta.
Senator Neal:
If we change the language from it being mandatory for the local government to sell cable services to saying they may sell services, would you still have a problem with the bill?
Mr. Schorr:
Yes, I would.
Chairman Townsend:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 278. A subcommittee will convene on S.B. 255 this afternoon. We will close the meeting at 10:08 a.m.
Makita Schichtel,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman
DATE: