City punts on cable contract
SF would get millions from Comcast but give up on increasing access

By Tim Kingston

Sometimes when you are behind the eight ball, it is wiser to go for the easy pocket shot instead of holding out for a high-stakes, high-risk bank shot. And that could be why San Francisco is seriously considering a controversial settlement of its lawsuit against cable conglomerate Comcast.

The deal is worth roughly $8 million: $3.5 million goes directly to the general fund and about $4.4 million goes to help equip and run its PEG (public access, educational, and government) television channels. The settlement terms are over and above the $517,000 in franchise fees the city already receives from Comcast annually.

The payout would settle the city's complaint that Comcast didn't get the required city approval before taking over AT&T's contract as part of the 2002 merger of the companies, and that AT&T had not lived up to its contractual obligations.

Yet the settlement would also extend the current franchise agreement with Comcast – which expires at the end of this year – for four more years, delaying the opportunity for city residents to get more services from Comcast in exchange for the company's right to use public rights of way.

And that's the part of this deal that has public access advocates like Media Alliance and Access SF hopping mad. They thought a new franchise would be negotiated by the end of the year, when the old one ends. They were in the middle of a community needs assessment process that could have expanded public access to the airwaves.

"The process is all wrong. The city is supposed to be asking the community, 'What do we want?'" said Sydney Levy, of Media Alliance. "We were having meetings during the time this [settlement] was being drafted. We are being ignored."

Comcast, by contrast, seems happy: "We are gratified to reach this agreement to clear up all the past alleged compliance issues," said Andrew Johnson, vice president of communications for Comcast in the Bay Area.

Officials in Mayor Gavin Newsom's administration, which negotiated the settlement, didn't return our calls for comment. But the agreement definitely takes some pressure off the department of technology and information services, which started the renewal process way too late and doesn't appear to have the resources to negotiate effectively with such a large and litigious company (see "People v. Television," 5/30/05).

The settlement buys time and gives the city some desperately needed cash, as well as allowing the company's tense negotiations with other California cities to shake out and offer a clearer picture of what San Francisco can expect.

Sometime in July, the Board of Supervisors will make the decision on adopting or rejecting the settlement.

E-mail Tim Kingston