Washington, DC—March 1, 2005—Braving a snowstorm that closed down most of the east coast, City of Laredo Mayor Betty Flores was in Washington, D.C. today to represent Laredo’s consumers at a summit of the communications industry leaders and state and local government officials. The Mayor represented both the City of Laredo and the U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM) at the summit convened at the Winter Meeting of the National Governors Association (NGA) at which industry and state and local officials sought to find common ground on issues of taxation, regulation, universal service and consumer protections.

“My presence at the meeting was important for the protection of our citizens,” said Mayor Flores. “Laredo has been at the forefront of encouraging technological advancements, but we must make sure that all of our citizens have access to the newest in communications services. The only way we can ensure this is to guarantee a continued role for local government in franchising communications service providers who seek to use the rights-of-way of Laredo. In fact, even former Mayor Saul Ramirez tackled the issue for us in Washington,” she added.

Mayor Flores led the USCM delegation and was joined by Mayor Harvey Johnson of Jackson, Mississippi. The NGA delegation of 14 governors was lead by Governor Warner (D-Virginia) and Governor Huckabee (R-Ark.). Also present at the table were DC. Mayor Anthony Williams and Arvada, Colorado Mayor Ken Fellman, representing the National League of Cities. The industry was representing by 20 senior executives of communications giants such as: SBC, Verizon, Time Warner, AT&T, Comcast, and T-Mobile.

The most important focus of her remarks was to state unequivocally that the City of Laredo and the U.S. Conference of Mayors will not support any legislation that does not provide an ability to ensure that there is a commitment to serve all consumers within a franchised area. “We will never accept any proposal that has the potential to create two classes of citizens, i.e. those that have choice in broadband services and those who don’t,” stated Mayor Flores.

Mayor Flores also was determined to steer the debate to look closely at the downside of eliminating or weakening the local franchising process. It is through the local franchising process that government and operator alike are able to ensure an operator meets the specific of the local community in terms of universal service, Public, Educational and Governmental channels, I-Nets, rate regulation and customer service standards on issues from privacy to installations.

Other topics the mayor addressed included:
. Technology neutrality should be the goal of all communications legislation. Communications services, regardless of the technology platform, should be treated on a non-discriminatory basis by federal, state and local governments. This does not mean, however, that a service that employs a local communities’ rights-of-way or other assets should not have to pay a fair and reasonable rental fee for the use of that asset.

. Outcome should be revenue neutral at the state and local government levels. In negotiating reform principles, states and localities should be committed to working to develop solutions that are revenue neutral at the state and local government levels. This agreement must be in place or local governments will find themselves agreeing to give up revenues protected today in federal law.

. The federal government should not preempt state and local government taxing authority. While the restructuring of state and local taxing authority may occur, the result of any communications tax reform should not be used to reshape the division of taxing authority between federal, state and local government.

. State and local role in preserving public interest obligations should be respected. While taxation and regulatory authorities will be negotiated separately, all parties should embrace the goal of meeting public interest obligations. This may only be achieved by preserving state and local franchising authority.

. Transition time will be necessary. A time of transition must be incorporated for all parties to adjust to any agreed upon communications reform. The changes contemplated require federal state and local legislation. Failure to provide sufficient time would negate ability to make rules technology neutral.