The city of Sedona renewed its contract with Suddenlink Communications though three council members protested by voting against the item, which is typically an administrative formality.
After the addition of Chapter 14 to Senate Bill 1140 in 2018, cities and towns in Arizona lost regulation of utility providers of city right-of-way and negotiates individual franchise agreements with utility providers. This leaves cities and towns with only one option for service from Suddenlink Communications.
According to the city, the primary goal of the law was to require the same video service license agreement terms across municipal boundaries. The city entered this current contract with Suddenlink Communications before this additional law in June of 2007.
Although the current contract was due to expire, Suddenlink has been the city provider for cable and internet services via the city right-of-way since 1992.
“Suddenlink is just doing what it’s allowed to do by the state and by the government. They’re acting in their own interest and doing what’s best for them,” Councilwoman Jessica Williamson said. “Government is supposed to protect us from that and our state government has consistently removed local control, particularly for big money interests like short-term rentals and in this case, cable.”
After the discussion, Councilwomen Holli Ploog and Kathy Kinsella and Vice Mayor Scott Jablow voted against the contract renewal in protest of the growing issues in Suddenlink’s services for residents. But according to council members and city staff, a majority vote against the contract would still not ultimately change the service provider due to the state law, but instead potentially cause service outages if the city had to go into further discussions with the state.
“If it’s poor enough service that it falls below FCC standards, then yes [we could chose another provider]. But we cannot hold them to a good or above standard service,” City Attorney Kurt Christianson said. “According to the FCC they meet those requirements currently.”
The other four council members voted in favor of the contract with some expressing their disapproval of Suddenlink and the state law, while also wanting to avoid potential service outages as a consequence of the disapproval.
“I would like to vote ‘no’ on this because I do not support the state prehension of an area that again should be in local control in order to negotiate an agreement,” Kinsella said. “So if there’s room to vote ‘no’ on this. And the whole point of this here is to support our residents and the reason we would want to vote ‘no’ is in standing up for our residents’ rights to service. But at the same time, if it could hurt them, that should be evaluated.”
The new contract was signed and will expire in June 2032.
