FOXBORO - Selectmen and the town manager are fighting a legislative bid by Verizon Communications to change cable licensing procedures in ways they believe would weaken the ability of towns and cities to negotiate local benefits.

But Verizon says the opposition to its bill is based on misinformation about what the company is actually seeking through the Legislature.

Four selectmen sent Foxboro's legislators a letter earlier this month urging them to "reject efforts by Verizon to effectively eliminate municipal control of our cable franchising authority."

The letter, drafted by Foxboro cable attorney Peter J. Epstein for his client communities, says Verizon's bill, if passed, would amount to a "giveaway to a corporate behemoth."

Towns and cities currently can negotiate local benefits, such as support for local cable access, when licensing a company to provide cable television service. "That's huge. That's huge to us," Selectwoman Lynda Walsh said, referring to the town's ability to negotiate funding for Foxboro Cable Access.

That negotiating muscle would shrivel under Verizon's bill, the town's letter warns.

The board voted 4-0 on June 30 to send the letter to Sen. James Timilty, D-Walpole, and Rep. Jay Barrows, R-Mansfield, urging them to oppose Senate Bill 1531.

Selectmen Chairman Paul Feeney, a Verizon employee, recused himself from the matter.

Epstein urged local officials to make their feelings known in person, during a public hearing on the bill, set for 10 a.m. July 22, at the Statehouse in Room A-1.

"After previously seeking to remove local officials from the proven local video franchising process, Verizon Communications, which has never been refused a cable franchise and has over 100 in Massachusetts, is now seeking state legislation that would give them the ability to ignore local needs in the municipal consent process to which all cable television companies now operate," the letter says.

Town Manager Andrew Gala also endorsed the letter.

For more than 30 years, companies have provided cable services under contract that "address local communities' needs and provide local community benefits," it says.

Among other changes, Verizon's proposal would reduce from one year to three months the allowed time for a municipality and a cable company to negotiate a license.

That process takes well over three months, according to Epstein, who was hired to assist in the town's license renewal talks with Comcast, currently the only cable provider in town. Cable license renewal talks with Comcast are scheduled to continue next week, Walsh said.

Verizon has not yet applied for a cable license in Foxboro.

Verizon spokesman Phil Santoro said the town's cable attorney "understandably has a self-interest in extending the licensing process" and that his letter "is full of inaccuracies. For example, it says the bill eliminates local control. It does not. Municipalities keep control of negotiating agreements."

The bill does two things, Santoro wrote via email.

"It creates a reasonable timeline to negotiate cable franchises that avoids unnecessary delays and requires that all cable providers share equally" in the cost of certain local programming "so that consumers don't overpay."

Townpeople this spring helped clear a path for Verizon to bring its FiOS TV system to Foxboro.

Among area communities where FiOS TV is available are Mansfield, Norfolk, Walpole, Canton, and Franklin, and will soon be available in North Attleboro and Wrentham, according to the company.

On a number of occasions, town officials and residents have discussed the benefits of having competing cable services in Foxboro, notably from Verizon, with its FiOS TV product.

"We support competition as long as the local community process is adhered to and that all companies entering the marketplace are treated the same," the town's letter says.