FCC chief considers forcing cable TV competition

[Mark Strube]

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050823/bs_usatoday/fccchiefconsidersforcingcabletvcompetition

One little-noticed provision of the 1992 Cable Act could give the
Federal Communications Commission the power to compel cities to let the regional Bells compete head-on with cable TV operators. And to do so quickly - no foot-dragging allowed.

At least that's what FCC Chairman Kevin Martin thinks, and if he's right he may try to use that authority to widen broadband's reach across the USA.

Martin, in a written statement for USA TODAY Monday, confirmed that he is considering taking such action.

"Several weeks ago I asked the staff to explore what the commission can do to ensure that local authorities are not unreasonably refusing to award additional competitive licenses" for video, he said.

Granting additional franchises, he added, "would promote competition and stimulate broadband deployment."

The chairman's comment is a not-so-veiled reference to a short passage in the 13-year-old Cable Act. The provision - Section 621(a)(1), to be exact - states that local franchising authorities "may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise" for video.

By some readings, that means cities can't erect obstacles to keep out video competitors.

One city wanted Verizon to install a fiber-optic ring to connect its traffic lights. Another wanted it to provide a wireless connection for a local library.

Verizon and SBC are spending billions to deploy advanced broadband services - voice, data and video - across the country. Before they can deploy video, however, cities want them to submit to the cable TV franchising process.

The problem? There are thousands of local franchising authorities, and each has its own licensing process and timetables.

Verizon has only a few video licenses. SBC says that its Internet TV service isn't "cable TV" so it doesn't need a license.

It remains to be seen if the FCC will act. But the mere fact that Martin is even considering pulling rank like that is bound to alarm local franchising bodies, which are loath to cede power to Washington.

"The cities are already upset" about ongoing attempts to curb their authority, notes Paul Glenchur, an analyst at Stanford Washington Research Group. "What you're talking about here is the usurpation of local authority."

Blair Levin, who was an assistant to former FCC chairman Reed Hundt, agrees. But he also thinks Martin's straight shot across the bow could aid broadband's expansion.

"It's smart for the chairman to use the FCC's bully pulpit to warn the cities against log rolling the Bells" on broadband, says Levin, an analyst at Legg Mason Wood Walker in Washington. "The only question is at what point does he think he should intervene."

Martin isn't saying. But he clearly intends to stay on top of the issue.

Says Martin: "I intend to do whatever I can to help meet the president's goal of 'universal and affordable access for broadband technology' by 2007."

Ridiculous. Now that they see what they've done to hinder free market competition, they're considering almost forcing competition. How about not allowing for franchising agreements in the first place? If it hadn't been for satellite coming along, we'd all still be in the stone age of cable technology thanks to these agreements.

[borghe]

instead of worrying about additional hardline competition, I guarantee the market would be more competitive if the FCC would regulate the sheer amount of misinformation out there perpetuated by the cable companies in advertising. You still have many (most?) people in an area typically believing the crap that cable perpetuates on TV, such as getting satellite is a hassle (generally free and installed usualyl sooner than cable), misconceptions about signal loss, especially vs. cable which also suffers signal loss during inclimate weather, or about all of the deficincies of cable (lack of certain HD locals, analog channel quality, etc).

Many people are so "afraid" of satellite (for lack of a better term) because of cable's almost slanderous advertising. If the FCC would do something to curb that, I'm sure more people would be aware of the fact that there IS real competition out there. Hell, unless you don't have a southern facing or need HDTV, it is actually easier to get satellite than it is cable. And the HDTV part is becoming easier and cheaper as well. But you would never know it with the advertisements that cable is allowed to advertise in a given market.

[Mark Strube]

I don't think more regulation is the answer to anything. Right now the only competition the cable companies have is satellite. Without allowing the ridiculous franchise agreements that kill free market competition (aka. better service - lower prices) there would be a LOT more competition among different cable companies. Do you think cell phone service would be where it is with all the great deals if there was only one company out there? Not to mention the fact that for the "service" your community is giving you for forcing you to only be able to have one cable company to choose from, there's extra taxes on your monthly cable bill. I don't think regulation in advertising cable is going to do anything but induce more crap laws to hinder more free speech... look what problems have already been caused by allowing these franchise agreements... less is the answer... not more.

[GBK]

Do you think cell phone service would be where it is with all the great deals if there was only one company out there? QUOTE]

I do understand were you coming from but the analogy is not quite correct Cell phone business may appear quite competitive until you look at it globally; we are getting shafted beyond belief in this country. Paying for incoming calls etc.. until people demand better services as well as price we will be the third world of cell phone technology.  But that's another discussion not suited for this forum.

[bradsmainsite]

I will agree with you Mark  the less govrmnt is involved the better, they have a
tendancy to screw a good thing up!  Lets let competition drive pricing and the
truth will always prevail it sometimes takes awhile, but it always comes out in
the end

Thank goodnes for the sat companies at least they can somewhat hold cable
co's in line although the whole sports scene is what is really driving prices.
If you remove sports and those ridiculus salaries these guys make just watch
your prices drop like a rock! :rofl:

Ultimately I guess its our own fault for paying these prices.

Where will it end? :confused:

I quess when we are all broke because of gas prices or pay tv prices, or both :OnAir:

[Mark Strube]

From what I know, cell phones have more saturation and cheaper prices in other countries because more people have them (percent of total population)... more people have them because it's much easier to spread new cellular technology because of a smaller area. That's a reason Japan is so far ahead of us in the cellular multimedia department.

I'll stick to my analogy.