Prying Open the Cable Market

garzpacho writes "In an interview, FCC chief Brian Martin discusses his efforts to make it easier for new entrants--especially telecoms-- to compete with traditional cable and satellite companies in delivering video services. The focus of this effort seems to be in addressing local franchising authorities' current bias towards incumbents. He also talks about current congressional efforts to enact national franchise legislation."

Comments

New Jersey is trying to do this already.

[skidv]

A New Jersey legislature committee OKed a bill (to go to the next step) which allows Verizon to bypass the local municipality for cable TV franchise. They have to put in fiber and be done with the fiber in any one town within six years of starting.

Here's a news article that explains recent developments in New Jersey. http://www.freepress.net/news/14460

I was surprised to read that it includes a tax on existing cable customers (essentially driving up their costs) that is used for "property tax relief" and supplying TV services to senior citizens.

It isn't hard to imagine that another bill grants Verizon tax relief in the towns where they provide service to compensate them for the fiber construction ... or to make it cheaper for them to lay the fiber in the first place (by not charging them for street repair for example.)

Bits Over Fiber

[EnsilZah]

Here in Israel the major cable company pretty much does it all.
You have phone, TV and Internet all going over the same fiber.

I really think the old Telecom/Cable/ISP distinctions are becoming anachronistic, it's all bits over fiber after all.

Why is this a federal issue?

[teebob21]

Personally, I don't think the FCC should have even gotten involved. After I RTFA, it seems like a few big-dollar lobbyist went and bitched that the phone companies had requested a local franchise to deliver TV service, and the local governing boards said, "No, we already have a provider here."

Boo-hoo.

Government for the people, and by the people was working, then the feds decided to step in and bow to the corporate pressure of the Bells. Do we really need a national franchise for the telcos to enter the video market? Of course not.

In the interest of fairness, if the FCC wants to tear down the barriers of franchising to new competition to the incumbent video carrier, that's fine. In that case they should also eliminate the requirements for new voice and data providers, especially in cases where the incumbent telco is out of compliance with the law. Case in point: I work for a cable company in Nebraska, and we are ready to launch VOIP service. We have fiber installed to 10 area towns, providing the backbone for a true high-speed data network, as well as digital TV service. However, since Qwest is 10 years behind in installing E911 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E911) in our rural towns, we cannot (under current FCC regulation) launch VOIP.

What exempts the incumbent Telco from the law? Money. They simply pay their non-compliance fine every year, because its cheaper than actually upgrading. I wonder: if some lawyer's grandma has a heart attack and dies because Qwest doesn't have E911...will they upgrade, or just pay that settlement as well?