Login:
Password:

FCC to Cities: Open Cable to Competition

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

December 20, 2006, 5:16 PM

In a 3-2 vote that was delayed until this afternoon for procedural reasons, the US Federal Communications Commission voted to compel states and municipalities to give telephone companies 90 days following the date of their initial petition, to make their case for offering competitive cable TV and broadband service, in regions currently restricted to one CATV provider.

The new rule comes as legislation engineered by Republican House and Senate commerce committee heads last year, in an attempt to open up municipalities to possible national franchising, ground to what may be a permanent halt in the wake of the changing balance of power in Congress.

Attempts by lawmakers during the lame-duck session to fast-track the modified Barton Bill, which would have created a national franchising system for CATV operators to run in parallel with the current "one zone/one provider" system that pervades much of the country, failed in the midst of other priorities, including appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But today's ruling may not be the final word on this issue, as the FCC's two Democrat dissenting voters pointed out, as both legislators and courts may debate after the new year whether FCC has the right to compel state and municipal lawmakers to so much as open a window.

In a letter written yesterday to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, incoming House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. John Dingell (D - Mich.) clearly warned him not to overstep what Congress perceives to be his bounds. "It would be extremely inappropriate," Dingell wrote, "for the Federal Communications Commission to take action that would exceed the agency's authority and usurp congressional prerogative to reform the cable television and local franchising process."

That last phrase implied that Dingell's committee may be planning to assemble its own legislation, perhaps a resurrection of the bipartisan compromise bill that Dingell's predecessor, Rep. Joe Barton (R - Texas), hastily scrapped. The Barton bill's language had favored CATV and phone companies as principal providers of broadband Internet service, replacing language from the former bipartisan bill that would have conceivably made it easier for customers to choose cable TV from one provider and broadband Internet from another.

The FCC's ruling attempts to accomplish at least part of what the Barton Bill (a.k.a. the COPE bill) could not: specifically, to wedge open local markets to competitive pricing. In today's hearings, Chairman Martin cited evidence of consumer cable bills rising a total of 94% over a 10-year period (even though broadband Internet service was largely available in the US in 1996), as evidence that in single-provider markets, a lack of competition leads to almost organically grown prices.

But dissenting FCC voters Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps cited evidence that opening up cable service to competition does not necessarily lower rates, as is the case in areas serviced by direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers such as DirecTV and Dish Network. Meanwhile, they said, services that operate over a completely different network -- such as RCN, a so-called "overbuilder" that provides cable, Internet, and phone service over non-leased fiberoptic lines -- but that partner with municipalities to provide new access to local zones and districts, have been able to reduce cable rates in their regions by as much as 17%, to an average price of $35.94/month.

Verizon -- one of the phone companies certain to benefit from today's proceedings -- portrayed the ruling as accelerating both nationwide broadband development and consumer choice.

In a prepared statement (perhaps prepared back when it seemed the Barton Bill was certain to pass), Verizon SVP for regulatory affairs Susanne Guyer wrote, "Today's action will fast-forward the delivery of new choices, lower prices and better services to consumers. The FCC is standing up for consumers who are tired of skyrocketing cable bills and want greater choice in service providers and programming."

Guyer mentioned the continued development of Verizon's own fiberoptic service, FiOS TV, which has already been rolled out in some areas. FiOS high-speed Internet service is available a la carte for $34.95/month, while TV service sells for $39.95/month.

"This order will enable us to reach agreements with local franchise authorities more quickly so we can deliver the benefits of competition to consumers faster," she continued. "The FCC has taken strong steps to increase consumer choice and spur investment in broadband and video deployment."

While few would dispute the notion that greater competition leads to healthier markets, the question before lawmakers now is whether the FCC not only has the right to dictate terms to cities and states over how they open up markets to competitors, but also the right to determine what class of competitor markets should be more open toward.

Add a Comment (26 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By domino360

posted Dec 26, 2006 - 12:00 AM

Nobody outside US care about FCC (conservative retards). Even the Canadians and Mexicans laugh at us.

Score: 0

By Doomster

posted Dec 22, 2006 - 3:19 PM

FCC broke up MaBell to make for competition to lower prices and better services. What did it do? Not a damn thing...They just charged the same price and bought each other out till they had a new MaBell. At the end of this, there will be one Major Cable company, as they consolidate to save there arse from being owned by New MaBell. No competition, higher prices, controlled services.

Score: 0

By RedBoar

posted Dec 21, 2006 - 11:19 PM

One word to the FCC: Hypocrites! Thanks to your expensive regulations, we have no choices as of today, and we were promised it more than a decade ago.

Score: 0

By thefalcon2k5

posted Dec 21, 2006 - 5:09 PM

This is a great thing to see since I am very disgusted with Comcast and I have no other alternative for television. If you are about to say "satellite TV is an option", it's really not. My apartment building does not allow satellite television. And, on a much personal note, I can't find one person in my area that likes Comcast's services.

Score: 0

By ponytl

edited Mar 4, 2007 - 12:45 AM

I as a landlord thought i could keep tenants from hang'n dishs out their windows... but in doing research... it is in fact against federal law to limit such access... as the building owner i can require you to use a "central dish" but if there is not one you can use you own out your window... and if my central dish is direct...and you want Dish... then you can again use your own dish.. or i must have another central dish for your access...
google OTARD forgot what it stands for but thats the law.. and it's federal... seems many building owners were try'n to require people to use only one service by locking other providers out and getting $$$ from the providers for granting them access to their building... which is all fine in wired services that require "space and people access" but for wireless dish stuff that doesn't fly...

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Dec 21, 2006 - 12:58 PM

I live in an area that has been completely dominated by one cable provider (Cox) for years. Verizon just finished laying FIOS around our neighborhood last year, but has only just now began marketing it. The level of marketing effort is still trival compared to what Cox blasts out on TV, print and so forth however. And the comparable services are priced fairly close to each other, which isn't making Cox customers switch just yet. Also, Cox has spent a ton on "In-Demand" movie rentals and PPV that Verizon has yet to match (here). I'm hoping it heats up and it makes services improve and prices fall. We need some competition badly.

Score: 0

By trancelife2

edited Dec 21, 2006 - 12:30 PM

I'm glad the FCC is taking the current stand to open up the cable TV business to others. It's not fair to the consumers to have just one cable TV provider. Yes, people always say that the consumers have a choice right now with the dish companies, but what they are forgetting is that some apartment/building owners and management DO NOT allow dishes to be mounted on their buildings. So for these reasons the renters of such buildings/apartments do not have a choice.
I'm sure Comcast is not in favor of the FCC ruling.......They Comcast provides phone/internet and their cable TV services at the moment but are not willing to share the market.
Well, Comcast, get-over the FCC ruling and move on with your business of buying out the little "Mom and Pop" cable comapnies.
Anyone remember this song "If I rule the world". That's Comcast theme song.

Score: 0

By mynamehere

edited Dec 21, 2006 - 7:33 PM

You forgot to mention that you also need an unobstructed view to the SW (each satellite provider differs a bit).

@GCoder
You must have nothing but torrential downpours to lose signal.

I used to install Dishnet, so I can't speak for DTV, but unless the installer just "slaps it in" w/o dialing in a strong signal it shouldn't go out unless you can't see across the street due to the amount of rain (I've seen this with my own eyes all signals died at the shop I worked at when the rain got so bad we could barely see the buildings across the street).

Remember...cable companies get their signal from satellites (they just don't make it widespread knowledge).

No, I'm not a spokesman. LOL I don't even have cable (too much $) or satellite (no line of sight). :(

I'm waiting for FIOS to reach me, maybe things'll start to change then.
A 10Mb down 2Mb up (that's what I was told when I called about it) internet connection for $34.95 (I about fell over)! It's more than that for 5Mb down 384Kb up cable connection. If they can do that for internet, then they should be able to undercut tv & phone services as well.

Competition is good!

Score: 0

By GCoder

posted Dec 21, 2006 - 10:11 AM

YES PLEASE RELEASE THE MONOPOLY!

We only have a choice of Atlantic Broadband Cable and it is BY FAR the worst company I have EVER delt with. They have no customer service because they have a monopoly and they dont care. The only other option is DirecTV and that is not really an option because of how much it rains here.

Please let Comcast back into the competition!

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Dec 21, 2006 - 9:57 AM

They also need to open up the telecomm sectors too. There is basically no competitions with cable or phone.

Once either company secret an area, they have no incentive to improve. I hope this pass, and we as a customer will be benefit for it.

Score: 0

By thefalcon2k5

posted Dec 21, 2006 - 5:12 PM

I think that the telecommunications sectors are opened up. Like I said in another comment, my area only has Comcast and I'm not happy with it. Anyway, I do have a choice in telecommunications. As of right now, I know I can pick from 3 or 4 different phone companies.

Score: 0

By Altman

posted Dec 21, 2006 - 9:25 AM

I think it's ridiculous what we have to pay in this country for internet and cable and nothing is being done about it. I currently pay 39.95 for 384 kbps cable which is amazing that they can charge that much but because they have a monopoly in our town there isn't much choice. My total cable bill is over $90 and I have basic cable TV (approx 75 channels). I hate charter.

Score: 0

By 33Nick

posted Dec 20, 2006 - 7:17 PM

One thing is for sure, I have NO choice where I live. I have Verizon or Charter, both equally appalling, both having done little to noticeably improve service and have boosted monthly fees to the point paying for TV makes no sense.

Competition does not happen when two companies offer a service on one media. Two satellite providers does not make for competition.

We need more choices.

I just got back from France where people get 8Mgb/s for the same price we pay for 1.5. And there is little competition there.

Just ranting!

Score: 0

By thefalcon2k5

posted Dec 21, 2006 - 5:15 PM

I don't know. My friend that has a different cable service and pays just over $50 for 8 Mbps downloads and 1.5 Mbps uploads. I pay around $46 a month for 14 Mbps and 384 Kbps uploads.

Score: 0

By IceyKola

posted Dec 21, 2006 - 9:27 AM

I feel ya. It is rediculous over here. The companies are so greedy. But you never know, in France it may be govt. subsidised so they can have something to brag about.

Score: 0

By IceyKola

posted Dec 20, 2006 - 6:46 PM

Would the current laws prevent, say, AT&T from rolling out IPTV over their phone lines or whatever lines they use for DSL? Or is it "OK" since it's not a cable service?

Score: 0

By nate

posted Dec 20, 2006 - 6:48 PM

Yep, the current franchise laws prevent that in most cases. This is the problem Verizon has been having trying to roll out FiOS TV.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Dec 20, 2006 - 7:10 PM

EDIT: Original post remains, but I apparently was misinformed of the details of this issue, and likely the viewpoint in this comment is based on my mis-information...

I think this whole issue is stupid, and even more stupid is the partisanship surrounding it. "Open Cable" means that, more or less, the true owner of cable lines is Big Brother. No doubt democrats hate this because that means Bush would even more clearly have the right to "spy on you for no reason" or however you worded it, but Republicans? This to me goes against traditional Conservative view.

Again I realise this does not come out and say that cable is owned by the government, but isn't it saying that they are not owned by cable companies? I mean, if it were truley theirs, why can anyone tell them what they must and must not use them for, UNLESS it directly violates federal or international law?

This really is a strange one to me, I am beginning to lose all hope in government. Both sides care only about being in office so they can make more money. They only represent their love for more money and the will of the people is secondary at best. Why can't we agree about clear and simple issues rather than disagree for the sake of swaying some independent voters to vote for your party in 2008? Look at the rate of increase of Senaters' salary since 1941!

(doh) Let me stop this before I stray even more from the topic here...

Score: 0

By ArcHammer

posted Dec 20, 2006 - 6:26 PM

What the heck are you responding to the issue this article deals with is about cable having an unfair advantage in certain markets. One of them is the Northeast, Verizion has rolled out fiber optics in my town and the surrounding towns, but cannot offer their much cheaper service because of unfair rules that favor comcast. Whats unfair abotu letting verizion roll their own lines, and providing honest competion. I hope something is done. As for spying, well, Get a life ??

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Dec 20, 2006 - 7:08 PM

If the current law prevents verizon from laying their own lines, then I am indeed mistaken in my arguments. So this does not mean that Verizon can use Northeast's lines for their own service, then? Why was I thinking that was the case?

Absolutely, forbidding companies from laying their own cable and offering cable service is absurd. I am apparently in need of reading more details on this issue...

Score: 0

By Couscous

posted Dec 20, 2006 - 6:21 PM

This isn't unprecedented or anything. They did the same thing to the telephone and electric companies.

This is really one of the only things our Government is doing that I actually like.

In areas like mine we only have one choice for cable. They over-charge compared to other similar services in areas with more choices.

They also haven't expanded their coverage area since the 70's!! Which is really bad for the people who are living on the fringe of town. Having competition would help remedy that. They'd have to expand in order to meet their new sign up quotas.

Score: 0

By DaEnigma

posted Dec 20, 2006 - 6:26 PM

I agree 100%.
Being held hostage to a monopoly is a horrid reality for many CATV consumers...

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Dec 20, 2006 - 7:43 PM

Yeah, sorry folks. I really did screw up this one...

EDIT: Okay, now I am really confused! So, is Verizon wanting to offer service using the existing lines that their competition uses, or do they plan to lay their own lines?

The opinion I have on the Open Cable issue hinges greatly on the answer to the question above. Why? Because multiple companies offering similar service off of the same physical media will not encourage competition at all, it will only encourage consolidation! This in and of itself would hurt the consumers even more, since big businesses will have the tendancy to have price-fixing agreements, etc.

Now, on the other hand, companies should not be denied the right to have their own cable laid to offer services just because they weren't there first! That would be ridiculous.

So again I ask: Will this allow competition to offer service using the same physical lines, or just allow them to offer service using their own lines to the same people that the competition has lines laid to? If both, this needs to be rejected, and a new order needs to be proposed that will just allow companies to lay their own lines in an area even if there are already lines used by another company.

Score: 0

By eoswald

posted Dec 20, 2006 - 10:22 PM

What it allows is Verizon to legally offer service easier through its own lines. Right now the process is arduous and full of hurdles which competitors must jump through to offer competing services to cable.

The cable companies IMHO are scared from a financial standpoint. I've seen data (although it's Verizon's) that says in some areas where cable and FiOS TV are offered, cable has lost as much as 1 out of every 3 subscribers.

Simply put, competition would likely put a quick halt to cable price increases. In fact, you'd likely see discounting, IMHO.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Dec 21, 2006 - 9:33 AM

Okay, that is a good thing, absolutely. So...does it force existing cable companies to "open their own lines" for competition to use?

Score: 0

By thefalcon2k5

posted Dec 22, 2006 - 2:26 AM

If it's a choice, then I'm sure it would be disallowed by the line owners. But, if it's a requirement, then this would be a good thing.

Score: 0