PolicyBlog

A Technology and Telecommunications Policy Blog

 

States Moving, With or Without Senate

David Fish posted in PolicyBlog Video Policy Net Regulation  on July 17, 2007, 10:02 AM EST

Will they or won’t they? 

 

This may not be earth-shattering news to the techno-policy elite.  But, we aren’t placing high odds on Congress enacting ‘cable TV choice’ reform this year.

 

Yes, the House produced a clear, bipartisan vote in favor, the Senate committee approved it, and survey research indicates strong popular support.  But, who knows if a lame duck Senate will muster 60 votes to beat the threatened ‘net neutrality’ filibuster?

 

What we do know is that ‘choice’ marches on at the state level.

 

Nugget #1: So far, eight states (TX, IN, VA, KS, SC, NC, NJ, CA) have enacted streamlined, state-wide plans to speed up what now can be an 18-22 month negotiation process between network operators, big and small, and individual local franchise authorities. 

 

As Verizon’s Tom Tauke told Bloomberg recently, we aren’t likely to pursue federal reforms next year, instead increasing our focus on efforts in such states as MA, NY, and PA.  Sure, a national franchise is better – and it may still pass Congress – but there are other options, too, that are already working.  Verizon’s Doreen Toben and Virginia Ruesterholtz made this point when they supplied all those useful fiber-optic deployment numbers to analysts on September 27.

 

Nugget #2: FiOS TV is now available in 80-plus communities in seven states (CA, FL, MD, MA, NY, TX, and VA). FiOS Internet is available in portions of 16 states (add CT, DE, IN, NH, NJ, OR, PA, RI, WA).  Nugget #3: The ‘triple play’ of FiOS Internet, TV and phone service is available in CA, FL, MD, MA, NY, TX and WA.

 

Still, Federalism thrives, and Washington has other irons in the fire.  For example, the FCC continues its probe of local franchise authorities to see where some may be delaying consumer choice by unreasonably refusing to grant a video franchise.  (Remember, those seeking franchises include small guys, too.) Also, the Commission has been asked to look into cable companies’ efforts to strike exclusive access agreements with owners/managers of apartment and condo buildings.  This practice can restrict the options of individual renters or owners.  Cable has its view, too. 

 

The many lop-sided votes in favor of ‘video choice’ by municipal officials and state legislators suggest that cable TV choice is a popular issue.  A recent, Verizon-commissioned survey by two national research firms found that 90 percent of registered voters think it’s important for there to be a choice of cable TV providers. Eighty percent want their senator to vote for the legislation containing the proposal.

 

Whatever the Senate does or does not do by year-end, progress is being made.  The numbers prove it. 

 

Reader Comments
How would the implmentation of net neutrality impact Verizon's rollout of FiOS?
Paul King posted on 10/10/2006 5:43:45 PM
Paul: Depends on what version of net neutrality regulations you're talking about. The Markey amendment rejected by the House, its cousin not accepted by the Senate committee, or a similar version someone like Sen. Wyden could try to bring up on the Senate floor, should provide cause for concern for someone making investments in fiber-optic networks. If there is no differentiation allowed, some of the cool things now in the 'idea' stage become problematic. Take, for instance, the theoretical example of a health provider or hospital that wants to do patient monitoring and needs a connection to folks at home. They may require a level of reliability beyond the "best efforts" guarantee of the Internet. Such regulations could forbid a virtual private network-type arrangement that, by the way, is used quite often nowadays. Another theoretical example: customers who pay for a five Mbps Internet connection, but who want a temporary speed 'pulse' to play a game that functions best at, say, 15 Mbps, may not have that option under such regulations. Verizon aims to offer consumers what they want. That’s how we’ll differentiate and earn market share. A preemptive regulatory straight-jacket could limit consumer choice and our ability to respond to the market.
David Fish posted on 10/10/2006 8:01:17 PM
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this website until a moderator has approved them. The name you enter here will appear next to your comment. You must enter a valid email address to submit a comment.
Name *
Email *
Website
Comments *
Please Add 8 and 3 and type the answer here *
Submit

Subscribe to the Blog


 

Add to my MSN
Add to my Yahoo
Add to Google
Add to Technorati
Add to Bloglines
Follow us on Twitter

 

Categories

GO

 

Policy Blog TV | View All Video


 

Recent Contributors

Link Hoewing
"Washington CAN Get it When it Comes to the Internet - Here’s How" via Tweet this

John 'CZ' Czwartacki
"Connections, Food Fights and the Competitive Internet Ecosystem" via Tweet this

Kathy Brown
"Winter Doesn’t Chill Summer Jobs Push" via Tweet this

Tom Tauke
"Guest Column: Our Nation's Day of Reckoning is At Hand" via Tweet this

Kathy Grillo
"FCC Honors Accessibility Innovators" via Tweet this

All Contributors

 

GO

Tag Cloud