Some commentary about my recent remarks relating to Verizon’s plans on video policy caught my attention.  While strategy and tactics in the policy arena are less meaningful than the substance of policy, it’s sometimes difficult to divorce the two, so I’ll offer some insight into our thinking on our approach to the video entry issue. 

Our business is providing communications services to customers. And we’re now operating in a very competitive environment with sophisticated consumers.  So if we aren’t offering the right package of services at the right price, consumers take their business elsewhere. 

Our public policy goals are therefore focused on either removing barriers to the efficient delivery of those services, or improving Verizon’s ability to continue to invest to meet customer needs.  Once we define our goals in the public-policy arena, we use the most appropriate vehicles to accomplish those objectives.  Sometimes that means going the legislative route; sometimes the regulatory approach is better; sometimes legal action is necessary.  Following that thinking, we’ve pursued our video entry objectives on all fronts – in Congress, selected state legislatures, local franchising authorities, the FCC, in a few state commissions, and in one court case.  With about two years of work behind us, we’ve made great progress. 

We’ve made the case for video competition; and where policymakers have voted, we’ve won.  Eight states have adopted legislation providing for stream-lined video entry; there’s still some chance (albeit slim) that legislation will pass in the lame duck session of Congress; the FCC is poised to act to address several important issues related to video entry; and we’re moving toward our 200^th local franchise. 

Most important, Verizon is able to offer video services to most of the customers we are ready to serve.  To be sure, it’s an ongoing challenge to stay ahead of the network build, yet we are increasingly confident of our ability to do so. 

As we prepare for each legislative cycle at the federal and state levels, we make choices about where to allocate resources.  At this point in time, it doesn’t appear that making another run at federal legislation is the most practical course.

First, regardless of the outcome of the upcoming election, it’s relatively clear that the federal government will be more splintered than ever.  On a partisan basis, both houses of Congress are likely to be even more closely divided.  And the chances of Congress working with the Administration seem less likely.  As a result, it seems reasonable to assume that the next Congress won’t produce a lot of new policy. 

Second, we know that any telecom legislation will always spark new issues.  This year’s legislative effort spawned legislative language on VOIP interconnection, state pre-emption on wireless regulation, net neutrality, a tax moratorium for wireless (all of which I’ll address over the coming months on Poliblog) – and an array of other issues.  Going forward, intercarrier compensation and universal service issues are likely to receive more attention.  Working through these issues in the federal legislative process requires a substantial commitment of resources.  From a practical perspective, we weigh that against the chances of legislation actually passing and what we could achieve if we put those resources to work in other places. 

Third, given that most of the video-entry challenges we face are now limited to three states – New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts – our actual need for federal legislation in order to offer service to customers has decreased.  Therefore, we’re likely instead to focus our energies on obtaining video relief in these three states.  We already tested the legislative waters in Pennsylvania at the end of that state’s legislative session and found a strong appetite for a streamlined video process.  But while we are interested in a legislative solution in each of these three states, we are not willing to surrender our right to make fundamental business decisions in order to obtain legislation.  That’s one reason why we will continue to press forward in all three states with individual franchise negotiations – negotiations that, while time-consuming and inefficient for both Verizon and local communities – have generally provided the business with the ability to serve consumers.

Yes, we’d like to see federal legislation pass this year.  And sooner or later, Congress will reform the rules and regulations governing video services.  Meanwhile, we’re gaining entry into the video market, and we’ll continue to push at the FCC, in the states, and at the local level.