News reports indicate that a majority of the FCC Commissioners  -- reportedly Commissioners Adelstein, Copps, and McDowell -- are about to overturn a recommendation by the agency’s Enforcement Bureau to deny cable’s complaint against Verizon’s “win-back” marketing efforts. 

While the FCC’s decisions are often associated with a bit of intra-agency intrigue, this one is really puzzling. 

While the process at the FCC generates thousands of pages of filings, the issues in this case are really quite straightforward and clear.   

First, should consumers have information from all providers before choosing a carrier for voice or video services . . . or a package of services?  Of course.  That seems like a no-brainer.  Information – the much-touted concept of transparency – is both the consumer’s and competition's best friend.  How can consumers know if they’re getting the best deal if one of the service providers can’t give them information before they’ve made the purchase?  

Second, should competitors in the wireline communications marketplace operate by the same rules?  Again, a no-brainer.  Policymakers love to talk about “competition” and the proverbial “level playing field.”  Today, cable is fully engaged in “win-back” marketing directed toward any customer who decides to switch to Verizon’s FIOS video.  Yet, this complaint is designed to prohibit Verizon from marketing – or even providing information -- to a customer who decides to switch from Verizon to cable-provided voice service. 

By making the markets more transparent and encouraging even more competition for the consumer’s business, the FCC could take another step in letting the consumer discipline the market.  Yet, it seems as if the majority of the FCC is about to decide against transparency and in favor of denying consumers the information they deserve before making a buying decision.  And the majority is deciding against a level playing field and imposing more restrictions on telecoms’ communications with their own customers. 

Intriguing, isn’t it? 

When the FCC’s reports demonstrating rising cable prices come out next year and the year after, it’s unlikely this decision will be linked to that unhappy outcome.  But anytime consumers aren’t given the information needed to choose the best deal, that prevents the market from working effectively on behalf of consumers everywhere.

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. 

The intent of PoliBlog is to present perspectives on issues of importance that intersect public policy, politics, markets, and business in the broadband world.  That’s a big pool to swim in, and it reflects the constantly changing world we live in.

As we begin, let’s acknowledge this: PoliBlog gives us the chance to listen to you and learn from you.  So we invite you to jump in.  The water’s fine. 

Before I get hit with a blogswarm, I want you to know that we understand that the blogosphere is naturally dubious of a blog with a corporate pedigree.  While this may seem a bit counterintuitive, PoliBlog is not intended as a “corporate” blog.  Instead, it is our effort to find a place in the universal town square.  We are players in the communications and broadband worlds.  What we do or don’t do has real impact.  So we think we should offer our perspectives and positions on issues and subject them to scrutiny, comment, and debate. It’s good for us.  And it’s healthy for the policymaking process.     

It’s my hope that PoliBlog will be most focused on the emerging issues that policy makers and consumers and businesses must start dealing with now to ensure the future of converged communications and broadband deployment.  Those issues include privacy and security, data rights management and intellectual property protection, and access to broadband networks.  And there are whole new perspectives and opportunities that the widespread deployment of broadband will bring to other important challenges facing our society, including the delivery of health care, education, and government services.  None of these topics are out of bounds on PoliBlog.

So there’s much to think about, and we’re looking forward to a lively discussion with you.