By Sonia Arrison TechNewsWorld
02/17/06 5:00 AM PT
New technologies that allow for high-speed data transfer over the Internet have revolutionized the way consumers and businesses communicate, shaking up the nation's communications sector from telecommunications to cable. Laws that used to make sense have now become obstacles to positive change and consumer benefit.
How Much is 'Free' Costing You? Learn how DaveRamsey.com saw a 567% uplift in ROI with Omniture. This complimentary guide and webinar cover the most important factors in selecting an analytics solution. Download Now.
For those who think their cable bills are soaring to all-time highs, it might be reassuring to know that a bipartisan group of U.S. senators agree. At a recent Senate Commerce Committee hearing, members pondered the reasons for the rate hikes.
"There is only head-to-head competition in less than two percent of America," said Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR). He's right, and one of the biggest barriers to competition in the cable market is franchising rules -- the regulatory system that allows local governments to set the terms and conditions for businesses to enter the video market.
Calling for Reform
As it works now, video providers are required to pay "franchise fees" to their local franchise authority, which is typically a municipality, but can also be a state or a region. Through these fees, the authorities grant the right to "rent" the public right-of-way to video service providers, which must access streets and public spaces to install and maintain programming equipment.
There was a time when cities were regulating what was effectively a monopoly service for local residents, but now that competition is available from a variety of technologies, such as satellite and the Internet, it's time to revise the regulatory system. The problem is that many cities are unfortunately working to protect franchisees from competitors in exchange for the significant financial and service concessions they get from cable companies.
If Congress acts to remedy this problem, consumers will benefit and the economy will grow as new investment gets injected into video technologies such as Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). It's encouraging to see that Senators John Ensign, John Kerry, Jim DeMint, John Rockefeller, and John McCain joined with Senator Gordon Smith in calling for reform.
Consumer Protection
In their letter, the Senators say that "in the interests of protecting consumers and promoting investment, the Congress should reform existing policies to ensure that they reflect the extraordinary changes in the communications marketplace, including new technologies and the desires of new entrants to compete with the incumbent provider."
What the senators are saying makes a good deal of sense. Consider the astounding results in the real world when competition is allowed to flourish.
Just weeks following passage of a bill last summer that authorized Texas to grant statewide video franchises, Verizon introduced its FiOS TV service in Keller, Texas, offering 180 video and music channels for US$43.95 a month, or a 35-channel plan for $12.95 a month. In response, the local cable company, Charter Communications (Nasdaq: CHTR), dropped its prices, offering a package of 240 channels and fast Internet service for $50 a month.
That's a big savings for the people of Keller, compared to the $68.99 Charter once charged for a TV package alone. Unfortunately, Americans in other parts of the country don't yet have the benefits of policy reform and are still paying too much.
Stemming 'Deadweight' Losses
A recent study by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University calculated that consumers are paying an extra $8.4 billion in costs in the form of higher rates for service, fees, and equipment as a result of video franchise regulations. The study also found $1.7 billion in "deadweight loss" or value that consumers forego because higher prices induce some consumers to go without cable television. That's a lot of money that could be saved and put to better use, making it imperative that Congress act now to fix the system.
New technologies that allow for high-speed data transfer over the Internet have revolutionized the way consumers and businesses communicate, shaking up the nation's communications sector from telecommunications to cable. Laws that used to make sense have now become obstacles to positive change and consumer benefit.
Congress is starting to act on many of these problems, and it is important that they finish the job. Rumors that reform won't take place this year should fuel enough consumer anger to shift attention away from American idol and towards the nation's political masters.
Sonia Arrison, a TechNewsWorld columnist, is director of Technology Studies at the California-based Pacific Research Institute.
RIM Punishes Customers, Google Plays Dot-Com and Fiorina Returns February 13, 2006
The problem is that Google's plan to buy this particular property isn't defensible. What is most important is building a long-term, sustainable partnership. There are many ways to achieve this, and perhaps we'll see additional aspects of the Dell-Google deal later that fit the bill.
Related Stories
Fighting Spam Also Requires Fighting Knee-Jerk Critics February 10, 2006
This is not, as some portray it, an introduction of economics into the e-mail system. Economics are already in place, facilitating spam and costing people time and money. E-stamps represent a quest for better economics, and those who believe they create free speech problems or violate some special spirit of the 'Net need to re-examine their arguments.
Fatal Conceit at the California Public Utilities Commission February 03, 2006
It's a mistake that policy makers have been making for ages and one aptly described by Friedrich Hayek as the "fatal conceit" -- the notion that a few very informed people could order societal affairs in ways that would somehow yield results superior to those that spring from the spontaneous order of a free society. This can lead to all sorts of problems.
Motto for Freedom Activists: 'Don't Be Unreasonable' January 27, 2006
The argument in favor of staying is twofold: First, American companies want a slice of the lucrative Chinese market; second, the argument can be made that American activity in China will, over time, lead to democracy. That's because increased trade with people from a free country leads to the spread of information about freedom.
Beware the Double Definitions of 'Network Neutrality' January 20, 2006
Internet Protocol Television, or IPTV, is on the cusp of taking off and providing real competition for the clunky and expensive cable system that makes American video entertainment so pathetic. In order to provide this service, the networks require upgrades, and the upgrades only happen if investors believe that it is worth their while to fund them.
Nanotechnology Needs Nano-Scale Regulation January 13, 2006
It has been estimated that by 2015, the global marketplace for products that use nanotechnology will reach US$1 trillion and employ two million workers. The technology is so promising that the state of California recently released a report brainstorming on how to create a successful "Nano-Valley," similar to Silicon Valley.
Related News Alerts
More by Sonia Arrison
How to Solve the Net Neutrality Issue October 28, 2009
Regulation by the U.S. government is not the way to keep the Internet neutral. A better approach would be self-regulation. Now is the time for ISPs to support an independent, private body to monitor neutrality issues and forestall the possibility of the FCC "managing competition" on the Internet.
FCC's Genachowski Not Neutral on New Net Rules September 30, 2009
The proponents of Net neutrality say it's necessary for a free and open Internet, but history doesn't support that argument. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, for example, was supposed to bolster competition. Instead, by compelling companies to share their infrastructures, it reduced incentives for improvement. In the long run, it failed.
What Has President Obama Done for Silicon Valley? August 28, 2009
President Obama's appointments of Silicon Valley outsiders were only the first indications that his administration would be less than friendly to the high-tech industry, despite campaign promises. Since then, it has shown an inclination toward tight regulatory practices and away from transparency.
Headline Feeds
Talkback: 
