By Sonia Arrison TechNewsWorld
05/12/06 5:00 AM PT
If Congress doesn't act in a reasonable amount of time to clean up the nation's cable mess, it appears state officials are more than willing to step in. Besides the Connecticut and Oklahoma examples, three other states have already passed legislation to deal with the problem and many more are preparing to do the same.
Getting cheaper and better cable services to consumers has been difficult because the laws governing the sector have proved tough to change. This week, officials in two states announced key decisions that may significantly change the terms of the debate. Both announcements involve cable franchise reform.
That's the issue that's been frustrating telecom companies and threatening control freaks in local governments around the country. It involves how to make it easier for telephone and other broadband providers to enter the cable market and compete with the cable companies.
Easing Benefits
In most states, cities grant exclusive rights to a cable area to one company. For this privilege, cable companies have traditionally had to shell out to local officials loads of unrelated goodies such as parking lots, recreation centers, and pools. It is understandable that local officials might not want to give up this power, but the time has come for regulators to allow consumers to benefit from new technologies like Internet protocol TV (IPTV).
That can't happen until the telcos and others have an easier time getting into the marketplace. Congress has noticed this problem and is starting to work, but in the meantime some smart officials in Oklahoma and Connecticut have swung into action.
"A telephone line does not cease to be a telephone line because it is used for transmitting video service in addition to voice service," said Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson. Last week, he issued an official opinion that telecom companies that already have statewide rights-of-way for their phone lines don't need to obtain separate municipal franchises for additional services like video.
Consumers in Oklahoma should be jumping for joy because this means cable bills are about to take a nosedive and channel selection is about to skyrocket. That makes Edmondson, a Democrat, a real star. And there are more like him in Connecticut.
Sending a Signal
"There is no difference between bytes traveling over the Internet to become video or to become voice," said Jack Goldberg, Vice Chairman of the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC). The draft ruling by the DPUC says that IPTV products do not fall under a cable definition and hence do not require a franchise.
These two actions should send a strong signal to those local government bureaucrats who are slowing down the deployment of new technology in an effort to milk the system for all they can. In a recent letter denouncing video franchising legislation introduced by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and Commerce Committee ranking member Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, local governments appeared like spoiled children.
The Stevens and Inouye bill would allow local governments to charge video providers five percent of gross revenues as well as an additional one percent of gross revenues to support public-access programming. That's a pretty sweet deal , yet the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors could only complain. Given the recent actions of Connecticut and Oklahoma, these groups may want to reconsider their stance.
Unstoppable Force
By digging in their heels and fighting reform that will help everyone except for local regulators who have become too comfortable with virtually unlimited power over cable providers, local officials may actually lose everything.
If Congress doesn't act in a reasonable amount of time to clean up the nation's cable mess, it appears state officials are more than willing to step in. Besides the Connecticut and Oklahoma examples, three other states have already passed legislation to deal with the problem and many more are preparing to do the same.
Technology is speeding ahead, ready to deliver all sorts of exciting interactive video services for a better price than consumers are paying for cable today. That is a force that cannot be stopped. One way or another, consumers will get what they want. The faster local mandarins figure this out, the better off they will be.
Sonia Arrison, a TechNewsWorld columnist, is director of Technology Studies at the California-based Pacific Research Institute.
What's After Windows - and Who Does it Come From? May 08, 2006
Every indicator is pointing to this thing being closer to a smartphone than a laptop computer. It will be designed to be connected wirelessly over a variety of wireless wide and local area networks. Given this will assume a competitively fast wireless network but will still have to perform some functions without it, the offering will reverse today's model which favors local processing over network capability.
Related Stories
Cable Reform Is Almost Here March 17, 2006
The old franchise system was based on the idea that, because of economies of scale, cable had to be a monopoly service. Now that competition is available from a variety of technologies, such as satellite and the Internet, it's time to revise the regulatory system.
Beware the Legacy Cable Guy November 18, 2005
California legislators should see cable franchise reform as a fairness issue. The telcos had no one protecting them from the sudden onslaught of competition in voice from the cable industry, so it's really not fair that the cable guys get a better deal.
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.