Cable Competitors Should Not Be Allowed To Cherry Pick Posted by Bob at 12/19/06 03:32 PM

Tomorrow the Federal Communications is scheduled to take up a controversial proposal that would eliminate much of the bargaining power of local governments in cable franchise negotiations.

We don't know the specifics of what the FCC will actually be considering tomorrow because the details are being kept under wraps. What little we do know has come from some recent speeches by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, who has been championing the proposal.

So while we can't say anything for sure, it appears one of the biggest changes would be the establishment of a 90-day “shot clock” for local governments to process cable franchise applications. Under the plan, phone companies and other new cable competitors would automatically be able to begin offering TV service if they cannot reach an agreement with local communities within 90 days.

The plan would also cap franchise fees and place limits on the ability of local governments to require cable providers to build out their systems within a certain time period.

Martin’s plan is basically the same one that phone companies tried unsuccessfully to get through Congress this year. If approved, it would be a major coup for big telephone companies such as AT&T and Verizon, who are pushing aggressively into the cable television business.

We're not sure whether Martin's shot-clock proposal would harm consumers. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But as with most government policy questions, the devil will be in the details -- which have yet to be released to the public.

It's fair to say that vigorous new competition in the cable television market is sorely needed. Most consumers currently have little or no choice when it comes to cable services. Most any additional competition is likely to help.

We believe that allowing new competitors to skirt buildout requirements is downright consumer-unfriendly, however. We urge the FCC not to approve that part of Martin's proposal. It is not acceptable to let new competitors have the option of wiring up affluent neighborhoods while bypassing the poorer parts of town.

Traditional cable companies have long been subject to buildout requirements. So should any new competitors in the business.

If these new rules are truly meant to spur healthy competition and drive down prices, as proponents claim, they need to benefit all consumers -- rich, poor, or otherwise.

comments (0)