Save Access

NOTE: FCC Chairman Martin "often citing the Phoenix Center's own work on rising cable-franchise rates". The Phoenix Center's data is based in part on a Bank of America study later discredited in Congressional hearing by bank representatives (see: http://saveaccess.org/node/312). Also lost in the furor over cable prices is that Verizon just raised pricies for its FIOS service by 7.6% (see: http://saveaccess.org/node/545).

from: Telecom Web

FCC Chairman Posits Quicker Video Franchising

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Kevin J. Martin is prepared to take steps that would hasten the pace of video competition, ostensibly allowing telcos easier entry into the business with IPTV service offerings against incumbent cablecos and direct satellite providers.
In a speech at the annual United States telecom symposium sponsored by the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies in Washington, D.C., Martin said an initial step would be requiring local franchise authorities (LFAs) to decide within 90 days on new applications to offer TV in competition with cable providers.
As an offshoot of an existing FCC inquiry into whether LFAs cause problems via inaction, exclusive awards, franchise fee issues and build-out requirements, Martin later told reporters he's circulated such a 90-day deadline proposal to the other four FCC commissioners, and the action may surface as an agenda item for a vote at the regulatory agency's Dec. 20 open meeting.
Often citing the Phoenix Center's own work on rising cable-franchise rates, pro-competition value propositions and potential savings to American consumers, Martin indicated the 90-day timeframe would apply to new entries - typically telcos - that already have community rights-of-way agreements. However, LFAs and other local government authorities would have 180 days to act on applications from companies without such access deals.
Martin also advocates limits on fees LFAs and local governments can "reasonably require" from new TV providers as well as limitations on imposing so-called "build-out rules" that require providers to serve virtually all households in given franchised regions. All the elements suggested by Martin would be welcomed by the likes of AT&T, Verizon Communications and other telecom carriers that have complained about LFAs to the FCC, the U.S. Congress and state legislatures.
"The process can pose some unreasonable barriers to entry, and there are steps the commission can take to address some of these barriers," Martin said, in part, linking video entry with fiber-deployment acceleration and broadband-encouragement policies. "Unreasonable build-out requirements can make it economically or technologically unfeasible for a new entrant to provide service to a community."
According to Martin, with the upward trend of cableco pricing being of particular importance to consumers, greater competition is desperately needed in the video market for the delivery of multichannel programming, and this is a primary goal of federal communications policy. "Increased competition can be expected to lead to lower prices and more choices for consumers," he said.
Legal questions on LFAs and FCC authority rest with the 1992 Cable Act, Martin remarked, claiming the FCC has developed an extensive record on the franchising process that led to his conclusions on unreasonable delays by LFAs, setting timeframes for action and other measures.
He also maintained that other potential barriers to increased video competition include critical access to the programming consumers want; current FCC rules generally prohibit exclusive contracts between cablecos and programmers in which cablecos have an attributable interest. "Unless the commission takes action, this prohibition will sunset next year," Martin added. "To evaluate the importance of these rules for video competition, I have proposed that the commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to examine the issue to enable us to act prior that sunset."