While phone companies push for a rewrite of the 1996 Telecom Act, in part to ease their entry into the video business via a national franchising law, cable operators aren’t as eager for a legislative overhaul. If it must occur, the cable industry wants to make sure that local franchising stays intact, or at the very least ensure that telco-delivered IP video is subject to the same franchising requirements that apply to cable.
Speaking to the Washington Metropolitan Cable Club (video here), National Cable and Telecommunications Association CEO Kyle McSlarrow said the 96 Act has worked well. “So, did the ‘96 Act spur investment by cable operators and benefit the American consumer by reducing economic regulation? Absolutely,” he said.
But, he acknowledged, “our communications laws deserve continuing and careful examination” in light of rapid market changes. Moreover, “we need to ensure a regulatory climate” that continues to spur innovation.
Among the goals NCTA seeks in a rewrite is parity, or to use a hackneyed expression, a level playing field. “Like services should be treated alike and everyone should play by the same rules. What matters to consumers, and what should matter to policymakers, is not the technology used to provide services, but the services themselves.”
While NCTA warms to federal oversight of voice-over-IP, “many of the issues raised by IP video have no parallel in IP voice, so they haven’t been part of the debate over the proper framework for voice offerings,” McSlarrow said, laying out the industry’s view on why a national policy for IP video may be premature.
In a separate white paper released with McSlarrow’s speech, NCTA states:
Local regulation, as implemented by the franchise agreement, may be the most appropriate way to implement and enforce those obligations that involve local circumstances – such as the prohibition on redlining and management of public rights-of-way to protect health and safety.
If, however, phone companies win in their bid to remove the franchising underbrush blocking their path to multichannel video over IP-based networks, cable wants the same treatment. McSlarrow said in his speech:
Existing providers and new entrants should be treated alike in this regard. And if newcomers are subject to less restrictive requirements, or granted longer service terms, such lighter regulation ought to apply to existing franchisees, too. The government must avoid picking winners and losers by imposing regulation based on the particular mix of technology a video provider deploys.
Cynthia Brumfield at 3:44 PM|Comments(0)
Blogs We Read
