The Senate Commerce Committee held its hearing on video franchising today (webcast replay and written testimony are here.) And both cable operators and phone companies have issues with the local cable franchising process, although cable operators are a lot more comfortable in letting cities dictate the terms for video providers.
“Some municipalities are over-reaching,” Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg said, citing the example of one muncipality in New Jersey that asked for 5% of all revenues generated by Verizon’s FiOs system, not just the revenues generated from video services, as specified under existing federal law.
“The problem that AT&T and other new video entrants face is the uncertainty, delay and prohibitive costs driven by the current cable franchising process, which was designed for cable incumbents when they entered with a monopoly franchise,” SBC CEO Ed Whitacre said.
But if the phone companies cut better deals than cable operators, that’s not fair, Cablevision COO Tom Rutledge said, because it’s very difficult for the cable company to go back and get the same deal from the franchising authority. “The problem is you have people who are not participating in the franchise process,” he said, referring to the phone companies. “What’s hard to do is go in and ask [the franchising authorities] for a special deal.”
Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) gave cable a boost for its efforts to make sure all video providers operate under the same franchise terms and conditions. “We all have to be operating out of the same rule book,” he said.
Cynthia Brumfield at 6:06 PM|Comments(0)
Blogs We Read
