Monday, July 11, 2005

Post-Brand X: A Broader Look at Consumer Protection

The "consumer tragedy" rhetoric that has reared its ugly head in the aftermath of Brand X argues for revisiting what we mean by "consumer protection." Specifically, consumers aren't just looking for government assurances regarding rates and the like; they also want innovation and other attributes that make services more valuable -- which only markets, as opposed to regulators, can bring. I make this point in a letter to the editor that the Philadelphia Inquirer [sign-up required] saw fit to publish on Sunday.

posted by Kyle Dixon @ 6:47 PM | Broadband, Cable, Communications

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)

Thursday, July 7, 2005

Openness Post-Brand X: It begins . . .

The release this week of Public Knowledge's "Principles for an Open Broadband Future" is important in at least two respects, even for those of us who disagree with some of the white paper's arguments and conclusions. First, the paper underscores that, in the wake of the FCC's Supreme Court victory in Brand X, Capitol Hill is the new battlefield for advocates of Internet openness. Second, it underscores (for the most part, anyway) how much the openness debate has evolved since the FCC began its effort to promote broadband investment and innovation by declining to saddle these services with onerous regulation.

Continue reading Openness Post-Brand X: It begins . . . . . .

posted by Kyle Dixon @ 2:18 PM | Broadband, Cable, Capitol Hill, Communications, Innovation, Internet, Net Neutrality, Supreme Court

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)

Governor's Call

Governor Perry has called the Texas legislature together for a special 30-day session. The legislature can only consider items germane to the reasons he lists for the special session. When the regular session concluded, major communications reform had stalled and it is still unclear if he will add communications reform to the "call," but if he does, legislation is likely to pass. Hats off to Adam and Ray; their paper recommending how to move state law toward competition policy still has currency in Texas even as nitty gritty lobbying has moved conceptual discussions to the side.

Last week I joined John Rutledge , TPUC Chairman Paul Hudson and Bill Peacock of the Texas Public Policy Foundation as a witness at a hearing on general reform and the idea of a statewide franchise system for video providers. The statement is here and a paper on franchises is here. The hearing webcast can be found here (see Regulated Industries 6/30). While I did not make it to Antone's for blues, I did catch a live bluegrass performance at the Austin airport.

posted by Kent Lassman @ 2:14 PM | Cable, State Policy, Think Tanks

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)

Thursday, June 30, 2005

FCC Regulation of Service Bundles??

The FCC has a proceeding open that, even after its Supreme Court victory in Brand X, suggests there may be some uncertainty about whether the agency will regulate one-price "bundles" of broadband and other services like voice. To read my SkyReport op-ed on this issue, click here.

posted by Kyle Dixon @ 1:30 PM | Broadband, Cable, Communications, Innovation, Internet, VoIP, Wireline

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Broadband Post-Brand X: The Long and Winding Road

As I have stated repeatedly, the FCC needed to win the Brand X litigation to carry out its plan to minimize regulation and thereby bring consumers the benefits of investment and innovation in competing broadband networks. Based on his reaction to Monday's Supreme Court decision affirming the FCC, Chairman Martin appears to agree. But even as we (or at least some of us) celebrate Monday's decision as a victory for consumers, it is important to remember that, for the FCC, this is only a first step down a long and winding road.

Continue reading Broadband Post-Brand X: The Long and Winding Road . . .

posted by Kyle Dixon @ 3:50 PM | Broadband, Broadband, Cable, Communications, Innovation, Internet, Net Neutrality, The FCC, Wireline

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)

Thursday, June 9, 2005

Video Over Fiber: Rhetorical Ironies and Inconsistencies

In the rhetoric of communications policy debates, the irony of telcos being criticized for (potentially) bringing another video service option to consumers goes without saying. The promise of fiber-based video offerings has generated a backlash of pleas that such offerings be subjected -- before they are barely launched -- to various fees, network build-out requirements and other so-called "social" obligations. As stated elsewhere, these pleas arise from several potential motives, only some of which may be self-interested. An equally-important point, however, may be that these pleas illustrate inconsistencies -- which are ultimately unsustainable -- in the rhetoric and related policy judgments associated with previously distinct services that are converging over IP networks.

Continue reading Video Over Fiber: Rhetorical Ironies and Inconsistencies . . .

posted by Kyle Dixon @ 8:28 PM | Broadband, Cable, Communications, Innovation, Internet, Universal Service

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (1)

Tuesday, June 7, 2005

McSlarrow gets it...

NCTA Chief Kyle McSlarrow today, as reported in Tech Daily:

If newcomers are subject to less restrictive requirements, or granted longer service terms, such lighter regulation ought to apply to existing franchisees as well, he said.

posted by Ray Gifford @ 4:22 PM | Cable

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)

Friday, June 3, 2005

Filling the Ranks

Today's announcement by the FCC of key appointments to its Media Bureau continues the trend I noted before of tapping seasoned professionals with an insider's knowledge of communications and how the FCC functions. These folks (some of whom were my former colleagues) know how to get things done within a complex bureaucracy. Thus, they will be critical to carrying out Chairman Martin's agenda for cable and broadcast. At the very least, this continuing trend in FCC staffing bodes well both for engineering a smooth transition on policies that may carry over from the last Commission, and for steering any new courses effectively.

posted by Kyle Dixon @ 4:53 PM | Cable, Communications, Mass Media, The FCC

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Texas Tussle: Consumers Lose

The Wall Street Journal blames a coalition of cable and municipalities for defeating Texas's proposed statewide video franchising law, which would relieve the Bells' video offerings (and cables' too!) from city-by-city franchise negotiations -- otherwise known as shakedowns. Being subject to local franchising requirements will surely slow down the Bells' video rollout.

In this, consumers lose quicker entry and competition in the video and broadband markets. The Journal portrays the Texas loss as foreshadowing similar losses across the nation -- kind of like France's EU vote, but with much less world-historical consequence.

Were I a cynic, I would lament that we are forestalling video and broaband competition to instead increase in local government tax revenue. Perhaps with the additional revenue, the municipalities can build their own broadband systems since the private platforms are taxed so heavily. But I am not a cynic, so I will look to the last sentence of the Journal article quoting NCTA Head Kyle McSlarrow: "It may be appropriate that Congress affirm that these kinds of services be dealt with a very light economic regulatory touch,..." Now that would be the way to deliver all players from this local tax morass.

posted by Ray Gifford @ 2:16 AM | Broadband, Cable, State Policy

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (2)

Thursday, May 26, 2005

Is Judge Dillon in the Texas House?

May 30 will mark the end of the 79th regular session of the Texas legislature and communications issues are in the mix. The state utility commission was reauthorized. "Omnibus" telecom legislation that would reshape regulatory obligations has been making its way through the process for months and a special telecom tax - revenues are directed to the state Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund - appears to live for another day.

But what caught my eye this week was the House passage of legislation that would cut municipal franchise authorities out of the regulatory game for multichannel video services. It has been a hotly contested topic in Austin and promises to be an issue in several other states as the traditional telecommunications firms reconfigure their infrastructure with more fiber in order to compete for the "triple play" of video, voice and data (broadband) services. The ad and lobby warfare includes typical finger-pointing between industry players and their trade representatives. Whenever the term "level playing field" is used, senses should be sharpened and everyone should bring an extra dose of wariness to the table. In this debate, both sides availed themselves to the argument. In essence, Texas cable providers prefer new entrants to seek local franchises and the traditional telecom providers prefer either a statewide franchise - effectively preempting local franchise authorities - or no additional franchise obligation whatsoever.

In Texas, at least for the near-term, the statewide franchise took a step forward. The issue poses interesting interpretive questions about Title II and Title VI of the federal Communications Act. There is a very compelling public choice story to be told at all levels of government. But the local preemption question has the potential to explode as the issue makes its way to other state capitals. To understand the arguments, it is valuable to see how we arrived at our current legal and institutional position. What was happening in Austin this week has roots in a debate among 19th century jurists who ruled on the relationship between municipal authorities and large, networked industries like rail and water.

Continue reading Is Judge Dillon in the Texas House? . . .

posted by Kent Lassman @ 11:27 AM | Cable, Communications, State Policy

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)

Friday, May 6, 2005

What's Left of Title I After the Broadcast Flag Case?

The DC Circuit's vacation of the broadcast flag rule leaves the FCC's supposed Title I authority in tatters. The broadcast flag, a rule concocted as part of the compromise on the digital television transition, required broadcasters to "flag" digital content s as to make it harder to pirate.

Personally, I had no great enthusiasm for the flag, as I thought it inadvisable to found a new strain of intellectual property law in the FCC, an agency that has enough trouble with its current mandate. That said, the flag could be tolerated when seen in the context of the DTV transition as a whole, where its imposition was indispensible to the content industry signing-off. This "end justifies the means" thinking is not to be encouraged very often, but the value of completing the DTV transition is enormous, as I've spoken about here.

Title I always seemed a thin reed on which to premise a de facto copyright protection law, and now the DC Circuit has confirmed that it is not the empty vessel into which all sorts of broadband aspirational goals can be poured. Thus, this case has enormous implications for those who would want to regulate

Continue reading What's Left of Title I After the Broadcast Flag Case? . . .

posted by Ray Gifford @ 4:15 PM | Broadband, Cable, IP, The FCC

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)

Footnotes We Edited Out, or a Convoluted Solution to Redlining

One great use of a blog is to recycle things that you decided weren't good enough for a more formal paper. Blogs -- the refuse pile of discarded thoughts. Now, there's a great slogan.

In our Progress on Point on video services released earlier this week, Kyle and I discussed potential solutions to the "redlining" issue that cable raises against telephone company entry into the video market. But then we deleted it from the final version because it detracted from the pure principles we were trying to represent. Nonetheless, here is the notional idea for the edification of our blog readers:

[T]he Bells former and the cable companies current cries of "redlining" are based on the build out requirements requisite on their respective networks. Under the regulate down principle, the solution would be to compensate the incumbent for this implicit universal service obligation. We are not sure what the methodology would be or who the payors should be, and are certain that it should not be an ongoing payment obligation but should instead be one-time compensation for the sake of simplicity and administrability. To be sure, it would be a unseemly process fraught with ambiguity and difficulty. Under a rough justice principle, the answer may be to negotiate a one-time payment based on some rough notion (the skeptics could call it ransoming the market to continue the Stockholm Syndrome analogy) of what it owed, and for policymakers to be done with it.

Continue reading Footnotes We Edited Out, or a Convoluted Solution to Redlining . . .

posted by Ray Gifford @ 11:05 AM | Broadband, Cable, Wireline

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)

Friday, April 29, 2005

Another Lesson from a Mad River, Courtesy of Professor Lessig

It's not often that the cable industry can count on help from Lawrence Lessig regarding "network neutrality" -- the question of whether cable modem and other broadband service providers should permit Internet users to access the content, applications and devices of their choice. And yet, Lessig appears to have conceded an argument on which cable may rely to resist regulation if the FCC wins the Brand X case in the Supreme Court. That case ultimately will decide whether the agency can classify cable modem service as a largely unregulated "information service" under the Communications Act. Lessig's concession, however, may not be enough to keep the FCC from enforcing net neutrality even if the Court hands the agency a victory.

Continue reading Another Lesson from a Mad River, Courtesy of Professor Lessig . . .

posted by Kyle Dixon @ 11:25 AM | Broadband, Cable, Communications, Net Neutrality, The FCC

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)

Thursday, April 21, 2005

"Hill Ponders Regulating Convergence": A Note on the Proper Way to Solve "Level Playing Field" Concerns

Yesterday's House Telecommunications Subcommittee hearing confirmed some of my worst fears about government regulation of new technologies / media, which I had discussed on Tuesday in this post.

Today's Broadcasting & Cable includes a story about the hearing with the perfect title: "Hill Ponders Regulating Convergence." That's exactly what's going on here with Congress and the FCC considering how to "level the (regulatory) playing field" as everyone tries to get into everyone else's business. Illinois Republican John Shimkus is quoted in the story and what he said also frames the issue quite nicely: "How do we restructure the FCC to meet the new technological age. How do we justify different regulatory schemes when you are all competing in broadband."

Continue reading "Hill Ponders Regulating Convergence": A Note on the Proper Way to Solve "Level Playing Field" Concerns . . .

posted by Adam Thierer @ 9:57 AM | Cable, Communications, Mass Media

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

Your Telephone Company Will Be Your Next Cable Company

Verizon announced yesterday that it has struck a major deal with NBC Universal to carry all of NBC's 12 cable networks on Verizon's new fiber lines. This comes on the heels of Verizon penning deals with cable giants Discovery Communications and Liberty Media's Starz Entertainment Group to carry the networks produced by those programmers. Now that they've got their foot in the door in a major way, expect Verizon to sign waves of programmers up for carriage on their new fiber networks.

Let's step back for a moment and think about this. Verizon--one of the nation's largest and most respected telecom operators--is about to become a full-fledged multichannel video operator. Since the mid-90s, telecom operators have been trying to figure out the best way to bust into the video market, but the numbers (or the technology) just didn't work out right. Now the stars are aligned properly and telcos like Verizon are itching to jump into this market to justify the billions they are investing in those speed-of-light fiber systems. More importantly, the telcos know they have to do this NOW to stop the further hemorrhaging of customers to cable operators, which can now offer a communications "triple play": voice, video, and data--all over a single line with a single bill.

Continue reading Your Telephone Company Will Be Your Next Cable Company . . .

posted by Adam Thierer @ 10:52 AM | Cable, Communications, Mass Media

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)

Tuesday, March 29, 2005

Brand X: Whither FCC Deference?

Today's Supreme Court argument in the Brand X case raises an important question: why did the Justices downplay the idea that courts should defer to the FCC when it comes to interpreting the Communications Act? By all accounts, the Court said almost nothing about this issue. The answer may say less about the Court or the parties' arguments than about the conflicting policy goals surrounding the FCC's efforts to promote investment in broadband networks.

Continue reading Brand X: Whither FCC Deference? . . .

posted by Kyle Dixon @ 6:11 PM | Broadband, Cable, Communications, Supreme Court, The FCC

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (1)

Thursday, March 24, 2005

CableCards Revisited: The Good, the Bad on the Modular

It was with some regret that I read last week's FCC decision postponing (until 2007) the date when cable operators will be required to use "CableCards" in the set-tops they lease to subscribers. The cards -- which protect against theft of digital cable service -- currently are required only for digital TVs and other devices purchased from consumer electronics companies that enable viewers to surf their favorite channels. Although the FCC moved in the right direction, its decision includes bad news along with the good.

Continue reading CableCards Revisited: The Good, the Bad on the Modular . . .

posted by Kyle Dixon @ 9:44 PM | Cable, Economics, Interoperability

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)

Thursday, March 3, 2005

Telco Video and Digital Must Carry: Making a "Problem" Worse

Recent reports suggest that the broadcast industry will ask Congress to reverse the FCC's recent decision to limit required carriage of digital broadcasts to one (of potentially many) video streams that can be broadcast over a chunk of spectrum that once could support only one analog TV channel. These efforts to obtain digital multicast "must carry" can be criticized simply on equity grounds. In addition to the possibility of broadcasting all of their programming over the air, broadcasters are guaranteed carriage of at least one "primary" video stream on the local cable system -- special treatment of which most video programmers can only dream. Thus, it seems more than fair to require broadcasters, using the programming and distribution resources already at their disposal, to make the remaining video streams that digital tranmission will permit sufficiently attractive that cable operators and other video distributors will want to carry those streams.

But proposals like multicast must carry that force video platform owners to carry other programmers' channels also can be faulted for another reason: they don't improve programmers' long-term prospects for enjoying the most competing outlets for distributing their video content. These mandates do nothing to encourage investment in newer ways to distribute video, such as telephone companies' efforts to provide video over fiber.

Continue reading Telco Video and Digital Must Carry: Making a "Problem" Worse . . .

posted by Kyle Dixon @ 5:54 PM | Broadband, Cable, Communications

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)

Thursday, February 24, 2005

Cable-Telco Video Competition: Beyond Level Playing Fields

The battle continues to heat up between cable operators and telephone companies hoping to get into the video business. Today's Comm Daily [Lexis subscription required] reports on Verizon's legislative efforts in California to avoid a state law that would force VZ, where it is deploying fiber to support video service, to build out to the entire franchise area served by the incumbent cable provider. Not surprisingly, the local cable association has raised concerns with Verizon's bill. The statute from which VZ would be exempted if the proposed law passes has been described as an attempt to provide market competitors a regulatory "level playing field." But that unfortunate metaphor provides little guidance on how to piece through the many complex issues related to whether and how cable and telco video competitors should be regulated.

Continue reading Cable-Telco Video Competition: Beyond Level Playing Fields . . .

posted by Kyle Dixon @ 3:37 PM | Broadband, Cable, Communications, General, State Policy

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)

Thursday, February 17, 2005

FCC on Wireless Broadband and Must Carry: No Lame Ducks Here

Lest loyal readers suspect that PFF has been so distracted by our attendance at far-flung conferences that we have overlooked happenings here in DC, I would note several FCC actions last week. These may be some of the agency's last actions before Chairman Powell takes his scheduled bow sometime next month.

The agency fell short of its own expectations in its ongoing effort to reform the tortured scheme by which carriers currently compensate each other for exchanging voice and data traffic between networks. This portends further delay in eliminating some of the Rube Goldberg-like complexity that continues to plague both traditional phone competition and universal service issues, as well as more recent concerns such as the deployment of Internet voice and broadband. Almost to make up for this disappointment, the agency managed to adopt a slew of consumer-oriented items regarding such issues as the national do-not-call registry, slamming and fees for changing long distance providers and rules to facilitate mobile satellite service to consumers and public safety officials.

But the more interesting actions last week concerned (1) the Commission's recommendations on how to promote the availability of wireless broadband access; and (2) the Commission's decision to mandate only one channel of digital programming on cable systems (so-called digital "must carry"). Taken together, these two actions reflect an ongoing commitment to promoting consumer choice in the digital environment.

Continue reading FCC on Wireless Broadband and Must Carry: No Lame Ducks Here . . .

posted by Kyle Dixon @ 11:05 PM | Broadband, Cable, Communications

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)

Monday, February 7, 2005

Do No Harm: Re-writing a Prescription for Cable Competition

The FCC's release of two reports on pricing and other aspects of competition in the cable industry evoked the usual reflexive sound bites from those who purportedly speak for consumers. Despite a number of positive signs for consumers, they hone in on the reported 5.6% increase from last year in the average price subscribers pay for cable, excluding certain programming such as premium and pay per view channels. They point out that this increase exceeds the general inflation rate as reflected in the consumer price index (CPI), which went up by only 1.1% over the same period. Based on these two numbers, they conclude that consumers are being harmed, regulators have fallen asleep at the switch -- blah, blah, blah.

This simple comparison is certainly convenient for those hoping to contrast the "white hats" they claim to wear with those of the evil monopolists and toothless bureacrats against whom they wage rhetorical war. But it also (just as conveniently) leaves out a number of facts that suggest consumers are not hurting significantly and, indeed, may see continued improvements -- if regulators don't rush in to "save" them.

Continue reading Do No Harm: Re-writing a Prescription for Cable Competition . . .

posted by Kyle Dixon @ 7:10 PM | Cable

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (1)

Friday, February 4, 2005

TV Privacy: The Economics of Creepiness

Those who admit they are comfortable with TiVo or other digital video-recording services monitoring their viewing habits are likely to elicit stares usually reserved for folks who like bathing with the shower window shade open. But for us non-exhibitionists, such monitoring may seem downright creepy -- a sentiment which is presumably fueling renewed efforts [Tech Daily subscription required] in Congress to impose privacy restrictions on these services.

It makes perfect sense for policymakers and consumers to think carefully about who knows what about them. But answering the question of whether privacy regulation is needed to address company business practices such as TiVo's is not nearly as straightforward.

Continue reading TV Privacy: The Economics of Creepiness . . .

posted by Kyle Dixon @ 10:53 AM | Cable, Communications

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (1)

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

CableCards, Competition and Modularity in the Digital Age

The FCC is considering whether to maintain, eliminate or delay further the deadline for cable companies to modify the set-top boxes they lease to customers so that they use the "CableCard" technology now visible in your local BestBuy. The cards, which you obtain from your cable provider, are security mechanisms that plug into a host of digital TVs, digital video recorders and other devices, thereby enabling those devices to read and display encrypted digital programming without obtaining a set-top box from the cable company.

There is a good argument that Congress did not mandate a "fully competitive" market for set-top boxes and other navigation devices as much as it simply instructed that consumers be given a choice to obtain those devices from folks other than the cable company. But even accepting the premise that the FCC should foster "device competition" in some ways, the current debate could benefit from a more rigorous evaluation of (1) incentives to innovate, and (2) the benefits consumers may reap if cable companies are allowed to continue their current involvement in the device market (i.e., leasing boxes to their customers that do not employ CableCards).

Before it decides what to do, the FCC should demand that the parties better explain the potential effect of the agency's decision on innovation and other consumer benefits, so that the agency's decision can fully reflect what competition means in this digital age.

Continue reading CableCards, Competition and Modularity in the Digital Age . . .

posted by Kyle Dixon @ 4:39 PM | Broadband, Cable, Communications

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)

Friday, December 3, 2004

Supremes to Consider Brand X

Good news today out of the Supreme Court. The Court has announced it will consider the appeal from the Ninth Circuit's decision holding that cable modem service is a "telecommunications" service subject to public utility-style regulation rather than, as the FCC determined, an "information service" remaining relatively free from regulation.

This will be an important case for two reasons. From the perspective of sound policy, in today's increasingly competitive broadband marketplace, we don't want to have the FCC's hands tied as it tries to keep broadband services, whether provided by cable, telephone, or whatever, from becoming embroiled in the "morass" (Bill Kennard's word) of telephone regulation. Second, as a matter of law, the case may well turn on what the Supremes say about how much deference is due the agency's interpretation of ambiguous statutory provisions. This involves the reach of the famous 1984 Chevon case implicating judicial deference to agency decisions.

No doubt that the classification of cable broadband service (or DSL, for that matter) is not crystal-clear under the definitions in the existing Communications Act. As I have pointed out before, in today's digital environment, the distinction between "telecommunications" and "information" service as it relates to broadband services is quite metaphysical. Since the Communications Act is what it is, when there is true ambiguity such as that presented by Brand X, the Court will do better, as matter of law, if it defers to the metaphysicians over at the Portals concerning the definitional issue, rather than practicing the metaphysician's art themselves.

posted by Randolph May @ 3:24 PM | Cable, Supreme Court

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (1)

Wednesday, December 1, 2004

As visions of cable modems dance in their heads

Court-watchers at the FCC and among cable operators and other broadband providers are hoping the Supreme Court has gotten into the holiday spirit early. Today's Communications Daily [Lexis subscription required] predicts that the Court may decide within days whether to hear an important case, Brand X v. FCC, that may determine how well the FCC can protect cable modem service and, by implication, other broadband services from intrusive and costly regulation. If the Court accepts the case, it would open the possibility of overturning a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that rejected the FCC's decision to spare cable modem service the heavy regulation generally afforded traditional phone service.

The story of how the Communications Act can be interpreted in this area will not end whether or not the Court takes the case. If the 9th Circuit decision is allowed to stand, the FCC could still consider "forbearing" from regulating cable modem service though, as I have noted, such forbearance authority may be limited. If the Court takes the case and ultimately takes the FCC's position, the agency would still need to work through a host of additional issues. Most important among these are whether local franchise authorities will be allowed to regulate aspects of cable modem service and whether the FCC should reject formally calls to impose "net neutrality" requirements. (FCC Chairman Powell has emphasized publicly that there is no need to impose the latter, given that cable modem and DSL providers allow consumers to use the content, applications and devices of their choice freely.)

Nevertheless, the Brand X case is critical to the FCC's overall policy of enhancing incentives for companies to invest in building high-speed networks. The outcome of Brand X also may afford more or less urgency to efforts to reform the Communications Act to accommodate cable modem and other digital technologies.

posted by Kyle Dixon @ 11:23 AM | Cable, Supreme Court

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

SBC TV --You Say You Want A La Carte?

Well, the FCC is surely correct in recommending that Congress not mandate that cable operators be required to offer channels on an a la carte basis. Did you see the SBC news release concerning its deal with Microsoft that will enable it "to provide next-generation television services using the Microsoft TV Internet Television (IPTV) Edition software plaktform." SBC says the deal is valued at $400 million over 10 years.

According to SBC, its Internet-based service will change the way people experience television: "Finally, customers will watch what they want, when they want--from a virtually unlimited and interactive content selection." SBC says it plans on the availability of the IP-based television in late 2005.

I know, I know--the date almost certainly is hyped up a bit, and it likely will slip. It may be 2006, or 2007, or....but Internet Television is surely coming. And it will be "a la carte" out of the kazoo, beyond John McCain's fondest dreams. The marketplace and technology are driving this.

And this too: The regulatory metaphysicians are likely to have a field day arguing about the classification of Internet Television unless Congress acts in the not-too-distant future to free all digital services from the traditional stovepipe regulatory mandates.

And speaking of Congress, this too: Think about all that valuable spectrum that will be devoted to provision of over-the-air digital TV service by "broadcasters" at the same time that many people incresingly will be satisfying most of their video fix through non-spectrum delivered Internet TV.

posted by Randolph May @ 4:06 PM | Cable

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)

Monday, November 22, 2004

Cable A La Carte

On November 18, the FCC released its report to Congress on the cable a la carte pricing model. The report was requested by several members of Congress, including Senate Commerce Chairman John McCain, who has been particularly keen on the idea.

The Commission concluded that "although an a la carte option would allow consumers to pay for only the programming they choose, given current viewing practices, few consumers would experience lower bills for multi-channel programming."

In comments filed with the FCC last July, my colleague Tom Lenard and I explained why it would be bad for consumers to have the government dictate the pricing and program packaging of cable services. In its report, the FCC cites our comments in explaining that "when viewers purchase a bundle of programs, they have the option of watching programming that they might not have purchased separately."

Let the marketplace work!

posted by Randolph May @ 5:51 PM | Cable

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)