IP: Cable Lobby's Pregnant Silence

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

>Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:55:39 -0500
>From: Stephen Heins <steveh@northnet.net>
>Organization: NorthNet
>Subject: Cable Lobby's Pregnant Silence
>
>Open-Mndeds,
>
>Here is a story about the cable lobby worth sharing with you. The newly
>renamed
>National Cable and "Telecommunications" Association has one response to
>media
>questioning about the inappropriately named "Internet Freedom and
>Broadband Deployment Act": "No comment."
>
>The moral of the following story goes as follows: Gatekeepers are very
>territorial and often very clever!
>
>In particular, it is very interesting to watch the cable industry use
>the "telecommunication services" status to avoid a community franchise
>fee and to add sex appeal to their names, but still deny the
>applicability of the Telecommunication
>Act of 1996 for access their networks.
>
>
>Anyway, here it is the article:
>
>Cable Lobby Quiet on Key
>
>Telecom Bill by Erik Wemple Online
>Exclusive, May 14 2001
>
>
>Cable lobbyists are conspicuously silent on proposed federal
>legislation that could make the market much tougher for operators.
>
>Last Wednesday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee
>approved the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act,
>which would unleash the Baby Bell phone companies on the
>high-speed Internet sector.
>
>Sponsored by Reps. Billy Tauzin, R-La., and John Dingell, D-Mich., the
>bill would excuse the phone companies from a key provision of the
>1996 Telecommunications Act. That provision required the
>companies to open up their networks to local competition before
>joining cable-service providers in offering advanced services.
>
>But there is a competing option more favorable to cable companies.
>On May 5 Reps. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and Chris Cannon,
>R-Utah, sponsored a proposal that would keep the phone
>companies restricted to conventional telephone service and
>constrained by the market-opening mandates of the 1996 act. It
>would also muster $3 billion in loans to assist companies in
>extending broadband to underserved areas.
>
>But the cable industry has had little to say, at least publicly, about
>the rival bills.
>
>The National Cable & Telecommunications Association, which usually
>blitzes reporters and industry insiders with positional press
>releases when such critical legislation hits Capitol Hill, is staying in
>
>the background for now.
>
>When asked about the pending bills, NCTA spokesman David
>Beckwith replied, "No comment."
>
>Major cable providers are taking a similar approach. AOL Time
>Warner declined to comment on the legislation. A Comcast
>spokesperson referred inquiries on the legislation to NCTA.
>
>In fact, cable companies are facing a double bind. Operators would,
>of course, very much like to keep the phone companies out of the
>high-speed arena. But making such a case before lawmakers could
>paint them as proponents of government regulation ­ a concept
>that is anathema to industry executives.
>
>To cable operators, government regulation means an open-access
>requirement which could hurt profits and reduce their leverage with
>Internet service providers and other companies who want a ride on
>their broadband pipes.
>
>The closest that the government has come to an open-access
>requirement is the Federal Trade Commission?s consent agreement
>in the merger of AOL and Time Warner, a document filled with
>stipulations regarding how the combined company should handle
>broadband access agreements. Still, there are some activist
>lawmakers who favor a wide-ranging open-access requirement, and
>heading them off is the cable industry?s first priority.
>
>Doing so may require a consistent track record. The cable lobby is
>trying to avoid the regulatory trap that Microsoft fell into. For years
>the software behemoth skewered the government for pursuing its
>headline-making antitrust case against the company. Yet last year,
>it complained to federal regulators about the monopolistic dangers
>of the AOL-Time Warner deal.
>
>But some observers say that cable providers may not have much to
>worry about. MSOs, after all, have been providing Internet services
>for years, which insulates them somewhat from an immediate
>competitive threat from the local phone companies.
>
>"They think they have a jump on the Bell companies," says a cable
>industry observer.
>
>For now, the NCTA is simply watching the deliberations, ready to
>pounce in case the legislation drifts too far.
>
>"If you were to see legislative amendments dealing with open
>access, the cable industry would perk up," says the source.
>
>The sidelines strategy may work out perfectly for the industry.
>Although Tauzin may want to move his bill through the legislature
>quickly, the 30-24 committee vote doesn?t give the measure much
>momentum. Furthermore, House Judiciary Committee Chairman
>James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., has appealed for referral of the
>legislation, a tack that would allow the committee to mix in the
>Conyers-Cannon prescription for broadband deployment.
>
>House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., is expected to rule on the
>jurisdictional battle within two weeks.
>
>              END
>
>Steve
>
>--
>Steve Heins
>thewordmerchant.com
>Director of Marketing
>NorthNet
>email: steveh@northnet.net
>920-233-5641



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/