Comments on: FCC adopts relief for telecom companies planning TV offerings

In divided vote, Republican commissioners say action is critical for competition, while Democrats fret rules may be unnecessary.

[tanis143]

Typical

Oh boo hoo. So the phone companies want in on video but do not want to go through the same legal constraints that the cable companies had to do. Thats so typical of them. When cable companies wanted to offer phone service did they get a break on the regulations they had to follow? Nope. But, since the phone companies generally have bigger pockets, I guess they can afford to grease the wheels that supposedly are balanced for all.

[ralfthedog]

Even playing field

If a law is passed, it should say that two companies offering identical services should be given the same terms. If Cox communication offers phone, internet and TV, and they are required to do X and pay Y, then ATT or Verision should be required to do X and pay Y to enter the same market with the same services.

The only problem I see is that they will find small differences in there service. "We require our customers to buy X peace of hardware while the other guy rents it out, we should not be held to the same standard..."

Allowances must be made for build out time. Lets say ATT is required to offer service in some low income neighborhood , They should be given about the same time it took the cable company to build to that place.

[bdennis410]

FCC doesn't go far enough

THe FCC must use this "baby step" to further open cable to competitive access for service, content and program producers and providers. And telecom must not be ignored in respect to forcing competitive access either.
Although Commissioner Martin rightly noted the over 100 percent increase in cable rates in just a short period , the fact is that since "dereg" cable rates are up in many areas over 300%, over eight times the rate of inflation. Cable excuses regarding "must carry" must also be dealt with.
And let's not forget that cable makes tons of money -read Billions- that's Billions with a bib "B" folks- from advertising. Why don't rates reflect the advertising profits? Cable should be FREE in view of the fact that cable's original premise- their "raison d'etre" -was that by investing in cable infrastructure to provide signals to homes, that rates would cover the cost of the infrastructure and signal delivery; nothing was said that should have been about offsetting rates with profits from additional services like Internet, or advertising, or others soon to come.
Cable has been profiteering from consumers for over 20 years, to the tune of over $200 Billion or more dollars-that's Billions with a big "B" folks!-in monopoly profits.
Who said crime doesn't pay!

Barry Dennis