Verizon Communications and SBC Communications' plans to wire American homes with high-speed fiber connections may encounter regulatory roadblocks, members of Congress suggested Wednesday.
Both companies are spending billions on fiber links that can carry everything from Internet service to voice and video. Verizon's Fios service already boasts speeds of up to 30 megabits per second with a digital TV package expected later this year. SBC's similar Lightspeed service is supposed to be available no later than early 2006.
These forays into digital TV are alarming television broadcasters and some cable companies, which view fiber service as a competitive threat. This week, for instance, Verizon announced that it plans to carry all of NBC Universal's channels on Fios TV.
The emerging dispute over digital TV effectively opens up a new political front in an already bitter war between the Bells and cable companies for high-speed Internet customers.
"Stations would lose audience share and advertising dollars, and these dollars fund local programming that makes broadcasting valuable," Greg Schmidt, a lawyer speaking on behalf of the influential National Association of Broadcasters, told a House of Representatives panel on Wednesday. The NAB represents local radio and TV broadcasters.
Congress should prohibit SBC and Verizon from offering digital TV unless the companies follow an extensive list of government regulations, Schmidt said. Among them: Local broadcasters must remain the only source for network programming; fiber providers must be required to "black out" the availability of certain sports games; and local TV broadcasts must be carried on fiber networks.
Schmidt's suggested requirements met with a favorable reception among at least some members of the telecommunications subcommittee.
Rep. Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat, rattled off a list of possible regulatory requirements, adding privacy rules and set-top box interoperability to Schmidt's suggestions. "Would you be willing to abide by public access channel requirements?" Boucher asked. Other subcommittee members suggested that "indecency" rules limiting off-color content should apply.
"We attach public-interest responsibility to the companies that are going to benefit from those laws," said Rep. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat. "Should SBC not be bound by those laws?"
When a cable company wires a community, it must offer service to all households, Markey said, so why should Verizon and SBC be permitted to select which neighborhoods are wired with fiber first? "You
I think as long as the baby bells have the same rules that the cable companies have this is fine. But I don't see why the baby bells should have additional regulation on their TV ventures when the cables folks don't have any additional regulations on their phone ventures. If the cable companies are having to pay the access fees twice (once for TV and once for phone/data) that's fine. But if they aren't, then the baby bells shouldn't have to either.
Since Michael Powell over at the FCC was too busy fining folks over nipplegate to notice that open access to DSL *and* cable lines was needed for competition, the only hope we have for competition now is between the cable monolopy and the phone monopoly, so let's not screw that potential up too.
You claim that there should be open access to both phone lines and cable systems. Why? If I'm a telco, and I spend X amount of millions building out a network, then why should I have to share it with my competitors at rates below my cost to maintain it? Remember UNE-P? The competitors get a 50% discount below the telco's cost of maintaining the network in some areas. So, for every dollar that a telco spends on network maintenance, they only get 50 cents back. Not good business sense if you ask me. Yet this is exactly what the government is forcing the telcos to do, and now the cable companies are in the crosshairs. These competitors are not investing anything in the network, telephone, TV, or Internet.
If Brand X Internet wants to compete with cable or DSL, then they need to build their own network, just like the cable companies and telcos did. If they can't, then they need to either negotiate a *FAIR* agreement for leasing the network or get out of the market altogether.
So sir, as your opinion seems to be that of someone who is uninformed about the issue, I would suggest reading up a little bit more about the facts before you form an opinion.
Here is another topic that the cable companies can start to whine about. "But mommy! Mommy! We are the TV guys. . .not them!" I view it as being absolutely fair. Cable companies have been offering high speed internet connections which is in the Bells' market and making competition tougher. But ooohhh nooo! Lets not let the Bells return the favor of higher competition in the Television Broadcast Market by offering their own service!
The physical data conduits into the home (twisted copper, coax, fiber, wireless) should be operated and maintained like a public utility or co-op, i.e. they are shared, municipal resources. This would allow each service to be regulated on the merits of that service, regardless of the provider and physical transport utilized to delivery it. Each provider can then lease as many or as few conduits in each community that makes sense for their business.
It is time to move away from these archaic rules that link specific services to specific physical transports. That would go a long way towards leveling the playing field between competitors. But, someone has to be responsible for operating and maintaining the physical conduit(s) in each community, including insuring equal access TO SERVICES by all citizens. Note, equal access can be achieved with just one physical data conduit.
Verizon plans to have one fiber line and to lease out the line to everyone. similar to what you are talking about expect it's mantain by the lovely folks here are verizon.
Chinese authorities have reportedly taken iPads from a third-party retailer, a move apparently brought on by Apple's continued refusal to honor a trademark for the iPad name owned by a Chinese manufacturer.
NY professor believes that a word-based algorithm can help bring together those who believe, with one glimpse, that they have found and lost the love of their lives.
After a higher-than-expected fourth quarter, the video subscription service unburdens itself of a pending yearlong class action suit and settles for $9 million.
Along with green-lighting Google's buy of Motorola, the Justice Department today OKs an Apple-Microsoft-RIM partnership deal to buy Nortel patents, and Apple's plan to acquire Novell patents.
Chamtech's spray-on antenna uses a nano material to provide a low-power boost to antenna range. The wireless-in-a-can product may some day bring an end to unsightly cell towers.
This week, we pass around Sony's new PlayStation Vita for some hands-on testing, check out HP's newest Beats Audio laptop, and debate the best and worst Valentine's Day gadget gifts.
EnerG2 opens a plant to make an engineered carbon that will improve performance of energy storage devices and make storage for start-stop hybrid cars less expensive.
Since Michael Powell over at the FCC was too busy fining folks over nipplegate to notice that open access to DSL *and* cable lines was needed for competition, the only hope we have for competition now is between the cable monolopy and the phone monopoly, so let's not screw that potential up too.
If Brand X Internet wants to compete with cable or DSL, then they need to build their own network, just like the cable companies and telcos did. If they can't, then they need to either negotiate a *FAIR* agreement for leasing the network or get out of the market altogether.
So sir, as your opinion seems to be that of someone who is uninformed about the issue, I would suggest reading up a little bit more about the facts before you form an opinion.
innovation in TV delivery. They need to learn to flipping
compete.
It is time to move away from these archaic rules that link specific services to specific physical transports. That would go a long way towards leveling the playing field between competitors. But, someone has to be responsible for operating and maintaining the physical conduit(s) in each community, including insuring equal access TO SERVICES by all citizens. Note, equal access can be achieved with just one physical data conduit.