Fair competition needs level playing field
The following is a counterpoint:
By Matthew M. Polka
Your article, "Proposal would give state negotiating power" (June 13), repeated a number of claims made by Bell telephone companies and their friends in their effort to get special favors from legislators. While they claim to support lower prices for consumers, what they really want is a leg-up over their competitors.
The 1996 Telecommunications Act, which the Bells spent millions of dollars lobbying to support, expressly allows telephone companies to enter the video market. But rather than invest in upgrading their networks, the Bells have chosen to milk their old phone monopolies, while cable companies — like the small operators I represent, some with only several hundred customers — have invested over $100 billion in private dollars upgrading their networks for high-speed Internet. As a result, 91 percent (and counting) of the homes cable serves nationwide have access to our broadband offering.
Instead of supporting Bell-backed state or national video franchising legislation that would give telephone companies an advantage over their competitors, let's agree to several principles:
First, there should be a level playing field among competitors. Cable and telephone companies should be required to abide by the same rules and obligations in the spirit of fair play.
Second, cable companies have agreed to anti-discrimination obligations for decades. Failing to prevent telephone companies from discriminating based on income or race would undermine core American values.
Thirdly, local governments have a significant role to play in ensuring the well-being of their neighborhoods.
These should be principles with which we can all agree, and which will bring telecommunications competition to all, not just a few.
The writer is president and CEO, American Cable Association; board member, Broadband Everywhere.
Comments (1)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Let's see, "....have invested over $100 billion in private dollars upgrading their networks for high-speed Internet." Are not these invested dollars earned back by increased households signing up for cable services AND continually drastic increases in cable rates? Is that not part of a free capital system; invest money to make a retun on said investment?
I am wondering how something such as this is coming into play in the early 21st Century: "Second, cable companies have agreed to anti-discrimination obligations for decades. Failing to prevent telephone companies from discriminating based on income or race would undermine core American values." Why are we talking about racial discrimination at this point in American history/society? That seems trite to me.
It just seems that the cable folks want to be able to keep the current monopoly they hold rather than give up a piece of that "pie" to the telephone companies who are offering satellite service. What a shame!
Shalom
Posted on July 3, 2006 9:54 AM