IPTV and a major regulatory issue comes home to my town
Dear Vorticians,
There are things you don't know about me, things perhaps you shouldn't know. Like, for example, I am an avid reader and sometimes writer of horror fiction. (Not the grisly 'splatterpunk' stuff, but the classic Gothic variety.) Or that I'm more fascinated by the advertising on television than the television itself (with the exception of HBO's "Deadwood").
But I'm also a member of the Hopkinton, MA, Cable TV Advisory Committee, a group appointed by the five-member board of selectmen to advise our bucolic community on issues related to, you guessed it, cable television. I signed up for the committee about a year ago in a momentary fit of civic duty that was inspired by a flyer, accompanying the annual town census, seeking volunteers to help out on various town councils. The cable committee seemed right up my alley, both because of my networking background and because I, well, love cable television. In the days before cable, I grew up in a house situated smack dab in front (or behind) a big hill and our VHF and UHF TV reception was awful. I could never really get a good picture on local channel 38, which showed both "Speed Racer" and "Kimba, the White Lion," and was so out of the loop compared to my friends at Woodville School.
However, after being dutifully approved by the board of selectmen for the post and having been sworn in, I learned that the job wasn't going to be very taxing. The incumbent members of the committee had just finished the difficult work of negotiating a new 15-year license agreement with Comcast and, absent that chore, there wasn't a terrific workload facing the group.
But, suddenly, that's changing.
Verizon has selected my town as one of a handful in Massachusetts that will, at some point, get television over fiber-to-the-home facilities (so-called IPTV), and has begun the process of filing for a license to offer that service. I'm thrilled by this, not because I can't wait to do more business with Verizon but because I'm a huge fan of competition in networking and I'd love to see a healthy drop in my cable bill which, including broadband access but not voice calling, is well over $140 a month. (And I don't even have all the premium channels!)
The telco filed an initial license application and, on Wednesday night, our committee met with an attorney expert in the field of cable licensing to prepare the town's response. In essence, what Hopkinton - and most other communities in the same situation - will require is that Verizon agree to the same terms that Comcast agreed to and that it deliver the same services and benefits to the community. In fact, the license agreement with Comcast requires that. That non-exclusive agreement includes a "Level Playing Field" clause that requires the town to impose the same terms and conditions on any new entrants into the market.
Here are a few key things the current cable license covers:
* Support for public access television. Comcast helps fund the community TV efforts and provides a couple channels for the local programming. (I'm seriously considering launching my own movie review program.)
* Facilities for town networking. Comcast has helped network municipal buildings for internal data communications.
* Discounts for senior citizens and free hookups to the schools.
* Access for all residents. Comcast has to provide service to anyone who wants it.
That's a lot for any new entrant to match, particularly one that isn't interested in blanket deployment of service. That, in my view, means the last requirement - universal service - is likely to be the key sticking point. It isn't at all clear that Verizon intends to deliver IPTV to any ol' body who wants it. It's expensive to deploy the service and, short of a regulatory requirement, any company would target the best-heeled neighborhoods first, the kinds of neighborhoods that could afford other services delivered over the glass, such as very high speed Internet access. (See my previous entry for more on fiber to the home.)
In fact, Verizon's decision to target my sleepy home town, which is famous for one day each year as the start of the Boston Marathon, puts us squarely in the middle of a rapidly brewing political battle. Verizon and its brethren like SBC are spending heavy coin lobbying for legislative changes that would exempt them from being subjected to the same licensing process the cable companies have had to endure with local communities across the country. The gist of their argument is that when Congress allowed competitive carriers into the telecom market, those new entrants faced fewer regulatory requirements. Shouldn't the new entrants to the cable market be afforded the same courtesy in order to spur competition?
Hogwash, say the cable companies. The Bells, unlike the many short-lived competitive telcos, are among the nation's most powerful corporations with plenty of money to invest. They don't need special treatment. A colleague of mine, Grant Gross, wrote a good piece outlining some of the recent developments in this cable/telco fight in this IDG News Service story . I encourage you to read it.
As we, the earnest and well-meaning members of the Hopkinton cable committee, begin what could be an arduous licensing process with Verizon, we know full well that our efforts may come to naught. If Congress passes legislation freeing the Bells from the licensing process (or establishing a national licensing system), Verizon may be able to bypass us completely.
It's just the beginning and I'll keep you posted as things move along. If you've got any advice on what we ought to be asking Verizon, let me know. If your community has any experience with this, I'd love to know about it. Drop a note here or mail to jgallant@vortex.net.
Thanks and bye for now.
Back to Vortex Blog
Comments
Post a comment
