Round Table
…ON THE REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS OF THE REGIONAL PHONE COMPANIES DELIVERING TV SERVICES
“As we look toward modernizing the Communications Act, we will need to consider what the appropriate statutory framework should be for IP-delivered video services.”
-Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce
“As a local telephone company,Verizon has a franchise to operate networks. Yet we’re being asked to obtain a second franchise to use that same network to offer consumers a choice in video. We believe this redundant franchise process is unnecessary and will delay effective video competition for years unless a federal solution is enacted soon.”
-Verizon Retail Markets President Robert Ingalls
“If the consumer views the video service delivered by a phone company to be essentially the same as what they get from a cable company, there is no basis for the law to treat them differently based on whether they use a lot of IP, a little IP or no IP. Like services should be treated alike and everyone should play by the same rules.”
-Comcast Corp. Executive Vice President David Cohen
“Telephone company entry into video raises a host of issues, including questions about franchising; relationships with local broadcast facilities; public interest obligations including carriage of public, educational and government channels; diversity of information and access to programming; public safety; and disability access. If changes to the 1996 Act are necessary, we must take care to preserve core public policy obligations in video, just as we are doing in voice.”
-Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.)
