Round Table


“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.)

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The ID is: 70523