CONSUMER NEWS    RECALLS    COMPLAINT FORM    SCAM ALERTS  


Complain about a product or service

Small Claims Guide | Class Actions | Lemon Law | FAQ | Resources | Newsletters | Spanish
Automotive    Education    Electronics    Family    Finance    Health    Homeowners    Shopping    Travel   
NEWS   Latest |  Archives |  Auto |  Cells, etc. |  Computers |  Financial |  Health |  Homeowners |  Parents |  Privacy |  Scams |  Seniors |  Travel

Report: New Cable Rules Don't Lead To Lower Prices

FCC's promises of lower prices, better service unfulfilled





By Martin H. Bosworth
ConsumerAffairs.Com

July 11, 2008 

Broadband Access
Comcast to Cap Internet Usage for Customers
Comcast to Slow Internet Speeds for Heaviest Users
Report: Metered Broadband Bad For Consumers, Businesses
FCC Votes to Punish Comcast for Content Blocking
Comcast Tries to Polish Its Image
Communications Industry Urges Congress to Act on Broadband
Comcast Cuts Deal With Vonage on Internet Traffic
Court Upholds FCC's Video Rules
Report: U.S. Broadband Adoption Slowing
Critics: FCC Inaction Slows Economic Development
Few Are Neutral in Net Neutrality Battles
Google Petitions FCC Over Verizon's Use of Wireless Spectrum
---
More ...

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) last year passed new video franchising rules that enabled telecom companies to quickly enter new markets and offer new services to customers restricted by cable monopolies.

The expected goal was that cable companies would reduce prices and improve their offerings in order to promote better competition -- but that didn't happen, a new report says.

The report released by the Alliance for Community Media found that not only did cable prices drop minimally or not at all in markets with new telecom competition, but that many cable franchises are cutting or eliminating public, educational, and government (PEG) channels and facilities from their offerings, and the new competitors are doing a poor job of picking up the slack.

"Even in the early stages of adoption and implementation, the negative fallout from the state video franchise laws has been substantial and will continue to mount," the alliance said. "As incumbents and new entrants apply to operate under these new franchises, more communities will experience the cutbacks and degradation of PEG services reported in this survey, leaving many communities in the nation without the diverse, local programming provided through PEG channels."

Among the report's findings:

• Respondents from 17 communities in 8 different states report loss of access to PEG facilities managed by cable operators soon after state video franchise laws removed local obligations from those companies. Comcast used the new state video franchising laws to close all of its PEG facilities in northern Indiana and southwestern Michigan.

• 26 percent of respondents that had local cable access in public locations such as libraries and schools, and 41 percent of the respondents who had a local cable network supporting PEG channels reported loss or reduction of that access. Communities across the country were affected, in states such as California, Florida, Texas, and Ohio.

• AT&T's high-speed "U-verse" service was reported to delay access to PEG channels, preventing recording of PEG programs to digital video recorders (DVRs), and did not support closed captioning for PEG programs.

• Two-thirds of respondents said basic cable rates have increased in their communities even after the new franchising rates were adopted in their communities and competitors began offering service. Only 1 percent said that rates have gone down.

Under the FCC's new rules, new entrants into a market could negotiate on the state level, rather than with the particular town or municipality the entrant wanted to provide new services to. The time for municipalities to approve or deny new franchises was reduced to 90 days.

The new rules also prohibited what the FCC called "unreasonable" requirements for opening a new franchise, a move critics said would enable telecoms to build out only in wealthy neighborhoods and ignore lower-income areas.

FCC chairman Kevin Martin aggressively campaigned for the new rules as a part of his larger reform plans for the cable industry. During his time as chairman, Martin has regularly advanced rulings or opinions designed to restrict cable companies, while relaxing rules for their rivals in the telecom sector.

The new franchise rules were immediately challenged in court by both the cable industry and local community groups, but an appeals court ruled on June 27 that the rules were "reasonable," and did not represent an undue burden on customers or restrict competition.

The Commission members were also subjected to multiple hearings before Congress on the agency's lopsided favorable treatment of telecom companies over the industry, with the video franchising rules singled out as an example of the agency usurping Congressional authority in its decision-making.



Report Your Experience
If you've had a bad experience -- or a good one -- with a consumer product or service, we'd like to hear about it. All complaints are reviewed by class action attorneys and are considered for publication on our site. Knowledge is power! Help spread the word. File your consumer report now.


Consumer News

August 29 2008

Recent Recalls & Safety Alerts



FREE CONSUMER NEWSLETTERS

The Daily Consumer
Afternoons M-F

Sign up now!


Consumer News & Alerts
Every Sunday

Sign up now!


Knowledge is free.
Knowledge is power.





Back to the top |

Advertisement


Home | Complaint Form | News | Recalls | FAQ |
Consumer Resources | Small Claims Guide | Lemon Law | Newsletter | Contact Us
Advertise With Us | Testimonials | Newsroom | RSS Feeds |


Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use

Advertisements on this site are placed and controlled by outside advertising networks. ConsumerAffairs.com does not evaluate or endorse the products and services advertised. See the FAQ for more information.

Company Response Welcome If complaints about your company appear on our site, we welcome your response. Please see the Response Form for more information.

For more information, see the FAQ and privacy policy. The information on this Web site is general in nature and is not intended as a substitute for competent legal advice.  ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. makes no representation as to the accuracy of the information herein provided and assumes no liability for any damages or loss arising from the use thereof. 

Copyright © 2003-2008 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc.  All Rights Reserved.    The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission.