Next week, the FCC may revisit the issue of whether cable providers will be required to carry every channel of programming transmitted by over the air broadcasters. “Must-carry” itself is not a new idea–for years cable systems have been forced to carry broadcast signals over their networks. When broadcasters switch to digital transmission, however, each will be able to transmit multiple channels over the same bit of spectrum. So, should cable firms be required to carry each and every one of these channels? The FCC said “no” to such multicast must-carry rules a few years ago. But that was under Chairman Michael Powell. Current chairman Kevin Martin feels differently about “multi-cast must-carry,” and may now have the votes to reverse the prior decision. (More on the issue here.)
This week, he got support for this expanded regulation from an unlikely source: AT&T. AT&T, you may remember, has in recent months been exhaustively making the case against another set of rules–neutrality regulation. The federal government should keep its paws off private networks, they (rightly) argued, warning that they would discourage needed investment in private networks. However, this week a spokesman said that, regarding must-carry, it had no objection to federal paws. “We’re more than happy to put this programming on our network,” he said. “We support multicast must-carry.”
AT&T of course, has every right to put these channels on their new video systems. In fact, the architecture of their IPTV systems makes this easy. But AT&T did more than just agree to carry these signals itself–it endorsed mandating it. This means that AT&T video rivals–traditional cable firms–would also have to carry multiple signals. For these companies, must-carry would cause more pain, since their bandwidth is more limited.
This unfortunate impact on its rivals could not have escaped AT&T’s notice. (In fact, since AT&T argues its video system isn’t technically “cable TV” at all, the rules may only hurt its rivals). And its certainly not uncommon for any company to use regulation to gain a fair advantage over its rivals. Yet, such strategies may backfire. As I wrote last year, that time criticizing the cable industry for similar behavior:
As anyone who’s followed telecom lobbying for more than a week or so knows, industry lobbyists routinely argue for policies that help them gain a “fair advantage” over their rivals. It’s probably too much to expect industries to support free-markets policies (however rational) when it conflicts with their self-interest. But it is puzzling to see them supporting policies that will end up hurting them.
And, I should have added, hurting consumers.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
Comments on this entry are closed.