New broadband overbuilders are obtaining franchises and deploying competitive cable systems in communities across the country at the fastest rate ever. In fact, cable companies are now or will soon be competing against alternative broadband providers in the top nine and 21 of the top 25 Nielsen television markets . It s more obvious than ever that most consumers now have a choice of providers of multichannel video service and that their options will continue to expand for the foreseeable future. This competition has made our industry compete harder and in new ways. Cable operators have been racing to upgrade their facilities to ensure that they can offer subscribers more programming options and higher quality service in order to retain existing subscribers and compete effectively for new ones.
Consumers are clearly the beneficiaries of such competition.
But for consumers to receive the full benefits of competition, it is critical that you, as municipal cable administrators, assure that alternative broadband providers operate under franchise terms comparable to those of the incumbent. I m not talking necessarily about identical terms and conditions. This is not Noah s Ark, and cities do not need to require two of everything just because the initial franchise required one. But I am saying that the overall financial and service obligations for incumbents and competitive providers be substantially the same especially with respect to build-out, PEG and other public interest requirements. When I read that a county awards a competitive provider a franchise to serve less than the incumbents entire franchise service area or a City sets a 10 or 15 year build-out schedule, it suggests to me that some neighborhoods will never be served by the competitive broadband provider.