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. Not surprisingly these are most likely to be neighborhoods that are less profitable to serve, yet where the incumbent is required to and does provide service. Incumbent cable operators are fully prepared to compete with new providers. But fair competition requires that government not tip the competitive scales in favor of one or another provider.
Fair competition requires comparable franchise terms.
As they have represented to investors, competitive broadband providers will have the advantage of building entirely new digital plant. Additionally, they will not have to replace thousands of analog set-top boxes in every community. And given the number of competitive broadband entrepreneurs who themselves got their start in the cable industry, they will have the advantage of learning from past mistakes and establishing business practices to avoid these mistakes the future. Obviously, there are competitive advantages to incumbency as well. But in the end, incumbents and competitive broadband providers alike will need to compete on the basis of price, value and customer service to win customer loyalty.