How big is the cable industry nationally and in Washington?
Cable is available to 99% of the 110 million television households in the country, and more than 65 million households have at least a basic cable subscription. Cable operators pay more than $2.2 billion in franchise fees to local governments each year. Here in Washington, cable systems operate in every county of the state, bringing video and other services to approximately 1.5 million Washington households.

What is the Broadband Communications Association of Washington?
The BCAW is a non-profit trade association representing the broadband and cable telecommunications industry in Washington State. Composed of cable system operators, cable networks and equipment suppliers, the Association provides a forum for the industry to discuss common issues, develop strategies and coordinate our efforts in the regulatory and public policy arenas. We also represent the industry before state regulatory agencies, in courts of law, before the Washington State Legislature, and in the United States Congress.

Why has the cable industry moved into other areas, such as Internet and telephone services?
Faced with growing competition from direct broadcasting satellite (DBS) systems, the cable industry recognized that it needed to give consumers something more than just a clear television picture. Consumers were looking for more convenience and more opportunities to integrate their video, data and telephone communications systems into a package that fits their individual needs. By investing heavily over the past decade to upgrade our systems and services, the industry created the residential broadband communications market and has become the leading provider of high-speed Internet access. Consumers continue to benefit from this vision and innovation.i

Why do I have to pay for so many channels on my cable system when I only watch a few of them?
It is actually cheaper for consumers to receive programming in bundles than through the so-called ala carte systems. This is primarily because of the way cable networks work with advertisers.

Is there a way I can protect my family from programming that I feel is inappropriate?
Yes. There are a wide variety of options available, from program ratings to technical solutions that allow you to block specific channels or programs. Contact your local cable provider to discuss options for avoiding programming that you find inappropriate or objectionable.

What are you doing to make cable service more reliable?
Cable operators continue to invest heavily to make their systems more robust and user-friendly. In the last decade, the industry has invested some $100 Billion nationwide to benefit consumers with upgraded services and technical quality.

Emerging industry issues

In opposing the telephone company proposals to begin offering video services, aren't cable companies simply trying to protect their own monopolies?
Our opposition to the telecom proposals is not based on protecting our market position, but on protecting consumers. Cable companies are not monopolies in the delivery of video services. While cable has a market share in the high 60 percent range, direct broadcast satellite (DBS) systems continue to provide strong competition. In addition, a number of municipalities and public utilities have entered or are considering entry into the video market. We don't oppose new competition, but we oppose the discriminatory plans of the telecom industry. All consumers, not just those in the wealthiest areas, should reap any benefits from increased competition in our industry.

Why shouldn't telecommunications firms be able to enter the video market?
The phone companies are attempting to take their protected monopoly networks that were built on the backs of captive ratepayers for decades and upgrade them in discriminatory and inequitable ways. The cable industry welcomes strong competition. But we do not intend to sit by while these rich telecoms attempt to write their own rules to bypass local control, enrich themselves and deny consumers the benefits of that competition.

Why does the cable industry oppose a statewide or national franchise system for telecommunications firms looking to offer video services?
Bypassing local control of video service offerings is not in the best interest of consumers. Only local officials understand local needs and can ensure that providers are meeting those needs, such as requiring video providers to offer service to all areas of a local community. Absent this requirement, new market entrants will avoid the obligations that come with a franchise agreement. Instead, they will only upgrade their systems to include video only in the more affluent neighborhoods and suburbs. Additionally, a state or federal franchise agreement may not include other requirements that are important to the local community, such as specifications for public access, government and educational programming.

Isn't state or federal regulation of video services as good as local or county regulation?
It's impossible for state or federal regulators to know your community as well as the people that you have elected to represent you. If there were to be a problem, would you rather call City Hall or Washington, D.C. to try getting it resolved?

As a consumer, why should I care how telecommunications firms are regulated?
Local franchise agreements like the ones cable companies negotiate with every city and county in which they operate protect your interests. These agreements provide local governments with control over the use of public rights of way. This protection ensures that your representatives will have a say in how public property in your community is used by the telecom providers. In addition, local franchise agreements typically specify that service be made available to everyone in the community, and include requirements for public access, educational and government programming. Without local franchise agreements, there is no guarantee that telecom providers would fulfill these service obligations.

What's wrong with letting new market entrants pick and choose where they offer their services?
For years, the large telephone companies have enjoyed a government-protected monopoly and built huge networks on the backs of captive ratepayers. Now they are pushing a bill in Congress that essentially allows them to bypass local officials and self-define the "franchise area" in which they will offer their new video services, allowing them to cherry-pick the most lucrative markets and "redline" or avoid poorer neighborhoods. This would mean that only some consumers would enjoy the benefits of upgraded services and more competition. It would also give the telecoms an unfair advantage against cable operators whose franchise agreements require them to serve everyone in their franchise area. The "franchise area" for all video service providers should be based on what's best for the public, rather than what's best for the provider.

Why wouldn't telecom companies want to maximize their number of customers by providing video services to everyone in our community?
The telecoms' objective is not necessarily more customers, but more profits. Because adding video service to the telecom system will require major system upgrades, the monopoly telecom companies would prefer to make those investments only in areas that they believe will be the most lucrative. This means they plan to cherry-pick affluent suburbs for service while ignoring lower-income neighborhoods.

Won't requiring telecommunications firms to negotiate franchise agreements with every City and County in which they hope to operate slow down the roll out of their video services?
Cable operators have met these requirements for years, and it's not unreasonable to expect huge corporations like Qwest, AT&T and Verizon to meet them, too. If necessary, our industry would support a requirement for specific response times in franchise negotiations, but there is no justification for bypassing the franchise process altogether. Verizon's CEO Ivan Seidenberg told investors at a January 2006 conference that the franchising process doesn't impose any barrier to their rolling out their new service. In fact, Verizon already has franchises covering some two million households - more than the entire cable industry serves in Washington. Verizon's experience in Texas, Virginia, California, Delaware and other states is that the franchise agreements are completed well before the company is technically prepared to launch the service. These huge corporations simply see the local franchise agreement with its consumer and community protections as a pesky detail to be avoided if at all possible.

Wouldn't consumers benefit if government took additional steps to induce more competition in the delivery of video services?
Consumers are already enjoying many benefits of increased competition and innovation in the areas of video, broadband Internet access, and phone services. But the "Bells" are not struggling start-ups and they don't need any special advantages to be able to compete. The best thing the government can do is to provide a predictable regulatory environment that allows all market players to make informed investment decisions. But that doesn't mean giving special breaks to the big guys with the most power in the national or state capitals. A more level playing field means that winners and losers will be determined based on technical innovation and customer experiences, rather than some government official in Washington, D.C.

What regulatory requirements do city and county governments impose on cable operators?
Cities and counties impose a variety of requirements in exchange for allowing use of public rights of way. The most important is that cable operators make their services available to everyone in the community, and not just selected neighborhoods. This is a key requirement that telecommunications firms are looking to sidestep as they move into the delivery of video services. Franchise agreements typically establish customer service standards, rate schedules, requirements for public service announcements, and provisions for public access channels and educational and government programming.

Are Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) systems subject to local franchise agreements?
No, since DBS systems do not require use of public rights of way, their services are not regulated at the City or County level like a cable provider is.

Don't cable carriers also offer telecom services?
Yes, a number of cable carriers have begun to offer telecommunications services as a convenience for customers looking for alternatives to the existing monopoly landline telecom companies. Cable companies offering telecom services are making those services available over their existing networks to all of their customers in a community. This is unlike the telecom proposal to move into video, where they are looking to select only the most affluent and profitable areas for the upgrades necessary to provide enhanced services over their systems.