Opinions are like mouths - - everyone has one. Here are remarks from several sources on the battle over possible video franchising legislation. A few notes. The cable industry, based on yesterday's testimony, appears resigned to the continued influence of local franchising authorities and is pushing hardest to make sure that their influence extends to the telcos when the move into the business in force. Consumer watchdogs are all for new competition for monopolistic cable systems, but want to ensure that Congress not give away the store to ease the way for new entrants and leave localities and consumers behind. Another watchdog dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government is backing Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) in his attempt to replace local franchising with a national system - - something the consumers group did not reject out of hand, as long as appropriate safeguards are included (the consumers group does not, however, expect to see appropriate safeguards). There was no ambiguity from the local government community - - it wants to protect local right of way and the rights of its citizens, and insists it will welcome new MVPD competitors, but must maintain its ability to regulate them.

---

Read various viewpoints

* Thomas M. Rutledge, COO, Cablevision Systems: "In 1996, Congress established a telecommunications framework to promote competition and encourage investment. Since then, cable operators have invested more than $100 billion and brought an array of new broadband services to consumers. By contrast, over the same period, the phone companies have done little to enter the video business, despite the opportunity Congress created for them. Now, without any coherent rationale or factual premise, other than for special treatment, the Bell Operating Companies are insisting that Congress discard the franchise framework that has successfully balanced local rights-of-way management and advanced services deployment. Creating new rules in the middle of the game to accommodate the Bells' latest business plan is unnecessary and will jeopardize sustainable competition. Broad federal preemption of local franchising undercuts companies that have made substantial investments based on Congress' existing framework and will weaken the unique and legitimate local interests reflected in their franchises. Further, local franchising has already been shown to accommodate new entry."

* Gene Kimmelman, VP, Federal and International Affairs, Consumers Union: "The need for greater competition in the monopolistic video marketplace is an urgent one-but it has been urgent for ten years. We urge Congress to take the time to consider the many policy issues that must be addressed beyond the question of franchising if it seeks to spur true video competition and the consumer benefits that spring from it. These include mandatory build out requirements or in lieu thereof, resources to meet the needs of underserved consumers; consumer protections and provider obligations to serve community needs; prohibitions on preempting municipal broadband systems; prohibitions on anticompetitive contractual channel bundling requirements that reduce consumer choice and prevent product differentiation; and a strong enforceable prohibition on network discrimination."

* Clyde Wayne Crews, VP for Policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute: "To put the current system in perspective, at a rate of one new franchise per day, it would take a new competitor decades to reach every municipality in America. Unless the system is reformed, the full benefits of competition in video services are unlikely to reach customers any time soon. Nearly a decade has passed since Congress addressed significant telecommunications reform, and in that time technology has grown by leaps and bounds. It is essential that Congress allow a free and competitive market in which new technologies can flourish."

* Lori Panzino-Tillery, National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors: "Local governments have, and will continue to grant, competitive franchises because that's what their constituents want. Local government has successfully overseen cable system deployments and significant upgrades throughout this country. Let's keep it at the local level, where it makes the most sense." On telco desires: ""What they really want ... is to tilt the playing field to their own advantage. The radical changes some are seeking would lead to communications red-lining. Income will determine who gets access to competition. Rural America will be the last to gain competitive service."