|
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my
name is Michael Willner. I am Vice Chairman and CEO of Insight
Communications, a cable company with 1.4 million customers in Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Ohio, and Georgia. I also serve as Chairman of the National
Cable & Telecommunications Association, the industry’s leading trade
association which represents cable companies serving more than 90 percent of the
nation’s 68 million cable customers and more than 200 cable program networks.
I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to
testify about the cable industry’s efforts to advance the digital television
transition. Since the NCTA Board of Directors, which is meeting today in
New York, has not had the opportunity collectively to review the staff draft, I
am testifying today in my corporate capacity.
I want to commend you and your colleagues
for your leadership on this very complex and important issue. The DTV
roundtable discussions you held by Chairman Tauzin over the past year have been
instrumental in encouraging increased cooperation between the consumer
electronics industry, broadcasters, the content community and the cable
industry. The progress we have achieved thus far is largely due to your
steadfast determination to get the transition to digital television on track.
At the core of the digital TV transition are
issues of consumer demand so it is my strong belief that marketplace solutions
will bring about results more efficiently than government imposed mandates.
But I appreciate your frustration that more progress has not been made.
The staff discussion draft released last week sends a clear message to all of
the industries involved in the digital TV transition: resolve outstanding issues
through inter-industry negotiation or Congress will resolve them through
legislation. The cable industry has heard your message loud and clear.
We remain dedicated, and in fact are actively working to find solutions through
private sector negotiations.
Before I discuss what the cable industry has
done, and continues to do, to advance the transition to digital TV, it is worth
taking a moment to recall the origins of the transition and how we got to where
we are today.
Background
In the late 1980s, high definition television
(HDTV) was being advanced as the next great consumer electronics breakthrough.
The Japanese had developed an analog HDTV system (“Muse”) that promised to
offer consumers crystal-clear pictures and sound. This early version of
HDTV required more than 6 MHz of spectrum. Support for high definition
television spread for a variety of reasons. Television set manufacturers
saw HDTV as a way to sell more equipment. And the U.S. broadcast industry
saw it as a way to gain access to additional spectrum that otherwise might go to
other uses, particularly public safety.
In 1987, the broadcast industry petitioned the
FCC to investigate the potential of high definition TV technology and urged the
Commission to postpone its plans to reallocate broadcast spectrum until its
study of HDTV was complete. The FCC agreed, and began to examine the many
issues involved in making a transition to a new television standard.
While working on the HDTV standard, American
electronics experts discovered that television programming could be digitized to
transmit high definition pictures. They also discovered that digital
technology could be used to send multiple signals of “standard definition” (SDTV)
programming in the same amount of spectrum. This digital standard –
whether used to transmit HDTV or SDTV – used just 6 MHz of spectrum.
But, it was not compatible with the existing television system, meaning
broadcasters’ new digital signals could not be viewed on existing analog
television sets.
The broadcast industry urged the government to
give each TV station an additional 6 MHz of spectrum in order to make the
transition to digital. They argued that if they didn’t get the full 6
MHz, consumers would be deprived of one of the great benefits of digital
technology – high definition television. In letters, speeches and
testimony before congressional committees, broadcasters espoused the virtues of
HDTV. The message was clear: they would use the digital spectrum to offer
high definition television. And in the end, every broadcast TV station was
granted 6 MHz of additional spectrum without having to pay for it—a scarce
public resource owned by the American people worth $70 billion given away for
free to the broadcast industry. Some critics labeled this spectrum
giveaway as scandalous. But broadcasters responded with a promise: they
would use the public’s valuable airwaves to provide Americans with cutting
edge new technology—high definition television.
Today, we are only four years from the 2006
target set by Congress for the end of the transition and only two percent of
consumer households have purchased digital television sets. Last year,
Americans purchased more than 30 million new television sets but just over one
million of those sets were digital.
Why have Americans been so slow to adopt digital
broadcasting? Largely because so few broadcasters are offering the
compelling high definition content they promised in exchange for free digital
spectrum. Not to mention that only 395 of the nation’s 1,309 commercial
broadcast stations are even broadcasting a digital signal, despite the FCC’s
deadline that all commercials stations were to be transmitting a digital signal
by May 2002.
Cable’s Commitment to the Digital Transition
While the broadcast industry has missed deadlines
and failed to meet its promises, the cable industry has strongly embraced
digital technology. In the six years since the passage of the 1996
Telecommunications Act, the cable industry has invested more than $65
billion—or over $1,000 per upgraded cable customer—to upgrade our plant to
an interactive digital broadband platform. The cable industry has been a
leader in the transition to digital television and has taken on this role
without government mandates or subsidies. Cable companies have
invested private risk capital to create a digital platform in order to offer
consumers new competitive services—digital video, high-speed Internet access,
cable telephony, interactive television and high definition television.
Cable has moved into the digital world with great speed, and we have done so
willingly. By comparison, broadcasters have invested less than $2
billion in upgrading their facilities for digital television, a relatively small
amount given the government’s contribution of $70 billion of spectrum.
The cable industry believes that compelling high
definition programming is the key to the digital transition. Cable program
networks are leading the way in creating high definition programming and cable
operators are committed to delivering high definition programming to consumers
all across the country. Time Warner Cable has been aggressively rolling
out HD service and has launched HD tiers in more than 45 of its markets.
Charter launched its high definition service in May 2002 in five markets:
Alhambra/Pasadena and Glendale/Burbank, CA; University Park/Highland Park, TX;
Miami Beach, FL, and Birmingham, AL. Charter is also on schedule to launch
HDTV service later this year in Kalamazoo, MI, and St. Louis, MO. Comcast began
offering high definition broadcast and cable programming in November 2001 in the
Philadelphia market and will soon launch HDTV in the Washington, DC, metro area.
Cox is offering high definition in Phoenix and Las Vegas, and announced last
week that in November it will make high definition service available in Fairfax
County, Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, there has been a great deal of
misinformation regarding cable-DTV compatibility which I will address in more
detail later in my testimony. But I would like to take this opportunity to
make one thing perfectly clear: cable operators are providing high definition
programming to their customers with NO compatibility problems whatsoever.
If you go to New York or Philadelphia or Houston or Tampa, Florida, cable
customers are enjoying HDTV provided by their local cable systems.
As mentioned, cable program networks are leading
the digital transition by providing quality high definition programming.
HBO alone currently offers more HD content than all of the broadcast networks
combined. Showtime is a major producer of HD as well. In June,
Discovery launched a 24-hour HDTV channel (Discovery HD Theater) providing all
the popular categories of real world entertainment as offered by Discovery’s
networks in a theatrical format, with limited commercial interruptions.
Market forces, particularly competition from the direct broadcast satellite
industry, and competition between programming networks, are motivating cable
operators and programmers to invest in HDTV, and over the coming months still
more cable operators will begin offering HD programming.
I am proud to say that the cable industry was the
first to endorse the voluntary plan proposed by FCC Chairman Michael Powell
designed to accelerate the digital television transition. Chairman Powell
asked the four major broadcast networks, HBO and Showtime to provide high
definition or compelling new digital programming during their prime time
schedules, and he asked cable operators to carry that programming. In May,
the industry’s 10 largest cable operators endorsed Chairman Powell’s
challenge by making the following commitments for systems in the top 100 markets
that have been upgraded to 750 MHz and serve at least 25,000 customers:
· By
January 1, 2003, these cable operators will offer to carry the signal of up to
five digital commercial or public television stations and/or cable networks that
provide HDTV programming during at least 50% of their prime time schedule or a
substantial portion of their broadcast week.
· As
part of this digital complement, operators may offer to carry other “value
added DTV programming” that would create an incentive for consumers to
purchase DTV sets.
· We
will also provide our customers with special HD set-top boxes with appropriate
digital connections.
Despite the slow start of the broadcast
industry’s transition to digital television, there are reasons to be
optimistic about the future of DTV. Developments in the marketplace and an
increasing level of cooperation among all DTV stakeholders indicate that the
transition to digital TV is beginning to take hold.
As you know, industry-wide negotiations resulted
in significant progress toward the development of a broadcast-flag to prevent
the unauthorized Internet redistribution of high definition broadcast content.
Resolution of this and other copy protection issues are critical to ensure the
availability of high-value digital content.
The cable industry earlier reached voluntary
agreements with the consumer electronics industry to facilitate the manufacture
and marketing of integrated digital television sets that connect directly to
cable systems. And we are continuing to work with the consumer electronics
industry on this important issue. Over the past several months senior executives
of leading cable companies have been meeting regularly with their consumer
electronics counterparts in an effort to resolve a very complex set of technical
and business issues.
The price for digital television sets is clearly
in decline with the average cost for a high definition digital television having
dropped by over 25 percent since they were first made available at retail in
late 1998. As more high quality programming becomes available, consumer
demand will continue to drive down the cost of digital televisions.
Let me turn now to some of the issues which are
raised by the staff draft and are also the subject of ongoing FCC proceedings.
Broadcasters Dual and Multiple Must Carry Schemes
Should be Rejected
The most obvious way to expedite the DTV
transition is for broadcasters to create compelling high definition programming.
Unfortunately, rather than invest in high value digital content that will both
attract viewers and give cable operators a market incentive to carry them, some
broadcasters are asking Congress for yet another handout. They want
Congress to expropriate billions of dollars of the cable industry’s spectrum
and force cable operators to carry both their analog and digital signals during
the transition. And that’s not all. Once the transition is
complete, these broadcasters want the government to require cable operators to
carry multiple standard definition versions of each broadcast station rather
than a high definition version of the broadcaster’s signal, the functional
equivalent of what cable operators do today in the analog world.
Mr. Chairman, neither of these highly regulatory
proposals will advance the digital television transition and both should be
rejected by Congress.
Dual Must Carry
Requiring cable operators to carry a standard
definition digital copy of every broadcaster’s analog signal would provide
nothing new for cable customers while limiting the use of cable’s limited
spectrum for new services our customers value. Despite the substantial
investment cable has made to upgrade its plant—cable systems have finite
capacity. A typical upgraded 750 MHz cable system added only 200 MHz of
digital capacity. Competing uses for this additional capacity include high
definition programming, new digital video channels, video-on-demand services,
high-speed Internet access, cable telephony and future services like video
conferencing and home networking. A dual must carry requirement would
eliminate the ability of operators to effectively manage limited bandwidth in
order to provide the right mix of digital services our customers want.
Nor would a dual must carry requirement do
anything to promote the sale of digital television equipment. Compelling
high definition content—not two copies of every analog broadcast
program—will give consumers an incentive to purchase an expensive new DTV set.
Compelling content will drive DTV sales up and bring prices down to a range more
consumers can afford. And if broadcasters offer compelling programming,
cable operators will carry it without a government mandate, as evidenced by
voluntary agreements cable operators have entered into to carry broadcasters’
digital signals and the cable industry’s voluntary commitments under the
Powell Plan.
Dual must carry would also reduce the amount and
diversity of programming available to cable customers. There is no public
policy reason why two signals of every broadcast station should get preferential
carriage over each and every cable network. Under a dual carriage scheme,
many operators would be forced to drop popular cable networks in order to make
room for duplicative digital broadcast signals. Even where cable systems
have capacity, a “broadcaster first” policy would deprive consumers of
opportunities to enjoy numerous new cable networks that have to compete for
carriage and are trying to gain a foothold in the market. These new
services include C-SPAN 3, BET Gospel, Lifetime Movie Network, Noggin, Discovery
en Espanol, History Channel International and the Hallmark Channel.
Rejecting dual must carry will not result in
consumers losing access to the broadcast stations they enjoy today. During
the transition to digital television, cable operators will continue to carry
every local broadcaster as required under current must carry rules. No
broadcaster’s voice will be lost and no cable customer will ever lose access
to his or her favorite local broadcast station.
We are encouraged that the staff draft includes a
prohibition on the dual carriage of a broadcaster’s analog and digital signal
during the transition, recognizing that a double dose of must carry is unfair to
consumers, would unfairly harm cable operators and cable programmers, and would
do nothing to accelerate the DTV transition.
Multiple Must Carry
Broadcasters also want the government to force
cable operators to carry multiple streams of standard definition programming
after the digital transition is complete. Like dual carriage, requiring
cable operators to transmit additional channels per local broadcast station
means that less cable capacity will be available for innovative advanced
services consumers might prefer.
Must carry was established to preserve the
availability of broadcast stations for over the air viewers, not to underwrite,
at the expense of cable operators and programmers, the availability of six times
as many broadcast channels. Cable operators have already committed to
carry broadcasters’ primary digital channel in place of broadcasters’ analog
channel once the transition is complete. Requiring carriage of multiple
digital channels would represent a significant expansion of broadcasters’ must
carry rights and cable operators’ must carry obligations.
As Hallmark Channel CEO Lana Corbi has testified,
multiple must carry also unfairly discriminates against cable programmers.
Nearly 300 satellite programming networks and 60 regional networks compete with
local broadcasters for cable carriage. Guaranteed carriage of six or more
digital channels per broadcast station would exacerbate the preferential
treatment of broadcasters vis-à-vis cable programmers in competing for limited
digital spectrum – allowing each broadcaster to claim by right up to half a
dozen channel slots that might otherwise be used to carry competitive satellite
programming networks.
Multiple must carry, as a concept, is
constitutionally suspect. The Supreme Court has expressly held that cable
operators and programmers engage in and transmit speech and therefore are
entitled to protection under the First Amendment. Giving each broadcaster
the right to guaranteed carriage of six or more digital channels instead of
their single channel would multiply the burdens of must carry on the speech
rights of cable operators and programmers without additionally advancing any
government interest. Moreover, it would result in the permanent, physical
occupation of a substantial portion of cable plant without just – indeed,
without any – compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Despite their demand for multiple must carry,
commercial broadcasters still have not presented a viable business plan for
multicasting. In the many thousands of pages of testimony on this issue
that broadcasters have filed with the FCC, you will scarcely find any mention of
how broadcasters, in fact would use multicasting or how it would contribute to
the economic well being of over-the-air television since broadcasters would be
fractionalizing their own ad supported viewership. Rather, the likelihood
is that broadcasters will be warehousing this spectrum with low-budget or
duplicative broadcast programming. These are questions that neither
Congress nor the FCC has examined. As a matter of both law and sound
public policy, cable operators and consumers should not be required to forfeit
valuable channel capacity and new services to help broadcasters launch new
undefined businesses while blocking competitive satellite programming networks
from gaining carriage.
There Are No Cable-DTV Compatibility
Problems
The simple fact is there are no compatibility
problems between digital TVs and cable systems. Today, cable operators are
providing customers high definition programming using digital set-top boxes with
no technical or compatibility problems. When the consumer electronics
industry and broadcast industry complain about a lack of DTV
“compatibility,” what they are really referring to are the standards
necessary for the manufacture and sale of integrated DTV sets that will work
with cable systems without a set-top box.
Let me be very clear: the cable television
industry strongly supports the retail availability of cable set-top boxes and
“plug and play” DTV sets. It is in the best interest of our business
to ensure that consumers have the ability to walk into any consumer electronics
store and purchase a digital television set that connects directly to any cable
system. DirecTV and Echostar currently enjoy a huge marketing advantage over
cable operators because DBS customers can move from town to town and use the
same equipment. A portable set-top box or “plug and play” DTV set
would allow cable operators to erase this advantage.
However, while the availability of “plug and
play” sets is an important part of our business, it is not a critical
component of the digital transition. As evidence, one only needs to look
at the incredible growth of the direct broadcast satellite industry. DBS
subscribership has skyrocketed from 2 million in 1996 to over 19 million
today—and virtually every one of these DBS subscribers receives service
through a proprietary digital set-top box. Ironically, the principal
suppliers of digital set-top boxes to the satellite industry are the very same
companies who claim that there is a “cable compatibility” problem when cable
companies use digital set-top boxes to deliver high definition television.
The explosive growth in the DBS market clearly illustrates that consumers are
willing to use a set-top box in order to receive better quality and more
choices. Our desire and commitment in promoting the availability of fully
functional “plug and play” digital television sets has nothing to do with
the digital transition and everything to do with our ability to remain
competitive with DBS.
As evidence, the cable industry, through its
research and development consortium, CableLabs, has undertaken various measures
to facilitate the retail availability of set-top boxes and integrated DTV sets
in full compliance with FCC rules and the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
CableLabs developed a technology that enables
cable operators to provide customers with a separate security module, known as a
point-of-deployment or POD module. The POD is similar to the “smart
cards” used by DBS systems that authorize the customer to receive service.
Cable subscribers insert the POD into a set-top box or integrated DTV set
(called host devices) purchased at retail. The Pod-Host Interface License
Agreement (PHILA) provides manufacturers with the specifications necessary to
make certain host devises work with operator supplied PODs. CableLabs met
all of the FCC milestones for specifications and testing of this separate
security technology and cable operators have committed to supporting set-top
boxes and integrated DTV sets that are manufactured to these specifications.
As further evidence of our support for the retail
availability of integrated DTV sets, on February 22, 2000, the NCTA and CEA
reached voluntary agreements that enable manufacturers to build digital
television sets that can be connected directly to digital cable systems.
These agreements touted by CEA, detail the technical specification that enable
these integrated “plug and play” DTV sets to work with cable systems.
These basic “plug and play” sets are unidirectional and will only be able to
receive one-way digital programming, including high definition content and
premium services (HBO, Showtime, etc.). For that reason, we believe that
equipment manufacturers should include a DVI digital connector on all integrated
DTV sets. A DVI connector is an uncompressed, high-bandwidth digital
connector that is necessary for a digital television set to receive and fully
display all of cable’s advanced services, including high definition graphics.
With a DVI connector, consumers who purchase a “plug and play” digital
television would have the choice and flexibility to later purchase or lease a
set top box that would enable that set to receive all of the interactive
services offered by cable or direct broadcast satellite providers.
Otherwise these consumers would be forever stranded with a limited functionality
set. Yet that is what the DTV manufacturers would like the government to
require. The staff draft would require all integrated one-way digital
television sets to include a digital connector, recognizing that consumers
should not be saddled with sets that have built in obsolescence.
While the February 2000 NCTA-CEA agreement is a
good first step in the direction of “plug and play” DTV sets, we
believe it is in the best interests of the consumer to rapidly move to a world
where an integrated DTV set can receive all of the interactive digital services
we provide today and will provide in the future. In that regard, in
January 2002, significantly ahead of schedule, CableLabs published
specifications for the OpenCable Applications Platform (OCAP). These
“middleware” specifications, voluntarily developed by the cable industry
will enhance the ability of the consumer electronics industry to build and
market integrated DTV sets (as well as digital set-top boxes and other
navigation devices) with nationwide portability. Over 90
companies—including Panasonic, Philips, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, and
others—participated in the OpenCable developers’ conference addressing OCAP
issues.
The OCAP software specification enables
cable to create an interactive television delivery mechanism to provide enhanced
services to cable customers that have purchased OCAP compliant integrated DTV
sets and set-top boxes. OCAP-enabled devices will be able to receive
services available on set-tops provided by the cable operator and can be
upgraded through software downloads when new services become available.
Embracing the release of OCAP specifications and
the development of an open environment for the manufacture and retail sale of
digital television consumer equipment, the nation’s top cable MSOs have
committed that their systems will support CableLabs-certified OCAP enabled
devises once such equipment becomes commercially available.
The development of specifications necessary for
equipment manufactures to build and market an array of digital devices that will
work with cable systems is an incredible achievement. However, our work is
not complete. The consumer electronics industry has raised a number of
important issues regarding our February 2000 agreement, PHILA and OCAP. As
mentioned, there are ongoing negotiations between CE companies and cable
companies in an effort to resolve many of these issues. Companies have had
four full day negotiating sessions since July and have made significant progress
on a number of issues. We intend to continue those discussions and are
making every effort to come to a mutually satisfactory resolution of these
highly complex technical and business issues.
PHILA and Copy Protection
Finally, I would like to address the concerns
that have been raised by the consumer electronics industry and some Members of
this subcommittee regarding the copy protection tools contained in PHILA.
Content owners have made it clear that they
will not release high value product in a digital world without assurances that
such content will not be subject to unconstrained copying. That is why
this subcommittee has been working so diligently with the content community and
the consumer electronics industry on the development of a broadcast flag to
prevent the unauthorized redistribution of content over the Internet. And
that is why PHILA contains tools that enable cable operators to provide the copy
protection content owners demand. The DBS industry, in order
to obtain the same high value content, has also included copy protection tools
in its proprietary set-top-boxes. The cable industry has no incentive to
restrict copying or limit the use of content provided to its cable customers.
But we must be able to obtain high value content for our subscribers and we must
be able to compete for that content on a level playing field with other delivery
platforms.
Down-Resing
One particular copy protection provision in PHILA,
known as “down-resing,” has met with strong opposition. I would like
to explain why we included that tool in PHILA and how and why we are prepared to
remove it.
The “down-resing” provision was included in
PHILA in order to ensure a level playing field between cable and DBS.
PHILA requires a manufacturer to include in its products the capability of
“down-resing” high-definition programming provided over component analog
outputs, which unlike digital interfaces, are not copy protected.
“Down-resing” allows high-definition programming to flow to DTVs with
greater than standard definition resolution, but without inviting widespread
copying. According to press reports, Echostar and DirecTV had already
agreed to include within their set-top boxes the capability of “down-resing”
high-definition television programming provided over component analog outputs.
Content providers sent a clear signal that programming would not be made
available to cable without this same capability. Therefore, while cable
operators have no business reason to impede our customers’ reception of
high-definition or other programs, as long as content providers demand
“down-resing” and our DBS competitors offer it, cable must be able to
provide this copy protection option.
The better long-term solution would be for CE
manufacturers to include digital connectors on all digital television sets.
Digital connectors may utilize standard copy protection tools in order to assure
program owners that high-value programming will not be subject to unconstrained
copying or retransmitted onto the Internet. Unfortunately, while cable
operators are committed to including digital connectors on their HD set-top
boxes, the CE industry refuses to make a parallel commitment as FCC Chairman
Michael Powell urged as part of his voluntary DTV transition plan. The
cable industry strongly believes that the manufacturers of consumer electronics
equipment should include digital connectors on all of their DTV products—DVI
connectors with high definition copy protection (HDCP) to display
high-definition video and graphics, and 1394 connectors with 5C copy protection
to connect recording devices. Instead, the CE industry is flooding the
market with sets that are only equipped with component analog connectors that
cannot provide adequate copy protection. This has left the content
community with no choice but to insist on “down-resing” because it is
currently the only means to protect high definition content over a component
analog connector. As a result, PHILA includes a “down-resing”
provision in order to assure that cable operators can obtain high-value
programming for their customers.
In an effort to resolve this copy protection
question, CableLabs has offered to remove the “down-resing” requirement from
PHILA if: (1) the capability to “down-res” is removed from existing
DBS set-top box license agreements; (2) all CEA members and other consumer
electronics and computer manufacturers commit not to build devices for DBS or
other types of distribution networks with the capability of “down-resing”
high-definition programming provided over component analog outputs; and (3) MPAA
members and other program providers agree not to require the “down-resing”
of any content delivered over any existing or future video distribution
platform. Under such a regime, cable could compete on a level playing
field with other distribution media for access to high value content that our
customers desire.
Selectable Output Controls
The selectable output control specification in
OCAP has also generated a great deal of controversy. But there is no
practical reason it should be controversial. Cable operators are in the
business of providing service to their customers, not “disabling” DTV
devices. But the cable industry must be in position to offer the same copy
protection tools its competitors can offer. Studios may be encouraged to
develop new business models for the early release of high value content if
appropriate copy protection is available. However, the content community could
insist that this content pass only over a particular digital
connector—possibly a new digital connector that has yet to be developed—that
would prevent any possibility that the movie could be copied. If competing
delivery platforms can offer studios this capability, cable operators should
have the flexibility to offer the same service.
The staff draft would prohibit the cable industry
from including down-resing or selectable output controls in its licensing terms.
It appears that such prohibition would apply only to the cable industry, leaving
DBS operators and other providers of video service free to offer content owners
these copy protection tools. Should Congress determine that down-resing or
selectable output controls are inappropriate copy protection tools for content
delivered to the home, then that prohibition should apply to all delivery
platforms. The cable industry must maintain the ability to compete for
high value content on a level playing field.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, Americans own 267 million analog
television sets and purchased close to 30 million new analog sets last year.
The challenge we face is how to get a nation of consumers to migrate from a very
good analog TV environment to an even better digital environment. We
believe that compelling high definition programming is the key to driving
consumer demand for digital television.
Cable has invested over $65 billion to upgrade
our plant to an interactive digital platform capable of delivering high
definition programming. Cable operators are rolling out high definition
service across the country with no compatibility problems, and cable programmers
are offering an ever-expanding menu of compelling high definition content.
Broadcasters, on the other hand, have largely
abandoned their promise to deploy HDTV. Instead, they are asking Congress
to expropriate billions of dollars of the cable industry’s spectrum by forcing
operators to carry duplicative standard definition programming—something our
customers don’t want—while undermining our ability to utilize our new
digital spectrum to offer advanced digital services such as high definition
programming, video-on-demand, high speed Internet access and cable
telephony—something our customers do want. We strongly urge Congress to
reject the broadcasters dual and multiple must carry proposals.
We believe that Congress and the FCC have been
instrumental in much of the progress made thus far by encouraging cooperation
between the consumer electronics industry, broadcasters, content community and
the cable industry. As an active participant in Chairman Tauzin’s
roundtable discussions and the first industry to endorse the Powell plan, cable
remains committed to working with Congress and the FCC as we move forward.
All industry stakeholders will continue to work together because it is in our
best business interest to do so. In the end, marketplace solutions will
continue to achieve results more efficiently than government imposed mandates.
|
