Newsletter
Google Left Banner
FCC Rules for Verizon on Cableco Marketing Complaint
14 Apr, 2008
The FCC offered its opinion in the recent spat between cable MSOs and Verizon. Several cable companies lodged a formal complaint with the FCC claiming Verizon was illegally trying to stop customers from defecting to cable triple play offers. The complaint alleged that once Verizon got notice of a telephone number porting request, they aggressively pursued that customer with offers to keep them from switching phone service providers. The cable industry argued the practice is against the spirit of FCC competition guidelines, and may even be illegal. Verizon argues that they are doing nothing illegal, and are simply aggressively competing in the marketplace.
Apparently, the FCC agrees. In the Enforcement Bureau’s recommendation, the FCC, while suggesting Verizon’s retention marketing practice may need more study (and even recommends a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the subject), sees this type of debate as healthy for consumers and the competitive marketplace. “In fact, one could argue that, when the customer’s existing provider offers to lower prices or expand services to prevent the customer from switching providers, the customer benefits. This type of aggressive competition to win and to keep customers can result in lower prices for consumers, the introduction of new services and technologies, and improved quality of service as carriers compete in the open marketplace,” says the FCC Enforcement Bureau. They go on to say, “In fact, today’s competitive marketplace for bundled services, and intermodal competition of providers of services within the bundle, may reduce the need for regulation. It is reasonable even to ask whether further deregulation would allow for even more vigorous competition for customers and bring with it the associated benefits of such competition.” In the end, the recommendation rules for Verizon and says the cable company’s complaint and argument “don’t hold any water” in the context of the current guidelines and regulations. Checkmark Verizon.
digg this story
googleReply
About Telecompetitor
Telecompetitor is a leading industry blog covering the telecom competitive landscape. We provide insight, analysis, and commentary on the issues and implications of the evolving telecom competitive landscape.
a publication of
- Comcast Brings Wideband to the Northwest
- Muni-Wireless Not Dead Yet
- Is Three Screen Convergence a Pipe Dream?
- Verizon Joins CDN Movement
- iPhone 3G Coming to WalMart
- Verizon Business Teams With Nortel for Managed Telepresence Service
- Verizon’s Turn for Smartphone Spotlight with BlackBerry Storm Launch
- Full Speed Ahead for Clearwire and WiMAX
Channel
Webinars/Events
Upcoming Webinars
Packet Optical Networks – Enabling Your Future
Dec 16, 2008
Upcoming Events
NTCA Wireless Symposium
Jan 7-9, 2009 - Austin, TX
Featured Article
Should Telephone Service be Free?
12 Oct, 2008
Comcast announced a new promotion last week that offers 12 months of free basic cable service for new customers who also sign up for an additional service. Customers who don’t want an additional service can get Comcast’s basic service of about 20 -30 channels for $10/month. The promotion is tied to the digital TV transition of February 2009 and entices potential customers to avoid the transition “hassle” by getting “free” cable service. “The simple fact is that basic cable is the easiest path through the digital transition and now consumers can get it for free,” said Derek Harrar, General Manager and Senior Vice President, Video Services for Comcast in a company statement. This move is similar to strategies pursued by other video service providers, who are hoping to leverage the digital TV transition for new subscriber additions.
But is this strategy a leading indicator for the future? Should basic core services like basic cable and basic telephone service be offered for free, used as a “carrot” to entice customers to buy “more important” services like broadband? Maybe a very basic phone service, with no LD, access to landline 911, and maybe outgoing service only (to avoid telemarketers) should be a free component of a bundled offering. Such a wireline service may appeal to a customer who previously cut the cord for wireless only, but also needs broadband. There is a growing portion of the population who find the value of traditional wireline phone service elsewhere – either through wireless or broadband/IP services. But, if they could get the security of landline 911, and an extra dial tone in their home as a free value add for subscribing to broadband (or video from a telco’s perspective), maybe a telco’s bundled offering may look more attractive than a comparable cable offering. I realize this idea is not appealing to the hundreds of ILECs who are a part of the current access/settlement system (in fact, it couldn’t work in the context of today’s regulatory structure), but I wonder whether it’s inevitable. In this possible future scenario, the current settlement system adapts to broadband as the underlying service, as opposed to voice.
This scenario cuts both ways. From a cable company’s perspective, a growing portion of the population is turning to the Internet as a source for their video content, and no longer see value in paying for a broad package of video as a part of a traditional subscription pay-TV service. But, if they could receive basic TV (which includes local broadcast affiliates) as a free value add for buying broadband, maybe the cable bundle is more attractive. In a true IP/broadband world, very basic phone and video service is relatively easy to deliver, and has little impact on bandwidth and network performance. Maybe the digital transition is opening the door to a future where free basic services are a regular component of a bundled offering. Thoughts?