More information on the law:
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/4582/53/
Phone Companies and Televisions
By Guest - Posted on June 9th, 2006
On a 321-101 vote, the House passed a bill granting national-franchising rights to phone companies in an effort to help them quickly launch Internet-based TV services that could act as an alternative to cable.
"This bill streamlines the cable franchising process in order to better provide service innovation and accessibility. Furthermore, it will ensure that the Internet remains an open marketplace and that the FCC does not have unlimited ability to regulate," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.
AT&T (TICKER:US:T) and Verizon (TICKER:US:VZ) have pushed hard for congressional relief amid frustration with the costly and time-consuming process of acquiring local franchising rights in hundreds of cities and towns.
Both carriers are spending billions to build superfast fiber networks over which they aim to offer souped-up Internet connections and pay-TV services. Yet many investors have soured on their stocks, particular shares of Verizon, on worries that the huge investments won't pan out.















What is good?? What kind of comment is that?
I don't see why allowing the FCC unlimited regulatory powers over what it is supposed to be regulating is a bad idea.
Innovation in technology is good, AT&T and Verizon making these developments is fantastic. However, having a government that is capable of regulating telecom giants is also a good thing.
In my opinion, what makes our public sector work so well is that we have agencies whose sole purpose is the protection of the people - the FCC does not work for profit and wants to benefit American people as much as possible.
For the Congress to then tie the FCC's hands when their only concern is benefiting the public seems counterintuitive.
Can you keep posting information and analysis on this topic? sounds interesting - I'd like to learn more.
sure, i'll see what else i can find