Paul Cronin, Vice President and Region Manager
Cox Communications New England

Several weeks ago, Cox Communications surveyed some 400 Rhode Islanders about their feelings on fair competition. We did so in light of the fact that across the country, the nation's big telephone companies are asserting that they need special favors from legislators and regulators in order to enter the local video business.

Their primary arguments are that they are under-resourced, should be entitled to serve only affluent communities, and need protected regulatory status. Of course, the notion that the regional Bell behemoths need a boost to compete strains credulity. Yet some in Washington have accepted the phone companies' arguments, and have sponsored legislation in Congress that would give these companies preferred status as video competitors.

Clearly, changing the rules for the phone giants, and no one else, would tilt the market in their favor and penalize the true entrepreneurs that have invested the time and resources to bring the benefits of broadband technology to a vast majority of Americans. Since 1996, when Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act, the U.S. cable industry has invested nearly $100 billion of private capital to upgrade its networks to broadband.

In Rhode Island alone, Cox Communications has invested nearly $500 million since the 1996 act to build a statewide fiber-optic-rich broadband network. As a result, Rhode Islanders across the state have access to high-speed Internet service; state-of-the art video products, such as high-definition television and entertainment on demand; and competitive telephone-service options, which are priced about 30 percent lower than the incumbent phone company.

Rhode Island today is the most broadband-ready state in the nation, and, according to the Federal Communications Commission, is also the most competitive state for local telephone service. All of this has been accomplished under current state and federal rules and regulations.

I should note that it was competition -- largely from direct-broadcast satellite companies -- that prompted cable operators to invest money in broadband networks and upgrade their service offerings, without asking for any government favors. Even as cable companies have improved their offerings, the two national satellite companies have added 25 million subscribers, claiming better than one-quarter of all subscribers to multi-channel video services. Competition for new and existing customers is fierce across all facets of the communications business. This kind of marketplace rivalry is the rising tide that lifts all boats.

These developments are due in large part to a regulatory framework that has fostered increased competition and provided incentives for companies to make private capital investments in technology and networks that are a springboard for new services.

The phone giants have had nearly a full decade to share in this growth, and many of the incentives in the 1996 Telecommunications Act were designed specifically for them. During that period, several of their predecessors entered -- and then beat a hasty retreat from -- the cable-television business. Only after it became clear that their monopoly local telephone service would be challenged by competition did the phone companies begin to seek regulatory shortcuts for entering the television business. And now they're claiming that a service that is virtually identical to cable television should be given preferential regulatory treatment.

When the FCC recently deregulated parts of the phone companies' high-speed Internet-access business -- to level the playing field with cable's high-speed Internet service -- the cable industry supported the change. That's because we believe that like services should be treated alike.

The phone giants need to accept this logic. Rhode Island consumers certainly do. The results of our aforementioned survey show that Rhode Islanders' sense of fair play is quite clear: 78 percent of those surveyed indicated that they think phone companies should play by the rules that are in existence for current cable-television companies. Further, 79 percent said that if rules and regulations are changed to accommodate phone companies, the changes should apply to all cable providers, including existing ones.

The most exciting development in today's telecommunications marketplace is that consumers are only just beginning to realize the promise of broadband technology. Innovation and creativity are flourishing, bringing Rhode Islanders -- and all Americans -- a diverse and compelling array of content and applications. The result is that consumers will continue to be the true winners.

If state and national policymakers will apply the rules equally to all competitors, the best will be yet to come: greater choice and higher value, along with an increasing ability to personalize services for our homes and lifestyles.

This column first appeared in The Providence Journal