A recent Wall Street Journal editorial (“Franchise Freedom”) was a wake up call for those of us who communicate about Cable. In a few short paragraphs, the editors somehow managed to color the mammoth and glacier-like former Bell companies as the champions of competition and cable companies as anti-competitive incumbents who are “crying foul” at the prospect of having to earn our customers’ business. An opinion on the FCC’s recent ruling on video franchising, the editorial goes so far as to levy accusations that Cable is blocking the franchise applications of the RBOCs by pulling the strings of the local franchising authorities (LFAs) – causing them to slow roll applications and make unrelated demands for things such as parking garages and community swimming pools.

The fact is that Cable has been meeting all sorts of LFA demands, both reasonable and unreasonable, for more than 40 years, and the industry, via the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), is on-the-record in support of franchising reform that treats all competitors fairly. Naturally, we are opposed to reform that gives the phone companies an unfair and undeserved advantage to enter the market. The former Bell companies should have had the vision years ago to invest in their networks so as to prepare for today’s “digital future.” The fact is they didn’t plan for this future and so are now looking for short cuts to catch up to Cable.

It’s puzzling to see Cable positioned as anti-competitive since we compete for customers not only in video, but also in broadband and telephone. We’re successful not because we have the market cornered in any one of these sectors, but because we’ve continued to innovate and evolve our businesses to meet changing consumer appetites. Fulfilling the promise of the 1996 Telecom Act, we’ve gone from single-service video companies to world-class, full-service telecommunication and entertainment companies. Therein lies the irony of the WSJ editorial because it is the RBOCs, with their legions of lobbyists, whose preferred mode of competition is political influence. This influence has never been more apparent, and clearly those of us who communicate to our customers, policy makers and the press have our work cut out for us.