*Pages 1--1 from  Microsoft Word - 52847.doc*
 STATEMENT  OF  CHAIRMAN  KEVIN  J.  MARTIN 
 Re:  Implementation  of  Section  621(  a)(  1)  of  the  Cable  Communications  Policy  Act  of  1984  as  amended  by  the  Cable  Television  Consumer  Protection  and  Competition  Act  of 
 1992,  MB  Docket  No.  05-  311 


 Telephone  companies  and  other  facilities-  based  new  entrants  to  the  multichannel  video  programming  distribution  (MVPD)  market  have  the  potential  to  provide  strong 
 competition  to  incumbent  cable  operators.  These  new  entrants  are  making  significant  investments  in  the  infrastructure  that  enables  them  to  offer  video  service  along  with 
 telephone  and  broadband  services  to  consumers.  We  are  hearing  from  some  providers  that  local  authorities  may  be  making  the  process  of  getting  franchises  unreasonably 
 difficult.  New  video  entrants,  regardless  of  the  technology  they  employ,  should  be  encouraged  –  not  impeded  from  entry. 


 In  passing  the  1992  Cable  Act,  Congress  recognized  that  competition  between  multiple  cable  systems  would  be  beneficial.  Indeed,  Congress  specifically  encouraged 
 local  franchising  authorities  (LFAs)  to  award  competitive  franchises.  Congress  recognized  that  it  is  important  to  have  multiple  competitors  in  the  video  market. 


 Congress  also  recognized  that  LFAs  had  played,  and  would  continue  to  play,  an  important  role  in  the  cable  franchising  process.  However,  Congress  restricted  their 
 authority  in  this  area  in  order  to  promote  cable  competition.  Specifically,  Section  621  of  the  statute  prohibits  LFAs  from  granting  exclusive  franchises  and  from  unreasonably 
 refusing  to  award  additional  competitive  franchises. 
 It  is  the  Commission’s  responsibility  to  remove  unreasonable  roadblocks  to  competition.  Through  the  proceeding  we  commence  today,  we  seek  to  ensure  that  local 


 authorities  are  not  thwarting  competition  by  unreasonably  refusing  to  award  additional  competitive  franchises.  This  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking  is  a  critical  first  step.  I 
 look  forward  to  working  with  my  colleagues  to  conclude  the  rulemaking  process. 
1