1
STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN
Re:  Exclusive Service Contracts for Provision of Video Services in Multiple Dwelling 
Units and Other Real Estate Developments, Notice of Proposed Rule Making.
I am pleased to support this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on the 
benefits and detriments of various exclusive agreements between multichannel video 
programming distributors (MVPDs) and private real estate developers and owners of 
multiple dwelling unit properties (MDUs) for video services. Robust and fair 
competition across the communications landscape, and particularly among MPVDs,
remains as an important policy objective of mine, and this NPRM will allow us to 
examine whether certain exclusive arrangements amount to anticompetitive practices that 
prevent potential providers from entering the video distribution marketplace.  
While the Commission considered this specific issue in 1997 and 2003, and 
decided against taking any action regarding exclusive agreements, it is appropriate for us
to refresh the record and re-examine the issue in light of the specific allegations made by 
competitive providers and continued increases in cable rates.  According to the 
Commission’s most recent Cable Price Survey Report, the average monthly price for 
basic-plus-expanded basic service has increased by ninety-three percent over a ten-year 
period.1 And, cable rates were seventeen percent lower where wireline cable competition 
was present.2
The entry of some of the largest incumbent local exchange companies into the
video marketplace is a major and positive new development. Verizon, for example, is 
upgrading its facilities to fiber-based platforms in many areas across the country so that it
can offer a suite of video, voice, and data services. This and other investments by phone 
companies could bring substantial new competition into the video marketplace that could 
prove historic.
Equally significant is the potential for this new revenue stream to drive broadband 
deployment, which can benefit consumers and foster the free flow of information beyond 
the video marketplace.  Consumers will benefit not only from more choices, better 
service, and lower prices, but they also stand to gain from a more robust exchange in the 
marketplace of ideas. If these exclusive contracts do in fact unreasonably impede the 
Commission’s goals of enhancing multichannel video competition and accelerating the 
deployment of broadband, then I believe we must act. 
  
1 Implementation of Section 3 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, 
Statistical Report on Average Prices for Basic Service, Cable Programming Services, and Equipment, 21 
FCC Rcd 1, 15087, ¶ 2 (2006).
2 Id. at 15090, ¶ 10.
2
I have long expressed grave concerns about the negative effects of media 
consolidation in this country, and have focused on the problems raised by growing 
vertical integration of programming and distribution. Vast new distribution networks 
promise to limit the ability of any vertically integrated conglomerates from imposing an 
economic, cultural, or political agenda on a public with few alternative choices. I truly 
believe the benefits of this new competition extend beyond even the many typical ones 
that accrue to consumers, and can actually improve the health of our overall democracy.
Accordingly, I support this NPRM, hoping that our examination remains mindful 
of our regulatory authority and the policy objective to promote fair competition 
throughout the communications landscape.