Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-180
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE
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)
Today’s item, like most we address as an expert agency, is full of sophisticated technical, legal, 
and policy arguments.  At a high level, however, I view this as a continuation down a path of deregulatory 
policies designed to encourage new market entry, innovation, and investment.  Indeed, “encourag[ing]
more robust competition in the video marketplace” by limiting franchising requirements has long been a 
stated goal of the Commission as well as a driving force behind statutory terms we interpret today.
Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”), states that 
franchising authorities (“LFAs”) may not “unreasonably refuse to award” a competitive franchise to 
provide cable services.  I agree with our conclusion that we have the jurisdictional authority to interpret 
this section of the Act and adopt rules to implement it.  In amending Section 621(a)(1) to include the 
phrase “unreasonably refuse to award,” Congress explicitly limited the authority of LFAs.  However, if an 
LFA does not make a final decision for months on end, or perhaps even years as the record indicates, new 
entrants are given no recourse.  Also, unreasonable demands, similar to long delays, serve as a further 
barrier to competitive entry.  It is nonsensical to contend that, despite the limitation on LFA authority in 
the Act, LFAs remain the sole arbiters of whether their actions in the franchise approval process are 
reasonable.  Since the section’s judicial review provision applies only to final decisions by LFAs, absent 
Commission action to identify “unreasonable” terms and conditions, franchise applicants would have no 
avenue for redress.  I conclude that our broad and well-recognized authority as the federal agency 
responsible for administering the Act, including Title VI, permits us to identify such terms and 
conditions, and I support our exercise of that authority.
As with most orders, we explored numerous ways to achieve our goals.  I ultimately support 
today’s item, because I believe that, by streamlining timeframes for action and providing practical 
guidelines for both LFAs and new entrants, the item encourages the development of competition in the 
video marketplace and speeds the deployment of broadband across the country in a platform-neutral 
manner.  These beneficial policy results should not be underestimated.  Our annual reports to Congress on 
cable prices, including the report we adopt today, consistently show that prices are lower where wireline 
competition is present.  And, of course, broadband deployment enhances our ability to educate our 
children for the jobs of tomorrow and ensures that the United States remains competitive in this global 
communications age.
Additionally, I am pleased that we recognize – and do not preempt – the actions of those states 
that have reformed their franchise rules.  Their efforts to streamline the process for competitive entry are 
laudable.
Finally, it is critical that as we advance pro-competitive policies, we ensure that our policies do 
not unreasonably create asymmetry in the marketplace. Accordingly, I am encouraged that we resolve to 
address open issues regarding existing franchise agreements on an expedited basis.  I encourage all 
interested parties to use your energies toward assisting us as we seek a way to apply more broadly our 
conclusions across all companies.