You can see more USTelecom Vidcasts here.

The FCC Chairman has long recognized that competition with cable offerings provides the best solution to rising cable prices, and that lowering hurdles for telecom companies to invest in video helps increase the availability and capacity of broadband networks. The court’s decision provides invaluable support for this vital objective and USTelecom and our member companies will continue the work to achieve the goals of increased investment in broadband networks and a level regulatory playing field.

You can read the whole post, which excerpts from USTelecom’s press statement about the benefits to consumers this decision will bring, here.

We’ll have a vidcast about this coming soon, as well.

You can register for the webinar here.  Or, if you can’t log on today, check out some of our archived webinars here.

Chairman Ed Markey (D - Mass.) noted that there are a lot of questions related to universal service that need to be tackled in reforming the program, including the big question of whether or not the universal service system should be used to support broadband service.  The representatives in attendance at the hearing-and the witnesses-were divided on the issue of using USF dollars for broadband.

Two Congressmen who are not divided on the broadband issue, Reps. Joe Barton (R - Texas) and Cliff Stearns, (R - Fla.), introduced legislation yesterday to reform universal service.  Their bill would limit USF support to voice services only (closing the door on the broadband debate) and it includes some substantial belt-tightening measures, including a hard cap on funding, stricter eligibility requirements for areas qualifying for assistance, and reverse auctions.

Chairman Martin took the sensible position of strongly disagreeing with the Order, noting that cable providers engage in the very same kind of “win-back” marketing when their own customers want to switch video service providers; the particular rules in question only apply during local number porting for traditional voice service providers, not to cable. Martin added that companies offering identical bundled services should be regulated the same, regardless of platform. He summed up his dissent by stating that the decision could “thwart competition, harm rural America, and frustrate regulatory parity.”

You can find more commentary on retention marketing and its effect on competition from the crew at Tech Liberation Front, with posts from James Gattuso, Berin Szoka, and Adam Thierer.