Question: Why is it from the public interest a nightmare scenario for cable companies to become an OVS?

Jeffrey Hops: Well there are two reasons, one related generally to our concerns about local governmental control and the good we see that it brings to the citizens of states and localities. Secondly related specifically to pay. First as far as what it brings to states and localities, if you look at Title VI you'll see that in addition to the rate regulation there are a number of public service, quality of service, consumer protection regulations that simply go. When there is a transfer to OVS they just go straight out the window. Secondly, we see the property, the public rights-of-way which cable operators use to run their cable as a public trust. You, those of us here who are citizens of the City of New York, we have an ownership right in part of what the city has, as its property. And if there is a transfer to OVS, and some of that exercise in control is diminished, then you, as citizens of the City of New York have lost a concomitant control over your City rights. With respect to PEG I also want to say that the regulations currently being considered by the Commission contemplate an interconnections between public access on PEG and public access on OVS. I have a very, very dire concern that if a cable operator is allowed, this really is our worst case scenario. If a cable switches over to OVS, the OVS operator says, "Gee, you know we don't have any pay requirements anymore because there is no cable system anymore and since there is no cable system anymore, we aren't required to match the cable system." So, consequently I'm hoping that won't be case, but its certainly not out of the realm of possibility.

Question: How much has the Alliance for Community Media getting so far?

Jeffrey Hops: We were actually very much able to get - what the Alliance going after its very particularized interest - were able to get what we wanted into the Telecom Bill more or less due to the skills of our chief lobbyist, who could not be with us this evening. The reason we're doing this is because we have some very serious concerns that go beyond our organization's interest to the whole idea of the First Amendment. The First Amendment doesn't only belong to the owners of the conduit, it belongs to everyone. It belongs to the people in this audience as much it belongs to the stockholders of Bell Atlantic. And so consequently their speech rights and access rights that we seeing going even beyond PEG.

Question:

Jeffrey Hops: I am at best sanguine probably pessimistic, skeptical, doubtful that OVS be an open platform, and that's sort of where I am coming from, pure and simple. When you look at comparing the non-discriminatory access to platform structure of the Section 302 of the '96 Act, i.e. the OVS statute to Section 612 of the Cable Act, the leased access, there is currently much more statutory protection in leased access than there is in the OVS statute. Consequently, a great deal depends on Meredith and the Commission to.... By the way, to answer the question, Rep. Boucher of Virginia is sort of considered the primary father of OVS. Rick Boucher. We actually had some discussions with him before the law came out, and he is very much ideologically committed to the idea of the open platform. The fact that the law doesn't actually require an open platform is, I would like think, due more to the intercession of the other members than due to Mr. Boucher himself, who I think was very much on the right track.

I just want to make a quick response to the question you asked. If in fact OVS does not become an open platform, and an OVS operator becomes nothing more than a cable operator, then what's the difference? The difference is that it becomes a cable operator without a whole slew of statutory protections and regulations that now apply to cable. One can argue about how meaningful those protections and regulations are, but there is a material difference, which is if OVS doesn't work as intended, what you got is essentially an unregulated cable operator competing against a regulated cable operator. So you got the problem first of all, that you've tilted the playing field. Secondly, you got the problem that if you believe those provisions are meaningful, they won't apply. What you finally have because, and this is a point which hasn't been raised, in the long run it's very likely that cable operators will get into OVS. In any case because of the way the statute is worded and the LEC can become an OVS platform operator. So even if the Commission regulates now that a cable operator can not become a platform operator, all a cable operator has to do, as many have indeed contemplated doing, is start their own phone company. What the trigger is will vary from state to state of course. But once they start their own phone company, then they are a LEC and then they can become an OVS operator and as Mr. Squadron mentioned with half the regulations of normal cable.

Eli Noam: next panelist is Karen Stevenson, who is the General Counsel of Tele-TV. She will explain what Tele-TV is, a company formed by several LECs.

Karen Stevenson:That's right. Tele-TV is a partnership that was formed a little over a year ago by Bell Atlantic, NYNEX, and Pacific Telesis to create an integrated television service. But there are several things we're not. We're not, for example, a network operator; we don't own any platforms ourselves. And we're not, at least at this point in our development, a programmer. But the notion was that those three companies could do together more efficiently what each of them was in the process of doing separately in order to roll out their own video offerings in their own territories. So there were two operating divisions that were formed. One we call Tele-TV Media, which basically is in charge of branding the service and developing the market strategy for the service in connection with the video service organizations of the partner companies. As well as going out and licensing both linear programming and developing special kinds of packages for near video-on-demand offerings including sports, movies, etc. We have another division called Tele-TV Systems, and the function there is to develop the end-to-end video systems, again in conjunction with our partners' organizations. We, for example, recently awarded a contract for the development of a million set-top boxes for the MMDS systems that the partners are going to begin deploying at the end of this year and into the next year. I don't know if Mr. Hops made everybody on the panel angry, but I think he probably would have surprised certain Senators with his comments that the FCC shouldn't feel that it has a mandate to make OVS a reality in our world today. Because I think that if you read the Conference report, the Senate and the House were both very interested in creating a viable competitor to the existing video platforms and to encourage a new technology. So I think that the FCC does have a mandate to achieve those goals that are set forth in connection with the new Section 653. But what I want to talk about, is a little bit of a divergence from what we've been talking about, though there is some overlap. And that is if you assume for the moment that the FCC creates an OVS system of regulations that encourages everyone who wants to become an OVS operator and encourages people to come on those platforms as program providers, then you set that aside for the minute. I'd like to talk a little bit about the reality of that, and give you some sense of the experiences we've been having as we've gone out on behalf of our partners into the marketplace trying to obtain programming for the new MMDS systems. I think this is important because if we don't have access to programming there isn't really going to be much incentive for the partners to develop these new systems. If they are not going to be able to put on programming that's competitive, and the current program access rules are, as one of the gentleman in the audience noted, are relatively limited in that they address basically satellite delivered programming by vertically integrated cable operators. And in our experience as we go around trying to get access to key broadcast programming and key programming services that are provided either not by satellite or not by vertically integrated programmers, we've encountered some very significant problems. And I, unlike Mr. Urban can't say that they don't affect any of the people in this room, but I will not name any names. I think that you need to understand that in order to have a viable, competitive service you have to be able to offer certain things. So, for example, you have got to be able to offer the major networks. Because 64% of all cable viewing is broadcast networks. 50% of the networks and in deference to Bill Squadron, I'll just say 50% of the viewing in America today is on the older networks. I shouldn't say the major networks, but you know what I'm talking about. And if you add into that equation Fox and UPN you get over 60%. So you can see you really have to provide a service that has broadcast on it. You can see we wouldn't do a very good job marketing a service if we couldn't offer people the ability to see the World Series or the Olympics or the kinds of special events that are only shown, the Academy Awards or something like that are only shown on the networks. And yet we have found that requests are being made of us that we believe are inconsistent with the kinds of requirements that have been imposed traditionally on cable systems as they seek retransmission consent from these major broadcasters. And just to give you a feel for the kinds of things,--now I'm not saying that we agreed with this but I'm just saying at the outset these are things that have been requested. For example, past premiums per subscriber of up to 100% more than what cable has to pay on a monthly basis. And a request that we set aside immediately up to half a dozen or more channels on the system for programming services to be provided in the future of an unspecified nature. You have to contrast this to the request that's being made historically of cable systems where they will agree that in the future they will set aside one additional channel for a new service as it gets rolled out. So that's a nonmonetary demand but it's significant because it requires us to set aside capacity. Other things have been such requests as participating in joint ventures that are unrelated to the nature of focus of Tele-TV and the partners, and also sometimes some dilatory tactics in responding to our requests. So we're in a position where and we've been in to see Ms. Jones on this question, and I think the Cable Bureau has taken the position at least to this point that while we are raising some issues that may be of concern, it is certainly more than they can handle within the timeframe that has been set aside by Congress. Even if they wished to take up these matters in the OVS proceedings, and I have to say, that there is a disagreement whether or not it would be appropriate. But, the other issues that we've run into have to do with non-vertically integrated programming where we've seen the imposition of new entrant surcharges, or the attempt to impose those or technology surcharges. And again, I don't want to name names, but if there are certain services that you can't get, then you can't really offer a viable competitive package. And I think what we are saying is we are not interested in having preferential treatment. And in fact someone was talking about is there such a thing as good discrimination or fair discrimination, and I think you see that in the program access rules. You've seen that there is a principal basis upon which to discriminate in pricing, for example. And we know that it'll be a long time before we are as big as TCI and can therefore command the same kinds of discounts. But at the same time, I think what we are looking for is an opportunity to try to compete fairly. And we can end up with a very beautifully drafted set of regulations for OVS, but unless new entrants can get access to key programming, you are really not going to have real competition in delivering platforms.

Question:nderstand that you want to be able to get network programming because you are broadcasting. But I wonder how you plan to meet this specific local community programming needs as?

Karen Stevenson:l right now the must carry rules still apply to us and so networks' broadcast programs, as long as those stand, they would be imposed on all US operators as well. And we would propose that we think it would be a good alternative to share those with the other providers on the system who would also have to make those programs available. We think that would be an efficient use of the bandwidth - to be able to share that.

Question:anted to highlight what you were saying to the OVS regulation. Do I understand your suggestions to be that even though your partners have taken a position in the OVS proceeding that market forces should determine what a just and reasonable rate is for access to an OVS system - that market forces shouldn't determine what the charges should be for your agreements with the programmers to get access on your system?

Karen Stevenson: I don't think that's what I am saying. We're not saying that a particular price should be dictated. We're saying that those people, the networks and the non- vertically integrated companies, should come to the table and should negotiate with us. We don't expect to get the same prices as established entities, and I think you see that when the program access rules are put into place. I think Mr. Price said earlier there is this tension between deregulation and creating a level playing field. And in 1992 there was some recognition that you're not going to get real competition in the cable markets unless you create these rules and put up some basic parameters. So we're willing to take our chances at the negotiating table. We're just having problems getting people to the table, and as I said, without those key services I don't think you're going to see a program offering on OVS, in the near future.

Monroe Price: It certainly reminds me of 1970 when the cable business argued that any competitive efforts were basically using programming to sell the person computer and technology. And yet the compulsory license, the avoidance of copyright or distance carriage as a mechanism to break that and allow a programming opposed to technology. I'm wonder what's like that here, for example, if you're going to have free over-the-air broadcasting with certain kinds of protections, should one of the duties of it be to help to develop new computer technology?

Karen Stevenson: I take that as a rhetorical question

Question: I don't understand why you want to carry that other program and still be the public access but argue to a fair pay on certain percent of the cost of producing that program. The cable companies are already doing that to franchise these . . .so are you. I assume that you also support public access to the Net.

Karen Stevenson: I think that's a question for my parent over here. I mean I really can't answer that question for the platform.

Question: But, when we say that the statute in the 1996 Act imposes the paying requirements on the OVS carrier that includes the burdens of PEG, it's not just the carriage. The argument I think that people are having is what that burden should be. Some people say, as Jeff alluded to, that you have an interconnection, and if it's a public access channel you split it. Other people are arguing that the OVS operator has to make a matching financial commitment so that essentially the amount available for PEG access doubles, but that's mostly the kind of argument. I haven't heard anybody really argue that there's no PEG obligation.

Karen Stevenson: I think we've said that we would carry that same level of programming that is currently carried by the incumbent cable system. We do not think we should have to take on the obligation of studios and things that are not part of the PEG obligations and are not in the franchise fee. So perhaps drawing distinctions that we have seen the PEG access as the programming and we would carry that level of programming.

Bill Squadron: If I can respond to that with all due respect. Needless to say that the joint commentators, the RBOC commentators make some good comments. Their comments--we do not see eye to eye on this particular one. Where our interpretation of section 653c1b is that the statute requires an exact match and consequently we have gone into the Commission with a proposal which we call match and negotiate, and match and negotiate is that assuming for the sake of our unit that you do have an overbuild which again is to my mind really a gigantic open question. So assuming that you do have an overbuild, that the entrant into OVS system can either pick up the terms of the current requirements under the franchise agreement with the cable operator without having to say a word to the franchise authority- or if they don't like it which we expect they won't, then they can contact the franchise authority and/or the cable operator and work out either a different bilateral or trilateral agreement.

Eli Noam: Thank you. Next we have Mark Apfelbaum who is the Senior Vice President of Time Warner Cable.

Mark Apfelbaum: I was interested with the question that was raised by a few people of where did OVS come from. I think there is some argument that it's kind of an example of the tail wagging the dog--that VDT was a way of the Commission allowing telephone companies into the video business when they were prohibited by the '84 Act from getting in, and in some ways I think OVS is kind of a remnant of something that was created to deal with that problem and whether or not it will be real I'm not sure. But the point I wanted to emphasize is that whether or not a telco comes in through OVS or through a franchise, one of the main points we made in our comments to the FCC was that we think the original problem that Congress had in mind in the '84 Act when they had the ban against telcos being in the cable business is that they can come in and just take over everything. So that problem didn't go away just because now they've done away with the statutory ban. I think in the statute and in the rule-making that everyone has been aware that there are still major concerns with allowing telcos into the cable business. And another whole side of the issue which I think is a kind of a new concern that didn't even exist in the '84 Act is that cable operators, and in particular, Time Warner is making a very serious effort to get into the telephone business which is sort of the other side of the coin of what we've been talking about here. And in our experience the telcos--and I won't name names either since that has been the policy so far--but the telcos have been less than receptive to our entry into their business. And I think there is a real danger which the Commission really does need to address which is not to allow telcos to use OVS as a quick and easy end run into the cable business, while at the same time telephone companies are keeping cable operators out of their business. And I do think one of the major concerns is, as John mentioned, the cross subsidization problem. And there is another proceeding that the FCC has started to look into separately, which is a very necessary thing. But I think without firm cost allocation rules it will be very easy and from everything we've seen thus far is something telephone companies will do which is to try to subsidize their entry into the cable business through rate payers of telephone operators. Jeffrey Hops said that we'd all be angry at him by the end of his remarks. I guess the one thing he said that I'd like to respond to is his point about who owns the First Amendment. And he said it's not the owner of the conduit. We've never seen ourselves as a conduit. We've seen ourselves and the Supreme Court has recognized us as a full-fledged First Amendment entity, and I think the First Amendment, from the beginning of when it was written, didn't say that the First Amendment belongs to the government; it says it does belong to the publisher, and I guess I think that's why maybe your organization is called a "so-called" public interest organization because I think that was the very idea of the First Amendment was really to keep the government out of private editorial decisions, and I think that's really what's in the public interest, is that it should work that way.

Question: Why would a cable company be interested in OVS?

Mark Apfelbaum: Well, first of all, Meredith alluded to some of the problems that you have in dealing with so many regulating bodies as a cable operator. We are the sixth largest; there are a number of cable operators larger than us; and we deal with over 700 separate franchising authorities, then states and also federal governments. So there's, I think, some interest in a framework that has less regulation. And secondly, our company is one that's based on being interested in being an editorial provider. At the same time, we feel that for us to compete in the future, we will have to maximize the utilization of our conduit, and the possibility that a common carrier facility will excite the interest of other programmers and allow us to maximize that facility is something that intrigues us. So that's where our interest in OVS comes from. But it's something that I would say is somewhat speculative from that standpoint.

Jeffrey Hops: Our comments stated that OVS stands a possibility of being "cable-light", and the light comes from the fact that about half the Title VI regulation, just as I mentioned, goes out the window. Traditionally, the cable companies have had a less than cooperative relationship with franchise authorities, there's a strong feeling of that, and the fact that cable operators don't want to have to deal with franchise authorities anymore, and OVS is a way out of that.

Meredith Jones: But it's a way out that was legislated into existence by Congress. I mean, it represents Congressional and the Executive view that there should be a system that has less regulation, in order, ultimately, to encourage the formation of additional delivery platforms, and the capacity to have more and different kinds of programming on the system. So, I feel like Mr. Hops is arguing something that he probably argued last summer, and way up until the 8th of February, but from my standpoint, the die has been cast on this, and to try to re- impose on OVS all of the requirements of Title VI, I think, is misplaced interpretation of Congressional intent.

Eli Noam: Bill Squadron is--one reason why he's last is that as a friend he will forgive me. The other one is also that he has these two hats from his career. First, he's here as not a cable and not a telco company, but he was also the NATOA's president of local regulators of cable television. So he brings also the municipal perspective in it...

William Squadron: Thanks Eli, and I realize that all of you are probably tired and eager to get out, so I guess, unlike everyone else, I will name names: Wake up. No, I just want to offer a few comments, particularly harp back to the very beginning when Eli said, "Is this a realistic option?" I think we need a little bit of a reality check with respect to open video systems. I would start off by saying that Tom Landry said something about "we come to pay our respects to video dialtone here." I think he should've paraphrased Mr. Shakespeare and said we've come to bury video dialtone and not to praise it. And it should have been buried and along with it, any children, siblings, or offshoots, which we now have in the form of open video systems. This is not a good idea. It did pop up very late in the legislative process. The concept, as Professor Noam described it, is, in fact, a hybrid concept, where you have the provider of the system being both the provider of programming and supposedly the purveyor of unaffiliated programmers through a non-discriminatory platform. This really doesn't work, and it doesn't work because inherent in that concept is that if you control the conduit, and some of your programming, in fact, a good portion of it goes over that conduit, you have every incentive possible not to treat other programmers over that conduit fairly. And there's nothing wrong with that; I mean it's not invidious in some way. It's just not a system that will work. One can look at leased access, which was originally the concept that Congress tried to have as its common carriage or unaffiliated programming relief, and it's never worked. And the Commission is now trying to craft the leased access regulations to make them work. But, in fact, it's somewhat of a doomed process to begin with. Eli also mentioned at the beginning that he has a thesis which is that we're moving toward some sort of private contract rather than common carriage system overall, and I would say that I'm not sure I subscribe to that, but I don't think you can mix the two. I don't think there's anything wrong with the notion of common carriage video, if in fact it had any kind of economic or marketplace reality. But one of the reasons that video dialtone never actually delivered programming except in a rare case like Dover Township where somebody made it an example to do something, is that it really doesn't have any relationship to the real provision of television programming in people's homes. We don't watch television as a matter of commoncarriage. And the reason that video dialtone was adopted to begin with, is, just as we heard a minute ago, it was done as essentially a lever to wedge open the door again the 1984 Act which kept the telephone companies out of cable. Everyone saw that the only likely competitor, before DBS really began to take off, to cable, was the telephone companies; they were the only ones with the deep enough pockets and sufficient infrastructure already in the ground to do it, but the Commission had its hands tied, and they came up with a very clever vehicle which was video dialtone. And it didn't really have marketplace connotation, but it had enough of a momentum that it helped to push Congress to open the door. But it never would have been a real system, in real cities around the country. Now, the problem with using something like switched-digital as the stalking force for why you don't have to worry about discrimination against unaffiliated providers because switched-digital is right around the corner, and once you have switched-digital, you've got among it a capacity and then you don't have to worry about it - but switched-digital is not right around the corner. And you don't want to craft rules for a marketplace today which is principally, in fact not principally - almost overwhelmingly an analog system with very finite channel capacity for switched-digital that maybe ten years from now will be in a third of the communities in this country. We'll probably get there someday but it's way off in the future, and if you think back five years to when fiber to the home was being played very heavily in Washington as the reason to open up all kinds of regulations because before you knew it we'd all have fiber optics plugged into our toasters, our televisions, our lights and everything. Well I mean it's never going to happen. It shouldn't happen, but it was being trumpeted as being right around the corner and not that expensive and of the US. So you have to be very careful when you're crafting regulations to deal with what's real as opposed to what may emerge many many years down the road. Finally with the hat on that, the other rationale for open video systems and for video dialtone has often been this notion that there are 33,000 franchise authorities around the country and just like Johnny Applebell, somebody's going to go door to door from 33,000 city halls, and sometime in the year 2043 when they get to last one, then they can put the switch on, and they can start service. And that's not the issue, but this number has kind of paraded around the halls of Washington and caught a lot of attention. With really very little justification, the cable industry has managed to get franchised to deal with localities, but have an interest because not every world community is the same as every big city in the South, in the North, in the East, in the West and in every suburb. There are local interests that should be addressed. Cable industry managed to get franchised, and the last time I looked, the cable industry was doing pretty well. The telephone companies, the last time I looked, were in every locality in the country, and you'd be hard pressed to find a telephone company who didn't know their local city council, their local board supervisors, their local elected officials. For them to get franchisers, Ameritech is doing with very little difficulty in the Mid-west--right now is not a huge hardship. So to sum up, the commission is carrying out the law now, and they have to implement open video systems, but they need to bear in mind that if what you want to do is have a competitive playing field that's essentially equal, you have to really look at the rules and look at the flexibility that you've got and make sure that you're not tilting it too far one way or the other. I think it's great that the telephone companies are coming into video. We need competition in the world of video. We need more distribution systems, but there mechanisms for them to come in and do it on the same terms as everybody else and it's not that difficult. So I think we're going to look with great anticipation at this horrendous timetable you have, Meredith, and the way that you craft regulations that will allow everybody to be treated fairly. Thanks.

Eli Noam: Thank you Bill.

Question: Who's going to pay for entry into OVS?

Answer: I know we don't think we're going to be asking rate payers to subsidize the entry into video on the federal level, and almost all our states were under price caps, which is to say we aren't going to be raising rates, and this is being funded out of the shareholders' money. And then we hope it's going to make money on its own. That's the idea.

Question: It seems to me listening to the panel, in some ways OVS is being used as the way to have ... position in the city. It's like video's outcome it seems to be a way in which the reality of OVS is not as important as its bargaining aspects in terms of sort of triangulating between Congress, the Commission, and the city.

Answer: I don't think it's unreasonable parameters and our company does this frequently to take the position if there's too much regulation in the world of communication, if there's too much regulation across the board, and to look for opportunities where the public interest can be served by less regulation. And it's certainly understandable why the telephone companies or anyone else would look for a mechanism to enter a new market with reduced regulation. But I do think that one has to understand it for what it is, and make sure that whatever interests do require continued protection from regulation or whatever interests you do feel need to addressed at local level, don't get lost. And I think that the one exception in terms of an open system that has worked is PEG. It hasn't worked as well as it should for a variety of reasons. But in requiring certain channel capacity to be made available for things like school board elections or local bulletin boards, you have at least had some ability to use a very valuable asset for public purpose, but it's because there was a firm requirement that this be done.

Jeffrey Hops: We proposed to the Commission that whether there's a nomenclatured change or an an OVS system spontaneously springs up - that either if there's a nomenclature change they could just adopt the existing requirements for all time, or in the case where there was simply no video proprieter which frankly is so infinitesimally small it hardly merits discussion. But in that case, to negotiate with the franchise authority even though it's not forbidden by statute, so it's something the FCC could regulate.

Answer: I think one of the issues that's going to face every cable operator is level playing field issues not only with OVS but also with, for example, wireless, wireless cable, and others. I think there are going to be a lot of discussions with local franchising authorities and with PEG access groups, if other competitors are able to come in and provide comparable services without those regulatory requirements.

Answer: But before people get the feeling that OVS is some kind of quick way to kind of slide out from under regulations, OVS from our perspective is interesting but there's a lot of soft ground there. One of the things about the regulatory framework that we have is we know it; we understand it; we operate under it. OVS does not have that kind of framework. So from the standpoint of implementing a business plan there's a lot of uncertainty from a regulatory standpoint, and that gives you some discomfort.

Answer: Actually, I would agree with that part of it which is now what I think is where we sort of started, which is nobody really knows yet what this is going to look like and we'll make the decision as to whether we do it after we have a better sense.

Question: Cable operators at this end seem have been arguing that the monopoly ground between telephone is thin. But obviously cable operators are moving into Internetting, and that sort of thing. For $99, the . . . operator can turn your Internet connection into a telephone connection, so obviously what's happening ... cable systems are already doing that. They are overlooking all the boundaries. Are you crying a little bit too much over here?

Answer: I don't think anybody would say that the Internet which isn't generally provided over our systems is a real alternative to our local phone service. The thing that we're trying to get into is build a total facilities-based network to compete with local phone companies, and to do that, one of the main things you need to be able to interconnect with the existing phone company. And that's one of the areas where we encounter great difficulty. It's also one of the things that the '96 Act addresses and hopefully will improve.

Answer: If there's an overall policy goal to create an environment where there's competition, if the cable operator and the telephone company aren't allowed to get into each other's business at the same time or near about the same time, then I think there'll be a failure in achieving that policy goal. So I think that was just a general statement.

Answer: Well I think that if the rules effectively allow any entity to act just as a cable operator acts today with effective control over the conduit and to be subjected to reduced regulatory requirements in doing so, then I think that there is a natural inclination for people to do it. So I mean, I think it really depends on whether or not the rules really achieve the trade-off that it's supposed to achieve which is, is this truly an open platform in exchange for reduced regulation? If it's effectively a closed platform for reduced regulation, sure people'll do it.

Answer: I would agree that if OVS is just created as an end-run for cable, then a lot of people will choose it. If it does do what it's supposed to do, I would think that most people who are making the significant investment that is required to really provide cable services, that most would find it more attractive to go out and deal with all those 33,000 franchise authorities- which as Bill said is not necessarily easy but is not as daunting as that number sounds. I think we have about 10,000.

Answer: Well my whole thing is access to content. As I said, assuming you have a beautifully designed, very deregulated system, if you don't have access to critical programming, you're not going to have a product. So I'd like to see that area of things loosen up a little bit for real new entrants, and then I think you'll have some real competition.

Answer: I'm actually in agreement with most accounted for so far, that in particularly with a Squadron. I'm not sure it's going to completely be . . . but you're certainly going to have a correlated relationship between the amount of editorial control which the OVS operator can exercise, and the likelihood that they will actually implement it if you have complete editorial control. If there's complete editorial control, people go in. If it's really regulated in such a way that most, if not all, OVS operators are relegated to the one-third that the statute provides, I would be willing about that. It's a deadletter.

Answer: I would just add that OVS could be an alternative regulatory structure if OVS is going to fulfill the requirement that there is nondiscriminatory access. I think it really is dependent on increased channel capacity either through switch technology or through substantial compression technology that reduces contention to get on the platform.

Leslie Vial: I would say that we're perfectly prepared to live with the editorial control of just a third of the system. We're not prepared to live with the kind of regulatory regime we lived with under video dialtone. If the rules are not video dialtone II, then yes, we will do this.

Meredith Jones: I don't know whether they'll come but the Commission has a real interest in having new entrants in the marketplace, and having competition, and most of all, the Commission sees OVS entrants as competition. On the other hand, they are all well aware of the fact that there is balance and cable; The cable alternative is available to new entrants, as well as to OVS, and if OVS isn't somehow different then I don't think we've done our job.

Answer (Monroe Price): Well in preparing for today I was trying to think of alternative definitions of OVS, and after tonight's panel I think its overly vaunted scenario.

Eli Noam: Let me ask you to join me in thanking our panel, and we also thank Lisa Domonkos, our Assistant Director for organizing this event, but in particular Tom Landry who put this all together. Alex Wolfson who is our Associate Director for running the whole show. Steve Messer is going to say something just for a minute about how you can get in touch with our new Web page, and then we are going to retire. Steve?

Steve Messer: I won't hold you up too long. The Virtual Institute of Information has a flyer outside that has the address on it if anyone didn't get it. The address is www.ctr.columbia.edu\vii. It's not only a research institute; it's also a place where we can continue this discussion outside of the conference area. I hope all will join in and at least look at the site and please give us some feedback. Thank you.