The Senate version of a telecom rewrite is not exactly a gift to cable, but it is pretty darned friendly to the wired medium.

Image placeholder title

It holds telcos to more local franchise oversight than the phone companies would like, and than a House version of the bill did, and allowing cable to convert must-carry digital signals to analog, or HDTV to standard DTV.

That is a big win for cable, which wants to devote as much as of its pipe as it can to advanced services and feels that mandatory must-carry of DTV and HDTV signals is a government taking of that valuable real estate.

Broadcasters, understandably, were not pleased with the provision. But wait, there was more.

The bill was "silent" on multicast must-carry, a deafening, almost retaliatory, silence to broadcasters who see mandatory cable carriage of their multiple digital signals as key to their competitiveness in a multichannel world.

The bill also allows unlicensed wireless devices to operate in the broadcast band, which broadcasters are worried will mean interference to DTV signals.

Why the relative cable-friendliness and partial nose-thumb to broadcasters.

I have a theory, which I shall couch in vague terms in case I am out in left field stabbing at imaginary balls.

But here are some facts.

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, who motor-Senatored this bill, wanted a certain lobbyist of whom he was exceedingly fond to head a certain big broadcast association. When that didn't happen, he was not happy. I know, believe me, I know.

The certain lobbyist for a certain network then left to start his own lobby shop for clients including the cable industry.

Cable comes out smelling like a rose-like object in the Senate bill draft and broadcasters are left with a broadcast flag to salute, but a lot not to like.

By John Eggerton