Notes
Outline
Cable TV: 
Has Deregulation Failed?
Thomas W. Hazlett
twhazlett@yahoo.com
Nov. 21, 2003 * National Press Club
The Regulatory Mirage
Simple, obvious, and wrong.
Burden of proof
Marketplace
Regulation
The Continuous Cycle
Retail rate control regime switches
Jan. 1, 1987: Decontrol (federal pre-emption)
May 1, 1993: Re-regulation (1992 Cable Act)
Nov. 10, 1994: Decontrol (‘going forward’)
March 31, 1999: Decontrol (1996 Telecom Act)
Wholesale rate controls
1972: Leased access
1987: VDT
1996: OVS
 ____: “Open access” for cable modems?
Deconstructing Rate Regulation
Cable Rate Increases
Three Fault Lines
 Regulation of rates ineffective
price data alone
 Quality adjustments complicated
Price per channel
Price per audience rating point
Price of entrant exceeds that of incumbent (DBS)
Output Responses to rate changes
price increases under deregulation (87-88)
price reductions under re-regulation (93-94)
The Definitive Answer
(Ranked 892,052 on Amazon.com)
Annual Percent Change in Total Channel-Subscribers
Annual Percent Change in License Fees per Subscriber
Annual Percent Change in Subs Mean of USA, ESPN, TBS
Noncompetitive Premia
Politics of Regulation
Rate regulation supported by broadcasters
NAB’s 1993 proposal for $4.52 price cap
Telcos favored cable rate regulation
Programmers lobbied against controls (and succeeded in ‘going forward’)
Score one for the ‘Ivory Tower’
Because rates for the most popular tiers of service have risen more than 40 percent (three times the rate of inflation) since deregulation, and because the bills would allow the public to challenge prices, the legislation should provide consumers with long overdue rate relief.
[O]nly ivory-tower free-market ideologues like Mr. Hazlett would expect Congress to correct all the policy imperfections involving the industry.
-- Gene Kimmelman, CFA
        N.Y. Times (Sept. 7, 1990)