The FCC shouldn’t enforce its rule barring a cable operator...

(http://xrl.us/bmyzwi). That restriction, contained in Section 652 of the Communications Act, is “unnecessary to protect competition or consumers and it therefore undermines, rather than advances, the public interest,” the groups said. They said the act says the commission may waive the restrictions it deems procompetitive, but only if the relevant local franchise authority approves. “The LFA approval process is completely unbounded; the statute does not prescribe any standard for LSAs to apply when deciding whether to approve a waiver request and even creates the prospect that a single LFA could veto a transaction that the Commission has found to promote the public interest,” the groups said. That nearly happened when Detroit objected to a Comcast acquisition of a Chicago-based CLEC in 2010, the three associations said. “Several of our members have indicated that the apparent applicability of Section 652(b) has dampened their willingness to pursue potential transactions that would strengthen competition vis-à-vis the dominant incumbent LEC and thereby benefit customers.” The rule can “cast a shadow over negotiations” between cable operators and CLECs that lead to “suboptimal outcomes” if parties value the deal differently due to the potential risks that accompany a waiver request, they said. “Many of our members have concluded that the risks associated with cable-CLEC transactions too often will outweigh the benefits, especially when the geographic overlap is substantial and the number of LFAs that must approve a waiver is correspondingly large.” Eliminating the impediments to cable-CLEC transactions will “rekindle local exchange competition and strongly benefit consumers and businesses,” they said.