One thing is for certain: the cable industry is a leading cause of statistics.

Take yesterday's Federal Communications Commission decision assessing the extent of cable's national reach. At first the FCC tentatively concluded that cable video providers have collectively passed the hoped-for or dreaded "70/70" threshold: when cable systems with 36 or more live-and-in-use channels can be accessed by 70 percent of U.S. households and 70 percent of those households subscribe to them.

Once this goal post has been passed, the 1984 Cable Act permits the agency to regulate cable in order to promote greater programming diversity.

Yesterday's announcement noted that the FCC had long ago resolved that cable breached the first half of the 70/70 formula. But now the Commission stated that, for the first time, "we find that based on data from Warren Communications News, the second prong benchmark [the access prong] has been met at 71.4 percent."

But maybe not, the Notice added, given that "other data sources do not demonstrate that the second prong has been met."

Media reform groups offered mixed reviews at best to the Federal Communications Commission's latest moves on cable competition and video franchise authority.

"Today, the FCC gives to the American people with one hand, but takes back with the other," declared Harold Feld of the Media Access Project after today's decisions on competition and franchising.

The FCC ruled that cable companies can no longer demand exclusivity clauses in apartment buildings and other so-called Multiple Dwelling Units (MDUs). The landlords of such units often negotiate exclusive deals with a single cable operator to service the whole building.

"I believe that people that live in apartment buildings deserve to have the same choices as people that live in the suburbs," FCC Chair Kevin Martin said in his public statement on the decision. "There is no reason that consumers living in apartment buildings should be locked into one service provider."

The Commission voted unanimously to approve the change. They did not unanimously pass a separate order to further preempt the authority and scope of Local Franchising Authorities (LFAs)—city and county agencies that set terms for cable providers.

A coalition of six organizations has sued the Federal Communications Commission, asking the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to stay the agency's December 2006 Order streamlining video franchising rules for cities and counties.

"The FCC overrules Congressional intent, sets aside court jurisdiction, and wants us to ignore community needs," Donald J. Borut, executive director of the National League of Cities (NLC), one of the groups filing suit, declared in a press statement yesterday. "The FCC's action is purely a contrived and transparent attempt to legislate."

But what really concerns this coalition are not the limits of FCC authority, but rules that will dramatically curtail the ability of the nation's over 30,000 Local Franchising Areas (LFAs) to negotiate with video and broadband service providers.

At stake, argue the plaintiffs, is the degree to which local governments can require video providers to provide access to everyone.

"For instance, as outlined in the [lawsuit], one major new video provider plans to 'focus almost exclusively on affluent neighborhoods' with its service available to less than 5 percent of customers in 'low-value' neighborhoods," the coalition's press statement warns.

Viacom executives have spent much of the last two months lobbying the Federal Communication Commission's top brass on key broadcast regulation issues—at least nine meetings with the agency since early February.

On Thursday, March 15th, Viacom's CEO Philippe Dauman and Executive VP DeDe Lea met with FCC Chair Kevin Martin to extol Viacom's new deal with Joost - a beta-testing stage Web site that they described as "an online, broadcast-quality video service that will feature hundreds of hours of free, ad-supported Viacom content - much like traditional television."

"Without government intervention," Viacom's filed statement concludes, "Viacom content is migrating to the Internet and mobile phones, thereby providing consumers with greater choice in programming and pricing."

The comments did not mention whether the group discussed Viacom's request for government intervention in the case of Google's YouTube service. Viacom has sued Google for $1 billion for what it calls YouTube's "brazen disregard of the intellectual property laws" by facilitating the posting of thousands of Viacom videos.

The head of a Christian broadcasting association has filed fresh comments with the Federal Communications Commission calling for the agency to make cable services carry all multicast TV signals broadcast in the area.

"The single most important issue facing all independently owned stations is multicast must-carry/anti-stripping," Bob D'Andrea, President of the Christian Television Network (CTN), wrote to the FCC. "Without multicast must-carry/anti-stripping in digital television, smaller stations will struggle and local viewers may eventually lose access to valuable community oriented programs."

TV stations with digital signals can now "multicast"—broadcast more than one stream of video over their frequency. But cable companies want the right to relay what the law calls the "primary" signal, and that alone.

They're all but calling it the Magna Carta of video franchise reform: Federal Communications Commission Chair Kevin Martin's proposal to set limits on the power of cities and counties to grant video franchises. The FCC will vote on the matter on Wednesday.

"I strongly urge the Commission to stand for free markets and competition by supporting preemption of local franchising authority in a manner that creates a level playing field for all providers," tax-cut crusader Grover Norquist wrote to the FCC on December 13th. "To do so will be of great benefit to taxpayers and consumers."

Seven weeks after the Federal Communications Commission took the digital multicast television "must carry" question off its agenda, the big TV networks are back at the FCC's door on the contentious issue. Attorneys for CBS, ABC, and NBC filed a 21 page "white paper" with the agency yesterday that argues that the Commission can and must make cable companies run all digital TV signals provided by broadcasters.

"This paper concludes that the Commission has this authority," network lawyers say, "that both Congress and the Commission have repeatedly recognized that the Commission has this authority, and that Congress has repeatedly directed the Commission to exercise its authority for this very purpose."