Notice 243. In the Notice, we asked whether open video system operators should be permitted to engage in the joint marketing and bundling of their video service, along with other services, such as local and interexchange telephone and data transmission services. Certain commenters expressed concern over open video system operators engaging in joint marketing and bundling. For instance, NCTA argued that joint marketing would give a telephone company an unfair marketing advantage deriving solely from its position as the monopoly supplier of an essential service. Until local telephone service is "effectively competitive," NCTA proposed, an incumbent LEC should be required to provide the name, address and telephone number of the local cable operator if it wishes to market video services to customers calling to request telephone service. Regarding bundling, AT&T, for instance, argued that where one of the products to be bundled is not competitive, such bundling can inhibit competition by allowing the monopoly provider to create bundled offerings that cannot be matched by providers of the competitive services. 244. By contrast, some commenters argued that the Commission should not prohibit joint marketing and bundling because they provide the open video system operator with mechanisms to tailor services to meet the unique competitive and consumer needs of individual markets by providing consumers with a comprehensive package of communications services. Moreover, USTA asserted that joint marketing and bundling are conveniences for consumers because they permit "one stop shopping." 245. Similarly, some commenters argued that a separate subsidiary requirement is required by Section 272 of the 1996 Act and is necessary to protect against the dangers of discrimination and cross-subsidy by LECs. According to one commenter, "the LEC will still have the incentive to cross-subsidize, [but] its ability to do so will be restrained" if the establishment of a separate subsidiary is required. Other commenters, however, argued that a separate subsidiary requirement is not only unnecessary, but is contrary to both the plain language of the 1996 Act and the intent of Congress. � 2. Discussion a. Joint Marketing 246. Section 653 is silent on the issue of joint marketing. The Act does, however, expressly impose joint marketing restrictions on telephone companies in other contexts. Given that these Sections were all enacted as part of the 1996 Act, we find it a significant indication of Congre...
