FCC
Telecom Companies Are Using Fight Interrupting Oscar Ceremony Broadcast To Manipulate Public and FCC, Argue Broadcasters
SAN FRANCISCO – U.S. telecom companies are using a high profile programming dispute this March to manipulate public opinion to skew the rules regarding retransmission consent fees against the broadcasting industry, its lawyers argued in a filing with the Federal Communications Commission earlier this week.
“It is the petitioners themselves who are creating an artificial ‘problem’ and then asking the government to solve it,” according to the National Association of Broadcasters, and the associations for ABC, CBS, FBC and NBC affiliates.
SAN FRANCISCO – U.S. telecom companies are using a high profile programming dispute that broke into public view this March to influence the shaping of the rules regarding retransmission consent fees against the broadcasting industry, its lawyers argued in a filing with the Federal Communications Commission earlier this week.

The rules governing retransmission consent fees aren’t outdated, argue the National Association of Broadcasters, and a group of affiliate associations. Photo by: gbaku
“It is the petitioners themselves who are creating an artificial ‘problem’ and then asking the government to solve it,” according to the National Association of Broadcasters, and the associations for ABC, CBS, FBC and NBC affiliates.
The 139-page argument, packed with statistics, came in response to a petition signed this March by a group of non-profits, think tanks, the American Cable Association, and 10 of the 13 largest multichannel video programming distributors in the nation.
The fight between the broadcasters and the video distributors is of interest to lawmakers because cable rates are regulated by law and the sharp increases in pay TV rates over the years has been a concern to constituents.
The current petition came after a high profile incident just before the Oscar ceremonies this March when negotiations over retransmission consent fees between ABC and Cablevision broke down, leaving more than three million Cablevision customers in the New York City area without the channel for the day, and high and dry until the beginning of the ceremonies.
But the service interruption didn’t just spark off outrage among Oscar party hosts in the New York City region. It precipitated action by the cable, telecom and satellite TV companies, who charge that the broadcasters are abusing the rules laid down in a 1992 law to both extort ever-higher levels of compensation for the retransmission of their signals, and to force the inclusion of programming that the distributors’ customers don’t want — all resulting in ever-escalating monthly cable bills for those customers.
The broadcasters themselves point to a 2008 FCC report on cable industry prices that shows that the weighted average price of cable television service has increased by 163 percent between 1995 and 2008, while the Consumer Price Index increased by only 38.4 percent. The authors of the letter argue through detailed analysis how retransmission fees can’t be the source of this rise in cable bills. They also reference a 2003 Government Accountability Office Report that said it was a lack of competition, and not retransmission consent fees, that was to blame for rising cable bills.
But all these points are just a red herring, argues a telecom industry source. The prices are going up because the cost of paying for all the programming – for the copyright fees associated with the programs, as well as the fees for the signal, are increasing. Cable companies feel that they must have the programming from the broadcasters, but broadcasters will often only make their broadcast channel available on certain conditions.
“The broadcasters use the leverage of the retransmission consent negotiations to extract higher fees for all of their programming,” said the executive.
“Programming costs going up is definitely a result of retransmission consent fees … they are able to, by tying/connecting the licensing process of the other channels to the broadcast signal, charge higher fees for everything.”
For example, as part of some past retransmission consent compensation packages, broadcasters required cable companies to carry new channels.
“That’s how FX was launched, that’s how SOAPnet was launched, that’s how the FOOD Network was launched – these were all channels that were launched as compensation for retransmission consent.”
The petition asks the FCC to establish a “dispute resolution mechanism” when the two sides can’t reach an agreement over retransmission consent fees, and that the programming distributors should be allowed to continue carrying the broadcasters’ signals even if an agreement has not been reached by the time that their contracts have expired.
Retransmission consent fees are the cash fees and other forms of compensation that cable and satellite companies pay to broadcasters to carry their signals. Congress established the regulatory regime governing the marketplace through the 1992 Cable Act on the basis that cable companies were local monopolies.
But the programming distributors say that the marketplace has changed dramatically since 1992, and that they don’t have the monopoly market power that they wielded back then because of today’s increased competition between providers in the television marketplace.
That’s bunk, argue the broadcast industry’s lawyers, calling the coalition’s explanation of the 1992 Cable Act “revisionist history,” replete with “rhetorical hyperbole –not facts.”
“In the end, the petition is really about the fact that the pay TV industry preferred it when they could force television stations to give away their signals at a discounted rate or, in many cases, for free,” they argue.
But the bargain between all parties–the broadcasters, the video distributors and the public — is far more complex than what’s portrayed in the filing.
“When you look at the question of interim carriage, it’s very important to think about the public interest here,” shoots back the industry executive. “The copyright fees have already been paid to the creators and producers of the programming. The signal belongs to the public — it’s the retransmission of a broadcast signal, and the spectrum is the public’s asset, which broadcasters get for free, but for which they are charging.”
The broadcasters also argue that the ABC-Cablevision incident is a rare occurrence.
“In tens of thousands of retransmission and consent negotiations, there have been few showdowns, even fewer shutdowns, less than a handful of complaint adjudications by the Commission – just four in total – and zero findings by the Commission that a broadcast station has failed to negotiate in good faith or has otherwise abused the Commission’s rules or processes (the same, unfortunately, cannot be said with respect to MVPDs,)” write the broadcasters’ lawyers.
The lawyers recounted a radically different historical narrative than the one provided by the petitioners to bolster their argument that interim carriage is not something that can be even contemplated by the FCC.
“To the same extent a television station is not permitted to retransmit and resell the signal of another station without its consent, a cable system should not be permitted to retransmit or resell the signal of a television station without its consent,” they argue.
But this isn’t just another marketplace, argues the industry insider.
Because of the history of the development of the two markets, and the perception that cable was a monopoly, the rules governing the business negotiations between the two sides favors the broadcast industry while the cable industry is hamstrung by a thicket of rules that prevent them from searching out alternatives.
“It’s a marketplace where you’re going to the supermarket, and being told what you have to buy,” said the industry executive.
The petitioners include the American Cable Association, Cablevision, Charter Communications, DIRECTV, Dish Network, Public Knowledge, The New America Foundation, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon. Notably, it doesn’t include Comcast, which is in the process of buying NBC.
BroadbandBreakfast.com is hosting a panel discussion about retransmission fees and video program licensing issues June 8 at Clyde’s of Gallery Place in Washington, DC. The event is free and open to the public. Join us!
Leave a Reply
FCC
Senators Set Up Universal Service Fund Working Group, As Cruz Mounts Criticism of Broadband Program
A new Senate working group is set to consider reforms to the USF.

WASHINGTON, May 23, 2023 – Sens. Ben Lujan, D-N.M., and John Thune, R-S.D., announced a bipartisan Senate working group earlier this month that would evaluate and propose potential reforms to the Universal Service Fund and guide education, awareness, and policymaking on the topic.
The USF, funded through a tax on voice service providers, supports four programs that make telephone and broadband services affordable for low-income households, health care providers, and schools and libraries. The fund’s sustainability has been under pressure with voice service revenues declining as more Americans use broadband services.
The working group will consider the current state of the USF requirements and consider reforms that would ensure the Federal Communications Commission is able to achieve its mission of universal service across the United States.
“Every community deserves a pathway to an affordable, resilient, and secure internet connection, and strengthening the Universal Service Fund is a key part of delivering our promise to connect every corner of America,” said Luján in a statement.
Sen Shelley Capito, R-W.VA. said that, “All options need to be on the table to modernize and update the USF to encourage and maintain universal service with our sights set on a more responsible, predictable, and prudent USF.”
Joining them in the working group are Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Shelley Capito, R-W.Va., Gary Peters, D-Mitch., and Jerry Moran, R-Kan.
Competitive Carriers Association CEO Tim Donovan commended the announcement, saying “USF programs are critical for competitive carriers and the consumers they serve. Going forward, these programs must provide sustainable, predictable, and sufficient support.”
Congressional legislation addressing USF concerns
The announcement follows the reintroduction of the Funding Affordable Internet with Reliable Contributions Act in March by Sens. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., Ben Lugan, D-N.M., Todd Young, R-Ind., and Mark Kelly, D-Ariz.
The FAIR Act would direct the FCC to conduct a feasibility study on collecting contributions from internet edge providers. It has passed the house and has been received in the Senate, awaiting a vote.
Later in March, a bill was introduced in both chambers that would require the FCC within one year of the enactment to solidify rules to reform how the fund is supported and conduct a study on the need to broaden the fund’s base. The Reforming Broadband Connectivity Act of 2023 is a version of a similar bill introduced in 2021.
In August, the FCC submitted a letter to Congress, urging it to “provide the commission with the legislative tools needed to make changes to the contributions methodology and base” for the USF.
Currently, there is “significant ambiguity in the record regarding the scope of the commission’s existing authority to broaden the base of contributors,” read the report. The FCC called for more power to make the necessary changes to support the program over the long term.
Ted Cruz takes USF management to task
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., said in his opening statements to a Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Media and Broadband hearing on May 11 that the USF is unshackled from congressional control and the FCC has avoided accountability for its “wasteful” and “ineffective” spending.
By this time, the fifth and sixth circuit appeals courts ruled in favor of the FCC when they denied a challenge to the commission’s authority in collecting money for the USF. Consumers’ Research alleged that the FCC was unconstitutionally delegating a private entity, the Universal Service Administrative Company, to help run USF programs. The court overruled the opinion, claiming that “Congress chose to ‘confer substantial discretion’ over administration of the USF to the FCC.”
Cruz said the FCC has never held a commission-level vote on a USF tax increase, instead choosing to passively enable hikes through a bureaucratic process, claimed Cruz in his remarks. The FCC has a couple of weeks to either approve or challenge the amount determined by USAC that needs to be collected from voice service providers.
“All told, the FCC has spent more than $156 billion on USF programs over the past twenty years. It’s unclear what American consumers have to show for it—other than higher phone bills,” Cruz said.
It is past due for Congress to get USF spending under control, he said. The solution is not to expand the base as it would not address the USF’s “underlying accountability failures.”
He called for Congress to consider all options of USF reform, “including subjecting it to the appropriations process, eliminating duplicative programs, and preserving only those efforts that demonstrate quantifiable benefits for American consumers.
“It has imposed ever-increasing tax burdens on American consumers without sufficient checks and balances or oversight from Congress,” he wrote, claiming that the USF has morphed into a “regressive, hidden tax.”
Similarly, the FCC “claims the new ACP program is successful but offers no data showing it has increased broadband adoption among low-income Americans as intended,” he said, claiming that the FCC is not responsibly managing the funds and rejecting the suggestion to increase FCC legislative authority. The ACP provides a monthly discount of up to $30 and $75 on tribal lands for connectivity.
FCC
Biden Announces Anna Gomez as Nominee for Fifth FCC Commissioner
Biden announces new FCC commissioner nomination following Sohn’s withdrawal.

WASHINGTON, May 22, 2023 – President Joe Biden announced Monday his intention to nominate experienced telecommunications attorney Anna Gomez as commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.
Democrat Gomez currently serves as a senior advisor for international information and communications policy in the State Department’s Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy. She served as the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Deputy Administrator from 2009 to 2013 and spent over a decade in various positions at the FCC.
If voted in by the Senate, she would break the party deadlock of two Democrat and two Republican commissioners.
In a statement, Gomez thanked Biden for the “honor” and said she is “humbled and grateful. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Chairwoman [Jessica Rosenworcel] and my fellow Commissioners to bring the benefits of modern communications to all.”
Gomez “brings with her a wealth of telecommunications experience, a substantial record of public service, and a history of working to ensure the U.S. stays on the cutting edge of keeping us all connected. I wish her all the best during the confirmation process,” read a statement from Rosenworcel of the nominations.
Several trade associations, including the NCTA – the Internet and Television Association, the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, Competitive Carriers Association, and the Satellite Safety Alliance, released comments Monday to congratulate Gomez on her nomination and support Biden’s step to empower the FCC.
Doris Matsui, D-C.A., ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, released a statement commending the choice. “Gomez is the right choice to serve as our next FCC commissioner,” she said.
The FCC has been in a party deadlock for Biden’s entire presidency as a result of the Senate’s inability to vote on his first nomination, Gigi Sohn. Sohn’s nomination was announced in October 2021 but was never voted in because of criticism from Republican and moderate Democrat senators.
She withdrew her candidacy earlier this year, citing lawmaker attacks on her career, and is now serving as executive director of the American Association for Public Broadband.
Starks and Carr renominated
Biden’s also outlined his intention to renominate Democrat Geoffrey Starks and Republican Brendan Carr, both current commissioners, for another five-year term.
Regarding the renomination of Carr, Rosenworcel said, “from improving network resiliency in light of destructive hurricanes to keeping our networks safe in the face of evolving threats, the FCC has benefitted from his public service.”
Of Starks, she said that “he has been a consistent advocate for expanding the reach of communications and the opportunities of the digital age to all.”
“I look forward to working with a full complement of FCC Commissioners to advance our mission to connect everyone, everywhere,” she concluded.
FCC
FCC Votes for Foreign Telecom Ownership Reporting, Emergency Alert Flexibility
Thursday’s vote requires a one-time foreign ownership reporting requirement.

WASHINGTON, April 20, 2023 – The Federal Communications Commission voted unanimously Thursday to move forward on a proposal requiring carriers operating in the country to report their ownership information more regularly, enhance accessibility and flexibility with wireless emergency alerts, and improve the spectrum environment for new entrants and technologies.
To further combat insidious national security threats, the commission immediately ordered at its open meeting Thursday a one-time reporting requirement for telecommunications companies with section 214 authorization, which allows them to transact in the country, to report foreign ownership information. In essence, the new order will provide the commission with an updated look at the ownership picture of these authorized companies. The commission has expressed concern that it is not updated regularly about firm ownership because under the current rules, a company is only required to update the commission with ownership information when there has been a modification, transfer of control or discontinuance of service.
“There are consequences for failing to file accurate or timely information with the FCC about changes related to foreign involvement in companies with access to U.S. communications networks,” Loyaan Egal, chief of the FCC’s enforcement bureau, said in a press release. “When it comes to assessing U.S. national security and law enforcement interests, we will be vigilant in ensuring that companies comply with these important disclosure requirements,” including Thursday’s one-time reporting order. The commission has noted previous settlements it obtained from companies that had failed to get prior authorization for changes in the control of companies.
The regulator also voted at the same time to collect comments on a proposal that would require these companies to report more regularly on ownership changes. Specifically, the commission is looking at either adopting rules requiring companies to renew their section 214 authority every 10 years or requiring them to periodically update information about the companies.
The commission is simultaneously asking for comments on further proposed measures, including requiring section 214 applicants to provide information about expected future services and geographic markets they intend to serve; requiring applicants to identify on a periodic basis the facilities they use in Canada and/or Mexico; require them to commit to adhere to baseline cybersecurity standards; require them to certify in their applications whether or not they use equipment from a blacklist of companies deemed a national security risk; and require a lower threshold to report foreign stakeholder ownership, from 10 to 5 percent.
The latter drew a complaint from two investment firms, one of them notably represented by former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai in a meeting with agency commissioners last week. The concern was that the lower reporting threshold would deter investment in their firms, which bankroll telecom investment, because there is a presumption of confidentiality with their financial contributions.
Wireless emergency alert accessibility and flexibility
The commission also voted Thursday to initiate a consultation on proposed rules that would increase the accessibility and flexibility of wireless emergency alerts.
The FCC notes that 26 million people in the United States do not speak as their primary language English or Spanish, which are the only two languages in which these alerts are sent. As such, the commission is proposing the alerts be translated on mobile devices into the 13 “most commonly spoken languages” in the country other than English.
Other proposals include allowing for the alerts to feature a small image of a child missing during an AMBER alert, include links to locations where emergency situations are, providing alerting authorities with the ability to send messages without the blaring sound, and providing subscribers with the option of receiving alerts with sound or just phone vibrations.
One complaint of emergency alerts has been consumers getting loud alerts in the middle of the night where the emergency was not in their area.
Comments on the proposals are due within 30 days of publication on the federal register.
More efficient use of spectrum
The commission also adopted a policy statement that would commit the regulator to a “holistic” spectrum policy framework that it said would better facilitate new entrants and technologies.
Central to spectrum’s use is its delivery without causing interference with other services, including with adjacent radiowaves on the frequency spectrum. Historically, the commission has required new wireless services to bear the load of showing that they would not cause interference with existing services in any situation. Older receivers did not need to meet specific design or performance criteria, according to the commission.
Thursday’s policy statement, while still requiring that burden on new providers, would also require existing services to update their receivers to comply with modern realities.
“Accordingly, we encourage stakeholders to design receivers that not only meet their services’ needs, but also mitigate the impacts from undesired signals outside of their services’ assigned frequencies,” the commission said.
“Further, as new receiver technologies are developed with improved interference immunity, and as legacy equipment is being replaced over time, we encourage service providers periodically to deploy receivers that reflect the latest technical improvements,” it added.
In a statement, internet advocacy group Public Knowledge said this is a welcome effort to promote a more balanced approach to spectrum management.
“Today, legacy systems too often prevent innovation because they rely on outdated assumptions and have not been upgraded to reflect the current environment, limiting our ability to make full use of our spectrum resources,” said the organization’s policy counsel Kathleen Burke. “For far too long, our approach to new technology has focused solely on the new systems without any thought to how incumbent systems can make more room on our spectrum airwaves.”
“Upgrading outdated systems and equipment to increase spectrum access is one of the most overlooked aspects of spectrum management – presenting a prime opportunity for re-evaluating our policies in light of technological advancements,” Burke added. “This new policy statement embraces a fair approach to managing our spectrum resources by finally adopting the principles that minimizing harmful interference is a mutual obligation of band entrants and incumbents and that no spectrum user has a guarantee of zero interference.”
-
Broadband Mapping & Data4 weeks ago
Video of CostQuest CEO Jim Stegeman at Digital Infrastructure Investment Summit
-
Open Access3 weeks ago
AT&T Closes Open Access Fiber Deal With BlackRock
-
Broadband Roundup3 weeks ago
Starlink Likes FCC Direction on 12 GHz, Verizon & Comcast Urge ACP Funding, FCC Head on ACP Tour
-
Expert Opinion2 weeks ago
Scott Wallsten: A $10 Billion Broadband Black Hole?
-
#broadbandlive4 weeks ago
Broadband Breakfast on May 10, 2023 – GUMBO and Louisiana’s Broadband Progress
-
5G3 weeks ago
Crown Castle CEO Says 5G Plus Fixed Wireless Can Rival Fiber Connections
-
Broadband Roundup3 weeks ago
New ACP Landing Page, Cellular Association Wants More Mid-Band Spectrum, New Ezee Fiber CEO
-
Digital Inclusion2 weeks ago
Debra Berlyn: Creating a Path to Close the Digital Divide for Older Adults
Pingback: Tweets that mention BroadbandBreakfast.com: Telecom Companies Are Using Fight Interrupting Oscar Ceremonies To Manipulate Public and FCC, Argue Broadcasters -- Topsy.com
Pingback: The Facts You Need To Know About Satellite Radio – Part 1 | Long Range Two Way Radios