The NAB, in reply comments to the FCC on the state of video compe...

The NAB, in reply comments to the FCC on the state of video competition (CD Sept 29 p9), said the Commission should take any claims by satellite carriers of capacity limits with “several pounds of salt.” The NAB said some satellite operators had said limits on capacity should preclude regulations on local-into-local carriage of all TV stations in all markets. “A careful parsing of the satellite industry’s alleged capacity limits as an excuse to avoid the imposition of additional carriage requirements reveals critical qualifiers that render these claimed limitations meaningless,” NAB said. Comcast wrote that deregulation had been an “indisputable success” and urged the FCC to discuss in its 10th annual report to Congress not just beneficial changes of deregulation but also ways regulation had hindered the process -- and to build a record for further deregulation. Fox, NBC/Telemundo, Viacom and Disney, in a joint reply, said comments by the American Cable Assn. (ACA) and Cox ignored principles of retransmission consent surrounding “good-faith negotiations.” The networks said ACA and Cox were using their comments to address “unfounded” retransmission consent grievances. “Cox and ACA simply want a free ride on some of the most valuable programming they carry -- the broadcast networks,” the networks wrote. They said bargaining proposals that included various forms of consideration in exchange for retransmission consent were “expressly permitted” by the FCC’s rules and benefited cable operators. ACA and Cox questioned tying agreements and what they called “forced carriage” of extraneous networks by the network companies. Consumer Federation of America (CFA), Consumers Union (CU) and several other consumer-oriented groups wrote in their joint reply that the video marketplace was dominated by “the whims of a few, powerful media gatekeepers” and that the industry was becoming increasingly concentrated. Independent program producers and others have been hurt by this, they wrote. They suggested the Commission take 3 steps: (1) Complete the cable horizontal ownership proceeding, reinstating the 35% ownership cap. (2) Reverse its “hands-off” policy on broadband by prohibiting service providers from interfering with content and allowing access to the cable plant by rival ISPs. (3) Take steps to prohibit cable MSOs or cable network programmers from requiring independent programmers “to agree to onerous contractual conditions related to striping credits.” The National Rural Telecom Co-op (NRTC) said competition couldn’t be determined accurately without knowing the number of homes that had access to both DBS and cable. While cable claims its service is ubiquitous, a number of rural areas don’t have access to cable, NRTC said, so the benefits of competition “may not be reaching up to 23 to 25 million households.” While the commitment by DirecTV and News Corp. to provide local channels in all markets as early as 2006 and no later than 2008 is positive, it said, the “difference between 2006 and 2008 remains significant.” SES Americom said its proposed Americom2Home platform would provide additional competition in the DBS market by expanding offerings and innovative services. It said it encouraged the Commission to study interference concerns raised by DirecTV, but “the DBS service employs frequency bands that have been internationally planned under the auspices of the [ITU]. Those band plans specify international coordination as the appropriate method for resolving all interference issues.” The company also said DirecTV was merely attempting to delay the entry of competing satellites with its recent petition for rulemaking on whether satellites should be licensed with spacing of less than 9 degrees. Meanwhile, the CEA said the recent adoption of the plug-&-play rules was good for the industry, but “the success of competitive provision relies on the competitively supplied devices.” CEA said the implementation of CableCards shouldn’t be postponed further than their July 1, 2006, implementation date: “It would be damaging to competition were cable operators able to charge an inflated price for the CableCards necessary to use competitively-acquired equipment.”