An NAB-criticized Incompas/NTCA survey was never meant to be a broad measure of the video market, but was intended to "demonstrate the reality" members face as access to programming remains a large hurdle to serving residential customers, the telecom associations said in an FCC filing posted Tuesday in docket 15-216. The aim was to partially quantify anecdotes the groups had been hearing for years, and did its job "as it reaffirms the direct link between the offering of video programming and broadband adoption rates, the challenges small businesses and new entrants face when trying to negotiate content contracts and provides a percentage comparison between the rising costs of broadcast and non-broadcast content," Incompas and NTCA said. NAB had criticized the survey as flawed and devoid of any evidence of a dysfunctional video market (see 1510290027) -- criticisms Incompas and NTCA called "inflammatory language and specious accusations." That content costs climb while consumer choice has increased demonstrates market failure, Incompas and NTCA said. They urged NAB to talk to members about waiving nondisclosure clauses in contracts "so that the public and policy makers can finally see for themselves how this 'marketplace' is really working." An NAB spokesman Tuesday said the organization "is not in the business of dictating contractual terms of retransmission contracts for our member companies. However, we do believe that if we polled our members, we would find unanimous frustration with how pay TV companies are using their customers as pawns in attempting to create a retrans crisis, hoping against hope that the FCC will inject itself into private, free-market negotiations that almost always end successfully.”

An NAB-criticized Incompas/NTCA survey was never meant to be a broad measure of the video market, but was intended to "demonstrate the reality" members face as access to programming remains a large hurdle to serving residential customers, the telecom associations said in an FCC filing posted Tuesday in docket 15-216. The aim was to partially quantify anecdotes the groups had been hearing for years, and did its job "as it reaffirms the direct link between the offering of video programming and broadband adoption rates, the challenges small businesses and new entrants face when trying to negotiate content contracts and provides a percentage comparison between the rising costs of broadcast and non-broadcast content," Incompas and NTCA said. NAB had criticized the survey as flawed and devoid of any evidence of a dysfunctional video market (see 1510290027) -- criticisms Incompas and NTCA called "inflammatory language and specious accusations." That content costs climb while consumer choice has increased demonstrates market failure, Incompas and NTCA said. They urged NAB to talk to members about waiving nondisclosure clauses in contracts "so that the public and policy makers can finally see for themselves how this 'marketplace' is really working." An NAB spokesman Tuesday said the organization "is not in the business of dictating contractual terms of retransmission contracts for our member companies. However, we do believe that if we polled our members, we would find unanimous frustration with how pay TV companies are using their customers as pawns in attempting to create a retrans crisis, hoping against hope that the FCC will inject itself into private, free-market negotiations that almost always end successfully.”

Several broadcast, cable and media companies are opposing new FCC rules on the handling of confidential information and subsequent American Cable Association (ACA), Dish Network and Incompas opposition (see 1510260030) to a petition for reconsideration of those rules. That opposition ignores many of the arguments justifying reconsideration and often just parrots the reasoning in the order itself, said CBS, Disney, MPAA, Scripps Networks Interactive, Time Warner, 21st Century Fox, Univision Communications, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Viacom in a filing in docket 15-149 posted Monday. The FCC's September order "suffers from significant substantive and procedural errors," and opposition to reconsideration -- like the order itself -- is mistaken when it thinks the Communications Act and Trade Secrets Act allows the agency to make confidential business information broadly available either under a protective order or through the Freedom of Information Act, said Comcast and NBCUniversal in a separate filing posted Monday. The FCC didn't comment.

Several broadcast, cable and media companies are opposing new FCC rules on the handling of confidential information and subsequent American Cable Association (ACA), Dish Network and Incompas opposition (see 1510260030) to a petition for reconsideration of those rules. That opposition ignores many of the arguments justifying reconsideration and often just parrots the reasoning in the order itself, said CBS, Disney, MPAA, Scripps Networks Interactive, Time Warner, 21st Century Fox, Univision Communications, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Viacom in a filing in docket 15-149 posted Monday. The FCC's September order "suffers from significant substantive and procedural errors," and opposition to reconsideration -- like the order itself -- is mistaken when it thinks the Communications Act and Trade Secrets Act allows the agency to make confidential business information broadly available either under a protective order or through the Freedom of Information Act, said Comcast and NBCUniversal in a separate filing posted Monday. The FCC didn't comment.

Verizon opposed FCC intervention and defended its “special construction” practices against competitor allegations that ILECs are overcharging for adding facilities to provide special-access business services. Responding to customer concerns, Verizon revised its procedures and “substantially reduced the volume of special-construction quotes” for service over DS1 circuits while giving customers more information, the telco said in a filing posted Friday in docket 05-25 noting it absorbs many construction costs. Verizon took issue with a recent Windstream filing that elaborated on -- and urged ILEC compliance with -- a May proposal by Incompas (formerly Comptel) for allowing special-construction charges in certain situations. “Disguised as a clarification of Incompas’s proposal, Windstream’s latest proposal materially changes the Incompas proposal,” Verizon said. “Windstream adds to the Incompas proposal many scenarios under which an ILEC could never charge special construction, regardless of facilities availability or a willingness to certify to no future re-use for retail.” Verizon said Windstream and others want to shift construction costs onto ILECs for delivering “deregulated Ethernet facilities,” which they don’t ask of cable providers. Verizon also said ethernet special construction isn't a common-carrier service, disputing Incompas arguments to the contrary. Noting its 2006 ethernet forbearance relief, Verizon said it’s under no obligation to provide ethernet services under any circumstances. Verizon said it was irrelevant that it didn’t specifically mention special construction in its ethernet forbearance requests. “If Verizon can turn down requests for service even where it maintains facilities, it certainly may do so where it has no facilities,” the telco said. “If it decides it wants to offer Ethernet services where it does not have facilities, Verizon offers them on a privately negotiated commercial basis, can condition that offer on the customer’s payment of some or all of the construction costs, and can negotiate with the customer concerning an acceptable price.” Verizon said special-construction charges had never been tariffed, so the FCC “cannot have greater authority to regulate these prices following forbearance than it had before.” In its filing, Windstream suggested the FCC issue a public notice or declaratory ruling to provide guidance. “Unjustified ILEC special construction charges erect an unduly high cost barrier to competitive carriers’ and their customers’ migration to new services, and often cause customers to forego orders with competitive carriers,” Windstream said. CLECs believe an ILEC “cannot assess special construction charges on the purchasing CLEC (or its end-user customer) that the ILEC would not assess on its own retail customer requesting the same service for the same location,” Windstream said. Verizon said it applies the same special-construction policies to retail and wholesale customers.

Incompas and NTCA efforts to influence the dialogue in retransmission consent reform have been "empty" and lacking any real evidence of a failing video market, NAB said in an FCC filing posted Thursday in docket 15-216. It responded to a joint Incompas/NTCA survey released earlier this month supposedly showing deep problems in the video market (see 1510200049). NAB said the survey of Incompas and NTCA members was "far from scientific" and overflowing with flaws, "starting with the fact that it was obviously conducted to produce a policy-driven outcome." The language used in the survey results seems to point to the survey using particularly loaded language, and it didn't include questions that would have undermined a narrative that blames broadcasters, NAB said. The questions not asked include inquiring about profitability of voice and broadband services, about broadband subscriber trends, and about how ratings play into programmer payments. While the survey asked about retrans negotiations, NAB said, "apparently no such questions were asked about ... negotiations with non-broadcast programmers." Nor did the survey give hard data about retransmission fees, the group said: "There is a far cry from describing a rate increase as '100%' versus detailing the actual figures," which could be pennies. NAB also criticized Incompas and NTCA's argument that retrans fees hurt broadband adoption rates, because "causation is tenuous, to say the least, especially consider how many other costs are baked into a consumer's pay TV bill ... including but certainly not limited to the cost of nonbroadcast programming and the sky-rocketing costs to lease or buy mandatory in-home equipment."

Incompas and NTCA efforts to influence the dialogue in retransmission consent reform have been "empty" and lacking any real evidence of a failing video market, NAB said in an FCC filing posted Thursday in docket 15-216. It responded to a joint Incompas/NTCA survey released earlier this month supposedly showing deep problems in the video market (see 1510200049). NAB said the survey of Incompas and NTCA members was "far from scientific" and overflowing with flaws, "starting with the fact that it was obviously conducted to produce a policy-driven outcome." The language used in the survey results seems to point to the survey using particularly loaded language, and it didn't include questions that would have undermined a narrative that blames broadcasters, NAB said. The questions not asked include inquiring about profitability of voice and broadband services, about broadband subscriber trends, and about how ratings play into programmer payments. While the survey asked about retrans negotiations, NAB said, "apparently no such questions were asked about ... negotiations with non-broadcast programmers." Nor did the survey give hard data about retransmission fees, the group said: "There is a far cry from describing a rate increase as '100%' versus detailing the actual figures," which could be pennies. NAB also criticized Incompas and NTCA's argument that retrans fees hurt broadband adoption rates, because "causation is tenuous, to say the least, especially consider how many other costs are baked into a consumer's pay TV bill ... including but certainly not limited to the cost of nonbroadcast programming and the sky-rocketing costs to lease or buy mandatory in-home equipment."

Broadcasters seeking extended deadlines in the "totality of circumstances" test rulemaking are facing a bigger fight, with Incompas, ITTA, NTCA and Public Knowledge now resisting the motion. The Incompas et al. opposition posted Wednesday in docket 15-216 joins similar pushback posted earlier this week from the American Television Alliance (see 1510260025). While broadcasters have said they need more time while they deal with spectrum auction issues, "both Congress and the Commission have provided sufficient notice of this proceeding and consumers have waited long enough for a resolution to address the increasing number of disputes ... over retransmission consent agreements," the groups said. Such a delay "would maintain the status quo [for multichannel video programming distributors] who have had to deal with exorbitant price increases for both broadcast and non-broadcast programming, as well as for their customers who have seen these increases reflected in their monthly billing statements," Incompas et al. said. Since the FCC adopted the NPRM in September and a summary was published Oct. 2 in the Federal Register, they said, "the notice ... has been more than sufficient for parties to gather information and prepare comments and an additional 60-day delay cannot be justified."

Incumbent telcos opposed the FCC's tech transition proposals for assessing the adequacy of IP-based services intended to replace legacy copper-based phone services being discontinued. They said the commission’s proposed standards could slow the IP transition and broadband deployment, with AT&T suggesting it would be unlawful. Rural carriers asked the agency to clarify that they were covered by a rural exemption. But competitors, consumer groups, public safety groups, state regulators, electric power groups and others voiced varying degrees of support for proposed criteria, and some suggested additional criteria, including on affordability.

Describing the FCC's protective order for confidential information as "an appropriate balance between the competitive concerns and the more general public interest," American Cable Association (ACA), Dish Network and Incompas are opposing a petition for reconsideration of those rules. Some content companies and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce earlier this month petitioned the agency to vacate its order allowing confidential contract information to be shared with third parties during the merger review process (see Ref:1510130065]). But the arguments they used citing the Trade Secrets Act and the FCC standards under the Freedom of Information Act don't prevent the FCC from such confidential materials rules, ACA, Dish and Incompas said in their opposition posted Monday in docket 15-149; the "persuasive showing" standard isn't required when the Communications Act allows such disclosure, and the Trade Secrets Act comes into play only when disclosure is not authorized by law, but federal law authorizes the agency to permit such disclosures. Data about negotiations, programming practices and the business arrangements of Charter, Bright House Networks and Time Warner Cable "is particularly important in this proceeding," the three said. Charter/TWC/BHN will have "an increased incentive and ability to strong arm third party programmers" into shutting out competing over-the-top services, plus "increased ability and incentive" to deny such affiliated content as Discovery and Starz to competing video distributors, the three said. Since the FCC on Sept. 11 issued an order setting new rules for the handling of confidential information, numerous entities have filed in docket 15-149 indicating they seek access to the confidential and highly confidential information filed in the proceeding, including ACA, Charter Communications, Dish Network, Free Press, Hawaiian Telecom Services, Incompas, New York State Public Service Commission and Zoom Telephonics.