'All-In' Pricing Proposal Sees Video Provider Jeers, LFA Cheers
Cable and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) interests are all out against the FCC's proposed "all-in" video pricing disclosure rules for video service providers, while local franchise authorities and allies are all in, per docket 23-203 comments posted Tuesday. The all-in pricing NPRM was adopted in June (see 2306200042).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Congress already requires transparent pricing disclosures at the point of sale and in billing, via the TV Viewer Protection Act, and some cable operators exceed the law's requirements in their pricing disclosures, NCTA said. ACA Connects called the NPRM "a missed opportunity to address ... exploitative practices of large broadcasters and regional sports networks that have saddled consumers with inflated, ever-increasing prices for cable service." It said the all-in proposal would "redirect consumers away from the source of their inflated rates" and cause consumer confusion. It said the agency should focus on the real need -- retransmission revisions.
The all-in pricing proposal "will inadvertently undermine" its goals of transparency that allows better price shopping and prevention of providers implying add-on programming fees are taxes, DirecTV said. It would create confusion by requiring a single price in national ads, even though prices differ depending on where a subscriber lives, and complicate promotional offerings, it said. It suggested instead the agency require ads and bills to be accurate and disclose the price of related programming fees "clearly and conspicuously and in close proximity to the listed price." If the FCC pursues its all-in pricing proposal, it should exempt national ads and let providers describe varying price structures, it said.
Citing an "already hypercompetitive" video marketplace, Verizon said the FCC shouldn't regulate billing, especially since streaming competitors wouldn't be subject to the FCC rules. The NPRM lacks evidence billing practices are hurting consumers, while ignoring the risk of consumer confusion if the proposal is adopted, it said. All-in pricing rules should exempt legacy or grandfathered plans no longer being offered to new subs, it said.
Local government interests, including Boston, NATOA and Fairfax County, Virginia, said the all-in pricing should include cable franchise fees, so they would be "denied the facade of blaming increases on programming costs or the government." They said there also should be a mandatory disclosure at least 30 days before a price change, so consumers have the opportunity to cancel service in time to avoid a price hike. Seattle urged the FCC to require video service providers to have local series and rates available. The city said a common cable practice is to keep the price of basic cable service "misleadingly low" by shifting expenses to obligatory separate fees.
Local franchise authorities are "all too aware that cable operators’ additional 'fees' and 'surcharges' are easily mistaken for government-imposed fees when, in fact, they're operator-imposed charges that have been misleadingly itemized outside the price for cable services," said a group of localities including Oklahoma City and Minneapolis, backing all-in pricing. Related video programming and equipment fees should be included in the all-in pricing, said Consumer Reports and Public Knowledge. The pricing disclosure should apply to legacy plans, the two groups said, urging the agency to ban line itemization of provider-imposed fees.
Let -- but don't require -- video service providers list a line-by-line breakdown of costs attributable to retrans fees, said NTCA. Retrans consent agreements routinely include nondisclosure clauses barring providers from disclosing the amount paid per sub, it said. But having that data "will go a long way toward [pro-consumer transparency] as consumers will have the ability to compare the cost of receiving the channels they are interested in receiving from across the many different platforms that offer video services," it said.
Backing the all-in pricing proposal, NAB said it should be expanded to cover telecommunications carriers providing MVPD service.
There also was wide disagreement on whether the FCC has authority to require all-in pricing. DirecTV said Section 335 of the Communications Act, on DBS service obligations, doesn't give the agency authority to require all-in pricing. The Oklahoma City-Minneapolis group said the agency has authority under the Cable Act's Section 632 for customer service requirements of cable operators. But NCTA said Section 632 governs cable operators' communications with subscribers, and thus confers no authority to the agency on advertising requirements.