WASHINGTON—The National Association of Broadcasters has filed a wide-ranging rebuttal to proposals by the pay TV industry that the Federal Communications Commission delete and/or significantly change rules governing retransmission consent and carriage agreements with broadcasters.

The NAB also filed detailed comments on many of the tech and regulatory proposals it made in an early filing listing the regulations it would like to see eliminated or reduced.

The FCC’s deregulatory push and the creation of a docket for public comments called “In Re: Delete, Delete, Delete,” had made the agency's Docket 25-133 one of the most popular items on the agency’s website, with over 1,125 filings as of the morning of May 1. Those comments include lengthy filings and letters from the National Association of Broadcasters, the Society of Broadcast Engineers, state broadcasting associations, America’s Public Television Stations, PBS, Nexstar, Sinclair, Gray Media, Mission Broadcasting and many individual TV stations.

In response to the Delete, Delete, Delete effort, the NCTA, pay TV operators like EchoStar and other telecom groups have also filed proposals to reduce blackouts of stations during contentious negotiations for new retransmission consent or carriage agreements.

In an April 29 filing, the NAB again stressed that broadcasters are already excessively regulated and pushed for the elimination of all ownership caps.

“Part 73 of the CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] alone spans a whopping 423 pages – more than any other regulated service, and more than double the number in Part 76 covering multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs),” the NAB said. “The record in this proceeding is clear: The rules governing broadcasting are not only excessive, but they are also obsolete and counterproductive. They discourage investment, hinder innovation, and place broadcasters at a structural disadvantage … It is time to delete, delete, delete down to the core regulatory framework that supports innovation, investment, and choice for broadcasters and, most importantly, the audiences they serve.”

As part of that, the NAB would like the FCC to eliminate ownership caps, reduce rules that impede the transition to NextGen TV, to sunset ATSC 1.0 broadcasts, update EAS rules and reduce paperwork and rules relating to children’s programming, equal employment opportunity (EEO) rules and other areas.

However, the NAB blasted attempts by pay TV providers to change certain rules relating to retransmission and carriage negotiations.

“There are certain parties who support self-serving and anticompetitive proposals designed to keep broadcasters mired in the morass of existing regulations or even add to them to maintain their comparative advantage over TV and radio stations,” the NAB said. “In particular, NAB opposes the pay TV industry’s proposals concerning retransmission consent and other carriage issues that are unlawful, harmful to consumers, seek to increase regulation in contravention of the goals of this proceeding, or brazenly ask the commission to eliminate rules required by statute.”

More specifically, the NAB said pay TV “proposals for certain retransmission consent and other carriage-related ‘reforms’ are unlawful, contrary to the purpose of this proceeding or both.”

The NAB added: “A few pay TV commenters [have] … attempted to recast their past proposals for additional rules as proposals to delete rules … Virtually all these proposals have been advanced previously as part of pay TV providers’ longstanding strategy of seeking to artificially depress the fees they pay broadcasters for repackaging and reselling broadcast content. Because their proposals would advance pay TV providers’ efforts to stifle competition from television stations, harm consumers, and contravene both the Communications Act of 1934 (Act) and the goals of this proceeding, the Commission should decline to adopt them.”

In the filing, the NAB rebutted a large number of specific proposals by NCTA: The Television & Internet Association and other pay TV-backed groups. It also argued that EchoStar’s proposal that the FCC should allow satellite operator to import signals from other stations was “unlawful.” The EchoStar proposal would significantly strengthen pay TV operators' negotiating position in retransmission disputes.

“While NAB agrees that some of the rules should be eliminated to provide broadcasters with greater flexibility, others remain essential to ensuring quality service to the public and should be retained,” it concluded.

The filing also addressed a number of technical issues, including:

• Certain proposals by low-power FM radio (LPFM) advocates that could change the local nature of the service and increase the risk of interference to FM services;
• Significant concerns regarding proposed rule changes that would allow FM radio stations to operate from distributed transmitters instead of a single main transmitter.
• NAB said it supports allowing greater power and flexibility to ultra wideband (UWB) systems.
• It argued that Very Low Power (VLP) operations cannot avoid the requirement to include antennas in 6 GHz VLP Devices.
• NAB supported proposals concerning interference protection of TV channels 10 and 13 by PTC operations.
• It argued that FM allocation requirements should not be eliminated.
• Rules concerning FM6 LPTV stations should be retained, the NAB said.
• Special Temporary Authority (STA) filing requirements in the Licensing and Management System (LMS) should be eliminated for situations that have little potential for increasing interferenc, the NAB argued.
• The NAB said that the agency should reject requests to eliminate protections for TV channel 6, which "the commission has repeatedly determined to retain."
• Finally, the FCC should eliminate its White Space Devices rules, as this is a failed service that does not warrant continued inclusion, the filing said.

The full filing is available here.

WASHINGTON—When it comes to the deployment of ATSC 3.0 and the new services that it can provide to broadcasting and beyond, the NAB tells the FCC it should take a “light regulatory touch.”

On a call on Oct. 1, NAB spoke with the FCC Media Bureau on its Notice of Ex Parte Communication that deals with potential ATSC 3.0 regulations, specifically regarding new services that broadcasters could offer the public with the NextGen TV standard.

While broadcasters are taking a “broadcast first” approach to the ATSC 3.0 rollout, according to NAB, the new transmission standard will also provide new and innovative services to consumers.

“The commission’s policies should encourage broadcasters to continue to invest in their facilities to improve their ability to offer service to the public, not stifle innovation through unnecessary regulation,” NAB said. “Unlike their competitors in the wireless industry, broadcasters are funding this transition without the benefit of additional spectrum.”

NAB also made the case that there is no need to revisit the FCC’s previous decision not to impose new format requirements for broadcasters as part of the ATSC 3.0 transition. The association says the existing rules regarding derogation of service have had no issues, causing no reason to adjust them via the proceeding.

PLUS: Pubcasters Urge FCC to Update Rules to Foster Broadcast Internet

In addition, attempts by cable to put in retransmission consent issues into the proceeding are “irrelevant,” according to NAB. Citing similar previous efforts by the FCC, “[t]here is simply no reason for the commission to consider, let alone adopt, regulations to prevent a harm that has not yet materialized associated with services that are not yet being offered,” NAB said.

Any proposal to adjust the ancillary and supplemental service fee to subsidize the purchase of ATSC 3.0 compatible consumer equipment should be rejected, per NAB, calling it “complex, legally suspect and completely unnecessary.”

NAB’s full recap of the call is available online. 

WASHINGTON—FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly is an advocate for modernizing FCC regulations, and according to recent statements that should include shredding the current regulatory model for the broadcast industry.

O’Rielly was a speaker at the Media Institutes’ Luncheon Series, which took place virtually on July 29. Among the topics he spoke on was the need to deregulate legacy media companies so that they can more effectively compete in the ever-changing landscape. When it comes to broadcasting, he said the “level of overregulation is mind boggling.”

He asked why the FCC needed to regulate things like the placement of a broadcast tower as long as it doesn’t cause interference with an adjacent market? Or why the commission tells stations to maximize OTA listeners or viewers, arguing that it is already in their best interest to do so.

He cites how recent steps will help free up what he described as regulatory burdens facing broadcasters, like how the completion of the repack can put an end to license modification freezes. Also, he says that an update is needed for station waiver analysis, saying the current structure is outdated and doesn’t account for certain mergers that would provide increased local and live programming.

“In both instances, these changes to our rules could shift the focus to what truly matters to consumers: more and better locally focused programming,” O’Rielly said.

He also spoke on how removing regulations for the cable industry, like the franchise model, would help companies compete with OTT services that are often lightly regulated and are thriving in the current market. O’Rielly said he hopes that the FCC can close out all open media modernization proceedings before the end of the year so legacy media companies can operate in a “freer market.”

That is the type of setup that O’Rielly says NextGen TV is entering as it continues to roll out across the country. Broadcasters have been the ones making the decisions about their own deployment of ATSC 3.0 without regulatory permission. Because of this, O’Rielly says that how NextGen TV will be utilized will be determined by the market and consumer preferences.

Another free market that is changing the shape of the industry, as O’Rielly detailed, is OTT. With new streaming services popping up from major cable and broadcast networks, they are bypassing “stodgy, outdated FCC regulations,” describing it as a great time for consumers.

However, O’Rielly says that some regulators are slow to recognize the changing market and how things like OTT are impacting legacy providers. O’Rielly gives an example that when TV stations and radio stations in a market want to combine, the Department of Justice fails to acknowledge non-broadcast sales in its analysis when looking at relevant advertising market participants

The need for adaptation of FCC regulations is not just limited to marketplace issues, per O’Rielly, rules regarding diversity must also be looked at.

“No one should be able to say with a straight face that our rules meant to promote diversity have been anything but a complete failure,” O’Rielly said. He argues that removing current FCC limitations would allow for more minority investment and ownership.

The entirety of O’Rielly’s speech is available through the FCC website. 

WASHINGTON — FCC Chairman Ajit Pai previewed what to expect at the agency’s July 12 Open Meeting in his recent blog posting “Scoring a Victory for 5G,” including several issues of interest to broadcasters.

The United States must not rest on laurels won globally with the pace of its 4G LTE network deployments, he wrote. Rather, the FCC must take the next step to “ensure that America continues to lead the world in mobile innovation,” wrote Pai.

[Read: Pai Tells Broadcasters: More Modernization On The Way]

To that end, the FCC will consider a proposal to make “more intensive use” of the C Band (3.7 to 4.2 GHz) for 5G deployment. Commissioners will vote in July on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking looking for additional feedback on ideas stemming from a Notice of Inquiry on the matter.

The FCC also will vote on an order and proposed rules intended to stop and correct false emergency alerts. The item will allow state and local officials to conduct more effective EAS testing, and it seeks input from the public on ways to prevent and address false emergency alerts, Pai wrote.

Commissioners will advance the agency’s Modernization of Media Regulations Initiative, updating the broadcast regulations covering children’s programming. The agency will also consider an order establishing uniform procedural rules for formal complaint proceedings administered by the Enforcement Bureau, he wrote.

[Want more information like this? Subscribe to our newsletter and get it delivered right to your inbox.]

WASHINGTON—An investigation has been launched by the FCC’s Technological Advisory Council into FCC technical regulations and the processes used to develop them to see if decreased regulatory burden can be implemented. The FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology issued a public notice about the investigation on Thursday, Aug. 31, and is seeking comments about technical regulations and the regulatory process for adopting and updating them.

The TAC is looking to identify technical rules that may be obsolete or appropriate for change dependent on current communication technologies. There are seven areas that the TAC is looking for comments on:

1. Regulations that should be removed because they have become outdated, inhibit innovation or would be better handled by the involved parties. What would replace such regulations if they are removed?

2. Regulations that should be retained because they promote competition, protect incumbents from interference, regulate unlicensed frequencies, are necessary to comply with international agreements, or support the purpose of the FCC.

3. Regulations that should be modified because technical reporting requirements are too burdensome, data contained in the reports are no longer used, or existing regulation does not fully apply to new technology. If the technical requirements are too burdensome, should the FCC automate existing reporting or leverage other data or reporting from third parties or organizations?

4. Process to resolve competing interests: Is there a better way to media conflicts between different parties, perhaps that is quicker and does not require as many resources from interested parties? Is there potential for a ‘body’ other than the FCC to host this role and what are the legal impediments, if any, to delegating certain conflict mediations to other parties? How would a new process work?

5. Regulations that can be combined: What general principles that apply to all forms of a type of communication?

6. How should the FCC approach coordination between regulations and standards bodies or industry consortia? Should regulations be written by leveraging industry standards? How should the regulatory process (which must be available to all parts of our society) be tied to the standards update process? How would the requirement for public availability of documents related to federal rules be met when referenced standards are copyrighted? How can regular changes to standards upon which regulations are based be propagated to the rule making processes that are required when regulations are changed?

7. How can FCC work processes be best improved? Increasing use is made of external multi-stakeholder groups to develop complex technical requirements, systems, and procedures necessary to implement Commission service rules. How can the Commission leverage these efforts to accelerate the introduction of new technologies and services?

Those interested in filing comments may do so on any or all of the areas of focus by using either the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System or by filing paper copies. The deadline for submitting comments is going to be Oct. 30.

Read the complete public notice here.