WASHINGTON—In a new filing with the Federal Communications Commission, the NAB again urged the agency to adopt policies that would reduce the cost of viewing major sporting events by having them air on broadcast TV. It also blasted the Consumer Technology Association’s defense of streaming platforms that have in recent years acquired many major sports rights.
The NAB made the comments in response to an FCC probe into Sports Broadcasting Practices and Marketplace Developments (MB Docket No. 26-45) that is seeking public comments on a wide variety of issues relating to sports rights and the rising cost of accessing games by consumers.
The inquiry has generated more than 8,600 comments. Those comments are available here.
In its April 13 reply comments, the NAB noted that “the public overwhelmingly agrees with NAB’s views. Commenters of all stripes venerated broadcast media’s consistent, affordable environment for airing live sports programming to all consumers. They also lamented the migration of live sports programming behind paywalled pureplay streaming services. The main contrarian who seems to think higher prices and hard-to-find content are actually good for consumers is the ironically named Consumer Technology Association (CTA). While CTA professes to promote a “consumer-first” mindset, in reality, it only cares about pushing more devices on consumers – even if consumers end up paying thousands of dollars for multiple paywalled pureplay streaming services that make their live sports content harder to find.”
The CTA’s reply comments weren’t immediately available on the FCC website but its original comments stressed the importance of letting the market determine the distribution of sports rights and the FCC’s lack of authority to regulate who airs major sports. The group, which is backed by major consumer electronics companies, also stressed that the rise in popularity of streaming services has also greatly expanded the amount and diversity of sports now available on TV.
“The free market delivers more choices for consumers to view a greater diversity of sports on a wider variety of devices,” the CTA’s March 27 filing argued. “As CTA often states, consumers should choose their own video choices, not a select group of broadcasters and not the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC). The marketplace for sports media shows how a consumer-first mindset that maximizes choice and minimizes the need for government regulatory intervention supports new video services and features that benefit consumers. Americans now view many sports contests that have never been available on traditional broadcast television (or any traditional media platform) on their new smart TV, phone, tablet, or other device. The private marketplace functions to deliver sports fans the content they desire wherever and however they want to view it, and regulatory intervention will not benefit consumers. The Commission also lacks legal authority to regulate the content delivered over online services or their contractual arrangements. There is neither a need nor a legal basis for the FCC to regulate sports programming provided over streaming services.”
In its reply comments, the NAB continued to highlight the benefits of live sports on broadcast TV for fans and leagues alike by arguing that global streaming platforms lock games behind paywalls and create an expensive and confusing viewing experience.
In addition the NAB stressed that live sports support broadcast stations’ ability to provide local content, including news, weather and emergency coverage, by generating crucial revenues and expanding viewership.
In contrast, the shift toward exclusive streaming is driving up costs and confusion for fans, the NAB argued, citing data that a single league or team can now require fans to purchase multiple subscriptions, creating a system that is both expensive and difficult to navigate.
Referring to thousands of comments by sports fans complaining about the cost of streaming sports, the NAB concluded that “the record overwhelmingly supports what NAB explained in our comments: Broadcast TV is the best medium for airing live sports programming. Broadcast TV delivers affordable, accessible, and reliable live sports programming to communities across the country. And live sports programming, in turn, supports the local news and other local programming. By contrast, streaming services impose high costs, create consumer confusion, and diminish access to live sports, and the migration of live sports programming behind paywalled streaming services deprives the public of broadcast TV’s public interest-oriented programming…The Commission should support broadcasters by modernizing the national and local ownership rules and the rules required to complete the ATSC 3.0 transition and take a fresh look at whether the Sports Broadcasting Act is still required.”
The full filing is available here.
