The main lobbying arm of the commercial television and radio industry and an industry group representing some national networks and streaming video platforms are reaffirming their positions on a controversial plan under consideration at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Late last month, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) released its outline of key policy matters it would push on Capitol Hill throughout the year, which included a call that the FCC “refresh the record” on whether streaming television services should be reclassified as multi-video programming distributors, or MVPDs, in the realm as traditional cable and satellite providers.
Last year, a group of broadcasters banded together to form the “Coalition for Local News,” a trade organization that is pushing the FCC to impose cable-like retransmission consent rules on streaming pay television services like Fubo, YouTube TV, Hulu with Live TV and DirecTV Stream., all of which carry broadcast channels affiliated with ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC.
For several years, the broadcasters allowed those national networks to negotiate carriage of their stations on streaming services, opting instead to focus on retransmission consent agreements with cable and satellite providers. But as more Americans turn away from traditional cable in favor of streaming services, broadcasters now want to capitalize on the trend — but the early way of doing business essentially cut them out of critical retransmission consent revenue, they argue.
The broadcasters say they can recoup some of that lost revenue by negotiating directly with streaming TV services that offer their channels, but only if the FCC imposes those cable-like rules on them.
While many of those broadcast organizations hold membership with NAB, that group has not weighed in one way or another on the matter. Instead, it has encouraged the FCC to revisit a 2014 proposal that would have imposed cable-like carriage rules on streaming services. The FCC has not taken up the matter since.
“The FCC’s vMVPD proceeding is still open a decade later and has not been updated even though significant marketplace developments have occurred,” the NAB wrote on a webpage outlining its 2024 policy initiatives, using the initialism for “virtual MVPD,” a term associated with cable-like streaming services.
“As consumers increasingly rely on these streaming platforms, local broadcasters support the FCC refreshing its record with updated marketplace information, including the proposal’s effect on competition, localism and diversity,” the NAB wrote late month.
This week, a rival organization comprised of national networks and some tech companies reminded the NAB and federal lawmakers that the FCC “has already established that it does not have the authority to regulate streaming like cable.”
In a memo sent to reporters and some federal lawmakers on Monday, the Preserve Viewer Choice Coalition (PVCC) said the FCC reaffirmed that position during two Congressional hearings last year.
“Without direction from Congress, the FCC does not have the authority to apply ‘90s era cable regulation to streaming platforms,” the PVCC wrote in the memo. They later added that federal lawmakers from both parties “have written letters urging the FCC ‘to refrain from taking any action'” with respect to “impos[ing] outdated regulations” on streaming services.
The group noted that when the FCC first visited the topic a decade ago, there was an outpouring of opposition from the public, to include viewers and content creators.
“The public clearly rejects these unnecessary government mandates getting between them and their favorite content,” the PVCC said.
The PVCC consists of several industry stakeholders that could be adversely impacted if the FCC or Congress ultimately goes through with the initiative. The group’s members include Fubo, YouTube TV, Hulu and Vidgo, whose platforms may lose access to local TV stations if broadcasters demand fees that the companies feel are unwarranted.
That same situation has played out in the cable and satellite industry over the past few years, where traditional pay TV platforms opt to drop local channels and national networks amid calls from the broadcast industry for higher retransmission fees. The situation leaves subscribers without access to one or more channels for long periods of time — typically, weeks, but sometimes months.
The PVCC also counts national networks like ABC, Fox, NBC and Univision among their members — networks that lose out on commercial revenue when local broadcast station owners pull their affiliates from cable and satellite platforms during fee disputes.
When disputes happen, it also leaves subscribers unable to watch local news content on their platform of choice, which does more harm to broadcasters than good. Last month, TEGNA said a weeks-long dispute on DirecTV resulted in lower retransmission consent revenue after the platform dropped its channels over a demand for higher fees. Had the dispute not occurred, TEGNA affirmed its retransmission consent revenue would have been unchanged from the prior year.
“The proposed regulation would harm the very cause the station groups claim they are fighting for – local news carriage,” the PVCC affirmed in its memo. “Existing local news stations are already available over the air, on cable, satellite and streaming services. Imposing outdated rules will only lead to less local news available for streaming viewers.”
