FCC Deletes, Modernizes, Streamlines Cable Rate Regulation

At today's Commission open meeting, Chairman Brendan Carr's IN RE: DELETE, DELETE, DELETE initiative bore fruit when the agency adopted a Report and Order providing the cable industry with long-overdue relief on the rate regulation front. As long as Section 623 of the Communications Act remains on the books (see below for more on that), the rate a cable operator not facing "effective competition" – essentially a null set, legally speaking, since 2017 –charges for the Basic Service Tier (BST) remains subject to regulation. This item, (circulated version available here), however, "will remove from … regulations approximately 27 pages, 11,475 words, 77 rules or requirements, and 8 forms."

The Report and Order deregulates most cable equipment, exempts smaller systems, and declines to extend its rules to commercial establishments. It also modernizes and streamlines those rules that remain in place, primarily to reflect the sunset, over 25 years ago, of tier regulation beyond that of the BST – that is, the tier (1) upon which local broadcast television stations and public, educational, and government access (PEG) channels must be carried, and (2) to which rate regulation in theory still applies.

In practice, of course, given the ubiquitous presence nationwide of "effective competition" from direct broadcast satellite (DBS) operators, telco TV providers, and virtual multichannel video programming distributors (vMVPDs), rate regulation of the BST no longer occurs. As the item notes, the Commission itself is "unaware of any local communities that are actively regulating cable rates at this time."

In a June 5, 2025, post to the FSF Blog, Free State Foundation President Randolph May described this undertaking broadly as "a meaningful regulatory reform accomplishment" and referenced the following language from our comments: "what primarily stands in the way of unbridled, consumer-benefitting competition are ill-fitting rules that hamstring the subset of participants to which they uniquely apply." The Report and Order, the goal of which is to "unleash prosperity through deregulation," is significant step in the right direction.

Speaking of deregulation, according to Law360 (subscription required), earlier this week House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-KY) stated that "'it's time to have a real conversation and update the 1992 Cable Act.'" Consistent with the position for which I (as well as others associated with the Free State Foundation) long have advocated, most recently in "Deregulation Is the Cure for the Video Regulatory Disparity," a June 9 post to the FSF Blog, Chairman Guthrie indicated that he opposes calls to extend legacy MVPD regulation to virtual alternatives: "'I fear that imposing additional regulation on this industry rather than relieving burdens on others would slow down innovation rather than encourage it.'"

Nielsen: Streaming Surpassed Cable and Broadcast Combined in May

Nielsen's The Gauge™ provides a monthly snapshot of consumer viewing behavior. More to the point, it documents the trend over time away from traditional sources – "cable" and broadcasting – toward streaming options. Over the last four years, I have highlighted a few noteworthy milestones on that path:

• In "Nielsen: Viewership of Streaming Video Has Surpassed That of Broadcast Television," a June 2021 post to the FSF Blog, I noted that, in May 2021, consumers for the first time spent more time watching streaming services (26 percent) than broadcast television (25 percent).

• In September 2022's "A Tale of Two Trends: Traditional Video Distributors Shrink While Streaming Video Grows," a Perspectives from FSF Scholars, I pointed out that, as cable subscriber losses approached 1 million (949,209) during the second quarter of 2022, streaming for the first time exceeded one-third of total viewing.

• In an October 2022 post to the Free State Foundation blog, I reported that, in September 2022, for the first time streaming (36.9 percent) surpassed cable (33.8 percent).

The zero-sum ascendence of streaming continues: according to the most recent edition of The Gauge, in May 2025 streaming (44.8 percent) for the first time exceeded cable and broadcast television combined (44.2 percent):

In a Perspectives published earlier this month, I wrote that "[f]ar from raising competitive concerns, the Charter-Cox merger appears to represent a pragmatic effort to accelerate the modernization of legacy cable offerings to a world where video competition is both fierce and consumer-driven." This latest data point from The Gauge serves to underscore that conclusion.

Deregulation Is the Cure for the Video Regulatory Disparity

In a May 27 op-ed, just-departed FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington, along with his Chief of Staff Gavin Wax, argued that a 2014 proposal by then-Chairman Tom Wheeler to regulate "virtual" video distributors (vMVPDs) the same as facilities-based video distributors (MVPDs) "deserves a second look." Relatedly, Chairman Brendan Carr, in a March 7 letter to YouTube TV and its parent company, Alphabet, noted that "the FCC and Congress have been encouraged by a diverse group of stakeholders to expand the Commission's existing rules and to apply the same or a similar framework to virtual MVPDs like YouTube TV" and that it "has multiple open proceedings seeking comment on whether to do just that."

Without question, the intended goal – in the words of Simington and Wax, "placing [vMVPDs] on equal regulatory footing with cable and satellite operators" – is one that policymakers should prioritize. After all, and as I described most recently in "No Basis Exists in 2025 for Rules Targeting Traditional Video Providers," a March Perspectives from FSF Scholars, facilities-based MVPDs subject to FCC regulations have been shedding subscribers for years while their online competitors – including the vMVPD YouTube TV, which is expected to surpass Charter Communications, Inc.'s Spectrum to become the largest MVPD by the end of 2026 – have been adding subscribers at a breakneck pace.

However, given that the video distribution marketplace is, and grows steadily more, competitive, I (and others affiliated with the Free State Foundation) have argued consistently that the appropriate path to a level playing field is through the deregulation of facilities-based MVPDs, not the expansion of existing regulations to vMVPDs.

In Comments filed in the "IN RE: DELETE, DELETE, DELETE" proceeding, Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I pointed out that "what primarily stands in the way of unbridled, consumer-benefiting competition are ill-fitting rules that hamstring the subset of participants to which they uniquely apply: cable operators and Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) providers."

And in "Video Subscriber Updates Underscore Ongoing Shift to Streaming," an August 2023 post to the FSF Blog, I wrote that "the appropriate response to these ongoing trends is to eliminate outdated rules, not expand them."

The proposal to extend rules targeting legacy MVPDs to vMVPDs isn't only the wrong approach from a competition policy perspective, however. It also appears to lack a statutory justification.

In a March 2023 letter to Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), then-FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel explained that the plain language of 47 U.S.C. § 522(4), which defines a "channel" as "a portion of the electromagnetic frequency spectrum which is used in a cable system and which is capable of delivering a television channel," limits the FCC's ability to regulate vMVPDs that stream content over the public Internet:

It is imperative that the Commission give these words full meaning. As reflected in the record, online video programming distributors do not neatly fit in these statutory definitions because they lack a physical connection to subscribers and do not use any electromagnetic frequencies when delivering programming to their viewers. As you know, the Commission lacks the power to change these unambiguous provisions on its own but can do so if Congress changes the underlying law.

This statutory impediment has become more pointed in the wake of the Supreme Court's Loper Bright decision rejecting the Chevron doctrine. Rather than defer to an agency interpretation of an ambiguous statute, reviewing courts now will adopt what they view as the "best reading of the statute." In this case, and assuming for argument's sake that the statute is ambiguous, that seemingly would lead to the judicial conclusion that the FCC's regulatory authority over MVPDs does not extend to vMVPDs that deliver digital bits over the public Internet.

PRESS RELEASE: FSF Continues to Oppose the FCC's Proposal to Regulate Political Ads Using AI

Free State Foundation President Randolph May and Director of Policy Studies Seth Cooper submitted reply comments today to the FCC continuing to oppose the agency’s proposal to require broadcasters, cable, and satellite operators to include a disclaimer in all political ads using AI. Below are the first two paragraphs from the Free State Foundation reply comments:

"In these reply comments, we emphasize two primary points. First, even comments filed by parties sympathetic to the proposed rulemaking acknowledge that the Notice’s definitions of terms are ambiguous and easily misunderstood. The key definition of 'AI-generated content,' on which the whole proposal depends, is especially problematic because it seemingly is so vague and overly broad that it would require a disclaimer for virtually all political ads.

 

Second, commenters rightly recognize that the Commission’s proposal to rely on a 'credible third party' to trigger FCC action for an alleged failure to comply with its rules is susceptible to political manipulation, or at least the appearance of it. It is naïve to suggest that, during heated political campaigns, and in today’s charged political environment, that there will be agreement regarding the true independence, dispassionate judgement, and expertise of ‘credible' third parties. Any proposal to rely on such supposed credible third parties almost certainly would not find widespread public acceptance.”

DIRECTV, DISH to Join Forces in Battle for Video Subscribers

Today DIRECTV announced its plans to acquire EchoStar's video programming distribution platforms – the DISH TV direct broadcast satellite (DBS) service and the Sling TV virtual multichannel video programming distributor – to more effectively compete in a rapidly evolving marketplace increasingly dominated by streaming alternatives.

This is not the first time that the two DBS operators have attempted to combine. In October 2002, the FCC effectively blocked their proposed merger by designating their application for a full evidentiary hearing, concluding that "the likelihood of the merger harming competition in the multichannel video program distribution ("MVPD") market outweighs any merger-specific public interest benefits."

Source: directv.com

But over the last 22 years, the widespread deployment of broadband Internet access has turned the video distribution competitive landscape on its head. As I have documented, most recently in a July 2024 post to the FSF Blog, for many years traditional MVPDs – cable operators and DBS providers – have been losing subscribers, financial quarter after quarter, while streaming competitors have been growing by leaps and bounds. By contrast, back in 2002, Netflix – which reported 278 million global streaming subscribers at the end of the second quarter of this year – was still solely in the business of mailing out DVDs. And Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, Disney+, Apple TV+, and Paramount+ did not exist at all.

Given the undisputable dramatic changes that have occurred in the marketplace since DIRECTV and DISH TV first sought to combine, this transaction must be evaluated in an entirely new context. Specifically, by providing DIRECTV with the additional scale needed to compete effectively, it seems that it will generate undeniable pro-consumer benefits. And given the relatively dominant position of streaming alternatives, it certainly doesn't appear to present any competition concerns.

In all, DIRECTV enumerates three specific benefits that will result:

• It "will allow DIRECTV to better meet consumers' demands for smaller packages at lower price points"
• It "[p]ositions DIRECTV to provide better integration of direct-to-consumer services"
• It "[i]mproves EchoStar's financial profile to continue the deployment of its 5G Open RAN wireless network"

With regard to "smaller packages at lower price points," an August 21, 2024, open letter written by DIRECTV Chief Content Office Rob Thun argued that, absent "fundamental change" to the way that traditional MVPDs are able to package their services, "costs will continue to soar, consumer satisfaction will erode, and the entire ecosystem will suffer."

In today's press release, DIRECTV Chief Executive Officer Bill Morrow is quoted as saying that "[w]ith greater scale, we expect a combined DIRECTV and DISH will be better able to work with programmers to realize our vision for the future of TV, which is to aggregate, curate, and distribute content tailored to customers' interests."

Charter, Comcast, and Broadcom Partner on Faster DOCSIS 4.0 Chipsets

At this week's Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers® (SCTE) TechExpo 2024, cable operators Charter Communications and Comcast announced an agreement with chipmaker Broadcom Inc. to develop chipsets compatible with both versions of the DOCSIS 4.0 specification: Full Duplex DOCSIS 4.0 (FDX) and Extended Spectrum DOCSIS 4.0 (ESD).

Network hardware and modems incorporating Unified DOCSIS chipsets eventually will enable downstream speeds up to 25 gigabits per second (Gbps) over existing hybrid fiber-coaxial (HFC) broadband facilities. In addition, they will leverage Artificial Intelligence and machine learning to improve network management and security.

Media Advisory - FSF Files Comments on FCC's Propose Rules for AI Generated Content in Political Ads

Media Advisory

September 19, 2024

Contact: info@freestatefoundation.org

Free State Foundation President Randolph May and Seth Cooper, Director of Policy Studies and Senior Fellow, submitted comments today in the Federal Communications Commission’s proceeding proposing to require radio and TV broadcasters as well as cable and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) operators to include a disclaimer on all political ads that contain content generated by artificial intelligence (AI). These comments demonstrate that the Commission lacks statutory authority to adopt its proposed regulation of the content of political ads using AI and that, in any event, it would constitute unsound policy to do so.

The complete set of the Free State Foundation comments, with footnotes, is here.

 

Immediately below are the "Introduction and Summary" to the comments, without the footnotes.

Introduction and Summary

These comments are submitted in response to the Commission’s Notice proposing to require radio and TV broadcasters as well as cable and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) operators to include a disclaimer on all political ads that contain content generated by artificial intelligence (AI). They also would be required to include a notice in their online political files disclosing the ad’s use of AI. The Commission’s rush to adopt a novel AI political ad regulation is a misguided power grab – a combination of bad law and bad policy. The Commission should not adopt the proposed rule.

 

The agency lacks statutory authority for its proposed regulation of the content of political ads using AI. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking cites Section 303(r) and other provisions of Title III of the Communications Act regarding the agency’s power to make rules and regulations necessary to carry out the Act’s provisions in the “public interest.” But the Commission has no traditional regulatory authority over the content of political ads on broadcast radio or TV, and none of those provisions cited in the Notice contain language that reasonably may be interpreted to authorize disclaimer and disclosure mandates for political ads featuring AI-generated content.

Moreover, the FCC’s proposal is likely to run afoul of the Major Questions Doctrine (MQD) as articulated in West Virginia v. EPA (2022) because it involves a question of “vast economic and political significance.” Proposing for the first time to regulate the use of AI in connection with political advertisements appears to be a paradigmatic case meeting the MQD criteria. As such, and because Congress has not clearly granted the FCC authority to adopt the rule it proposes, it’s very unlikely to survive judicial review.

 

By contrast, the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) is given much more explicit statutory authority to regulate significant aspects of political campaign ads under the Federal Election Campaign Act. This includes the FEC’s “exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the civil enforcement” of the Act. To date, however, the FEC has never determined it has jurisdiction to regulate political ads with AI-generated content under its “materially deceptive” statute – and the FEC may lack such authority. If the FEC lacks authority to regulate political ads with AI-generated content, then a fortiori the FCC certainly lacks similar authority under Communications Act provisions regarding broadcast, cable, and satellite services. 

Even if the FCC had the requisite legal authority, the proposal constitutes bad policy because it would apply to ads with AI-generated content that are not materially deceptive, likely causing many viewers to distrust the ads solely or primarily because of the boilerplate disclaimer or simply to “tune out” the disclaimers. Also, it would apply only to ads that are broadcast or transmitted by FCC-regulated services – and not by Internet outlets that garner an increasing share of political ads. Requiring disclaimers on ads shown by broadcast, cable, and satellite services when those same ads may be posted online to wider audiences without disclaimers will add to the confusion, especially since materially deceptive ads are more likely to appear online. Moreover, broadcasters (and cable and DBS operators) do not have inside knowledge about how given political ads were created; yet under the proposed regulation, apparently they would shoulder the burden of having to discern when generative AI was used. By focusing on broadcasters of political ads rather than the creators, the proposed regulation deviates from a more reasonable focus on ad creators that is taken in many nascent state laws regulating the use of AI in elections.

 

Additionally, the proposal would put the Commission in the untenable position of making judgments about “credible third parties” who raise complaints about ads, a matter in which the agency has no expertise. Government should not assume any role in designating third parties as “credible” or not credible for purposes of deciding whether political ads should be disclaimed, disclosed, or taken down. If it were to do so, it would inevitably, and justifiably, invite suspicion that its decisions are politically motivated. The proposed overly broad definition of “AI-generated content” likely would result in broadcast, cable, and satellite services requiring disclaimers for all or nearly all political ads as a regulatory risk aversion measure, rendering such disclaimers unhelpful, if not meaningless.

A PDF of the complete set of Free State Foundation comments, with footnotes, is here.

FCC, Following White House Lead, Again Targets Cable and DBS

On August 12, 2024, the Biden Administration released a Fact Sheet noting a proposed FTC rule that "would require companies to make it as easy to cancel a subscription or service as it was to sign up for one" and announcing that the FCC "is initiating an inquiry into whether to extend similar requirements to companies in the communications industry" (emphasis added).

A News Release issued the same day by FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel revealed that she has circulated to her fellow commissioners a draft Notice of Inquiry that "would seek information on ways to ensure that consumers have appropriate and efficient access to customer service resources when working with their phone, cable and broadband providers" (emphasis added).

Source: whitehouse.gov

When it comes to video distribution, of course, there is a wide chasm between "companies in the communications industry" and "cable." The former, broader category includes both unregulated streaming services and traditional Multichannel Video Programming Distributors (MVPDs) that rely upon facilities within their exclusive control. The latter category presumably is limited to the traditional MVPDs uniquely subject to FCC regulation: cable operators and Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) providers.

Given this critical distinction, if adopted, this Notice of Inquiry (and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking sure to follow) first and foremost would result, not in a net benefit to consumers, but in yet another one-sided restraint on the ability of traditional MVPDs to compete effectively with far larger streaming services that grow more popular by the day. Similar instances in just the last year include:

• A pending Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted in April 2024 that would interfere with contracts between traditional MVPDs – and traditional MVPDs alone – and independent programmers by banning most favored nation (MFN) provisions and "unreasonable" alternative distribution method (AMD) provisions.
• A requirement adopted in March 2024 that traditional MVPDs – and traditional MVPDs alone – must "specify the 'all-in' price for video programming in their promotional materials that include pricing information and on subscribers' bills."
• A pending Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted in January 2024 that would force traditional MVPDs – and traditional MVPDs alone – to provide subscribers with a rebate whenever they are unable to agree on carriage terms with a broadcast station or programmer, a proposal I critiqued in an October 2023 Perspectives from FSF Scholars.
• A pending Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted in December 2023, in response to which the Free State Foundation filed comments and reply comments, that would prevent traditional MVPDs – and traditional MVPDs alone – from employing two cross-industry common billing practices: (1) early termination fees (ETFs), which make it possible for distributors to amortize up-front customer costs over an agreed-upon and enforceable term, and (2) whole-month billing.

For more on this topic, I recommend that you read "FCC's Dated View Drives Dramatic Shifts in Video Strategies," a July 2024 post to the FSF Blog, and "The FCC Is Complicit in the Decline of Traditional MVPDs," a May 2024 Perspectives.

Xumo Streaming Devices Compel the Sunset of Set-Top Box Rules

The Free State Foundation's recent comments responding to the FCC Office of Economics and Analytics' State of Competition in the Communications Marketplace Public Notice argued that "the Commission should follow its sound decision in September 2020 to terminate the 'unlock the box' navigation device proceeding and announce that the sunset provision set forth in Section 629(e) of the 1996 Act has been satisfied." Comcast's announcement on June 27, 2024, that Xumo streaming devices, which are available for purchase at retail and now support a fourth competing virtual Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (vMVPD), is a more than compelling reason to take that long overdue step.

Enacted nearly three decades ago in a context today wholly unrecognizable, Section 629 sought "to assure the commercial availability … of converter boxes … and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming … from manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors not affiliated with any" MVPD. The Commission effectively abandoned this misguided effort four years ago, but it stopped short of triggering the sunset provision set forth in subsection (e). Consequently, the regulatory requirement that cable operators make available "separable security" remains on the books (and imposes needless costs).

Source: xumo.com

The Xumo platform, the product of a joint venture that includes Comcast and Charter, provides consumers with access to three of the largest cable services – Comcast's Xfinity, Charter's Spectrum, and Mediacom's Xtream – as well as over 250 third-party apps.

Xumo devices can be obtained directly from these providers (in some cases for free) or – critically – at retail. The Xumo Stream Box can be purchased directly from the Xumo website, while Xumo TVs manufactured by Pioneer, element, and Hisense are available on store shelves at Best Buy, Meijer, and Walmart.

Consequently, the goal of Section 629 – to make it possible for subscribers to purchase a set-top box from a third party rather than lease one directly from their provider – clearly has been achieved. (The longstanding availability of app- and browser-based options to access MVPD services similarly satisfied that objective, notwithstanding the FCC's unwillingness to acknowledge that fact.)

But wait, there's more: not only does the Xumo platform foster device-based competition, it also facilitates service-based competition. As noted above, Xumo devices recently added support for Fubo, a vMVPD that competes with traditional MVPD offerings. And that's on top of existing support for popular vMVPDs YouTube TV, Hulu + Live TV, and Sling TV.

Subsection(e) of Section 629 states that any rules adopted thereunder "shall cease to apply when the Commission determines that (1) the market for the [MVPDs] is fully competitive; (2) the market for [devices] used in conjunction with that service is fully competitive; and (3) elimination of the regulations would promote competition and the public interest."

Xumo devices singlehandedly satisfy the first two conditions, and the sunset of one-sided rules that unjustifiably impose compliance costs clearly would "promote competition and the public interest." All that is left is for the Commission to acknowledge – "determine," per the language of the statute – that which undeniably is true.

Cable Industry Lobbies FCC to Allow "Reasonable" Billing Practices

During a recent conversation with Commission staff, representatives from NCTA – The Internet & Television Association, Charter, and Comcast (collectively, the cable advocates) asked the agency to reconsider its rash proposals to prohibit traditional Multichannel Video Programming Distributors (MVPDs) – cable operators and Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) providers – from employing common billing practices that their larger and still-growing Internet-based competitors also use. At a minimum, they urged that "reasonable" Early Termination Fees (ETFs) be allowed.

As the Free State Foundation's recent comments in the State of the Communications Marketplace proceeding plainly point out, ascendant streaming services – Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, Amazon Prime, and the like – increasingly overshadow cable operators and DBS providers, which have been suffering significant subscriber losses for years.

However, the Commission's ability to regulate is limited by statute to traditional MVPDs, and – willfully ignoring clear competitive trends as well as its own complicit part in accelerating those trends – it has chosen to exercise that authority on numerous recent occasions.

For example, the FCC proposed late last year to ban traditional MVPDs – and traditional MVPDs alone – from (1) utilizing ETFs as a means of enforcing long-term, consumer-benefiting contracts, and (2) marketing their services in standard monthly increments.

As described in their ex parte letter, the cable advocates urged senior staff from Chairwoman Rosenworcel's office and the Media Bureau to reject outright the proposal to require that traditional MVPDs provide service in daily increments, a clear form of impermissible rate regulation. On the topic of ETFs, they similarly championed regulatory restraint – but suggested that, if the Commission is to intervene, it should limit its focus to "unjust or unreasonable" ETFs.

Of course, asking an administrative agency to determine what is and is not "reasonable" creates a separate set of subjective concerns. Accordingly, the cable advocates proposed a series of factual considerations upon which the FCC might base its decisions, including whether consumers:

• Have a choice between options with and without ETFs,
• Are informed clearly about the existence of ETFs before they sign up for service,
• Are afforded an initial window during which they may cancel service without having to pay an ETF,
• Are not subject to ETFs that are "excessive relative to the value received," and
• Face ETFs that decrease over the term of the contract.

In comments and reply comments, FSF President Randolph May and I strongly opposed any agency action in this proceeding. Specifically, we argued that ETFs and monthly billing increments are pro-consumer common practices that lead to lower costs and greater choice; that the Commission's misguided proposals clearly constitute impermissible rate regulation; and that new burdens exclusively targeting cable and DBS providers inappropriately would pick winners – unregulated streaming behemoths – and losers – struggling traditional MVPDs uniquely subject to FCC oversight.

Divided FCC Imposes New Pricing Requirements on Legacy Video Providers

At its Open Meeting on Thursday, the FCC voted along party lines to require facilities-based video distributors – that is, cable and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers, but not upstart competitors that stream their content over the public Internet – to present an "all-in" price on their customer bills and in advertising materials. Republican Commissioners Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington issued Dissenting Statements exposing the agency's general lack of statutory authority to impose such obligations.

The Commission's pending proceeding exclusively targeting cable and DBS billing practices, in which Free State Foundation President Randolph J. May and I filed comments and reply comments, similarly singles out traditional multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) for additional regulatory burdens wholly lacking statutory authority even as they struggle to compete with streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, and Disney Plus, among many others.

Commissioner Simington in his Dissenting Statement emphasizes this concern, writing that:

[W]e are yet again adding additional regulatory burden and complexity on an industry that is shedding customers by the millions. Traditional linear video is on the way out, but we don't have to shoo them away like the last guest who hasn't gotten the hint that the party's over. For every mote of regulatory complexity we add to legacy providers, unregulated online video providers become more nimble by comparison.

Commissioner Simington also finds fault with each source of statutory authority relied upon by the majority in the as-yet-unreleased Order. Notably, he calls out the fact that (1) the FCC's limited power pursuant to Section 632 to impose customer service requirements not only presupposes the existence of a provider-customer relationship (and thus does not extend to promotional materials targeting potential customers) but also is constrained heavily by the Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019, and (2) Section 335(a) – incidentally, the same DBS-specific provision relied upon in the billing practices NPRM referenced above – "relates essentially to the provision of political programming."

In his Dissenting Statement, Commissioner Carr similarly questions the agency's statutory authority to act, conceding that "[o]nly in the case of cable billing does that authority arguably exist." And where Commissioner Simington characterized the majority's misguided reliance upon Section 4(i) ancillary authority as "[t]he authority of the gunslinger," Comissioner Carr describes it as a "Hail Mary [that] falls incomplete."

The Latest on State Cable Bill Prorating Requirements

There have been two recent developments of note regarding legal challenges to state-level requirements that cable operators prorate customers' last-month bills – obligations that, as I argued in "State Cable Bills Prorating Requirements Clearly Are Preempted," an April 2021 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, constitute a form of rate regulation preempted by the 1984 Cable Act, not an otherwise permissible customer service standard or consumer protection law.

Both Maine and New Jersey require that cable operators – but not any of the countless other distributors of video programming, whether facilities-based (such as the two Direct Broadcast Satellite operators, DIRECTV and DISH Network, or telco TV providers, like Verizon FiOS) or streamed over the Internet (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, Disney+, and so on) – bill canceling customers on a per-day basis during their final month of service.

In "Maine Cable Law, Ignoring Competition, Is 'Unambiguously Preempted'," an October 2020 Perspectives, I reported that the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine had found the Maine statute to be "unambiguously preempted." The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, however, reversed that decision on January 4, 2022. For more information, please see "First Circuit Wrongly Concludes Maine's Prorated Billing Requirement Is Not Unlawful."

And last week, on January 9, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it had denied Charter Communications' petition for certiorari.

New Jersey's "virtually identical" rule likewise, and for similar reasons, was deemed preempted by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, in an October 15, 2021, unpublished opinion. I discussed this decision in "NJ State Court Concurs: Requirement to Prorate Cable Bills Equals Preempted Rate Regulation," a contemporaneous post to the Free State Foundation blog.

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities and Division of Rate Counsel appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which held oral arguments on Tuesday (subscription required). Should the lower court decision be reversed, this case potentially could make its way to the Supreme Court.

A decision is expected as early as late next month.

Streaming Services Surpass Cable in Total Viewing

Just-released video consumption numbers from Nielsen hammer home a point to which Free State Foundation scholars repeatedly return: streaming is the 800 lb. gorilla in a marketplace distorted by one-sided, outdated regulations that inappropriately hamstring cable operators and other traditional multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) – and thereby deny consumers the full benefits of competition.

In "A Tale of Two Trends: Traditional Video Distributors Shrink While Streaming Video Grows," a recent Perspectives from FSF Scholars, I drew a stark contrast between (1) the latest evidence of steady traditional MVPD subscriber losses, and (2) a watershed moment in the battle for eyeballs between streaming, broadcast television, and cable: in June 2022, streaming for the first time surpassed the one-third of total usage threshold.

Nielsen data covering the last three months underscores the zero-sum rivalry between the new and old guards. From June to September, streaming's share climbed an additional 3.2 percent, to 36.9 percent. Over the same period, cable's share fell 1.3 percent, to 33.8 percent. Critically, streaming's share surpassed that of cable in July – and, by September, that gap had grown to 3.1 percent.

The following chart illustrates these recent developments:

As Free State Foundation President Randolph May and Director of Policy Studies and Senior Fellow Seth Cooper argued persuasively in Reply Comments filed in GN Docket No. 22-203:

The legacy video regulatory landscape bears no resemblance to 2022's marketplace in which consumers increasingly favor a dynamic, self-curated mix of subscription streaming services accessed on consumer-owned devices over traditional MVPD services. Thus, the Commission should identify legacy regulation of MVPD services based originally on a lack of competition and eliminate, modify, or recommend congressional repeal of such regulation.

Comcast Announces Nationwide Rollout of Ultra-Fast 10G Services

On September 8, Comcast made a major public announcement of its plans to commence a nationwide rollout of multi-gigabit cable broadband Internet services. Comcast's next-generation broadband services will combine its 10G and DOCSIS 4.0 technologies with Wi-Fi 6E.

According its announcement, Comcast will offer speeds of up to 2 Gbps to homes and businesses in 34 cities and towns by the end of this year. Comcast plans to make these services available to more than 50 million homes and businesses by the end of 2025. And soon it will significantly boost both upload and download speeds, as Comcast stated it would begin offering 10G-enabled multi-gig symmetrical services in 2023. 

 

For U.S. consumers, Comcast's announcement portends the realization of the much-anticipated, high-speed, and high-capacity cable 10G platform, which will offer a stiff competition to fiber broadband services and fixed wireless access (FWA) services. (As an aside, NCTA observed in comments to the FCC in July of this year that cable broadband networks also rely on fiber-rich facilities, as cable customers use fiber for about 98-99% of the data transmission route). And a tremendous upshot for Comcast as well as for cable broadband subscribers is that the 10G upgrades do not require extensive digging or construction in and around households that it already reaches. 

 

Free State Foundation Senior Fellow Andrew Long has helpfully written in more detail about the tremendous potential service capabilities and economic value that will be generated by cable 10G networks. See Mr. Long's September 2020 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "'10 G' Can Help Future-Proof Broadband Infrastructure" and his October 2020 blog post, "Study Predicts that Cable '10G' Platform Will Generate Substantial Economic Benefits." Importantly, and as Comcast's announcement indicated, 10G will be combined with ultra-fast and capacious Wi-Fi 6E capabilities. Mr. Long has excellently described Wi-Fi 6E capabilities in his February 2020 Perspectives "Wi-Fi 6E Can Modernize Unlicensed Wireless" and his January 2022 blog post, "D.C. Circuit Decision Clears the Way for a Wave of Wi-Fi 6E Devices."

Cable Continues to Gain Traction in the Mobile Wireless Market

Cable broadband operators have proved again that they are a potent source of competition in the mobile wireless market. During the first quarter 2022, Charter gained 373,000 net subscribers to its Spectrum Wireless service. This raised Charter's wireless subscriber base to 3.9 million as of the end of the first quarter, a 47.2% increase compared to a year earlier. Meanwhile, Comcast gained 318,000 subscribers to its Xfinity Mobile service. At quarter's end, Comcast's wireless subscribers had risen to almost 4.3 million. And Altice added 12,000 subscribers to its Optimum Mobile wireless service during the first quarter, reaching a total 198,000 subscribers.

Free State Foundation Legal Fellow Andrew Maglouglin and I called attention to the quick rise of cable mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) and their benefits to wireless consumers in our Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "The Broadband Internet Services Market in January 2022: 5G, Cable, Fixed Wireless, Wi-Fi 6, and Fiber Are Benefitting Consumers." The impressive first quarter 2022 results reported by cable MVNOs indicate that consumers are continuing to take interest in these innovative choices for wireless services. 

 

Aside from positive subscriber addition numbers for early 2022, the competitive outlook for cable MVNOs is strong because of their ability to leverage their existing cable and wi-fi network infrastructure to offload mobile wireless traffic. It is reported that about 85% of Spectrum Mobile subscribers' mobile usage goes through Charter's Wi-Fi network. And Charter's joint venture with Comcast to offload traffic using CBRS spectrum reportedly is in early trial stages. Expect to hear more about cable's growing stature in the mobile wireless market. 

Supreme Court Should Leave Alone a Sound Ruling on Cable Franchise Fee Limits

The Supreme Court should promptly deny certiorari in City of Eugene v. FCC, a case that has been pending before the court since November 4, 2021. The cert petition, filed by numerous localities, argues for a non-textual reading of the Communications Act and invents a non-existent preemption issue, all to impose excess fees on information services provided over cable systems. But the text of the Act prohibits such fees.

In City of Eugene, a unanimous Sixth Circuit panel correctly interpreted the Communications Act as expressly preempting imposition of franchise fees by states and local governments on non-cable services provided over cable systems. The lower court upheld most of the FCC's 2019 order that clarified limits on local governments' authority to impose such fees. Free State Foundation Director of Policy Studies Seth Cooper briefed the court's "sensible" opinion shortly after its publication, and also observed that the mostly-affirmed 2019 order stopped localities from imposing fees "beyond the statute's limits, potentially draining cable operator investment in their broadband Internet networks."

To review, Section 541 of the Cable Act of 1984 – which is incorporated into the Communications Act – requires cable providers to receive authorization from a local franchising authority (LFA) before providing cable service in the LFA's jurisdiction. In exchange for granting this franchise, LFAs can subject franchisees to franchise fees, which Section 542(g)(1) defines as "any tax, fee, or assessment of any kind imposed by a franchising authority or other governmental entity on a cable operator or cable subscriber, or both, solely because of their status as such." But Section 542(b) caps franchise fees at "five percent of a cable operator’s gross revenues for cable services for any 12-month period." And critically, Section 544(b)(1) expressly prohibits regulation of non-cable services in franchise agreements: an LFA "in its request for proposals for a franchise… may establish requirements for facilities and equipment, but may not… establish requirements for video programming or other information services[.]"

The Sixth Circuit upheld most of the FCC's 2019 order that preempted the City of Eugene's 7% tax on cable broadband revenues. In an opinion by Judge Raymond Kethledge, the court upheld the FCC's "mixed use rule," which prohibited LFAs from taxing broadband Internet access service in franchise agreements, pursuant to the Section 544(b)(1)'s prohibition on "establish[ing] requirements for video programming or other information services." Because the Restoring Internet Freedom Order classified broadband Internet access service as an information service, it obviously fit under the prohibition. The Sixth Circuit also determined that it didn't matter that Eugene taxed broadband by city ordinance instead of through its franchise authority—either way, it acted as an LFA subject to the Communications Act. Lastly, because Eugene's broadband tax was in direct conflict with the prohibition on LFAs regulating information services, the lower court concluded that the tax was expressly preempted by the Communications Act.

Eugene and numerous localities now argue that the Sixth Circuit decision conflicts with Oregon Supreme Court precedent and presents a novel implied preemption issue. However, as NCTA notes in its Brief in Opposition, the Oregon Supreme Court interpreted the relevant portion of the Communications Act years prior to the FCC's 2019 order, meaning the record considered by the Oregon Supreme Court lacked the Commission's interpretations – unlike the Sixth Circuit's decision that benefited from a full record and the position of the relevant expert agency. And because the Sixth Circuit opinion relied on express preemption, there is no issue regarding implied preemption in this case. These two reasons support denial of Eugene's cert petition.

Policy reasons further support denial. When Congress passed the Cable Act of 1984, it sought to eliminate competitive distortions in the market that arose from excess demands and taxes on cable providers. Cable providers often paid multiple fees for access to a single right-of-way prior to the Cable Act. Cable companies likely passed the cost of these excesses to consumer in the form of higher prices. The FCC's interpretation of the LFA-related statutory provisions, which the Sixth Circuit upheld, serves the law's purpose of "minimiz[ing] unnecessary regulation that would impose an undue economic burden on cable systems."

Free State Foundation Scholars have long supported the FCC's 2019 order precisely because it minimizes unnecessary regulation on cable systems. The Free State Foundation filed reply comments in the proceeding that led to the Commission's order. And blog posts were written in defense of the 2019 order in July 2019, May 2019, and September 2018.

The Supreme Court should deny Eugene's cert petition. Congress expressly prohibited the sorts of fees on information services offered over cable systems that Eugene seeks to impose. And the Sixth Circuit rightly upheld the FCC's rules doing just that.

Virtual Video Programming Services Continue to Gain Ground

In "Pixel by Pixel, Video Streaming's Ascension Comes Into Focus," a September 2021 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, I reported that the growth of Internet-based alternatives to traditional, facilities-based multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) may be slowing. More recent data, however, indicates that the opposite is true: virtual MVPD (vMVPD) subscriber totals have nearly doubled over the past year. Over the same period, the number of traditional MVPD customers has continued its downward trend.

There is no question that consumers are turning away from legacy video programming offerings and toward the many streaming options available – and that, consequently, both Congress and the FCC need do more to remove outdated regulations that exclusively target facilities-based providers (that is, cable operators, Direct Broadcast Satellite operators, and telco TV providers).

For more on this point, please see "Streaming Continues to Redefine the Video Landscape: It's Past Time to Eliminate Legacy Regulations," a Perspectives I wrote for the Free State Foundation in July 2021.

An evidentiary open question, though, has been to what extent viewers still crave the classic big bundle provided by facilities-based MVPDs: live channels + video on demand + an electronic programming guide + digital video recording capabilities.

The sheer number of subscribers to primarily library-based services like Netflix (214 million), Amazon Prime (over 200 million), Disney+ (118 million), and Hulu (43 million) suggests that preferences are trending away from these types of offerings toward a self-curated collection of more targeted options.

This hypothesis is bolstered by two data points.

One, the number of consumers who obtain service from traditional MVPDs continues to decline. According to the Leichtman Research Group, total subscribers to the top seven cable operators decreased by more than five percent, from 44.3 million to 41.9 million, between Q3 2020 and Q3 2021. Notably, Hulu, number four on the list of top streaming services, now has more subscribers than the top seven cable operators combined.

Two, 49 percent of broadband households subscribe to four or more streaming services.

According to Parks Associates, however, the number of broadband households subscribing to vMPVDs – which replicate the traditional product offered by facilities-based providers but deliver content over a user-provided broadband connection to a consumer-owned streaming device or smart TV – is now "nearly double" what it was just one year ago: 19 percent.

The impressive success enjoyed by vMVPDs – a large category of providers that includes Hulu + Live TV, YouTube TV, Sling TV, Philo, AT&T TV NOW, and fuboTV – reinforces the oft-made case for additional deregulatory action by Congress and the FCC.

NJ State Court Concurs: Requirement to Prorate Cable Bills Equals Preempted Rate Regulation

Last week, a New Jersey state appellate court, wisely siding with two federal district courts, held that requiring cable operators to prorate last-month bills constitutes a form of rate regulation that is preempted by federal law.

Section 623(a)(2) of the 1984 Cable Act unambiguously states that, upon a determination by the FCC that a cable operator is subject to effective competition, "the rates for the provision of cable service by such system shall not be subject to regulation." Section 636(c), meanwhile, expressly preempts any provision of law that is inconsistent with Section 623(a)(2) (as well as with Section 623(a)(1), which states that "[n]o Federal Agency or State may regulate the rates for the provision of cable service except to the extent provided under this section.").

Nevertheless, and as I wrote in an April 2021 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "State Cable Bills Prorating Requirements Clearly Are Preempted," two states – Maine and New Jersey – have attempted to require cable operators, and cable operators alone, to charge customers for service on a per-day basis.

Fortunately, in both cases a federal district court intervened.

In March 2020, Maine passed Public Law Ch. 657, "An Act To Require a Cable System Operator To Provide a Pro Rata Credit When Service Is Cancelled by a Subscriber." It states that a cable operator "shall grant a subscriber a pro rata credit or rebate for the days of the monthly billing period after the cancellation of service if that subscriber requests cancellation of service 3 or more working days before the end of the monthly billing period."

In an October 2020 opinion, the U.S. District Court of Maine held that obligation to be "unambiguously preempted" by the 1984 Cable Act. Specifically, the court concluded that a mandate to prorate last-month bills effectively requires cable operators to bill on a per-day basis, and therefore is a form of rate regulation preempted by Section 623(a)(1) – not a consumer protection law or customer service standard for which Section 632 creates an exception to the general rule.

For additional information on that decision, please read "Maine Cable Law, Ignoring Competition, Is 'Unambiguously Preempted'," a Perspectives from FSF Scholars published later that same month.

In March 2021, the District Court of New Jersey considered a challenge by Altice to Section 14:18-3.8 of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities' (BPU) rules, a provision that that court found to be "virtually identical" to Maine Public Law Ch. 657. In an opinion that quoted extensively from the Maine District Court's decision, it not surprisingly reached the identical conclusion.

In addition to filing suit in federal district court, Altice also appealed the cease-and-desist order issued by the New Jersey BPU to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. On October 15, 2021, in an unpublished opinion, that court embraced the reasoning of the New Jersey District Court (and, by extension, the Maine District Court) and invalidated the BPU's cease-and desist order.

Notably, in both of these instances the prorated billing requirement applies exclusively to cable systems. Rival Multichannel Video Programming Distributors (MVPDs), including satellite operators, telco TV providers, and "virtual" MVPDs that distribute content over the Internet, a growing category that includes YouTube TV, Sling TV, and Hulu + Live TV, are free to bill on a monthly basis – a practice that many in fact have embraced.

As such, these court decisions, at the federal and now state levels, don't merely affirm the intent of Congress. They also serve to remove arbitrary barriers that impact only one segment of the video distribution marketplace.

Given the ever-growing prominence of streaming services (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, Disney+, Apple TV+, HBO MAX, and countless others), it is appropriate that regulations premised upon (at best) outdated assumptions be eliminated at every opportunity.