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an August 2023 post to the FSF Blog, I wrote that "the appropriate response to these ongoing trends is to eliminate outdated rules, not expand them."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."

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.

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."

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.