Consumer Choice in Sports Proves that Video Competition Abounds

On February 25, the FCC's Media Bureau released a public notice seeking comment on "current and emerging trends in the distribution of live sports programming." With a particular focus on football, the item longs for a bygone era – and, what's more, views it through rose-colored glasses. Indeed, it seems to presuppose a time when football fans had free access to every game played. In other words, gridiron glory days that never existed.

Setting to the side, at least for the moment, the significant legal authority questions posed by the notice, I submit that, rather than a basis for concern, the current state of live sports carriage demonstrates that video programming distribution is highly competitive; that consumers derive substantial benefits, including expanded viewing options, as a result; and that any impact on legacy business models is an inevitable and necessary consequence of the welcome transition to a broader marketplace defined by abundant choice.

As the notice recalls, "[f]or decades, Americans have enjoyed turning on their television sets and quickly finding the games they wanted to watch for free on an over-the-air broadcast." Let us not forget, however, that a primary driver of that simplicity was a lack of choice. Consumers typically had access, via broadcast network affiliated local television stations, to a half dozen (give or take) NFL games on Sunday as well as Monday Night Football.

Until the launch of the NFL Sunday Ticket subscription service in 1994, that essentially was the whole picture.

Today, however, consumers can choose from a healthy roster of viewing options. That includes, of course, local broadcasters, which continue to offer a comparable number of games and can be received in a wide range of ways: for free using an over-the-air antenna; by subscribing to a traditional, facilities-based multichannel video programming distribution (MVPD) platform (that is, cable, direct broadcast satellite , and telco TV); and, more recently, with a subscription to a virtual MVPD such as YouTube TV, which also is the current home of the NFL Sunday Ticket.

In addition, the existence of numerous, competing video distribution platforms – including cable channels like ESPN (which has carried Monday Night Football games for the past two decades) and streaming services such as Amazon Prime (Thursday Night Football), Peacock (Sunday Night Football), and Netflix (Christmas Day) – creates additional opportunities for consumers to view games. Thursday Night Football games on Amazon Prime, as one example, represent an additive option. Similarly, NFL Sunday Ticket and NFL Red Zone provide diehard pigskin fans new couch-based opportunities that did not exist in the halcyon days of old.

This brings me to an important point. Commenters frequently make apples-to-oranges comparisons between the single-digit game schedules offered when local broadcasters were the only game in town and what it might cost today to view every game – nearly 300 in total, including the playoffs.

The notice itself, citing a CBS News article, states that "[i]n 2025, NFL games aired on 10 different services, which, according to some estimates, could cost a consumer over $1,500 to watch all games." That article in turn references a USA Today story for a total of $651 (although the latter in fact calculates a price somewhere between $811 and $833, figures seemingly inflated by double charges for ESPN, which already is included in the YouTube TV base plan); the $1,500 figure comes from an unsourced X post that appears to overstate the price of NFL Sunday Ticket + YouTube TV and similarly double charges for ESPN. Aside from the unrealistic assumption that more than a very few people – or perhaps anyone at all – would want to watch every single game or be able to do so, it's clear that the price figures cited are likely inflated. 

*    *    *

As I have documented in a multiyear series of Perspectives from FSF Scholars and posts to the Free State Foundation blog – including one just a few weeks ago – consumers are migrating steadily away from the "Big Bundle" traditionally offered by traditional MVPDs to a self-selected collection of streaming options. In that highly competitive environment, numerous distributors are choosing to offer live sporting events, in addition to the original and licensed content that they carry, to win and retain customers. That competition-fueled decisionmaking benefits consumers through lower costs and greater choice. It therefore should be celebrated, even as it unavoidably disrupts existing revenue models.

The FCC Must Concurrently Consider the Impact of Greater Television Station Consolidation on Retransmission Consent Negotiations

On February 18, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr told reporters that he supports the proposed acquisition of TEGNA Inc. by Nexstar Media Inc. – and, specifically, that the Commission is "going to be moving forward." Because the combined entity would own stations reaching approximately 80 percent of U.S. households (according to the applicants, 54.5 percent after the UHF discount is applied), approval of this $3.54 billion transaction would require a waiver of, or substantial revisions to, the current 39 percent national television ownership cap (the cap).

However, as Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I argued in comments filed last August regarding potential changes to the cap, it would be inappropriately shortsighted to assess the primary justification asserted by the broadcast industry for regulatory relief – that is, the need for greater scale and scope in order to compete for advertising dollars with national online distribution platforms – in a vacuum.

The reason: it is inevitable that any regulatory relief provided regarding the cap (whether in general or specifically in the context of the instant transaction) intended to level the playing field between broadcasters and Big Tech (Amazon, Alphabet, Apple, and so on) will further skew the already lopsided retransmission consent negotiating positions of broadcasters and facilities-based multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs): cable operators and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) operators.

As DIRECTV, LLC described in great detail in its petition to deny, "[a]mple evidence corroborates Applicants' own statements that the local consolidation proposed here will lead to higher retransmission consent rates." In addition – and echoing the fear recently expressed by Emily Barr, the former CEO of Graham Media Group, which owns multiple television stations in four states, that relief from the cap "is more about driving up stock prices for the few companies that survive consolidation" than it is about greater localism – DIRECTV warned that the transaction "would (notwithstanding Applicants' claims) almost certainly decrease the amount and quality of local news."

Accordingly, when assessing the claimed benefits of the proposed combination of Nexstar and TEGNA, the Commission should simultaneously evaluate – and take steps to mitigate – the impact that substantially larger station groups would have on the already asymmetric, heavily regulated relationships between local television stations and traditional MVPDs. As Mr. May and I wrote:

[I]f the FCC concludes that it should – and can, in a post-Chevron appellate environment – modify the national television ownership cap, at the same time it should (1) urge Congress to modernize the Communications Act, and, in the interim, (2) identify additional ways to eliminate unwarranted rules targeting facilities-based MVPDs.

To that list of remedial measures, at this time, I would add that greater consolidation on the broadcaster side certainly should factor heavily into the agency's consideration of pending, as well as future, transactions involving facilities-based MVPDs. As the Free State Foundation noted in its comments on the proposed combination of Charter Communications, Inc. and Cox Enterprises, Inc. currently before the Commission, "given that the FCC is considering allowing greater concentration in local broadcast television station ownership to facilitate competition vis-à-vis Big Tech platforms with global reach – a one-sided deregulatory step that inevitably would further skew retransmission consent negotiations – it would seem appropriate to afford the applicants similar relief here."

Streaming Continues to Surge as Short-Form Video Reshapes Consumer Habits

In a June 2025 post to the FSF Blog, I noted that streaming video had achieved a remarkable milestone: for the first time, it surpassed cable and broadcast television combined, capturing 44.8 percent of total viewing in May 2025. That trend continues. According to Nielsen's January edition of The Gauge™, streaming video's viewing share reached 47.5 percent in December 2025, setting yet another record. Perhaps even more impressive is the fact that, on two separate occasions, it represented over half of daily video consumption.

But the story of shifting consumer preferences extends beyond the longstanding streaming-versus-traditional-distribution-platforms narrative. An equally significant transformation is underway as social-media platforms – TikTok, YouTube Shorts, Instagram Reels, and so on – increasingly capture consumer attention with short-form content, particularly among younger demographics.

According to a Digiday article citing a report by GCI (subscription required), global consumers on average spend a tremendous amount of time each week watching short-form video content on social-media platforms: six hours and 39 minutes. In fact, the amount of time global consumers spend accessing such content significantly exceeds the amount of time they view streaming video: 5 hours. This represents a fundamental realignment in how people – especially younger generations – consume video.

These twin trends carry significant implications for communications policy. Indeed, the (1) ongoing ascendance of streaming video over legacy distribution platforms, and (2) explosive growth of short-form video underscore what I and others affiliated with the Free State Foundation long have argued: that the video marketplace is intensely competitive and consumer-driven. Consequently, legacy regulations born of a bygone era interfere with marketplace mechanics and artificially constrain competition-fueled growth in consumer welfare.

This reality is particularly relevant in the context of the FCC's ongoing review of the proposed transaction between Charter Communications, Inc. and Cox Enterprises, Inc., currently on day 101 (out of 180) according to the Commission's informal timeline. As the Free State Foundation noted in its comments, the combination of these geographically distinct distribution platforms appears likely to benefit video subscribers, in particular the Cox customers who would gain access to Charter's packages bundled with popular streaming options (HBO Max, Disney+, Paramount+, and ESPN Unlimited, among others).

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.

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."

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.

House Commerce Subcommittee to Hold Hearing on Video Marketplace

The House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications and Technology will hold a hearing tomorrow at 2 pm ET entitled "Lights, Camera, Subscriptions: State of the Video Marketplace." Promisingly, this hearing will focus, at least in part, on outdated regulations that inappropriately impede traditional video programming distributors' ability to participate in an increasingly competitive marketplace.

When announcing the hearing, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodger (R-WA) and Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chair Bob Latta (R-OH) stated the following:

Over the last decade, the video marketplace has undergone a transformative shift as more media content moves online. The introduction of streaming services expanded the options for consumers to choose where, when, and what content they view. While there is an unprecedented amount of content, like movies, TV shows, and news, available, the rise of these services creates challenges for traditional media providers who continue to compete despite being saddled with regulations. We look forward to discussing the evolution of this market, the steps Congress can take to ensure outdated regulations do not hinder innovation and competition, as well as how to bring the traditional marketplace into the 21st century.

Scheduled witnesses include:

• FuboTV Inc. Board Member and CEO David Gandler (witness testimony)
• National Association of Broadcasters President and CEO Curtis LeGeyt (witness testimony)
• Consumer Reports Senior Policy Counsel and Manager of Special Projects Jonathan Schwantes (witness testimony)
• America's Communications Association – ACA Connects President and CEO Grant B. Spellmeyer (witness testimony)

In a recent post to the Free State Foundation's blog, I presented the latest evidence of longstanding subscriber trends – specifically, that traditional video programming distribution platforms, both facilities-based and virtual, continue to shed customers while countless streaming services add them.

Consequently, and as I argued in "With Pay-TV on the Wane, Legacy Regulations Should Follow," a July Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "consumers have available more than sufficient choices to compel a comprehensive change in course away from government intervention … and toward the exclusive reliance upon efficiently operating market forces."

Perhaps tomorrow's hearing will serve as a significant step in that direction.

Video Subscriber Updates Underscore Ongoing Shift to Streaming

In a July 2023 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, I took aim at the core assumption underlying calls to expand the definition of a "Multichannel Video Programming Distributor" (MVPD) to include virtual substitutes streamed over the Internet (vMVPDs). Contrary to what proponents might have you believe, subscribers cutting the physical cord are not switching en masse to online alternatives. Instead, they're migrating primarily to streaming platforms like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime.

The latest video subscriber numbers provide further evidence that both facilities-based MVPDs (cable, Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), telco TV) and vMVPDs are weathering the impact of a seismic shift in consumer preferences away from the monolithic video "big bundle" to a self-curated collection of more targeted offerings.

Some key data points:

• According to the Leichtman Research Group (LRG), the top cable operators lost 925,532 subscribers during Q2. The two DBS providers, DIRECTV and DISH TV, combined shed nearly 600,000 customers. And Verizon FiOS saw its total drop by 70,000. Overall, LRG found that traditional MVPDs lost 1.61 million customers.
• Wells Fargo analyst Steven Cahall reported even higher traditional MVPD declines: 1.72 million customers, representing 7 percent of the total.
• Overall, LRG saw vMVPD subscriber totals decline in Q2 by 115,000 – despite an estimated 200,000 additional YouTube TV customers. (Note that not all vMVPDs release subscriber data to the public.)
• Steven Cahall, meanwhile, saw vMVPDs add just 8,000 subscribers in Q2.
• Netflix, on the other hand, added 1.17 million customers in the United States and Canada during Q2, for a total of 75.57 million.
• And Hulu added 300,000 subscribers in Q3, for a total of 44 million subscribers.

As I concluded in "With Pay-TV on the Wane, Legacy Regulations Should Follow," the appropriate response to these ongoing trends is to eliminate outdated rules, not expand them:

Put simply, the issue is not that the definition of an MVPD is not sufficiently broad, it's that pay-TV companies confront a marketplace that is dramatically changed…. To fully harness for consumers the benefit-generating engine that is competition, it is time for regulators (and regulations) to step aside and let the marketplace drive optimally efficient outcomes.

Greater Video Competition Should Prompt Less Regulation, Not More

Dormant for nearly a decade, the FCC's misguided proposal to expand the definition of "Multichannel Video Programming Distributors" (MVPDs) – a category limited to facilities-based offerings such as cable, Direct Broadcast Satellite, and telco TV – recently has received renewed attention. In a letter dated March 24, 2023, responding to an inquiry from Senator Charles Grassley (R - IA), FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel pointed to statutory definitions as the basis for not subjecting MVPDs that stream content over the public Internet – that is, "virtual MVPDs" (vMVPDs) such as YouTube TV, Hulu + Live TV, Sling TV, and DIRECTV STREAM – to legacy regulations.

This is the right outcome, of course. However, the justification put forth overlooks the forest for the trees. The dramatic rise of vMVPDs, as well as the multitude of other Online Video Distributors (OVDs) that make video content available to consumers – think Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Hulu, Disney+, Apple TV+, HBO Max, Paramount+, and so on – has rendered the video programming marketplace robustly competitive. Consequently, the goal of the Commission in 2023 should be to identify opportunities to eliminate outdated rules that apply to traditional MVPDs, not extend them to the new entrants whose competitive influence obviates any justification for regulatory intervention.

I, as well as other Free State Foundation scholars, document regularly the rapid growth of streaming services at the expense of traditional MVPDs. Recent examples include "On Video, the FCC's Competition Report Falls Short," a January 2023 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, and "A Tale of Two Trends: Traditional Video Distributors Shrink While Streaming Video Grows," a Perspectives published in September 2022.

In the latter, I followed these changed circumstances to their logical conclusion, writing that:

[I]t is past time for the Commission and Congress to take all necessary steps to eliminate one-sided burdens that impede competition – such as set-top box regulations, program access and carriage requirements, and the network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules [that apply solely to facilities-based MVPDs] – and instead rely on the efficient operation of marketplace forces to drive down prices and expand consumer choices.

Chairwoman Rosenworcel did acknowledge the current competitive reality in her letter to Senator Grassley, highlighting the fact that "the video marketplace has changed significantly with the introduction of streaming services." Nevertheless, and as was the case with the 2022 Communications Marketplace Report, she failed to articulate an appropriate deregulatory response.

While it is true that vMVPDs do not deliver video content within "a portion of the electromagnetic frequency spectrum which is used in a cable system" and therefore do not fall within the statutory definition of an "MVPD," it is equally true that, given the vast array of competitive options available to consumers, regulations premised upon that technical distinction have outlived whatever utility they once may have had and should be eliminated.

Consumer Preferences Steadily Shift to Streaming Video

During the second half of 2022, the percentage of U.S. households with a pay TV subscription (think: "cable") fell below half for the first time. When presented with the choice between accessing a specific show on a linear channel or a subscription video-on-demand (SVOD) service, consumers increasingly opt for the latter – and not just to avoid ads: younger Americans, in particular, "emphasize that SVOD is the place where they already watch shows most of the time." And speaking of SVOD, one analyst expects SVOD services to add 40 million new subscriptions in 2023 – an impressive feat given current economic conditions.

Indeed, each passing week seemingly provides additional evidence that consumers prefer their video streamed – and that, as a result, in 2023 no justification exists for regulations that single out traditional providers of video content. Far from gatekeepers, cable operators and other facilities-based Multichannel Video Programming Distributors (MVPDs) find themselves uniquely stymied by legacy rules predicated upon marketplace conditions that simply do not exist today.

In Comments and Replies filed in the 2022 Communications Marketplace Report proceeding, Free State Foundation scholars (1) documented the rapid consumer migration from traditional MVPDs to Internet-based alternatives, and (2) and argued persuasively that, consistent with its statutory responsibility to identify "laws, regulations, [and] regulatory practices [that]... pose a barrier ... to the competitive expansion of existing providers of communications services," the FCC should take swift steps to eliminate outdated and one-sided carriage- and equipment-related rules that constrain competition, arbitrarily pick winners and losers, and, ultimately and consequently, harm consumers.

However, as I pointed out in "On Video, the FCC's Competition Report Falls Short," a January 2023 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, the ensuing Report failed to articulate an appropriate deregulatory agenda in response to the markedly transformed video programming landscape that it described. (Keep in mind, too, that that Report focused on the years 2020 and 2021 – a lifetime ago given the pace at which video distribution is evolving.)

Going forward, Free State Foundation scholars will continue to highlight data points compelling Commission deregulatory measures that afford every participant in the vibrantly competitive video programming marketplace an equal opportunity to compete.

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.

Nielsen: Viewership of Streaming Video Has Surpassed That of Broadcast Television

In a June 11 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "Streaming Continues to Redefine the Video Landscape: It's Past Time to Eliminate Legacy Regulations," I made the case that the video distribution power center has shifted from traditional, facilities-based providers to those that lead in the online space.

Both streaming platforms, such as Roku and Amazon Fire TV, and streaming services, led by Netflix and Amazon Prime but including Disney+, Hulu, HBO Max, Paramount+, and numerous others, enjoy user totals that far exceed those of traditional, facilities-based multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs).

As a consequence, outdated rules premised upon marketplace assumptions that in 2021 absolutely do not apply only impede competition.

Just-released data from Nielsen underscores the degree to which streaming is revolutionizing how consumers access video: more people now view streamed content than watch broadcast television.

This, without question, is a watershed moment.

For more from Free State Foundation scholars on the pressing need to deregulate further the video distribution marketplace, please click here, here, here, and here.

FCC Proposes Leased Access Update, But First Amendment Problem Remains

At its July 16 public meeting, the FCC will vote on a proposed order that would make updates to its commercial leased access rules. The proposed order would bring the rules into closer alignment with actual market values for cable channels and reduce burdens on cable operators. As far as they go, these changes make sense and they ought to be approved by the Commission. If adopted, however, the order would sidestep the glaring First Amendment problems posed by cable leased access regulation. 

Commercial leased access rules require cable operators to lease channel capacity to independent video programmers at government-set rates. Under the proposed order, leased access rates would be set according to a tier-based calculation intended to approximate the actual value of the leased channels. Also, maximum fees that cable operators may charge independent video programmers for leased access would be calculated annually based on contracts in effect the prior year. Apparently, these changes would reduce regulatory burdens on cable operators. Commission deserves credit for proposing these updates to the old rules.

But the First Amendment problem with cable leased access regulation remains. On the one hand, the FCC's proposed order acknowledges that significant changes have taken place in the video marketplace over the several years since the constitutionality of the cable leased access regime was upheld. Those changes put the constitutionality of leased access regulation in doubt. On the other hand, the proposed order agrees that "it is not the role of the Commission to adjudicate in the first instance the constitutionality of leased access requirements that have been mandated by Congress," so it offers no opinion on the First Amendment issue.  

As Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I explained in our July 2019 comments to the FCC in its commercial leased access proceeding, leased access regulation is an unconstitutional "forced speech" mandate. Such regulation infringes on the First Amendment editorial rights of cable operators over what video programming they will carry and how much they can charge for content they may not want to carry. Supposed "bottlenecks" in the distribution pathways for video programming in the late 1980s and early 1990s provided the basis for upholding leased access regulation. Those bottlenecks do not exist in today's competitive video marketplace. Strict scrutiny is now the proper constitutional standard for evaluating cable leased access regulation. But there is no compelling government interest in regulating or limiting the editorial discretion of cable operators to program their services as they wish, and so cable leased access regulation fails strict scrutiny. 

Although the FCC may believe that its limited role prevents it from doing away with leased access regulation, that should in no way inhibit members of Congress or the courts from acting within their own roles to address the glaring First Amendment problem with cable leased access regulation. 

Online Video Offerings from INCOMPAS/DISH TV Bolster the Case Against Local Cable Rate Controls

On October 15, it was reported that INCOMPAS and DISH NETWORK have entered into a Retail Partner Program agreement to provide nationwide video service offerings, including video services comparable to cable multi-channel video programming distributor (MVPD) services. According to reports, INCOMPAS members will resell DISH TV's video services, making them available via broadband connections to INCOMPAS subscribers. This market development demonstrates the competitiveness of the video market and it bolsters the case against outdated local cable rate controls. 

My October 11 Perspectives from FSF Scholars paper, "FCC Action Would Finally Eliminate Local Cable Rate Regulation," explained why the Commission should adopt its proposed LEC "effective competition" order. Local rate regulation of basic cable tier services and equipment shouldn't exist in today's competitive video marketplace, which includes nationwide direct broadcast satellite (DBS) services and over-the-top (OTT) online video services. Based on the Commissions' "LEC test," the proposed order would eliminate local cable rate controls in the few geographic areas where they are still enforced. 

The Commission's proposed order is scheduled for a vote at its public meeting on October 25. The order is prompted by Charter Communications' petition requesting the Commission to find that AT&T TV NOW's nationwide offering of streaming video service via broadband Internet facilities is comparable to cable services and provides effective competition to cable systems in certain Massachusetts and Hawaii localities. My Perspectives paper sets forth some positive results that would obtain from the Commission's adoption of its proposal. 

The Commission's "LEC test" requirements aside, the INCOMPAS/DISH TV announcement goes to show that today's video marketplace offers consumers competitive choices. Legacy cable regulation based on early 1990s analog- and VCR-era market assumptions, including local cable rate regulation, provide no discernable benefit to consumers in 2019's video landscape. Local cable rate controls ought to be scrapped.

Modern TV Act Would Remove Old Rules, Bring Video Policy Up to Date

The Modern Television Act of 2019 is promising new legislation that would bring federal video policy into greater alignment with 21st century market realities. Introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on July 25 by Reps. Steve Scalise and Anna Eshoo, the Modern TV Act would repeal or at least reduce a number of old legacy broadcast TV and cable regulations that were based on a now-obsolete picture of the video market. The Modern TV Act is a bipartisan compromise measure that the 116th Congress ought to take up in earnest this year.

Among its provisions, the Modern TV Act would eliminate distant signal importation prohibitions, syndicated exclusivity rules, network non-duplication rules, authority to regulate local cable rates under Section 623, and cable leased access rules. Most of those rules involve dealings between market participants that own video programming and video service providers that distribute programming to retail subscribers. Once those rules are eliminated, video programmers and video service providers can, in most instances, simply negotiate contracts to address which programming receives carriage in which local TV markets. The Modern TV Act also would eliminate, or at least largely eliminate, cable and satellite compulsory licenses for carrying copyrighted video programming, thereby allowing parties to negotiate copyright royalties.

The Modern TV Act moves firmly in the direction of establishing a federal video policy that matches the competitive conditions of today's innovative video marketplace. For several years, Free State Foundation scholars have called attention to the fact that legacy regulations of broadcast, cable, and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) TV services are based largely on early 1990s, or even earlier, assumptions about the analog and VCR-era video market. But those regulations are now hopelessly out of touch with today's marketplace. 

The days are long gone when the video service choices of most Americans were largely limited to over-the-air (OTA) broadcast TV or a single cable operator. Today, most Americans can choose between a cable provider and two DBS providers, while many also have access to a former "telco" video services provider. Unlike the days when cable operators had a 91% market share among pay-TV services, at year's-end 2017, cable served 55.2% of multi-channel video programming distributor (MVPD) subscribers, DBS served nearly 33.5%, and "telco MVPDs" serviced 11.3%. Meanwhile, in 2018 antenna use for OTA broadcast TV reached its highest level since 2005, with 31% of U.S. households having an antenna on at least one TV. Online video distributor (OVD) services have also dramatically transformed the video market. In early 2019, Netflix had over 60 million U.S. subscribers to its streaming video service, while Amazon Prime and Hulu had 101 million and 28 million. Widespread adoption of OVD services has been recognized as an important cause of annual MVPD subscriber losses going back to 2013. Total MVPD subscriptions were down to 94 million at year's-end 2017, and sharp declines have been reported for 2018 and 2019.

Legacy regulations geared toward last century's outdated technologies and less competitive, pre-Internet market conditions confer no benefit on consumers today. Instead, their continuation saddles broadcast, cable, and DBS TV service providers with burdensome compliance costs as well as restrictions that can inhibit their ability to compete with each other and with online competitors. 

Furthermore, as Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I have explained in numerous writings, many legacy video regulations, including leased access rules, amount to forced access mandates. Requiring video service providers to carry video programming not of their own choosing violates their First Amendment free speech rights. The Modern TV Act's proposed repeal of leased access rules would better respect the free speech rights of cable providers. 

To help bring federal video policy up to date, the 116th Congress should give prompt consideration to the Modern TV Act.

FCC Proposes to Keep Localities from Exceeding Taxing and Regulatory Limits

On August 1, the FCC will hold a vote on its proposed order to clarify the legal limits on the power of states and local franchising authorities (LFAs) to impose fees on cable operators and to regulate non-cable services. The Commission deserves credit for its proposed order, which is solidly backed by the Communications Act. The Commission's action will keep states and LFAs from weighing down cable operators with multiple, unjustified taxes and charges. And its proposed order also will ensure that broadband Internet services and other information services will be free from state and local state regulatory restrictions. 

To briefly recap, Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act recognizes that LFAs may require cable TV service operators to obtain franchises, but subject to limits.Section 622(b), for instance, caps franchise fees on cable operators at 5% of its cable service gross revenues during any 12-month period. And under Section 624(b), LFAs "may not ... establish requirements for video programming or other information services." However, some LFAs have imposed costs that appear to exceed those statutory limits, potentially diverting cable operator resources away from investment in next-generation broadband Internet services. And some uncertainty surrounded whether LFAs might exceed their cable franchising authority to regulate broadband Internet services.   

The Commission's proposed order implements the statutory limits on LFAs in four key respects:

1. By including "in-kind" contributions charged by LFAs in exchange for video franchises within the 5% cap on franchise fees;
2. By concluding that the regulatory jurisdiction of LFAs over video franchising cannot be used to regulate most non-cable services provided over "mixed-use" cable networks, including broadband Internet access services;
3. By preempting any LFA-imposed fees or taxes on cable operators that exceed the Section 622(b) cap as well as any franchising requirements for providing non-cable services through cable networks; and
4. By applying limits regarding LFAactions at the state level and to state regulatory requirements on local franchising.

Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I have previously written about the Commission's Section 621 proceeding and its proposed order in reply comments submitted to the FCC, which the agency cites in its draft order, and also in a pair of blog posts. We urged the Commission to shore up its "in-kind" contribution and "mixed-use" rules and to expressly apply limits on LFAs to the state-level franchising authorities. 

The Commission's proposed Section 621 order is important, and it is commendable. It is faithful to the law, it will keep LFA and state-level franchising actions within proper boundaries, and it's hospitable to encouraging investment and deployment of next-generation broadband services. 

FCC Gives the First Amendment Its Due in Cable Leased Access Proposal

On June 6, the FCC will vote on a proposed order and rulemaking to modify its analog-era leased access rules, including its dispute procedures and rate formula. To its credit, the Commission factors First Amendment free speech protections into its proposed modifications of its leased access rules. Indeed, the Commission expressly recognizes that leased access requirements, which restrict the editorial and speech rights of cable providers, are constitutionally on shaky ground. This is an important point that Free State Foundation scholars have been making for several years. 

As I wrote in "FCC Over-Regulation of Video Services Undermines Free Speech, a 2012 Perspectives from FSF Scholars paper:

The Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence holds that content-based restrictions are presumptively unconstitutional and that government is generally prohibited from telling speakers what they must say. But many of the FCC's regulations applicable to video service providers include access or forced sharing mandates. Some agency restrictions are even based on speech content. These continuing legacy regulations governing video services infringe upon the editorial choices of MVPDs. Court precedents recognize that MVPDs are entitled to First Amendment protection. The logic of the Court's relevant First Amendment decisions therefore renders significant aspects of current federal regulation of MVPDs' free speech constitutionally suspect. …The FCC's leased access regulations [] pose First Amendment problems. Under the statute, MVPDs lose "editorial control over any video programming" on the leased channel capacity. Rate controls constitute another facet of leased access regulations, which are another variety of forced access regulation. MVPDs are subject to FCC-set maximum amounts that independent video programmers can be charged for leasing channel capacity.  

Previously, legacy cable regulations, including leased access rules, were upheld under the intermediate scrutiny standard because of perceived cable video programming distribution bottlenecks in the early 1990s. Under intermediate scrutiny, speech of cable operators may be restricted so long as the regulation furthers an important government interest by means substantially related to further that interest. 

But by the time of my May 2011 blog post on ending legacy cable regulation we already were long past the days when cable operators possessed a 91% or more nationwide market share. And we already were long past the days when consumers' only option for subscription video services was a single local cable provider. Data from the Commission's Communications Marketplace Report (2018) reflect a video services ecosystem featuring competitive cable, direct broadcast satellite (DBS), and online platforms for video programmers to distribute content to consumers. As I summed things up in a February 2019 Perspectives paper:

For video services, the report found that at the end of 2017 all or nearly all U.S. consumers have access to three competing multi-channel video programming distributors (MVPDs). Some consumers had access to four. Furthermore, MVPDs lost subscribers to competing broadcast TV and – especially – to online video distributor (OVD) services. Whereas MVPDs lost 3.6 million video subscribers in 2017, a drop to 94 million, 16.6 million TV households (13.9%) relied exclusively on over-the-air (OTA) TV broadcast signals, up from 15.7 million TV households (13.2%) in 2017. Top three OVDs Amazon Prime, Netflix, and Hulu exceeded 125 million subscriptions in 2017, up from about 103 million in 2016. And "Virtual MVPDs" such as SlingTV and DIRECTV NOW climbed from 2.2 million subscribers to 4.8 million. 

In a June 2018 blog post titled "Improving the FCC's Cable Leased Access Proposal," I again pointed out that the old rationale for leased access rules no longer holds up. Therein I wrote that "the Commission should expressly identify the First Amendment problem posed by the leased access requirements in today’s competitive video market." Furthermore, I wrote: "If the Commission believes it is powerless to eliminate completely the leased access requirements, it should ameliorate the First Amendment problem," perhaps by predicating enforcement of its leased access rules on findings of market power.

Commendably, the Commission's proposed order and rulemaking states: "We agree that dramatic changes in technology and the marketplace for the distribution of programming cast substantial doubt on the constitutional foundation for our leased access rules." It goes on to say: 

[W]e now find that the First Amendment concerns raised by commenters provide additional reason to interpret the statutory obligations of Section 612 in a manner that reduces burdens on the speech of cable operators. We do so here by, among other things, eliminating the Commission rule requiring that cable operators make leased access available on a part-time basis.

The Commission's proposed order would vacate faulty 2008 rules that were never implemented and modify pre-2008 procedural requirements. And its proposed rulemaking would modify its leased access rate formula. Also, the Commission again asks if leased access requirements continue to withstand First Amendment scrutiny, and what discretion the Commission has to reduce the burdens on speech posed by those rules. By this admirable approach, the FCC rightly gives due respect to the First Amendment free speech interests that are burdened by leased access rules.