It’s likely more counterproductive than beneficial for consumers. That’s the assessment of pro-MVPD advocacy group ACA Connects of a FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on cable television “all-in” pricing.
While the comments are hardly surprising, the group led by President/CEO Grant Spellmeyer takes it a step further by using it as an opportunity to “address the real problem” — retrans and Regional Sports Networks fees.
In comments filed on Monday evening from the ACA Connects’ 18th annual affair dubbed as The Independent Show, in Minneapolis through Wednesday, the organization explains that in the NPRM, the Commission proposes to enhance pricing transparency by requiring cable operators and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers to specify the “all-in” price for service in their promotional materials and on subscribers’ bills.
The “all-in” price for a video service would be defined to include all costs paid by a subscriber that are attributable to video programming and to exclude all other costs, such as taxes and equipment rental fees.
It’s the Commission’s belief that the NPRM is based on a necessary rule change that ensures consumers have access to clear, easy-to-understand, and accurate information about the pricing of video services. This, the FCC has said, can help consumers “make informed choices” and also to “[encourage] competition in the market.”
Of particular concern to the Commission is that “[c]onsumers who choose a video service based on an advertised monthly price may be surprised by unexpected fees related to the cost of video programming” – including retransmission consent fees and regional sports network (“RSN”) fees – “that raise the amount of the bill significantly.”
For Spellmeyer and his members, that’s bullocks, as ACA Connects “respectfully disagrees with the Commission’s presumption.”
What’s the ACA Connects viewpoint on the subject? “Consumers may be troubled by the high rates they are charged for video service but not because prices are hidden or not sufficiently disclosed,” it argues. “Rather, consumers are very much concerned by high rates in and of themselves, which are the result of large television broadcasters and Regional Sports Networks (RSNs) exercising their market power to extract supracompetitive fees for retransmission consent and sports programming.”
Those comments may fall on deaf ears at the Commission and on Capitol Hill, however, as discussion of extending retransmission consent to virtual MVPDs has begun.
That said, the ACA Comments is steadfast in its view that the NPRM’s proposed “all-in” pricing requirement “would not advance — and in fact would diminish — the goal of providing consumers with more pricing information.”
ACA Connects concludes that, in its view, “there is scant evidence that the requirement is necessary to address any gap in transparency regarding prices for video service. The proposed rule would also be highly burdensome if not entirely unworkable to implement, and is more likely to be counterproductive than beneficial for consumers. And, it would redirect consumers away from the source of their inflated rates. We therefore urge the Commission not to adopt the proposed rule but instead initiate a proceeding to address the real problem: excessive retransmission consent and RSN fees.”
Reply comments are due August 29.
