Consumers Union Decries STELAR Provision

regulation that would put even more power in the hands of large cable operators." There's scant evidence the cable universe is actually competitive, the consumer group said in a letter posted Tuesday in docket 15-53, saying the cost to consumers of pay TV "continues to outpace the rate of inflation." Many consumers don't have the option of direct broadcast satellite as an alternative, "nor does it provide all consumers with the high speed broadband options that are available from cable companies," Consumers Union said. Changing the presumption of effective competition could mean costlier cable services and more difficulty for local governments in negotiating consumer protections or in requiring cable service to an entire area instead of just the more profitable geographic sections, the Consumers Union said. The proposed Section 111 implementation, which would make cable companies exempt from rate regulation unless a local franchising authority challenged their status as facing effective competition, is opposed by many media companies (see 1506010026">1506010026). Meanwhile, any implementation of Section 111 should be limited only to small cable operators, as that's clearly what Congress intended in STELAR, and it wasn't meant to change a cable company's obligation to show effective competition exists, NAB said in a related filing.