Extending MVPD Status to OVDs not Good Public Policy, NCTA Says

Pai's office, at which NCTA repeated points made in previous comments and replies as the FCC looks at expanding what is considered an MVPD to a particular type of OVD. That expansion would be inconsistent with the language and legislative history of the term, "all of which make clear that the term applies only to facilities-based entities that provide subscribers not only video programming but also the transmission path on which such programming is delivered," NCTA said. OVDs don't need such program access rules under MVPD regulation, because competition "is already flourishing" among MVPDs and OVDs, and regulation that would enforce terms and conditions that don't come from negotiations "is not pro-competitive," NCTA said. Such a new interpretation of MVPDs also would put "serious administrative burdens" on the FCC and on businesses, because figuring out enforcement issues and "determining how program access obligations of cable operators apply to OVDs will be a complex regulatory task, involving arbitrary line-drawing, which runs directly contrary to the express statutory policy of allowing the Internet to continue to grow and develop," said the association. An interpretation of MVPD that extends program access rules to OVDs "would raise serious Constitutional issues" under the First Amendment, NCTA said. When cable operators offer online video to ISP customers, they shouldn't be treated as cable operators but the same as other OVDs, NCTA said.