Reclassifying Some OVDs as MVPDs Should Be Backburnered, NATOA Says
The FCC should put on hold the issue of whether some online video distributors (OVDs) should be reclassified as multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) until it first handles a variety of other issues, NATOA said in a filing posted Wednesday…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
in docket 14-261. "It is important that the Commission first establish ‘the rules of the game’ before deciding who's eligible to play," it said. Those rules to be set include a review of program access rules, clarifying good-faith negotiation standards in retransmission consent "and a full review of the technical challenges faced by OVDs" that could make compliance with such MVPD regulations as closed captioning and emergency alert difficult, NATOA said. The organization also criticized the argument that OVDs should have the option of whether to be considered MVPDs (see 1508120012). "The goals of increased competition and more consumer choice would be hindered if these new services are not subject to the mandates that apply to established providers," NATOA said. Since competition already is strong among OVDs, there may not be a sound public policy reason for reclassifying them as MVPDs, it said, echoing NCTA (see 1508030057). In a separate filing posted Wednesday in docket 14-261, Oregon's Metropolitan Area Communications Commission also backed the idea that any OVDs reclassified as MVPDs should have the same obligations as other MVPDs, including carrying local public, educational and government community programming. However, the FCC's tentative conclusion that a cable operator's over-the-top video service shouldn't be regulated as a cable service is wrong, MACC said. Taking away cable's public interest obligations when it uses a different technology to deliver its video "would put the Commission in the position of creating incentives to undercut franchise obligations for no public or consumer purpose," MACC said.