FCC Still Not Seen Eager to Take Up 30-Day Notice Rule Despite Mounting Complaints
Complaints are increasing about alleged MVPD violations of the requirement to give subscribers a 30-day notice before a channel lineup change, but top FCC aides told us there has been no indication either FCC Chairman Ajit Pai or the Media Bureau is planning a proceeding and it's unlikely there will be one. Joseph Van Eaton of Best Best, representing communities in Arizona and Wyoming seeking a declaratory ruling that Charter violated the advance notice rule, said he expects the agency to issue a public notice soon on that petition. The FCC didn't comment. Experts and insiders said it's not clear the agency will take up or clarify the 30-day notice rule (see 1802160017).
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.
Usually carriage disruptions work themselves out without FCC involvement, and typically far more quickly than a rulemaking could be, and the agency has limited authority to involve itself, said Brooke Ericson, Commissioner Mike O'Rielly's chief of staff. She said it would be surprising if the agency decided to address the 30-day issue because of those issues. Another commissioner's aide said the Starz blackout on Altice USA, and a subsequent Starz complaint Altice violated the advance notice rule (see 1801160058), which Altice disputed (see 1802060018), showed there's gray area on the rules. Many carriage agreement renewals go down to the wire, and it would be unduly alarming to consumers to have to put out notices each time they come within 30 days of elapsing, the aide said. Aides said the resolution of the Altice/Starz dustup (see 1802130059) may have taken wind out of the sails of discussions about tackling the 30-day notice issue. Starz and Altice didn't comment.
Yuma, Arizona; Jackson, Wyoming; and El Centro, California, in their petition posted Friday, said Charter intentionally violated the 30-day advance notice rule with its Feb. 2 blackout of local stations owned by Northwest Broadcasting. The communities' petition also asked the FCC to require Charter to give subscribers "appropriate refunds" and to levy unspecified forfeitures. The petition said the blackout affected KYMA-DT and KSWT Yuma, which also serve El Centro, and KPVI-DT Pocatello, Idaho, which serves Jackson.
The communities said they and subscribers got no advance notice but that Charter had been planning the blackout for weeks, with the MVPD registering the "northwestfairdeal.com" domain in January. The petition also said that by seeking only short-term carriage extensions, Charter "made no effort to comply." Van Eaton said FCC decisions -- such as a 2006 Media Bureau order on Time Warner Cable's dropping the NFL Network -- have made it clear that if broadcasters offer a 30-day extension and a distributor turns it down, control of that blackout is squarely on the distributor and therefore so is the obligation to make such notifications. Charter didn't comment.
Northwest also alleged Charter broke FCC rules by not giving advance notice (see 1802120044). "If you are paying for something the company you're paying should have to tell you when you are going to have a rate change or a programming change so that you can decide what you want to do about it," emailed Northwest CEO Brian Brady.
Charter met with the Media Bureau in February, urging it to make clear the 30-day rule doesn't apply when a cable operator and a broadcaster or programmer are in carriage negotiations, even during the final 30 days of an agreement (see 1802160017). But an aide said the company may have decided not to go further with the issue, since there have been no further ex parte filings on the subject by Charter.