WASHINGTON – “Consumers have long complained about how their cable service forces them to buy channels they never watch. The move of video onto the Internet can do something about that frustration – but first Internet video services need access to the programs.”
That was the opening line of a much-talked about blog post from FCC chairman Tom Wheeler uploaded on Monday, October 28.
“Today the FCC takes the first step to open access to cable programs as well as local television. The result should be to give consumers more alternatives from which to choose so they can buy the programs they want.”
Wheeler points back to 1992 when Congress there had to step in and mandate access to cable channels for satellite TV companies because the cable guys made it so the newcomers offering satellite TV couldn’t get access to cable channels.
Wheeler sees little difference between yesterday’s satellite TV companies and today’s over-the-top streamers.
“Today I am proposing to extend the same concept to the providers of linear, Internet-based services; to encourage new video alternatives by opening up access to content previously locked on cable channels. What could these over-the-top video providers (OTTs) supply to consumers? Many different kinds of multichannel video packages designed for different tastes and preferences. A better ability for a consumer to order the channels he or she wants to watch,” wrote Wheeler.
“Specifically, I am asking the Commission to start a rulemaking proceeding in which we would modernize our interpretation of the term “multichannel video programming distributor” (MVPD) so that it is technology-neutral. The result of this technical adjustment will be to give MVPDs that use the Internet (or any other method of transmission) the same access to programming owned by cable operators and the same ability to negotiate to carry broadcast TV stations that Congress gave to satellite systems in order to ensure competitive video markets.
“A key component of rules that spur competition is assuring the FCC’s rules are technology-neutral. That’s why the definition of an MVPD should turn on the services that a provider offers, not on how those services reach viewers. Twenty-first century consumers shouldn’t be shackled to rules that only recognize 20th century technology.
“Such benefits follow from innovation. Taking advantage of this rule, new OTTs may offer smaller or specialized packages of video programming, so consumers will be able to mix-and-match to suit their tastes. Aereo recently visited the Commission to make exactly this point – that updating the definition of an MVPD will provide consumers with new choices. And perhaps consumers will not be forced to pay for channels they never watch.”
Maybe they need a #talktv proceeding there, too…
