[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 7, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38007-38017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-09701]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[MB Docket No. 24-115; FCC 24-44; FR ID 216063]
Fostering Independent and Diverse Sources of Video Programming
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) seeks comment on the current state of the marketplace for
diverse and independent programming and on the obstacles faced by
independent programmers seeking carriage on multichannel video
programming distributors (MVPDs) and online platforms. In order to
alleviate such obstacles, the Commission proposes to prohibit two types
of contractual provisions in program carriage agreements between
independent programmers and MVPDs: most favored nation (MFN)
provisions, and unreasonable alternative distribution method (ADM)
provisions. The Commission also seeks comment on current program
bundling practices.
DATES: Comments are due on or before June 6, 2024; reply comments are
due on or before July 8, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and
reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of
this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). You may submit comments,
identified by MB Docket No. 24-115, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19.
[[Page 38008]]
See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in
Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020).
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530
(voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, contact
Kathy Berthot, [email protected], of the Media Bureau, Policy
Division, (202) 418-7454.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 24-44, adopted on April 17, 2024 and
released on April 19, 2024. The full text of this document is available
on the FCC website at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-44A1.pdf. This document will also be available via ECFS at https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis: This document proposes
new or modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens and pursuant
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, invites the
general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment
on these information collection requirements. In addition, pursuant to
the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how
it might further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act: Consistent with
the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-
9, a summary of this document will be available on: https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
Synopsis
1. Through this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the
Commission initiates a new proceeding to seek comment on the current
state of the marketplace for diverse and independent programming. The
Commission also seeks comment on the obstacles faced by independent
video programmers seeking MVPD carriage and carriage on online
platforms and how this impacts consumers. In order to alleviate
marketplace obstacles that may hinder independent programmers from
reaching consumers, the Commission proposes to prohibit two types of
contractual provisions in program carriage agreements between
independent programmers and MVPDs: (i) most favored nation (MFN)
provisions, and (ii) unreasonable alternative distribution method (ADM)
provisions. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on current
program bundling practices.
2. In 2016, the Commission launched a proceeding in MB Docket No.
16-41 to examine how certain contractual provisions in carriage
agreements between programmers and distributors, such as most favored
nation (MFN) and alternative distribution method (ADM) clauses, impact
programming competition, innovation, and diversity. In general, an MFN
provision entitles an MVPD to more favorable economic or non-economic
contract terms that a video programming vendor has provided to another
video programming distributor, whether an MVPD or an OVD. An ADM
provision generally prohibits or restricts a video programming vendor
from exhibiting its programming on OVDs, often for a specified period
of time (sometimes referred to as a ``holdback period'' or ``window'')
following the programming's original linear airing, or until certain
conditions are met. In 2020, having not received any new comments in
the proceeding in over two years, Commission staff terminated this
proceeding under the dormant proceedings rule.
Current State of the Marketplace for Independent Programming
3. The Commission seeks comment on developments and changes in the
marketplace for independent programming and the availability of such
programming to consumers since the comment cycle in the MB Docket No.
16-41 proceeding closed in 2017. For example, what is the current state
of the marketplace? Are independent programmers still experiencing the
same obstacles to carriage that the record described in response to our
inquiries in 2016? Has the availability of carriage on a variety of
platforms, including OVDs and MVPDs, increased or decreased in the
intervening years? Specifically, we seek information on how many
independent programmers currently are carried exclusively by MVPDs, how
many are carried exclusively by OVDs, and how many are carried by both
MVPDs and OVDs. Has the number of independent programmers carried on
each of these platforms increased or decreased since 2017? If it has
decreased, what factor or factors have led to such decrease? Is there
more or less independent and diverse programming available to consumers
today than there was in 2017? Have changes in the marketplace
exacerbated the difficulty of independent programmers in obtaining
carriage? We note that in the 2022 Communications Marketplace Report,
NTCA asserts that a number of MVPDs have discontinued offering video
service to its customers, and Rural Media Group contends that the
vertical integration of MVPDs has restricted access to independent
cable networks. Does the continued decrease in MVPD subscribers have
any effect on the ability of independent programmers to obtain
carriage?
4. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether it is more
difficult for independent programmers to obtain carriage on certain
types of MVPDs (e.g., cable vs. non-cable MVPDs, or smaller vs. larger
MVPDs). How does the level of competition among MVPDs impact the
bargaining leverage of independent programmers in negotiations for
carriage deals? To what extent does the ability of independent
programmers to grow and thrive today depend on their ability to secure
carriage on MVPDs? For each of these questions, the Commission requests
that commenters support their responses with relevant information
regarding specific independent program networks. The Commission also
seeks comment on what, if any, difficulties independent programmers
have experienced in gaining carriage on OVDs.
Marketplace Obstacles Faced by Independent Programmers
5. Most Favored Nation Provisions. MFN provisions generally
authorize a contracting video programming distributor to modify a
programming agreement to incorporate more favorable rates, contract
terms, or conditions that the contracting programmer later agrees to
with another distributor. The Commission seeks comment on the current
usage of MFN provisions, both conditional and unconditional, in
contracts for carriage of non-broadcast video programming. Has there
been a notable change in the prevalence of MFNs provisions,
particularly unconditional MFNs, since 2017? If unconditional MFN
provisions are used less frequently today, what accounts for this
change and is the downward trend in the use of such provisions expected
to continue? Conversely, if unconditional MFN provisions are used more
frequently today, what accounts
[[Page 38009]]
for this change and is the upward trend in the use of such provisions
expected to continue? Are conditional and unconditional MFN provisions
typically only included in carriage agreements between independent
programmers and MVPDs or are they also included in agreements with
OVDs? Do both cable and non-cable MVPDs require MFN provisions? Are MFN
provisions in general, and unconditional MFNs in particular, more
likely to be included in carriage contracts with independent
programmers than in carriage contracts with vertically integrated
programmers? Do certain types of MFN provisions restrain the ability of
independent programmers to compete fairly and, if so, what types and
how? To what extent does the size of the MVPD or the number of channels
offered by an independent programmer impact whether MFN provisions are
included in carriage contracts? Do MFN provisions in carriage
agreements between MVPDs and independent programmers cover the terms of
both other MVPD agreements and OVD agreements? If so, how often do such
MFN provisions extend to OVD agreements?
6. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on the current costs
and benefits of both conditional and unconditional MFN provisions. What
impact do conditional and unconditional MFNs have on the development
and distribution of diverse and niche programming today? To what extent
do MFN provisions limit the ability of independent programmers to
experiment with new or unique distribution models or to tailor deals
with smaller MVPDs or online distributors? Are there particular types
of conditional MFN provisions that hinder the development and
distribution of such programming and, if so, how do they have this
effect? What impact do audits and other mechanisms used to enforce MFN
provisions have on independent programmers' ability to compete in the
marketplace? What benefits are associated with conditional and
unconditional MFN provisions? Are there specific types of MFN
provisions that are pro-competitive and enhance independent
programmers' ability to gain MVPD carriage, making more diverse
programming offerings available for consumers? How do MFN provisions
ultimately affect consumers? What, if any, consideration, economic or
non-economic, do independent programmers receive from MVPDs in exchange
for agreeing to MFN provisions? To what extent do the benefits of MFN
provisions, either conditional or unconditional, outweigh any harmful
effects of such provisions?
7. The Commission proposes to adopt a rule prohibiting the
inclusion of MFN provisions, either conditional or unconditional, in
carriage agreements between MVPDs and independent programmers. The
Commission proposes to define ``independent video programmer'' or
``independent programmer'' for purposes of this proceeding as ``a non-
broadcast programmer that (1) is not vertically integrated with an MVPD
and (2) is not affiliated with a broadcast network or entity that holds
broadcast station licenses.'' The definition of ``affiliated'' set
forth in 47 CFR 76.1300(a), which provides that ``entities are
affiliated if either entity has an attributable interest in the other
or if a third party has an attributable interest in both entities,''
would apply to the definition of ``independent programmers.'' For
purposes of the prohibition on inclusion of MFN provisions in program
carriage agreements, the Commission proposes to define ``most favored
nation provision'' as ``a provision that entitles a multichannel video
programming distributor to contractual rights or benefits that an
independent video programming vendor has offered or granted to another
multichannel video programming distributor or online video distributor,
either conditionally or unconditionally.'' The Commission further
proposes to define the terms (i) ``conditionally'' as ``subject to the
multichannel video programming distributor's acceptance of terms and
conditions that are integrally related, logically linked, or directly
tied to the grant of such rights or benefits in the other video
programming distributor's agreement, and with which the multichannel
video programming distributor can reasonably comply technologically and
legally,'' and (ii) ``unconditionally'' as ``without obligating the
multichannel video programming distributor to accept any such terms and
conditions.'' The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and the
proposed definitions of ``most favored nation provision,''
``conditionally,'' and ``unconditionally.'' In particular, the
Commission seeks comment on how the proposed prohibition would enhance
the ability of independent programmers to obtain MVPD carriage and
compete in the marketplace. The Commission also seeks comment on
whether the proposed prohibition would benefit consumers by, for
example, facilitating the development and distribution of more diverse
and niche programming. Would the proposed prohibition result in other
benefits to consumers? Are there particular types of MFN provisions
that should be excluded or exempted from the proposed prohibition
because they provide procompetitive benefits that outweigh any harmful
effects? What are the costs and benefits of the proposed prohibition to
MVPDs, particularly small entities?
8. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should preclude MVPDs
on a going forward basis from enforcing all MFN provisions in existing
contracts. If so, should parties be afforded some period of time to
reform their existing contracts before the prohibition takes effect?
How much time would be reasonable? Commenters should explain the
rationale for any time period proposed. The Commission proposes that
complaints alleging violations of the prohibition on MFN provisions
would be addressed under the program carriage complaint procedures. The
Commission seeks comment on any amendments to the program carriage
complaint procedures that would be necessitated by adoption of proposed
prohibition on MFN provisions. What remedies and penalties should be
imposed on an MVPD that violates the proposed prohibition on MFN
provisions? To what extent, if any, would costs or other concerns
associated with pursuing a program carriage complaint affect the
ability of independent programmers to obtain relief if an MVPD violates
the proposed prohibition?
9. Alternative Distribution Method Provisions. ADM provisions
generally bar or restrict a video programming vendor from exhibiting
its programming on alternative video distribution platforms (such as
online platforms), often for a specified window of time following the
programming's original linear airing, or until certain conditions are
met. The Commission seeks comment on the prevalence and scope of ADM
provisions in contracts for carriage of non-broadcast video programming
today. Has there been any change in the usage or scope of ADMs since
2017? If ADM provisions are less common today, what accounts for this
change and is the downward trend in usage of these provisions expected
to continue? If ADM provisions are used more frequently today, what
accounts for this change and is the upward trend in such usage expected
to continue? Are ADM provisions today generally included only in
carriage agreements between independent programmers and MVPDs or are
they also included in carriage agreements between independent
programmers and OVDs?
[[Page 38010]]
Do both cable and non-cable MVPDs require such provisions? Are ADM
provisions more likely to be included in carriage contracts with
independent programmers than in carriage contracts with vertically
integrated programmers? Do certain types of ADM provisions restrain
independent programmers from competing fairly? If so, what types of ADM
provisions have this effect and how do such provision restrain
independent programmers from competing fairly? Is there currently an
industry standard for the windowing restrictions included in ADM
provisions (i.e., is there a particular window of time that is
typically required in agreements today)? Are certain windowing
restrictions more harmful to independent programmers' ability to
compete than other windowing restrictions, and if so, why, and how
common are such restrictions?
10. The Commission also seeks comment on the current costs and
benefits of ADM provisions. What effect do ADM provisions have on the
video marketplace and the availability of independent programming
today? Do ADM provisions thwart competition, diversity, or innovation?
If so, how? Parties should describe in detail. To what extent are ADM
provisions used to limit the ability of independent programmers to
experiment with new or unique distribution models or to tailor deals
with smaller MVPDs or OVDs, and how does that impact their ability to
compete? For example, are certain types of ADM provisions aimed more at
restricting new means of distribution than at facilitating efficient
negotiations or protecting an MVPD's investment in programming? What
benefits are associated with ADM provisions? Do independent programmers
receive any consideration, economic or non-economic, from MVPDs in
exchange for agreeing to ADM provisions? Do certain types of ADM
provisions enhance independent programmers' ability to gain MVPD
carriage and thereby increase the exposure of their programming by
incentivizing MVPDs to carry new content? How are ADM provisions
enforced? Are there particular enforcement mechanisms for ADM
provisions that are more common to independent programmers than other
enforcement mechanisms? Do certain types of enforcement mechanisms for
ADM provisions have a uniquely harmful impact on independent
programmers' ability to compete?
11. The Commission proposes to prohibit the inclusion of
``unreasonable'' ADM provisions in carriage agreements between MVPDs
and independent programmers. The Commission further proposes to define
``alternative distribution method provision'' to mean ``a provision
that prohibits or restricts a video programming vendor from exhibiting
its programming on alternative, non-traditional video distribution
platforms (such as OVDs) for a specified period of time following the
programming's original linear airing, or until certain conditions are
met.'' Under the proposed prohibition on ``unreasonable'' ADM
provisions, the issue of whether a particular ADM clause is
``unreasonable'' would be fact-specific and decided in the context of a
program carriage complaint proceeding brought under section 616 of the
Act. In determining whether a particular ADM provision is
``unreasonable,'' the Commission proposes to consider, among other
factors, the extent to which an ADM provision prohibits an independent
programmer from licensing content to other alternative, non-traditional
distributors, including OVDs. By prohibiting only those ADM provisions
determined to be ``unreasonable,'' this proposal would recognize that
some ADM provisions may serve the public interest by incentivizing
MVPDs to invest in new or emerging programming sources, including
independent or niche content, while other ADM provisions may have no
pro-competitive justifications and hinder the provision of diverse
programming to consumers.
12. The Commission seeks comment on the proposed prohibition on
unreasonable ADM provisions. The Commission seeks comment on whether
the proposed prohibition would enhance the ability of independent
programmers, particularly small entities, to compete fairly in the
marketplace for video programming. Alternatively, would prohibiting
certain ADM provisions make it less likely that MVPDs would agree to
carry independent programmers or incentivize MVPDs to seek exclusive
programming arrangements with independent programmers (subject to the
restrictions in 47 U.S.C. 536(a)(2)) that would limit rather than
expand their carriage opportunities? Additionally, the Commission seeks
comment on how the proposed prohibition would affect consumers. Would
it be expected to result in a greater choice of programming sources or
lower costs for consumers? How would the proposed prohibition on
unreasonable ADM provisions likely affect MVPDs, including small MVPDs?
What costs and benefits are associated with the proposed prohibition
for each of the affected parties? Should the Commission provide
additional guidance in this proceeding on what constitutes an
``unreasonable'' ADM provision or should we make such determinations on
a case-by-case basis in the context of program carriage complaint
proceedings as proposed above? In this regard, the Commission seeks
comment on what factors should be considered in determining whether an
ADM provision is ``unreasonable.'' Are there specific ADM provisions
that should be deemed presumptively ``unreasonable''? Conversely, are
there certain ADM provisions that should be considered to be
presumptively reasonable?
13. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should preclude
MVPDs on a going forward basis from enforcing existing contracts that
contain unreasonable ADM provisions and, if so, whether it should
afford the parties a specified period of time to revise their contracts
to replace any unreasonable ADM provision with an ADM provision with
reasonable terms before the prohibition takes effect. The Commission
also seeks input on what, if any, amendments to the program carriage
complaint procedures would be warranted if the proposed prohibition on
unreasonable ADM provisions is adopted. In addition, the Commission
seeks comment on what remedies and penalties should be imposed on an
MVPD that violates the proposed prohibition on unreasonable ADM
provisions. In such circumstances, would it be appropriate for the
Media Bureau to simply order that an unreasonable ADM provision not be
enforced or be replaced with an ADM provision with reasonable terms?
Moreover, the Commission seeks comment on the extent to which costs or
other concerns associated with pursuing a program carriage complaint
would affect the ability of independent programmers to obtain relief if
an MVPD violates the proposed ban on unreasonable ADM provisions.
14. Program Bundling. The Commission seeks comment on what the
current program bundling practices are today and how such practices
affect the ability of MVPDs to carry independent and diverse
programming and competition in the video distribution market. For
example, is forced bundling prevalent today? What impact, if any, does
the carriage of bundled channels have on the ability of MVPDs to carry
independent channels? Are there examples of independent programmers
being dropped or not carried at all due to the constraints placed on
MVPD systems by bundling
[[Page 38011]]
since 2017? To what extent does bundling have a greater impact on
smaller MVPDs than it does on large MVPDs? How much has MVPD channel
capacity (i.e., the number of MVPD channels available for programming)
increased or decreased among both large and smaller MVPDs since 2017?
To the extent there have been increases, will this alleviate the
constraints placed on MVPD systems by bundling? Are there any plans for
large and small MVPDs to increase capacity in the future?
Alternatively, is MVPD capacity increasingly being used for broadband
today, and does this consequently leave fewer additional channels
available for independent programming? Are there other factors, such as
financial resources, that continue to constrain the ability of MVPDs to
carry independent programming as a result of bundling notwithstanding
increases in channel capacity? How does bundling affect consumer
choice? Does bundling raise or lower costs for consumers? What are the
costs and benefits associated with program bundling? Commenters should
describe the extent to which bundling may impede the ability of MVPDs
to carry independent programming and whether this is outweighed by any
associated benefits of this practice.
15. Other Marketplace Obstacles. The Commission seeks comment on
other practices that may impede entry into the market by or growth of
independent programmers, thereby harming competition and/or consumer
choice. For example, what impact do tier placement and penetration
requirements (i.e., requirements in some programming agreements that
programming be placed on a particular tier or that specify a minimum
percentage of subscribers who must receive the programming) have on
independent programmers? Are such requirements more typically found in
programming agreements with independent programmers than in agreements
with vertically-integrated programmers? Are there negotiation practices
that hinder independent programmers' entry into the market? If so, what
are these practices and how do they impede independent programmers'
entry into the market? Do independent programmers that reject certain
provisions or requirements in programming agreements face retaliatory
conduct that impacts their ability to compete fairly? Are there other
marketplace practices that limit the ability of independent programmers
to reach consumers? What are the costs of such practices? In
particular, do such practices have an adverse effect on diversity,
competition, or innovation? What, if any, benefits do such practices
offer and do the benefits outweigh the harms?
Legal Authority To Address Marketplace Obstacles to Independent
Programming
16. The Commission seeks comment on its legal authority to take
action to curb practices that may adversely impact the ability of
independent programmers to compete fairly. In particular, the
Commission seeks comment on its authority under section 616 of the Act
to adopt rules prohibiting the use of MFN provisions and unreasonable
ADM provisions in program carriage agreements between MVPDs and
independent programmers, as proposed above. Section 616(a) directs the
Commission to ``establish regulations governing program carriage
agreements and related practices between cable operators or other
[MVPDs] and video programming vendors.'' The Commission seeks comment
on whether the grant of authority under section 616(a) to adopt rules
``governing program carriage agreements and related practices between
[MVPDs] and video programming vendors'' is sufficiently broad to permit
us to ban the use of MFN or unreasonable ADM provisions. The Commission
notes that the prohibitions on MFN provisions and unreasonable ADM
provisions proposed above would apply to agreements between MVPDs and
independent programmers, which are encompassed within the term ``video
programming vendors.'' Congress's goal in enacting section 616 was ``to
stem and reduce the potential for abusive or anticompetitive actions
[by MVPDs] against programming entities.'' Consistent with this
objective, the proposed prohibitions on MFN provisions and unreasonable
ADM provisions discussed above are intended to enhance competition in
the video marketplace and reflect Congress's belief that ``competition
is essential both for ensuring diversity in programming and for
protecting consumers from potential abuses by cable operators
possessing market power'' and other MVPDs.
17. Moreover, the Commission tentatively concludes that Congress
did not intend to limit the Commission's authority under section 616(a)
to the specific practices listed in that section. The introductory
language in section 616(a) grants the Commission broad authority to
``establish regulations governing program carriage agreements and
related practices between cable operators and multichannel video
programming distributors and video programming vendors,'' and nothing
in the statute expressly precludes the Commission from establishing
rules apart from those specifically listed. Further, sections
616(a)(1)-(a)(3)--the subsections relating to substantive
requirements--are introduced by the verbs ``include'' or ``contain,''
which suggests that such requirements are not exhaustive. In instances
where Congress intends to limit the Commission's rulemaking authority
to specified areas, it has done so expressly. The Commission seeks
comment on this analysis.
18. The Commission also seeks comment on whether section 616(a)(3)
provides a basis for our proposed bans on MFN provisions and
unreasonable ADM provisions in carriage agreements between MVPDs and
independent programmers. Section 616(a)(3) directs the Commission to
adopt rules ``designed to prevent [an MVPD] from engaging in conduct
the effect of which is to unreasonably restrain the ability of an
unaffiliated video programming vendor to compete fairly by
discriminating in video programming distribution on the basis of
affiliation or nonaffiliation of vendors in the selection, terms, or
conditions for carriage of video programming provided by such
vendors.'' The Commission seeks comment on whether this provision
authorizes it to adopt rules that prohibit vertically integrated MVPDs
from including MFN and unreasonable ADM clauses in carriage agreements
with independent programmers, where such MVPDs do not include the same
clauses in carriage agreements with affiliated programming networks. If
so, would the application of such rules only to vertically integrated
MVPDs adequately address the competition and diversity concerns raised
by restrictive MFN and ADM clauses? Would such rules be effective given
that an MVPD could enter into the same restrictive MFN and/or ADM
clauses with both an affiliated programming network and an independent
programmer but simply not exercise its rights with respect to the
affiliated network?
19. The Commission further seeks comment on whether section 628
provides legal authority for adoption of our proposed rules. Similar to
our proposed rules, the purpose of section 628 is to ``increase[e]
competition and diversity in the [[MVPD] market . . . and to spur the
development of communications technologies.'' Section 628(b) precludes
a cable operator, a common carrier or its affiliate that provides video
programming, and an Open Video System (OVS) operator, as
[[Page 38012]]
well as a satellite-delivered programmer affiliated with one of those
entities, from engaging in ``unfair methods of competition or unfair or
deceptive acts or practices, the purpose or effect of which is to
hinder significantly or to prevent any'' MVPD from providing
programming to subscribers or consumers. Section 628(c)(1) directs the
Commission to ``prescribe regulations to specify particular conduct
that is prohibited by [section 628(b)]'' in order to ``increase[e]
competition and diversity in the [MVPD] market and the continuing
development of communications technologies.'' Considering that section
628(b) appears to target only methods, acts, and practices that
adversely affect MVPDs, the Commission seeks comment on whether it
could lawfully invoke this provision to proscribe, as an ``unfair''
method, act or practice, the use of certain MFN and ADM provisions in
agreements between MVPDs and independent programmers. Given that direct
broadcast satellite (DBS) carriers are not subject to the provisions of
section 628, the Commission seeks comment on whether reliance on that
provision to limit the use of MFN and ADM provisions would result in a
disparity in regulatory treatment among MVPDs.
20. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether there are
other provisions in the Act that afford the Commission the authority to
alleviate marketplace obstacles to the distribution of independent and
diverse programming, including obstacles posed by MFN provisions and
unreasonable ADM provisions. For example, section 335(a) provides the
Commission with authority to ``impose, on providers of direct broadcast
satellite service, public interest or other requirements for providing
video programming.'' Does the Commission have authority under other
provisions of Title III? The Commission also seeks comment on whether
it has--and should exercise--ancillary authority under section 4(i) of
the Act to address MFN and ADM provisions.
Digital Equity and Inclusion
21. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance
digital equity for all, including people of color, persons with
disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who
are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely
affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any
equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be
associated with the issues discussed herein. Specifically, we seek
comment on how any Commission actions taken to address barriers to the
distribution of independent and diverse programming may promote or
inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
22. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Act Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and
rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Written
public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified
as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for
comments provided on the first page of the NPRM. The Commission will
send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the
NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal
Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
23. One of the Commission's primary objectives with respect to
multichannel video programming is to foster a diverse, robust, and
competitive marketplace for the delivery of such programming. We
recognize that competition among distributors of video programming
continues to evolve and consumers today have a wealth of video
programming platforms from which to choose. Nevertheless, stakeholders
continue to raise concerns that certain marketplace practices by
distributors may hinder independent video programmers from reaching
consumers and deprive them of access to their choice of diverse
programming--one of the benefits of enhanced competition in the video
marketplace. Specifically, independent programmers contend that their
ability to thrive in the marketplace and reach consumers today depends
on their ability to negotiate and secure carriage on multichannel video
programming distributors (MVPDs) or online video distributors (OVDs).
Despite the changes in the way that consumers access video
programming--including via the growing number of platforms available to
video consumers and the protracted decline in MVPD subscribers--
independent video programmers have consistently asserted over the past
several years that certain practices by incumbent cable operators and
other MVPDs, particularly most favored nation (MFN) and alternative
distribution method (ADM) clauses in program carriage agreements, have
impeded their ability to reach consumers across all video platforms,
leading to less competition and fewer choices for those who watch.
24. The NPRM seeks comment on the state of the marketplace for
independent and diverse programming and the availability of such
programming to consumers today. The NPRM also seeks comment on the
obstacles faced by independent programmers in reaching consumers and
the actions the Commission can take to alleviate such obstacles.
Specifically, the NPRM seeks comment on the current usage of MFN
provisions, both conditional and unconditional, in contracts for
carriage of non-broadcast video programming and on the costs and
benefits of conditional and unconditional MFN provisions. Additionally,
the NPRM requests comment on the prevalence and scope of ADM provisions
in contracts for carriage of non-broadcast video programming today and
on the current costs and benefits of ADM provisions. The NPRM seeks
comment on what the current program bundling practices are today and
how such practices affect the ability of MVPDs to carry independent and
diverse programming. Further, the NPRM seeks comment on other practices
that may impede entry into the market by or growth of independent
programmers. Finally, the NPRM invites comment on the need for
Commission action to address any obstacles to the distribution of
independent and diverse programming, as well as the Commission's legal
authority to take action to curb program carriage practices that may
adversely impact the ability of independent programmers to compete
fairly.
25. In order to alleviate marketplace obstacles that may hinder
independent programmers from reaching consumers, the NPRM proposes to
prohibit the use of MFN provisions, either conditional or
unconditional, in carriage agreements between MVPDs and independent
programmers. In addition, the NPRM proposes to bar unreasonable ADM
provisions in carriage agreements between MVPDs and independent
programmers. The NPRM proposes that the issue of whether a particular
ADM clause is ``unreasonable'' would be fact-specific and decided in
the context of a program carriage complaint proceeding brought under
section 616 of the Act, taking into account, among other factors, the
extent to which an ADM provision prohibits an independent
[[Page 38013]]
programmer from licensing content to other distributors, including
OVDs. The NPRM also seeks comment on whether further guidance should be
provided on the meaning of ``unreasonable'' in this context.
B. Legal Basis
26. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 4(i),
4(j),, 303, 307, 316, 335, 616 and 628 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 303, 307, 316, 335,
536, and 548.
C. Description and Estimates of the Number of Small Entities To Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
27. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
28. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service.
Broadband Radio Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint
Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution
Service (MMDS) systems, and ``wireless cable,'' transmit video
programming to subscribers and provide two-way high speed data
operations using the microwave frequencies of the Broadband Radio
Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously
referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)).
Wireless cable operators that use spectrum in the BRS often
supplemented with leased channels from the EBS, provide a competitive
alternative to wired cable and other multichannel video programming
distributors. Wireless cable programming to subscribers resembles cable
television, but instead of coaxial cable, wireless cable uses microwave
channels.
29. In light of the use of wireless frequencies by BRS and EBS
services, the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard
applicable to these services is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except Satellite). The SBA small business size standard for this
industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893
firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this
number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the
SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of
licensees in this industry can be considered small.
30. According to Commission data as December 2021, there were
approximately 5,869 active BRS and EBS licenses. The Commission's small
business size standards with respect to BRS involves eligibility for
bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for
these services. For the auction of BRS licenses, the Commission adopted
criteria for three groups of small businesses. A very small business is
an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests,
has average annual gross revenues exceed $3 million and did not exceed
$15 million for the preceding three years, a small business is an
entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests,
has average gross revenues exceed $15 million and did not exceed $40
million for the preceding three years, and an entrepreneur is an entity
that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has
average gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three
years. Of the ten winning bidders for BRS licenses, two bidders
claiming the small business status won 4 licenses, one bidder claiming
the very small business status won three licenses and two bidders
claiming entrepreneur status won six licenses. One of the winning
bidders claiming a small business status classification in the BRS
license auction has an active licenses as of December 2021.
31. The Commission's small business size standards for EBS define a
small business as an entity that, together with its affiliates, its
controlling interests and the affiliates of its controlling interests,
has average gross revenues that are not more than $55 million for the
preceding five (5) years, and a very small business is an entity that,
together with its affiliates, its controlling interests and the
affiliates of its controlling interests, has average gross revenues
that are not more than $20 million for the preceding five (5) years. In
frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission
notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that
qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not
necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in
service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
32. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. The U.S. Census
Bureau defines this industry as establishments primarily engaged in
operating studios and facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a
subscription or fee basis. The broadcast programming is typically
narrowcast in nature (e.g., limited format, such as news, sports,
education, or youth-oriented). These establishments produce programming
in their own facilities or acquire programming from external sources.
The programming material is usually delivered to a third party, such as
cable systems or direct-to-home satellite systems, for transmission to
viewers. The SBA small business size standard for this industry
classifies firms with annual receipts less than $41.5 million as small.
Based on U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017, 378 firms operated in this
industry during that year. Of that number, 149 firms operated with
revenue of less than $25 million a year and 44 firms operated with
revenue of $25 million or more. Based on this data, the Commission
estimates that a majority of firms in this industry are small.
33. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission
has developed its own small business size standard for the purpose of
cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable
company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide. Based
on industry data, there are about 420 cable companies in the U.S. Of
these, only seven have more than 400,000 subscribers. In addition,
under the Commission's rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system
serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Based on industry data, there are
about 4,139 cable systems (headends) in the U.S. Of these, about 639
have more than 15,000 subscribers. Accordingly, the Commission
estimates that the majority of cable companies and cable systems are
small.
34. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, contains a size standard for a
``small cable operator,'' which is ``a cable operator that, directly or
through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than one percent of
all
[[Page 38014]]
subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity
or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed
$250,000,000.'' For purposes of the Telecom Act Standard, the
Commission determined that a cable system operator that serves fewer
than 498,000 subscribers, either directly or through affiliates, will
meet the definition of a small cable operator. Based on industry data,
only six cable system operators have more than 498,000 subscribers.
Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the majority of cable system
operators are small under this size standard. We note however, that the
Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable
system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual
revenues exceed $250 million. Therefore, we are unable at this time to
estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators
that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the
Communications Act.
35. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small
businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services.
Providers of these services include several types of competitive local
exchange service providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this
industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the
2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021,
there were 3,378 providers that reported they were competitive local
exchange service providers. Of these providers, the Commission
estimates that 3,230 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of
these providers can be considered small entities.
36. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS service is a
nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and
audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic ``dish'' antenna
at the subscriber's location. DBS is included in the Wired
Telecommunications Carriers industry which comprises establishments
primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission
facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the
transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired
telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a
single technology or combination of technologies. Establishments in
this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that
they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony
services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video
programming distribution; and wired broadband internet services. By
exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution
services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are
included in this industry.
37. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 3,054
firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number,
2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Based on this data,
the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small under
the SBA small business size standard. According to Commission data
however, only two entities provide DBS service--DIRECTV (owned by AT&T)
and DISH Network, which require a great deal of capital for operation.
DIRECTV and DISH Network both exceed the SBA size standard for
classification as a small business. Therefore, we must conclude based
on internally developed Commission data, in general DBS service is
provided only by large firms.
38. Fixed Microwave Services. Fixed microwave services include
common carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary
radio services. They also include the Upper Microwave Flexible Use
Service (UMFUS), Millimeter Wave Service (70/80/90 GHz), Local
Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), the Digital Electronic Message
Service (DEMS), 24 GHz Service, Multiple Address Systems (MAS), and
Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS), where in some
bands licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common
carrier status. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)
is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard
applicable to these services. The SBA small size standard for this
industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893
firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this
number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the
SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of fixed
microwave service licensees can be considered small.
39. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to
fixed microwave services involve eligibility for bidding credits and
installment payments in the auction of licenses for the various
frequency bands included in fixed microwave services. When bidding
credits are adopted for the auction of licenses in fixed microwave
services frequency bands, such credits may be available to several
types of small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very
small and entrepreneur) pursuant to the competitive bidding rules
adopted in conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as
identified in Part 101 of the Commission's rules for the specific fixed
microwave services frequency bands.
40. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
41. Home Satellite Dish (HSD) Service. HSD or the large dish
segment of the satellite industry is the original satellite-to-home
service offered to consumers and involves the home reception of signals
transmitted by satellites operating generally in the C-band frequency.
Unlike DBS, which uses small dishes, HSD antennas are between four and
eight feet in diameter and can receive a wide range of unscrambled
(free) programming and scrambled programming purchased from program
packagers that are licensed to facilitate subscribers' receipt of video
programming. Because HSD provides subscription services, HSD falls
within the industry category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The
SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers
classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census
Bureau data for
[[Page 38015]]
2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated for the entire
year. Of this total, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250
employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in
this industry can be considered small.
42. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard
specifically for incumbent local exchange carriers. Wired
Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small
business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 1,212 providers
that reported they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of
these providers, the Commission estimates that 916 providers have 1,500
or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of incumbent local
exchange carriers can be considered small entities.
43. Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals.
This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in (1)
publishing and/or broadcasting content on the internet exclusively or
(2) operating websites that use a search engine to generate and
maintain extensive databases of internet addresses and content in an
easily searchable format (and known as Web search portals). The
publishing and broadcasting establishments in this industry do not
provide traditional (non-internet) versions of the content that they
publish or broadcast. They provide textual, audio, and/or video content
of general or specific interest on the internet exclusively.
Establishments known as web search portals often provide additional
internet services, such as email, connections to other websites,
auctions, news, and other limited content, and serve as a home base for
internet users. The SBA small business size standard for this industry
classifies firms having 1,000 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were firms that 5,117 operated for
the entire year. Of this total, 5,002 firms operated with fewer than
250 employees. Thus, under this size standard the majority of firms in
this industry can be considered small.
44. Open Video Systems. The open video system (OVS) framework was
established in 1996 and is one of four statutorily recognized options
for the provision of video programming services by local exchange
carriers. The OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution
of video programming other than through cable systems. OVS operators
provide subscription services and therefore fall within the SBA small
business size standard for the cable services industry, which is
``Wired Telecommunications Carriers.'' The SBA small business size
standard for this industry classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of
this total, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Thus,
under the SBA size standard the majority of firms in this industry can
be considered small. Additionally, we note that the Commission has
certified some OVS operators who are now providing service and
broadband service providers (BSPs) are currently the only significant
holders of OVS certifications or local OVS franchises. The Commission
does not have financial or employment information for the entities
authorized to provide OVS however, the Commission believes some of the
OVS operators may qualify as small entities.
45. Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems, also known
as Private Cable Operators (PCOs). SMATV systems or PCOs are video
distribution facilities that use closed transmission paths without
using any public right-of-way. They acquire video programming and
distribute it via terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban multiple
dwelling units such as apartments and condominiums, and commercial
multiple tenant units such as hotels and office buildings. SMATV
systems or PCOs are included in the Wired Telecommunications Carriers'
industry which includes wireline telecommunications businesses. The SBA
small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers
classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,964 firms operated
with fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the SBA size standard, the
majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.
46. Television Broadcasting. This industry is comprised of
``establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with
sound.'' These establishments operate television broadcast studios and
facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the
public. These establishments also produce or transmit visual
programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn
broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule.
Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated
network, or from external sources. The SBA small business size standard
for this industry classifies businesses having $41.5 million or less in
annual receipts as small. 2017 U.S. Census Bureau data indicate that
744 firms in this industry operated for the entire year. Of that
number, 657 firms had revenue of less than $25,000,000. Based on this
data we estimate that the majority of television broadcasters are small
entities under the SBA small business size standard.
47. As of September 30, 2023, there were 1,377 licensed commercial
television stations. Of this total, 1,258 stations (or 91.4%) had
revenues of $41.5 million or less in 2022, according to Commission
staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television
Database (BIA) on October 4, 2023, and therefore these licensees
qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In addition, the
Commission estimates as of September 30, 2023, there were 383 licensed
noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations, 380 Class A TV
stations, 1,889 LPTV stations and 3,127 TV translator stations. The
Commission, however, does not compile and otherwise does not have
access to financial information for these television broadcast stations
that would permit it to determine how many of these stations qualify as
small entities under the SBA small business size standard.
Nevertheless, given the SBA's large annual receipts threshold for this
industry and the nature of these television station licensees, we
presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the
above SBA small business size standard.
48. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as establishments primarily engaged in operating
and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure
that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text,
sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of
technologies. Establishments in this
[[Page 38016]]
industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they
operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony
services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video
programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By
exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution
services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are
included in this industry. Wired Telecommunications Carriers are also
referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local service providers.
49. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers
that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
50. The rule changes proposed in the NPRM, if adopted, will impose
compliance obligations on small, as well as other entities.
Specifically, the NPRM proposes to prohibit MFN provisions, either
conditional or unconditional, in carriage agreements between MVPDs and
independent programmers. The NPRM also proposes to prohibit
unreasonable ADM provisions in carriage agreements between MVPDs and
independent programmers. The NPRM proposes that a determination of
whether a particular ADM provision is ``unreasonable'' would be fact-
specific and decided in the context of a program carriage complaint
proceeding brought under section 616 of the Act.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
51. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
52. The proposals to prohibit MFN provisions and unreasonable ADM
provisions, if adopted, would be expected to benefit small independent
programmers by enhancing their ability to compete in the video
marketplace and to create new, innovative program offerings. These
proposals would also likely benefit small MVPDs and OVDs by removing
barriers to mutually-beneficial carriage deals between these small
entities and independent programmers. Nevertheless, the Commission
seeks comment in the NPRM on how these proposals would affect small
entities and expects to more fully consider the impact of these
proposals and any alternatives on small entities, following review of
the comments received in response to the NPRM.
53. The NPRM proposes to use the existing program carriage
complaint procedures to address any complaints regarding violations of
the proposed bans on MFN provisions and unreasonable ADM provisions.
The NPRM seeks comment on whether costs or other concerns associated
with pursuing a program carriage complaint would affect the ability of
independent programmers, including small entities, to obtain relief if
an MVPD violates the proposed ban on MFN provisions or unreasonable ADM
provisions and asks whether any modifications to the program carriage
complaint procedures are warranted.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
54. None.
Ordering Clauses
55. It is ordered that, pursuant to the authority found in sections
1, 4(i), 4(j), 303, 307, 316, 335, 616 and 628 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 303, 307, 316,
335, 536 and 548, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
56. It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures
set forth in Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in MB Docket No. 24-115 on or before thirty (30)
days after publication in the Federal Register and reply comments on or
before sixty (60) days after publication in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76
Television
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 76 as follows:
PART 76--MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE
0
1. The authority citation for part 76 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 302a, 303,
303a, 307, 308. 309. 312, 315, 317, 325, 335, 338, 339, 340, 341,
503, 521, 522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545,
548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, 573.
0
2. Amend Sec. 76.1300 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) as paragraphs (c),
(d), (g) and (h); and
0
b. Adding new paragraphs (b), (e) and (f).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 76.1300 Definitions.
* * * * *
(b) Alternative distribution method provision. The term
``alternative distribution method provision'' means a provision that
prohibits or restricts an independent video programming vendor from
exhibiting its programming on alternative, non-traditional video
distribution platforms (such as online video distributors) for a
specified period of time following the programming's original linear
airing, or until certain conditions are met. For purposes of this
section, the term ``original linear airing'' refers to the initial
prescheduled airing of the programming by the programmer.
* * * * *
(e) Independent video programming vendor. The term ``independent
video programming vendor'' means ``a non-broadcast programmer that (1)
is not vertically integrated with a multichannel video programming
distributor and (2) is not affiliated with a broadcast network or
entity that holds broadcast station licenses.''
(f) Most favored nation provision. The term ``most favored nation
provision'' means ``a provision that entitles a
[[Page 38017]]
multichannel video programming distributor to contractual rights or
benefits that an independent video programming vendor has offered or
granted to another multichannel video programming distributor or online
video distributor, either conditionally or unconditionally. The term
``conditionally'' means ``subject to the multichannel video programming
distributor's acceptance of terms and conditions that are integrally
related, logically linked, or directly tied to the grant of such rights
or benefits in the other multichannel video programming distributor's
or online video distributor's agreement.'' The term ``unconditionally''
means ``without obligating the multichannel video programming
distributor to accept any such terms or conditions.''
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 76.1301 by adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 76.1301 Prohibited Practices.
* * * * *
(d) Most favored nation provisions. No multichannel video
programming distributor shall enter into an agreement with an
independent video programming vendor that contains a most favored
nation provision.
(e) Unreasonable alternative distribution method provisions. No
multichannel video programming distributor shall enter into an
agreement with an independent video programming vendor that contains an
unreasonable alternative distribution method provision.
[FR Doc. 2024-09701 Filed 5-6-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P