CASPER
New member
DISH, DIRECTV Keep Fighting Regulatory Fee Changes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both DIRECTV and DISH Network were back at the Portals this week, arguing against a proposal from their video competitors that the regulatory fees they pay should be altered by the Federal Communications Commission.
For the second time in three years, the FCC is seeking comment on whether the small dish platforms should pay fees based on a per-subscriber basis, similar to cable's fees. The push came from cable interests and others inside the Beltway. At the moment, DIRECTV and DISH pay regulatory fees based on the satellites and earth stations they operate for their respective services.
In joint comments filed late Monday, both DIRECTV and DISH said the cable industry and other video competitors have not made any justification for changes to the fee schedule. Also, cable cannot justify the changes in terms of regulatory parity, given that the wired business delivers services like broadband along with video, unlike satellite TV's single video focus, the companies stated in their FCC filing.
In addition, "unlike DIRECTV and DISH Network, most cable operators are the dominant incumbent video providers in their service areas, and as such are subject to rules and regulatory proceedings that apply only to them," the DBS companies said.
As for the competition, the American Cable Association stated in its comments that small and medium-sized cable operators "face substantially higher cost structures than major MSOs serving urban areas and DBS. Moreover, the disparity in regulatory obligations between ACA's members and DBS compounds this disadvantage," the group said.
ACA said it supports suggestions that the FCC impose a uniform subscriber-based regulatory fee on all video providers, including DBS.
In its comments, Verizon said requiring all video providers to pay the same per subscriber regulatory fee "would eliminate the artificial cost advantage enjoyed by some competitors and benefit consumers by encouraging competition on the merits of competitors' offerings and prices."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both DIRECTV and DISH Network were back at the Portals this week, arguing against a proposal from their video competitors that the regulatory fees they pay should be altered by the Federal Communications Commission.
For the second time in three years, the FCC is seeking comment on whether the small dish platforms should pay fees based on a per-subscriber basis, similar to cable's fees. The push came from cable interests and others inside the Beltway. At the moment, DIRECTV and DISH pay regulatory fees based on the satellites and earth stations they operate for their respective services.
In joint comments filed late Monday, both DIRECTV and DISH said the cable industry and other video competitors have not made any justification for changes to the fee schedule. Also, cable cannot justify the changes in terms of regulatory parity, given that the wired business delivers services like broadband along with video, unlike satellite TV's single video focus, the companies stated in their FCC filing.
In addition, "unlike DIRECTV and DISH Network, most cable operators are the dominant incumbent video providers in their service areas, and as such are subject to rules and regulatory proceedings that apply only to them," the DBS companies said.
As for the competition, the American Cable Association stated in its comments that small and medium-sized cable operators "face substantially higher cost structures than major MSOs serving urban areas and DBS. Moreover, the disparity in regulatory obligations between ACA's members and DBS compounds this disadvantage," the group said.
ACA said it supports suggestions that the FCC impose a uniform subscriber-based regulatory fee on all video providers, including DBS.
In its comments, Verizon said requiring all video providers to pay the same per subscriber regulatory fee "would eliminate the artificial cost advantage enjoyed by some competitors and benefit consumers by encouraging competition on the merits of competitors' offerings and prices."
