Don't Ban Early-Termination Fees in Existing Contracts, Pay TV Tells FCC
Some pay-TV providers are telling the FCC that a ban on early-termination fees (ETF) and a requirement for prorated refunds should be limited to residential subscribers, not business subs, and shouldn't be applied retroactively to existing contracts, according to reply…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
comments this week in docket 23-405. FCC commissioners voted 3-2 in December to adopt the video service fees NPRM, which proposes banning ETFs and requires prorated refunds when service is canceled (see 2312130019). Verizon said that while only a small portion of its subscriber base is potentially subject to ETFs, a ban on them should be done prospectively, as eliminating the fees in existing contracts "would improperly upset the economic bargains reflected in those contracts and would impose an undue administrative burden on Verizon." It defended keeping ETFs for business customers, calling them "sophisticated actors who may individually negotiate their contracts with Verizon." Altice urged similarly for business subs and for not applying a ban on existing contracts. NCTA said a ban on "unjust" ETFs should apply only to practices that don't transparently disclose them or give consumers the option to go on a month-to-month plan without such fees. It argued against letting state and local governments apply other ETF and whole-month billing requirements to cable service. "A patchwork of state and local regulations would be unduly burdensome" and make competition with satellite TV and online video distributors a chore, it said. Dish Network also defended ETFs and said they need to be clearly and prominently disclosed. It called for transparency standards in the billing and onboarding process. Opposing the FCC proposal on ETFs and prorated refunds, NTCA said the FCC can accomplish its objectives via its all-in pricing proceeding "without the unintended consequences to consumers or impermissible rate regulation." The FCC proposal received some support. The pay-TV industry argument that ETFs and billing cycle fees benefit consumers "may shock some observers, who have come to know the pay TV industry as a reliable advocate for the Commission imposing new regulations on behalf of consumers," a sarcastic NAB said. Local governments, including Boston, the District of Columbia and Fairfax County, Virginia, said eliminating fees won't drive up prices. Instead, they said competition that enhances consumer choice "will promote lower prices and will permit consumers to choose the highest value products for their budgets."