?t6Ce\\Jed bJ. II \;:J\-,'--
~" 1?> 'LG'S TRANSPORTATION AND
~f-\ \ . \ INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
Y\ 1\ ••• ' \ RoOm SUBCOMMITTEESe:cG \\1\0.\ . CHAIRMAN(!Congress of tue ~ntteb ~tateŁ) WATER ~,:SH:::::::~::::~NMENT
}!)ouge of l\epregentatibeg
wmtlls'bfngton, 1ll(t[ 20515-3507
BOB GIBBS
7TH DISTRICT, OHIO
329 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
(202) 225-6265
110 COTTAGE STREET
ASHLAND, OH 44805
(419) 207-0650
110 CENTRAL PLAZA SOUTH
CANTON, OH 44702
(330) 737-1631
May 12, 2015
The Honorable Tom Wheeler
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
Dear Chairman Wheeler,
COAST GUARD AND
MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
6 AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE,,(\ ,I SUBCOMMITTEES. Ai V \. NUTRITION
'-'" ~' GENERAL FARM COMMODITIES ANDv(lc~~ UP'M'~'M'"'
G~?'
I have been contacted by local video distributors about a two-year pending issue with the FCC.
These video distributors, through their major trade association, have a long-standing request that the
Commission address a flaw in its implementation of program access rules. The implementation denies
these distributors full legal rights and protections that Congress intended under the Cable Television
Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992.
It is my understanding that local video providers are part of 900 small and medium-sized multichannel
video programming distributors (MVPDs) across.the country that rely upon a single buying group, the
National Cable Television Cooperative (NCTC), to negotiate the bulk of their programming agreements.
The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 specified MVPDs and their
buying groups are protected from discriminatory treatment by cable-affiliated programmers under the
program access rules. The FCC's original program rules defined buying groups as entities that must
accept full liability for all of their members. This definition is overly-restrictive and excludes the
NCTC. As a result, many hundreds of MVPDs that currently rely exclusively on the NCTC to negotiate
their programming agreements are not eligible for the program access protections intended by the law.
The Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking tentatively determined the definition
of what qualifies as a buying group under The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition
Act should be updated. This Further Notice, which garnered the bipartisan support of three of the five
sitting Commissioners, states:
[1]t appears that our existing definition of "buying group" set forth in
Section 76.1000(c)(1) does not reflect accepted industry practices and thus
may have the unintended effect of barring some buying groups from
availing themselves of the protections of the nondiscrimination provision
of the program access rules, in contravention of Congress's express intent
in enacting Section 628(c)(2)(B) of the Act. We tentatively conclude that
we should revise Section 76.1000(c)(1) to require, as an alternative to the
current liability options, that the buying group agree to assume liability to
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
forward all payments due and received from its members for payment
under a master agreement to the appropriate programmer.
Since the Commission reached this tentative conclusion in 2012, no final decision has been
made, leaving smaller pay TV providers and, by extension, their customers at risk of being treated in an
unfair manner by cable-affiliated programmers. I respectfully request the Commission take action as
soon as possible to update the definition of a buying group to ensure the law's original intention is in
place.
I look forward to hearing back from you on this important matter.
Sincerely,
Bob Gibbs
Member of Congress