NCTA and NAB are at it again over dual must-carry, with argument ...
NCTA and NAB are at it again over dual must-carry, with argument focusing this time on what is or isn’t burdensome for cable operators. Latest salvo came from NCTA Senior Vp- Law & Regulatory Policy Daniel Brenner, who in…
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.
letter to FCC Chmn. Powell Tues. disputed study that NAB paid for based on Commission’s survey of cable operators on their current and expected capacity to carry channels. NCTA paid for its own study and found that NAB’s conclusions were “largely based on erroneous legal assumptions as to what is and is not burdensome for purposes of assessing the constitutionality of a dual must-carry requirement.” NAB’s study by Merrill Weiss Group concluded that dual must-carry requirement during digital transition wouldn’t impose significant burden. “But it is wrong on the law, and therefore it has no basis for its conclusion regarding the burden,” Brenner wrote. NCTA’s study, by PDS Consulting, found that dual must-carry would impinge on cable operators’ ability to provide other services, such as video-on-demand (VoD), high-speed Internet, telephony.