# ACA urges FCC to make DirecTV and Dish pay regulatory fees



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

*ACA urges FCC to make DirecTV and Dish pay regulatory fees*

(FierceCable.com) - The American Cable Association is petitioning the Federal Communications Commission to impose regulatory fees on DBS providers DirecTV and Dish Network equal to those currently charged to cable providers.

Currently, DirecTV and Dish pay less burdensome regulatory fees as satellite operators, which amount to about 6 cents per every subscriber, according to the ACA....

Full Story Here


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

GREAT here we go with more fees. Just what we need.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

The ACA is looking for a easy out rather than making their service more competitive.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

ACA, NABA, MPAA, RIAA, BSA, AARP

Why do letters make people so full of themselves?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Post-merger, perhaps AT&T will end up having to pay the "cable" fee for all Directv customers anyway, depending on how the law is written.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

MysteryMan said:


> The ACA is looking for a easy out rather than making their service more competitive.


I'm not sure how what you're saying makes sense. The FCC charges these fees and they charge less to DBS than they do to cable. The ACA is basically just asking the FCC to level the playing field with regard to the fees that the FCC charges. This has nothing to do with these companies making themselves more competitive. The only way the cable companies can really do that... is if they pay the same fees as the DBS companies.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

They should add a BWC Because We Can fees.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Athlon646464 said:


> *ACA urges FCC to make DirecTV and Dish pay regulatory fees*
> 
> (FierceCable.com) - The American Cable Association is petitioning the Federal Communications Commission to impose regulatory fees on DBS providers DirecTV and Dish Network equal to those currently charged to cable providers.


The fee has to be for something. The ACA needs to tell us why (other than competitive reasons).


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

It's a dollar, they don't tell us anything!


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

jpl said:


> I'm not sure how what you're saying makes sense. The FCC charges these fees and they charge less to DBS than they do to cable. The ACA is basically just asking the FCC to level the playing field with regard to the fees that the FCC charges. This has nothing to do with these companies making themselves more competitive. The only way the cable companies can really do that... is if they pay the same fees as the DBS companies.


Agree, and we are talking about $1 
If any thing it's Directv who needs to improve their product for what we already pay.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

harsh said:


> The fee has to be for something. The ACA needs to tell us why (other than competitive reasons).


It's an government agency. I am sure they will find a way to spend it.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

harsh said:


> The fee has to be for something. The ACA needs to tell us why (other than competitive reasons).


I don't think this makes sense either. They need to explain why they don't want to be charged more by the government than their competition? Really? I think it's pretty self-evident. The FCC charges DBS providers less than they charge cable companies... even though they're supposed to be in the same business. I think it's incumbent on the FCC to explain why, after they've worked to try to level the playing field in other regards, they charge cable companies more. In fact, I would go further - there are legal requirements on cable companies that don't exist against other similar types of providers. If the FCC is interested in trying to create a more level playing field then they need to justify why one sector of the industry deserves to pay more than the other sectors. BTW, I'm not advocating that the FCC raise the DBS fees. I think they should lower them (hell, eliminate them) across the board. And yeah, it's only a dollar... but it's a dollar per subscriber. How many households have cable/satellite? 100 million? Wonder why the FCC charges that fee...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Do you know why they put all those restrictions and charges on cable companies and did not on Satellite companies? There is good reason that cable companies or more heavily regulated in some ways than Satellite companies are, and I see no reason that Sat companies should have to pay the same as cable companies since they are so much harder to control than Sat companies.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

One nugget to get out there, and I don't know if it applies to the conversation here... but since it might.

Be careful about "FCC fees"... because there are fees that show up on utility bills that are labeled as an "FCC" fee that are nothing of the kind. I went through this with a phone company many years ago where they insisted that the FCC "required" them to charge a particular fee. A little digging, and talking with the FCC... and the truth was, the phone company wanted to charge a fee and they wanted to charge more BUT the FCC said "no, we will allow you to charge your customers for this thing you have deemed necessary but your fee cannot exceed $5"... so in truth, it was purely a phone company fee but they didn't like the FCC putting a cap on what they could charge, so they called it a "FCC Access Fee" or some other such nonsense.

That said...

Any actual regulatory fees charged to satellite or cable, might necessarily be different because of the ways these companies operate. For the most part Dish and DirecTV do not have a significant presence in most of the states where they provide service. Whereas the cable company does have significant presence everything that they provide service. It stands to reason that this would result in more regulation of the cable company than a satellite company.

It's a whole different discussion IF someone brings up a problem that further regulation might help OR reducing regulation might help... but I can't say off-hand that both companies should be regulated the same.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

We need to be certain that these "fees" that we're talking about are what we think they are.

I suspect that what the ACA (and NCTA) is after is recovery on their franchise fees, not some mystery fee that is being charged by a state or federal government. Franchise fees are fees that the cablecos pay for their exclusive rights to operate in a jurisdiction as well as the "rent" on passage of their transmission lines through public rights-of-way.

There is no analog to franchising for satellite.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Be careful about "FCC fees"... because there are fees that show up on utility bills that are labeled as an "FCC" fee that are nothing of the kind. I went through this with a phone company many years ago where they insisted that the FCC "required" them to charge a particular fee.


I've known about these "cost recovery fees" from the beginning and I'm still not happy about it. You're right about the companies lying through their teeth about them being required. I get that pitch all the time from sales weasels. I have to remind them that most of these fees are "allowed" as opposed to "mandated".


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> I suspect that what the ACA (and NCTA) is after is recovery on their franchise fees, not some mystery fee that is being charged by a state or federal government.


You suspect incorrectly. As clearly stated in the article: "Currently, cable operators pay a regulatory fee to the FCC of about $1 per subscriber--a charge that dropped from around $1.02 per sub in 2013, when the FCC started charging Internet protocol TV (IPTV) operators regulatory fees."

They are talking about a fee charged by the federal government, not local franchise fees.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> You suspect incorrectly. As clearly stated in the article: "Currently, cable operators pay a regulatory fee to the FCC of about $1 per subscriber--a charge that dropped from around $1.02 per sub in 2013, when the FCC started charging Internet protocol TV (IPTV) operators regulatory fees."
> 
> They are talking about a fee charged by the federal government, not local franchise fees.


Our cable TV services have FCC and Local franchise Fees.

Our Internet has none of these fees.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Satellite and cable have always been regulated differently, not saying that it is good but it's true. Just look at the rules that satellite has to deal with when it comes to locals that cable doesn't have to deal with. So sure if your going to "level the playing field" then lets not just look at fees but also the regulations themselves, after all cable companies don't have to worry about DMA's and where those lines are drawn, they're allowed to offer any locals that make sense for the area they serve.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

tsmacro said:


> Satellite and cable have always been regulated differently, , after all cable companies don't have to worry about DMA's and where those lines are drawn, they're allowed to offer any locals that make sense for the area they serve.


They are tightening their belts on those DMA rules even with cable.
Our local cable lost 3 networks in the past 2 years to the dreaded networks crying over territories.


----------



## satcrazy (Mar 16, 2011)

damondlt said:


> Our cable TV services have FCC and Local franchise Fees.
> 
> Our Internet has none of these fees.


Hey D,

I wouldn't say that too loud :nono2:


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

*Update: FCC Proposes Per-Sub DBS Fee*

(broadcastingcable.com) - "In this Further Notice we propose to adopt a new fee category for DBS, based on the Media Bureau FTEs [full-time employees] which perform work related to these regulatees," the FCC said. "DBS providers are similar to cable operators and IPTV providers because DBS providers offer multi-channel video programming to end-users," the FCC points out. Despite this similarity, DBS providers do not pay the per-subscriber regulatory fee assessed on cable operators and IPTV providers based on Media Bureau FTE regulation....

Full Story Here


----------



## wilsonc (Aug 22, 2006)

damondlt said:


> Our cable TV services have FCC and Local franchise Fees.
> 
> Our Internet has none of these fees.


Internet Service Charges are tax free under Federal Law. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Tax_Freedom_Act However, that law expires November 1st, 2014. They are looking at making that permanent as the House has passed a bill to make it permanent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Internet_Tax_Freedom_Act_(H.R._3086;_113th_Congress) , however the Senate has not acted on it yet.


----------



## Mikej0530 (Dec 23, 2008)

There is another example of the federal Goverment getting to big. Why can't they just leave us alone.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

harsh said:


> We need to be certain that these "fees" that we're talking about are what we think they are.I suspect that what the ACA (and NCTA) is after is recovery on their franchise fees, not some mystery fee that is being charged by a state or federal government. Franchise fees are fees that the cablecos pay for their exclusive rights to operate in a jurisdiction as well as the "rent" on passage of their transmission lines through public rights-of-way.There is no analog to franchising for satellite.


The fees in question are charges levied against a regulated industry to partially recover the cost of the agency's enforcement. IOW, the regulated firms pay the government to enforce the regulations. (It is based upon the number of hours employees spend on regulatory issues related to the industry.)

The real point is that everyone already pays for this now...it is financed from the Federal Budget, so your taxes pay for it now. These fees would reduce the FCC's draw from the budget.

So pay it one way or another...but sooner or later we all pay.


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

Another fee on top of other annoying day to fees that we see in every aspect of our lives. People want to pay the lowest price possible, so companies come up with various add on fees. It has gotten to the point to add 10% to 20% to any quoted price to cover all the various fees. be it flying, staying at a hotel, renting a car, using or accessing your bank account, going to the doctor, druggist and/or hospital, and yes, subscribing to a cable or satellite service.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

This isn't a fee that Directv and Dish would be adding at their own discretion, it is a regulatory fee as Diana C said.

Of course the decision to break it out separately on subscriber's bills is the providers', but it makes sense that they don't want to be at a competitive disadvantage if they advertise one price that covers everything, and their competition can advertise a lower price with the fine print listing fees that are added on.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Diana C said:


> The fees in question are charges levied against a regulated industry to partially recover the cost of the agency's enforcement. IOW, the regulated firms pay the government to enforce the regulations. (It is based upon the number of hours employees spend on regulatory issues related to the industry.)
> 
> The real point is that everyone already pays for this now...it is financed from the Federal Budget, so your taxes pay for it now. These fees would reduce the FCC's draw from the budget.
> 
> So pay it one way or another...but sooner or later we all pay.


True... except in cases like this... if the FCC levies a fee against satellite companies, then they would pass that along to us in our bills... meanwhile we would not see a reduction in our taxes for the FCC no longer using that funding... so we would actually start paying twice for the same thing, essentially.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Stewart Vernon said:


> True... except in cases like this... if the FCC levies a fee against satellite companies, then they would pass that along to us in our bills... meanwhile we would not see a reduction in our taxes for the FCC no longer using that funding... so we would actually start paying twice for the same thing, essentially.


Considering that we've run a budget deficit every year since 2000, your taxes aren't paying for everything the government does anyway, a lot of it is being left to our children and grandchildren to pay. You not only aren't paying for anything twice, there are a lot of things you aren't even paying for once.

If we ran balanced budgets, there would inevitably be other spending that increases to take up any "savings" from having this fee paid directly by satellite subscribers, so expecting that your taxes would decrease as a result is utterly ridiculous. Even if all other spending remained constant, do you really think Congress should waste their time passing a tax reduction of a tiny fraction of a percent to refund an average of a quarter or whatever on everyone's tax bill?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

What is being proposed is a user fee ... a fee for using the services of the FCC. It makes sense to recoup at least a portion of the cost of operating the FCC from the companies using the FCC's services. The down side is that those companies get their money from us ... so subscribers end up paying for everything the companies get charged for doing at the FCC.

Event based fees are fairly common ... file for a construction permit or license and one will need to include a payment to process the paperwork. This fee will help offset events that are not individually charged ... such as when DISH or DirecTV talk to the FCC staff or decision makers about an issue. Or when there is an open comment period where the public can participate.

I'd rather not see a per event charge for talking to the FCC ... that would lead to the big companies with money being able to pay for more meetings than smaller companies. There is already enough of a problem with big companies being able to hire more or better people to lobby the FCC. Charging the public a fee for making comments on FCC proposals would reduce oddball responses to proposals ... but would lead to more of a "money speaks" environment.

With other services already paying the FCC for regulatory oversight it seems "fair" that satellite pay as well. They are receiving a benefit from the FCC.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> Considering that we've run a budget deficit every year since 2000, your taxes aren't paying for everything the government does anyway, a lot of it is being left to our children and grandchildren to pay. You not only aren't paying for anything twice, there are a lot of things you aren't even paying for once.
> 
> If we ran balanced budgets, there would inevitably be other spending that increases to take up any "savings" from having this fee paid directly by satellite subscribers, so expecting that your taxes would decrease as a result is utterly ridiculous. Even if all other spending remained constant, do you really think Congress should waste their time passing a tax reduction of a tiny fraction of a percent to refund an average of a quarter or whatever on everyone's tax bill?


You're arguing politics, which is not something we do here and isn't what I was talking about. It's a whole "nother" ball of wax to discuss wasteful spending or whatever else is wrong with our budget.

I'm merely pointing the fallacy of selling this FCC fee as something they need because of work they are doing because they presumably are already getting paid to do that work through tax dollars... and even if the FCC had to give up that funding once they get the fee from providers, you and I wouldn't see a reduction in taxes.

Whether or not the rest of the tax and budget system is broken is a discussion for another thread on another forum.


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

I'll pay the FCC a per-user fee for DBS when the FCC actually helps DBS even the playing field. So tired of non-equivalent rules for DBS vs cable and outdated market DMA concepts.


----------



## Jaspear (May 16, 2004)

I'll (voluntarily) pay the FCC a per-user fee for DBS when the FCC makes those 'services' someone mentioned above optional. Right now, they're nothing more than what government does best: coercion.

I couldn't help but notice that FierceCable.com accurately uses the the word "burdensome" to describe these fees. When they start making them optional, we'll actually find out which 'benefits' (as the ACA so helpfully calls them) really are benefits.

In my opinion, everything the FCC has done since 1934, has been made up out thin air and whole cloth, including the original conceit that everything else has 'progressed' from: that the public owns the airwaves. Maybe it's time to reconsider the original premise the FCC was founded on, rather than arguing about another government version of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, in this case yet more fees.

I do hope this wasn't politics I was arguing.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> You're arguing politics, which is not something we do here and isn't what I was talking about. It's a whole "nother" ball of wax to discuss wasteful spending or whatever else is wrong with our budget.
> 
> I'm merely pointing the fallacy of selling this FCC fee as something they need because of work they are doing because they presumably are already getting paid to do that work through tax dollars... and even if the FCC had to give up that funding once they get the fee from providers, you and I wouldn't see a reduction in taxes.
> 
> Whether or not the rest of the tax and budget system is broken is a discussion for another thread on another forum.


Look at it this way...if you were a cable TV subscriber instead of a satellite TV subscriber you would be paying the same taxes you are now, AND a portion of your monthly bill would be be going to the FCC while satellite subs escape that extra cost. Would you think that was fair? Historically, satellite operators only pay event based fees (application fees, for example). Once a satellite is in operation, FCC interaction is very low. That is not true for Dish and DirecTV...they have more frequent contact with the FCC over things like carriage disputes, retransmission fees, etc., just like a cable company.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Enforcement at the cable system level is surely more costly than at the DBS level. You don't see rigs running around testing for stray satellite signals or having to shut down a satellite for trampling your TV or radio reception.

The other danger is that some fees that are claimed as FCC fees are not levied by the FCC but are instead allowed by the FCC for cost recovery. If they don't charge the DBS companies fees, they don't have a need for cost recovery.

James mentions building permits and other events. DBS companies pay their fees for design review and changes to the RF landscape map as it is.

The proposed fee is simply a device to level the playing field and the FCC needs to stay out of that business.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> Enforcement at the cable system level is surely more costly than at the DBS level. You don't see rigs running around testing for stray satellite signals or having to shut down a satellite for trampling your TV or radio reception.


FCC enforcement is light and is paid for through "fines" (voluntary donations) when issues are found.



harsh said:


> The other danger is that some fees that are claimed as FCC fees are not levied by the FCC but are instead allowed by the FCC for cost recovery. If they don't charge the DBS companies fees, they don't have a need for cost recovery.


The "cost" is the group of people employed by the FCC who have to deal with the paperwork created by DBS providers. The fees that cable and IPTV are paying help offset that cost. ACA would like DBS to pay a similar per subscriber fee for DBS company use of FCC resources.

If the FCC stopped charging cable and IPTV the costs of operating the agency would still be there. There are regular costs that are not covered by application fees. When a satellite subscriber complains to the FCC about their service who pays for the staff member that handles that complaint? Cable subscribers? Taxpayers in general? Why not satellite subscribers?



harsh said:


> The proposed fee is simply a device to level the playing field and the FCC needs to stay out of that business.


Think about it this way: If this was a fee accessed ONLY on satellite subscribers and not cable or IPTV subscribers which side would you be on? Leaving status quo where only one type of service is charged the fee or "leveling the playing field" where all types of services are charged the fee? If you would not like this fee if it only applied to satellite why do you support it only applying to cable/IPTV?

I'd like to level the playing field and have no per subscriber fee, regardless of service type. But subscribers and their companies are using the FCC's services and that costs our government money. Allocating some of that cost directly to the companies and their subscribers seems fair - even if it is annoying to see the line item cost.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Diana C said:


> Look at it this way...if you were a cable TV subscriber instead of a satellite TV subscriber you would be paying the same taxes you are now, AND a portion of your monthly bill would be be going to the FCC while satellite subs escape that extra cost. Would you think that was fair? Historically, satellite operators only pay event based fees (application fees, for example). Once a satellite is in operation, FCC interaction is very low. That is not true for Dish and DirecTV...they have more frequent contact with the FCC over things like carriage disputes, retransmission fees, etc., just like a cable company.


Right... and that's why I would be on the side of "why are the cable companies paying these fees" rather than "why aren't the satellite companies paying too."

I could get behind a position of removing the fee from cable more than I could a movement to add it to satellite "just to make it fair..."

I see this a lot of random places in society... instead of seeing a weird thing and moving to eliminate it, we tend to try and impose the weird thing on everyone for "fairness" which is a strawman since the easier and fairer thing would be to get rid of the weird thing in the first place... not try and make everyone have to do the weird thing, right?


----------



## Jaspear (May 16, 2004)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Right... and that's why I would be on the side of "why are the cable companies paying these fees" rather than "why aren't the satellite companies paying too."
> 
> I could get behind a position of removing the fee from cable more than I could a movement to add it to satellite "just to make it fair..."
> 
> I see this a lot of random places in society... instead of seeing a weird thing and moving to eliminate it, we tend to try and impose the weird thing on everyone for "fairness" which is a strawman since the easier and fairer thing would be to get rid of the weird thing in the first place... not try and make everyone have to do the weird thing, right?


Right. Adding another tax or fee on the other guy is always the default position which guarantees a win for the entity doing the so called "play field leveling".


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Jaspear said:


> Right. Adding another tax or fee on the other guy is always the default position which guarantees a win for the entity doing the so called "play field leveling".


The thing is (and I know this is hair splitting) they aren't adding a new tax. They're taking the total cost burden and spreading it more equitably. Cable fees will go down as a result of this move. They're not trying to screw over DBS. One of the things the FCC has done right in recent years is to recognize the fact that DBS and cable (and IPTV too) really aren't in different industries anymore. There's been a concerted effort to merge those fields wherever practical. In some cases, you really can't do that (e.g. when the FCC first proposed having DBS follow the same rules for carriage of local channels as cable has). But in many cases, leveling the playing field is not only possible, it's the right thing to do. For example, one argument Comcast recently used in allowing for the encryption of local channels was simply 'DBS and IP don't have to keep locals unencrypted... why should we?' The FCC agreed with that argument. This is the same thing. The fact that all TV providers be treated equally when it comes to footing the regulatory bill isn't really that obnoxious of a notion. Many of the arguments against the move have been utter non-sequiters (this is a move by cable because they can't compete against DBS... it's frankly hard to make that argument when the regulatory cost for your company is higher than it is for your competition - there's nothing that cable could do to offset that cost, in other words). Also what James Long said about enforcement is absolutely correct. The FCC may spend more for enforcement against cable, but they also recoup most if not all that money through fines against those companies. Since cable is much more likely to infringe on those requirements, they're also far more likely to fund the FCC through those fines.

Whether this cost should be in existence at all is a totally separate argument. I'm a low tax kind of guy. That being said, there are legitimate roles for government in this area. As such, it needs to be funded. But whether that funding is too high or too low is a separate discussion. If there is a call to eliminate the surcharge... I'm all ears. But as long as the fees have to be paid, then it only makes total sense that everyone in the industry pay the same. When DBS was new the argument could be made that it was a more experimental type of fringe player. But 20 years on? Please. DirecTV and Dish are two of the largest TV providers in the country (I think they're still #2 and #3, if I'm not mistaken). To believe that they should pay less in light of that than every other company - only one of which is larger - just makes no sense to me at all.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Oh, and one more point - lest anyone thinks that the FCC is in the back pocket of big cable and this move proves it! Consider this - many of the regulatory changes made recently by the FCC were made to break up some of the cable muscle that they've thrown around. The biggest, in my mind, is the all-but-elimination of the terrestrial loop-hole. If the FCC was a lap dog for big cable there is no way in hell that would have happened. Why DirecTV still hasn't taken advantage of that closing (to get, e.g., CSN Philly) is beyond me, but it is pretty much gone. That was a mother of a change that was a big smack at big cable. This latest move is just an extension of that - an attempt to get rid of the distinctions between the industries.


----------



## bjdotson (Feb 20, 2007)

jpl said:


> The thing is (and I know this is hair splitting) they aren't adding a new tax. They're taking the total cost burden and spreading it more equitably. Cable fees will go down as a result of this move.


 Sure they will. And the incentive to do that is what?


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

bjdotson said:


> Sure they will. And the incentive to do that is what?


I don't understand your question. Incentive for who? If you're trying to make the point that this proves that the FCC is in big cable's pocket, that's an interesting take - especially since DBS has been around FOR 20 YEARS. If they had wanted to really serve their cable overlords... why did they wait 2 decades to make this move?

And yes, the fees will go down for the average cable customer. But that's just basic math. If 90% of your fees are being paid for by 50% of your customers, and then you change the rules so that 100% of the fees are being paid for by 100% of your customers, customers who had originally been in that paying 50% will end up paying less. If they kept cable's fees the same, and then just upped those paid for by DBS, then you WOULD have a tax increase (something, btw, the FCC isn't allowed to do without congressional approval). This move is just saying that everyone is going to pay the same. Not sure why that's such an insane idea. Plus I think everyone is getting wrapped around the axle here. We're not talking a huge difference. The decrease for cable customers is literally going to be pennies per month (from the original article: "Currently, DirecTV and Dish pay less burdensome regulatory fees as satellite operators, which amount to about *6 cents per every subscriber*, according to the ACA...."). It's not like cable customers are going to be doing high fives because their monthly bills have been slashed. It will be such a small decrease that no one will even notice it. Likewise, and correspondingly, that means that the DBS increase will be outrageously small. And whether we should have the fee or not is a totally different debate. Again, if someone wants to make the case for eliminating it, and how it would be eliminated, I'm all ears. So far I haven't heard that case made.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Cable customers bills aren't going to decrease... IF the fee the cable company has to pay is somehow lowered, you can bet they will raise their rates to match that difference so that in the end their customers pay the same. History has taught us this time again again.

Meanwhile... my whole point was, why accept the "given" that cable companies have to pay this fee? The argument seems to be predicated on "if cable companies have to pay, then why not satellite.. make it fair" to which I ask, who said cable companies should have to pay either? Why does the fee have to exist at all for any company?

Instead of banding together on this... Satellite says "yeah, cable should pay so we shouldn't" and Cable says "it we have to pay then Satellite should too" when BOTH should be saying "why is anyone paying this?"

But those companies will not band together... and neither will consumers.

The FCC exists to regulate things... that's its function... it is funded through tax dollars... it seems odd to say to me that they need to also charge companies for the services they are tax-funded to provide.

Imagine...

McDonalds has a menu of their burgers and fries... and that menu includes prices... but you walk in one day to find that your $1 burger + $1 fries actually costs $2.50 because there is a 50-cent "delivery fee" on every transaction... and you ask yourself why aren't they charging enough for the burgers in the first place?

That's the FCC question... why aren't they funded enough to do the job for which they were created? IF they need more funding through tax dollars in the budget OR do they need to scale back their responsibilities due to shortfall of income. Those are the questions that we should be asking... not whether or not to "make it fair" by imposing fees on everyone.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

I understand your argument, and trust me I think there's too much regulation/taxation already. But if there is going to be funding for something, why doesn't it make more sense to have those using those services actually foot the bill? If I don't drive, I don't pay gas taxes, e.g. If (a big if) gas taxes go to pay for road repair, I think it makes more sense to pay for those repairs through gas taxes rather than general revenue. Yes, government can get nutty on this, and money gets funneled for all sorts of things for which it wasn't intended (I use the example of gas taxes, btw, because my state just jacked them, alot), and this isn't meant to be a political posting, but by and large, if we need regulation in a particular industry, why doesn't it make sense that those who partake in that industry actually, you know, pay the bill? Why should a person with no TV be required to pay for regulation of the TV industry? That's all.

BTW, on this issue - for those who think that DBS is getting screwed by this - the way to look at this decision is this: DBS has been given a discount until now. That's what this is saying. Now that discount ends. That's all. Would I like this fee to go away? Sure, if we reduce the FCC footprint by the amount of the fee. But that won't happen. And as long as it doesn't happen, someone has to pay that bill. If cable/dbs doesn't, then who will? We will anyway, through increases in taxation. One way or the other, we would pay for it. And again, we're talking a minute amount of money. And that money can't go up without authorization by congress (if this were one of those putting a frog in cold water and slowly increasing the heat things, I would have a different take on it).

Oh, and asking the question of why aren't they funded adequately for the function for which they were created?: Who says they're not? This has nothing to do with that. This is simply the MECHANISM by which this aspect of the FCC is funded. It has nothing to do with funding levels. No one has said, in other words, that the FCC had to do this because they weren't getting enough money from Congress. This funding mechanism itself has to be authorized by Congress. Which means that the FCC is being funded. We may not like the mechanism of that funding, but that's what's at issue here - the distribution of the funding via the mechanism that Congress has authorized (and again, this move does not create an increase to be paid to the FCC - it redistributes the payments so DBS companies share the burden equally with cable providers - there's no increase in money going to the FCC by this, ergo it wasn't created as a method for closing a funding short-fall).


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

But that's my whole point, again... if the FCC is already getting funding through tax dollars allocated by Congress, then they don't need to charge a regulatory fee. The money is coming from somewhere now, right?

I would agree that IF the FCC got all its funding by charging a fee to each entity that it regulates, then that would be fair to everyone... so why wasn't it setup that way in the beginning? IF the FCC would get all its funding directly from those who use the services, that would be fine... but we know they will still get funding from elsewhere... so people who don't use their services will still be paying money to the FCC just like today... so nothing will have changed in that regard.

It's like the "education lottery" to fund schools but then tax money is still collected for the education budget and either given to the schools OR repurposed for something else that the taxpayer doesn't necessarily want.

Again, without going into the politics of why things are the way they are... I'm reluctant to jump on the "yeah, make DBS pay too" bandwagon unless I felt like it was an all-inclusive thing and the FCC completely restructured its financing so that, as you suggest, they would be funded by those who use their services.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Look at it this way. The FCC has a budget that it gets from congress and other sources like cable companies to pay for its operations. That budget will necessarily increase each year (because people get cost of living increases, health care costs more, the cost to heat/cool their buildings goes up, etc.)

They have two choices for the additional funding, ask congress for more money, or try to find other sources. Even if they find other sources (i.e. DBS regulatory fees) that may only cover part of it, so they may still need more money from congress next year - just not as much as they otherwise would have.

This reminds me of people who hear about Directv dropping a channel (like TWC during the dispute earlier this year) and make comments like "if they're dropping this channel and saving money, I expect to see a price cut instead of a price increase next February!" Since Directv would have many other costs going up, even if they permanently dropped TWC and saved 12 cents a month or whatever it is, they would have still needed a price increase in February. Perhaps it would have ended up being just a bit less due to the savings from not carrying TWC.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Who said that the FCC is supposed to get ALL its funding directly from Congress via the general treasury? They get part of their funding from the treasury, and part directly from the industry. That's not inconsistent with how probably most of the these departments operate. Going back to highway funding, you could make the same argument that we shouldn't have federal gas taxes - why isn't the interior department paid for fully by Congress? Because they're not. Do we HAVE to set it up this way? No, but we do. And that set-up was directed by Congress via legislation. In other words, this funding mechanism is what the law currently spells out. Can we change that? Sure. Should we? I don't know. I'm ok with having the various industries at least partially pay for the regulation used for that industry. We do that in all sorts of areas of government (some funding for the FDA comes from the food and drug companies, e.g.). This is the arrangement that we set up. In light of that, because that's the mechanism that we have currently set up, this move by the FCC makes total sense to me. To believe that DBS deserves a discount over cable is absurd. Why should they? Together the DBS companies serve more than 1/3 of the households in the US. It's not some fringe, experimental service anymore, and should be treated on par with cable. Again, CAN we get rid of cable/dbs funding of this regulation? Sure. Should we? I don't think so.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Look at it this way. The FCC has a budget that it gets from congress and other sources like cable companies to pay for its operations. That budget will necessarily increase each year (because people get cost of living increases, health care costs more, the cost to heat/cool their buildings goes up, etc.)
> 
> They have two choices for the additional funding, ask congress for more money, or try to find other sources. Even if they find other sources (i.e. DBS regulatory fees) that may only cover part of it, so they may still need more money from congress next year - just not as much as they otherwise would have.
> 
> This reminds me of people who hear about Directv dropping a channel (like TWC during the dispute earlier this year) and make comments like "if they're dropping this channel and saving money, I expect to see a price cut instead of a price increase next February!" Since Directv would have many other costs going up, even if they permanently dropped TWC and saved 12 cents a month or whatever it is, they would have still needed a price increase in February. Perhaps it would have ended up being just a bit less due to the savings from not carrying TWC.


Sorry to pounce on you, but what you're saying is wrong. This is NOT a case of the FCC finding additional sources of funding! The FCC gets x from cable/dbs. This modification doesn't change the size of x. What it does is it changes the percentage of x paid for by cable and DBS. That's all. The amount of money the FCC will get from this regulation will not change. It will stay the same. What changes is the fact that DBS will now pay a percentage that's on par with cable per subscriber. Until now DBS was getting a discount, and cable was required to make up the difference. I'm not sure why folks see that as fair. Now DBS will pay the same per subscriber as cable. The amount per subscriber that DBS will pay goes up... and the amount per subscriber that cable pays will go down. Overall, though, x will stay the same.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Thanks for the correction, I didn't realize the fee increase for DBS would be offset by a fee decrease for cable.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

Stewart Vernon said:


> But that's my whole point, again... if the FCC is already getting funding through tax dollars allocated by Congress, then they don't need to charge a regulatory fee. The money is coming from somewhere now, right?
> 
> I would agree that IF the FCC got all its funding by charging a fee to each entity that it regulates, then that would be fair to everyone... so why wasn't it setup that way in the beginning? IF the FCC would get all its funding directly from those who use the services, that would be fine... but we know they will still get funding from elsewhere... so people who don't use their services will still be paying money to the FCC just like today... so nothing will have changed in that regard.
> 
> ...





slice1900 said:


> Look at it this way. The FCC has a budget that it gets from congress and other sources like cable companies to pay for its operations. That budget will necessarily increase each year (because people get cost of living increases, health care costs more, the cost to heat/cool their buildings goes up, etc.)
> 
> They have two choices for the additional funding, ask congress for more money, or try to find other sources. Even if they find other sources (i.e. DBS regulatory fees) that may only cover part of it, so they may still need more money from congress next year - just not as much as they otherwise would have.
> 
> This reminds me of people who hear about Directv dropping a channel (like TWC during the dispute earlier this year) and make comments like "if they're dropping this channel and saving money, I expect to see a price cut instead of a price increase next February!" Since Directv would have many other costs going up, even if they permanently dropped TWC and saved 12 cents a month or whatever it is, they would have still needed a price increase in February. Perhaps it would have ended up being just a bit less due to the savings from not carrying TWC.


Incorrect. The FCC is self-funded. It is one of the few agencies that has been forced to pay its own way. It has been mandated by Congress to charge fees so it does not need to be funded by taxpayers (and reduce the Government deficit).

I HATE the ACA because they are clowns for the most part, claiming they are pro-consumer, when in reality they only care about their members - but in reality, just like a broke analog watch which tells the correct time twice a day, the ACA happens to be right on this one. All MVPDs (just like all Broadcasters) should be forced to pay regulatory fees to the FCC for an even playing field.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> All MVPDs (just like all Broadcasters) should be forced to pay regulatory fees to the FCC for an even playing field.


I think few would dispute that. It sounds like the question is whether it is fair to charge the same fees to cable and satellite subscribers, if the regulation "services" provided by the FCC to satellite customers cost them less. I don't know enough about exactly what the FCC does for each to comment, but I think making the fees equal is bound to be unfair to one or the other because it seems unlikely the cost is equal.

Maybe the FCC could sidestep the whole issue and drop the regulatory fees for both, by requiring those who want to merge to pay them five years worth of budget. Between Comcast and AT&T's mergers with TWC and Directv, that would provide them funding for the next decade


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

slice1900 said:


> I think few would dispute that. It sounds like the question is whether it is fair to charge the same fees to cable and satellite subscribers, if the regulation "services" provided by the FCC to satellite customers cost them less. I don't know enough about exactly what the FCC does for each to comment, but I think making the fees equal is bound to be unfair to one or the other because it seems unlikely the cost is equal.
> 
> Maybe the FCC could sidestep the whole issue and drop the regulatory fees for both, by requiring those who want to merge to pay them five years worth of budget. Between Comcast and AT&T's mergers with TWC and Directv, that would provide them funding for the next decade


Actually, I believe Satellite would take up more time at the FCC than a cable system. Cable Systems do not need regulation for adding new satellites, orbits etc.

And god knows Charlie costs the FCC more time than cable systems.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

slice1900 said:


> Look at it this way. The FCC has a budget that it gets from congress and other sources like cable companies to pay for its operations. That budget will necessarily increase each year (because people get cost of living increases, health care costs more, the cost to heat/cool their buildings goes up, etc.)


BTW, the FCC budget has actually DROPPED for the last few years - not risen.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Actually, I believe Satellite would take up more time at the FCC than a cable system. Cable Systems do not need regulation for adding new satellites, orbits etc.
> 
> And god knows Charlie costs the FCC more time than cable systems.


LOA fees should cover the satellite due diligence.

On the contrary, I would imagine that cable is much more high maintenance as they have to investigate signal leakage complaints and other maintenance issues that aren't associated with a licensing due diligence.

Orbital slot allocation is pretty straightforward and the satellite manufacturer is on the hook to insure that the bird doesn't interfere with other birds. This is part of the reason why DIRECTV takes months to get their satellites in service after launch.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> BTW, the FCC budget has actually DROPPED for the last few years - not risen.


Not that it's really relevant to where the FCC gets its money, but I would love to see your sources on that. The data is actually harder to come by than I thought it would be. Here are some of the numbers I've seen:

2010 budget - $335.8 Million
2013 budget - $346.8 Million
2014 budget - $359 Million

That doesn't look like a decrease to me. It's probably true that given baseline budgeting they see their budgets as being cut, but that's not really a cut. A cut ala baseline budgeting would look something like this:

Me: Boss, I need a 10% raise for next year.
Boss: Um, I'll give you 5%.
Me: That's a 5% cut!

That's what they mean in Washington when they say there's a budget cut. The budget doesn't get cut. A certain baseline increase is assumed to be the new baseline every year (so they pretend that the following year's budget is already in stone based on some annual percentage increase) and if the actual budget comes in below that increase, then the see it as a 'cut'. Basically, Madoff economics.

I do agree that it's likely that cable costs more to maintain than DBS does (although I really don't know that - things like signal leakage issues affect DBS installations just as much as the do cable, and since DBS installations are all decentralized... it makes it a hell of alot harder to regulate), as was stated earlier, the FCC makes up for enforcement by way of fines. If cable is more likely to be in violation of those regulations, then they pay more anyway, just through those additional fines. But to preserve the regulatory regime, a specific baseline amount of money is needed. That's what we're talking about here.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

jpl said:


> Not that it's really relevant to where the FCC gets its money, but I would love to see your sources on that. The data is actually harder to come by than I thought it would be. Here are some of the numbers I've seen:
> 
> 2010 budget - $335.8 Million
> 2013 budget - $346.8 Million
> ...


From Thursday, about as current as one can get:

http://us6.campaign-archive1.com/?u=78b390ff9f5b002e3f050238c&id=21fcefb828&e=e90ac61f84

"The NAB's Jane Mago opened up talking about the FCC chewing through the backlog of filings and requests, and Doyle says they've made great progress. Though every year they've got more requests, and less staff to handle them. Despite the heightened workload from broadcast, cable and elsewhere, over the years the FCC staff and budget have been cut."


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

One problem with what you posted - where are the numbers? Again, EVERYONE in Washington says their budgets get cut. Aside from the sequester which (from what I recall) didn't affect the FCC, there have been no real budget cuts in Washington in decades. The rate of growth is cut, and you see administrators rend garments and gnash teeth over the fact that they're being starved of funds, but in reality the budget goes up... every year. Because the rep from the FCC says that their budgets have been cut means nothing. I don't see any numbers to back up the fact that their funding this year is less than last, and in fact the numbers that I provided seem to contradict that.

They also play a little bit of a trick in talking about staff being cut - after all, the two should go hand in glove, right? Why else would they cut staff if their budgets aren't going down? Actually, there could be lots of reasons. From increases in efficiency, to reallocation of work load (cuts in staff in one area being offset by increases in another), to a shift of focus and priorities, to a whole host of reasons. Is that what's happened at the FCC? I don't know. If I had to guess what's going on it would be summed up with a term that every software developer is familiar with: scope creep. My guess is that the FCC is being tasked to take on a role that was never envisioned by their charter. That is far more likely to happen with a government agency. We see that all the time across the board (again, not to get political, but I'm pretty sure the EPA was never given the charter to regulate CO2, and yet they've assumed that role). But again, I don't know for sure. I'm stating reasons on why what they said should be taken with a grain of salt. So, how can you KNOW what's really going on? Numbers. Provide real data in terms of staffing, in terms of budgeting. Fuzzy, sound-bite-esque, quotes by administrators within the organization don't really tell me anything.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

jpl said:


> One problem with what you posted - where are the numbers? Again, EVERYONE in Washington says their budgets get cut. Aside from the sequester which (from what I recall) didn't affect the FCC, there have been no real budget cuts in Washington in decades. The rate of growth is cut, and you see administrators rend garments and gnash teeth over the fact that they're being starved of funds, but in reality the budget goes up... every year. Because the rep from the FCC says that their budgets have been cut means nothing. I don't see any numbers to back up the fact that their funding this year is less than last, and in fact the numbers that I provided seem to contradict that.
> 
> They also play a little bit of a trick in talking about staff being cut - after all, the two should go hand in glove, right? Why else would they cut staff if their budgets aren't going down? Actually, there could be lots of reasons. From increases in efficiency, to reallocation of work load (cuts in staff in one area being offset by increases in another), to a shift of focus and priorities, to a whole host of reasons. Is that what's happened at the FCC? I don't know. If I had to guess what's going on it would be summed up with a term that every software developer is familiar with: scope creep. My guess is that the FCC is being tasked to take on a role that was never envisioned by their charter. That is far more likely to happen with a government agency. We see that all the time across the board (again, not to get political, but I'm pretty sure the EPA was never given the charter to regulate CO2, and yet they've assumed that role). But again, I don't know for sure. I'm stating reasons on why what they said should be taken with a grain of salt. So, how can you KNOW what's really going on? Numbers. Provide real data in terms of staffing, in terms of budgeting. Fuzzy, sound-bite-esque, quotes by administrators within the organization don't really tell me anything.


Read all you want....this is FY 2015

Page 8 for example shows the decline in personnel through 2013, apparently 2014 had a very small increase.

Page 33 and 34 shows the Fee Collections which make up the budget.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Ok, so you see staffing dip during periods over the last 20 years. But what does that mean in terms of the budget? Look at page 33. Doesn't look like a cut to me. So, how can staffing change like that while the budget keeps going up? Easy - there are different initiatives that the FCC is involved with. Some require more heads, and some require less. Just because they spend a little less on staffing doesn't mean they're spending less overall (and it is a slight reduction in staffing over time - the overall difference between the peak in 1995 and the low point in 2013 is a RIF of about 15%. That's a pretty small decrease overall). All of this tacks pretty much with what I said, above. That the FCC spending changes based on priority. It's like any other budget. Let's say you decide you're going to spend 100% of what you make. Some years you can live really fat - go on that cruise you've always wanted to, e.g. Other years, not so much. Note none of that really is a reflection of your income. Even if your income goes up year over year, you're going to hit years that hit you with regard to expenses (wanted to go on that vacation but the house needed a new roof). So your spending changes - that is WHERE you spend changes. Not the total amount you spend. Basically your spending priorities change based on your current circumstances.

This is no different. There are going to be years when the FCC will have to spend money on initiatives that require more staffing (those staffing levels seem to correspond nicely with the chart on page 36 - where it shows the number of licenses auctioned. I'm guessing that activities like that require more staffing). But as that chart on page 33 makes clear - with the exception of a flattening that happened between 2009 and 2013, that is a steady increase in operating budget. Some years they spent less on staffing... some more. But the amount that they're spending overall... has been steadily going up. The notion that they're being forced to do more with less is simply not true. The data backs that up pretty definitively.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

jpl said:


> Ok, so you see staffing dip during periods over the last 20 years. But what does that mean in terms of the budget? Look at page 33. Doesn't look like a cut to me. So, how can staffing change like that while the budget keeps going up? Easy - there are different initiatives that the FCC is involved with. Some require more heads, and some require less. Just because they spend a little less on staffing doesn't mean they're spending less overall (and it is a slight reduction in staffing over time - the overall difference between the peak in 1995 and the low point in 2013 is a RIF of about 15%. That's a pretty small decrease overall). All of this tacks pretty much with what I said, above. That the FCC spending changes based on priority. It's like any other budget. Let's say you decide you're going to spend 100% of what you make. Some years you can live really fat - go on that cruise you've always wanted to, e.g. Other years, not so much. Note none of that really is a reflection of your income. Even if your income goes up year over year, you're going to hit years that hit you with regard to expenses (wanted to go on that vacation but the house needed a new roof). So your spending changes - that is WHERE you spend changes. Not the total amount you spend. Basically your spending priorities change based on your current circumstances.
> 
> This is no different. There are going to be years when the FCC will have to spend money on initiatives that require more staffing (those staffing levels seem to correspond nicely with the chart on page 36 - where it shows the number of licenses auctioned. I'm guessing that activities like that require more staffing). But as that chart on page 33 makes clear - with the exception of a flattening that happened between 2009 and 2013, that is a steady increase in operating budget. Some years they spent less on staffing... some more. But the amount that they're spending overall... has been steadily going up. The notion that they're being forced to do more with less is simply not true. The data backs that up pretty definitively.


It really is comical.

I make a statement - you ask for source.

I show you a source and quote from a top Administrator from the FCC made last Wednesday.

You debate the NAB, the FCC etc is correct - but admit you have trouble finding the total budget.

I post you the entire FY Budget - but you still question it.

Sorry, I've done about as much as I plan to do on this as it is not even about the OT.

With all due respect, If you want more info, pay someone to research it further for you - or research it more yourself.

Or you can start a new thread and ask. Perhaps someone will waste more time doing your research or give you the wrong answer, so you can feel good about it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I looked at that document and I couldn't find any indication of proof of a decreased budget either. If it is in there, it is buried deep. Looked to me by the charts that the budget stayed flat or rose over the years... which isn't a budget cut unless you are playing word games (like alluded to earlier where people consider it a "cut" when they don't get as much of a raise as they wanted).

Also... businesses cut staff all the time... sometimes they cut staff to increase net profits. I wouldn't think the FCC cuts staff to make a profit, but they could cut staff for lots of reasons that aren't related to an actual budget cut.


----------

