The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission caused a storm of excitement on Tuesday with a blog post saying he was seeking to to expand the definition of cable operator to include online video distributors.
The chairman, Tom Wheeler, suggested in the post that his proposal would allow consumers to soon be able to buy only those cable channels they want – say, all those dealing with pets and animals but none of those sports channels. That sort of unbundling has long been a goal of some consumer groups.
They probably shouldn’t hold their breath waiting for that policy change to happen. While the move by the F.C.C. might be a step toward à la carte video programming, it is a baby step at best. For now, it is uncertain whether the F.C.C. will even formally vote on the proposal, let alone approve it.
And on Wednesday, it was also uncertain how far-reaching the proposal was. And since the details of the proposal won’t be available for at least several weeks, educated guesses ruled the day, almost all of it based on Mr. Wheeler’s blog post.
In his post, Mr. Wheeler said he would “ask the commission to start a rulemaking proceeding in which we would modernize our interpretation of the term ‘multichannel video programming distributor’ (M.V.P.D.) so that it is technology-neutral.”
He also wrote: “The result of this technical adjustment will be to give M.V.P.D.s that use the Internet (or any other method of transmission) the same access to programming owned by cable operators and the same ability to negotiate to carry broadcast TV stations that Congress gave to satellite systems in order to ensure competitive video markets.”
Unpacking the second part of that statement first: “Programming owned by cable operators” means cable channels owned by companies that also own cable systems – like NBCUniversal, owned by Comcast. It does not include cable programmers not owned by cable systems, however. So online video distributors, or O.V.D.s, would not have newly found access to programming owned by Disney (which owns channels like ESPN) or Viacom (which owns Nickelodeon), for example.
In addition, while online video distributors would be able to negotiate for the right to carry broadcast channels, they would still lack the copyright approval needed to carry broadcast transmissions. That approval would have to come from the United States Copyright Office, not the F.C.C.
Then there is the part where the F.C.C. is to “start a rulemaking.” The chairman is circulating a proposal to the other commissioners known as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or N.P.R.M. He first has to get two of the four other commissioners to agree to put the matter out for public comment. The comment process usually takes months. And no one outside the commission sees what the proposal actually says until it is put out for public comment, which is at least a month away.
After the comment period, the commission would still need to give its final approval. For an idea of how long that might take, consider that the commission has already been considering for more than two years a request to take up this very issue.
Still, some supporters of the F.C.C. action said it was important. “This is basically the F.C.C. trying to kick-start online video competition in a way it hasn’t before,” said John Bergmayer, a senior staff attorney at Public Knowledge, a consumer-interest group that supports the changes. “This is a significant step that will create a lot more opportunity for online providers to get access to programing that they might otherwise be cut off from.”
Others played down the significance. “The real-world implications” of the F.C.C. action, wrote the industry analysts Craig Moffett and Michael Nathanson, “are likely to be somewhat limited.”
“No one can force a broadcaster to license content to an O.V.D. if they don’t think it is in their best interests,” they wrote. “No one can dictate that a non-vertically integrated programmer (say, Viacom, or Time Warner) has to unbundle if they don’t want to. Arguments that yesterday’s N.P.R.M. will foster à la carte are entirely unfounded.”