IPTV Providers To Pay Same Regulatory Fees As Cable Companies

An anonymous reader writes "The FCC is looking to put regulatory fees on a per-subscriber basis for IPTV providers. 'We will assess regulatory fees on Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) licensees and we will create a new fee category that will include both cable television and IPTV,' says the report. What services they consider IPTV is yet to be seen; they call it simply 'digital television delivered through a high speed Internet connection.' We can only hope it doesn't affect too many internet video sites. "

Comments

hmm?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is more for "broadcasting channel 2" by the ISP in a manner that would require a "TV tuner" and not "you must pay to watch youtube/hulu/netflix" of which the latter are subscription services that have no bearing on you watching it on DSL, Cable or Satellite.

Like, if a site like Hulu were to have a "channel" that is only available with a "TV" subscription then yes it should fall under this.

Re:hmm?

[icebike]

But the article clearly states:

The fees are designed to recover the costs that the FCC incurs in administering licenses and the like and are based on the number of full-time employees dedicated to such functions on a bureau-by-bureau basis.

And since the FCC does not regulate HULU or any other site sending video streams, it is NOT merely a money grab, but another way to shut down people streaming video of any kind, by simply declaring they failed to pay the fee. They've essentially brought the entire streaming video industry under their control by fiat!

Re: hmm?

[icebike]

What about Ustream, (where anyone can stream just about anything from kittens to combat, and many foreign TV News stations stream 24/7?
What about YouTube, where you can watch complete episodes of many tv shows?

There are hundreds of other examples that they have just declared that they have authority to charge fees, even when they do nothing for these sites.

Re:hmm?

[maxwell demon]

But if the company just relocates to another country, is there anything the FCC can do?

Re: hmm?

[ArchieBunker]

Obama is pushing to make streaming copyrighted material a FELONY. Have fun with your "hope and change".

Re: hmm?

[kthreadd]

That could have serious side effects if the bill isn't ammended to allow streaming of copyrighted material under permission.

Re: hmm?

[pthisis]

Obama is pushing to make streaming copyrighted material a FELONY. Have fun with your "hope and change".

No, he isn't. You're missing some crucial piece of the story here, but there's no way that Obama's trying to outlaw Netflix, Hulu, and OnDemand.

(It's possible that you're referring to the Commerce Department's push to make unlicensed streaming of copyrighted material a felony, but that's a far cry from what you're asserting).

Re:hmm?

[jamstar7]

Yup. Block their IPs for transmission into the US. A simple matter of adjusting the rules for the top level domain nameservers. That'll stop anybody that doesn't know how to find a 'dotted quad' address, like, practically nobody.

Re: hmm?

[pthisis]

If you have a reasonable belief that Netflix has the right to stream it, then you're probably lacking the mens rea (roughly "intent") necessary to commit felony infringement. Note that "reasonable" is an important word here.

Re:hmm?

[pthisis]

No, they haven't. Read the FCC paper. The IPTV services they're discussing are essentially traditional cable services that use the Internet as their transport layer (e.g. AT&T ustream, CenturyLink Prism). They're clarifying that the exact technology used for regulated services doesn't create a loophole, not extending their regulation to Youtube or Hulu or Netflix (or ustream or justin.tv).

Re: hmm?

[jonbryce]

Generally speaking, it is illegal to upload, not to download, so Netflix might be committing a felony, but you would not.

Re: hmm?

[sixsixtysix]

Obama is pushing to make streaming copyrighted material, of which you are not the holder, a FELONY. Have fun with your "hope and change".

FTFY

Re: hmm?

[sixsixtysix]

pretty sure the blame would fall on them(netflix) and not you. if target/walmart/etc sold you stolen goods, you wouldn't be held accountable.

Re: hmm?

[Kohath]

The idea of mens rea was holding back government power grabs. So it has essentially been made irrelevant. Lots of felonies don't require intent any more.

Re: hmm?

[russotto]

There are hundreds of other examples that they have just declared that they have authority to charge fees, even when they do nothing for these sites.

If they actually try to enforce that interpretation, there will be a blizzard of lawsuits and more than one bill introduced in Congress (at least one for each side!)

Re: hmm?

[sumdumass]

The mens rea only comes into play if the law states knowingly or something to that notion. If the law simply says it is illegal to download or stream unlicensed material, then it would be the same as driving on expired tags in someone else car with no insurance. You could be cited and found guilty just for the act whether you knew the tags were expired or the insurance had lapsed or not.

The laws that mens rea impact have statements about the state of mind when the law or forbidden act happens. Without that, the act itself becomes illegal or forbidden or whatever regardless of the state of mind or intent.

Re:hmm?

[sumdumass]

Someone mod this person up then down for not only RTFA but understanding it.

I would say just mod him up but I was liking the fu fest going on about how people would rebel and move their home run box off shore and stuff,

Re:hmm?

[jonwil]

What I want to know is why satellite TV operators (i.e. DirecTV and Dish Network) get exempted from paying fees even though they likely cost the FCC just as much in administration costs as the cable providers do...

Re: hmm?

[ArchieBunker]

Oh the federal penn for streaming video. Totally felony worthy.

Re: hmm?

[currently_awake]

People who can afford expensive lawyers (corporations) are not subject to any law they disagree with. And our current legal system holds the next person in line accountable when the person who committed the crime can't be punished.

Why regulate it at all?

[hawguy]

Why does the FCC need to regulate IPTV at all? It's not like traditional TV where viewers are stuck with a few providers that have an FCC granted monopoly through spectrum allocation, or a single cable company granted a monopoly by municipal contracts.

What is there to regulate with IPTV? If you don't like your IPTV provider, you can choose another one instantly.

The FTC can regulate the IPTV providers like any other business to prevent monopoly abuse, unfair business practices, etc. Why does the FCC need to get involved?

Another name for government imposed "regulatory fees" is a "tax".

Re:Why regulate it at all?

[93 Escort Wagon]

Why does the FCC need to regulate IPTV at all?

Have you ever heard of any governmental organization disbanding itself because it was no longer necessary?

Re:Why regulate it at all?

[FatLittleMonkey]

What is there to regulate with IPTV? If you don't like your IPTV provider, you can choose another one instantly.

I think you'll find that this new fee/tax applies to situations where that isn't true. Ie, where your cable provider switches their cable service to digital for their own physically connected cable subscribers. This isn't for services which are just generally available over the internet, like Hulu/Netflix. It's to prevent existing monopoly (or pseudo monopoly) cable providers digitising their exclusive cable service and then saying, "Oh we aren't cable any more, we're internets now. Lol.")

(That said, it's worth complaining about "mission creep" to try to resist this being used as a regulatory wedge to eventually spread into true internet-only services.)

Re:Why regulate it at all?

[currently_awake]

The cable companies paid good money to their government lobbyists to cure the problem of streaming video killing their business model. As with all laws, this one is aimed to fix a problem.

Re:Why regulate it at all?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

This. The FCC could get away with regulating broadcast airways because of their limited spectrum. Many felt this sophistry of an ancient birth, but there you go.

None of this applies anymore. Customers demand more and more bandwidth, and private companies rise to the occasion, grumbling aside.

There is no authority to regulate speech distribution in such an environment.

If you think so, you have allowed your mind to become infected with a meme disease making you a puppet of the power hungry, who gladly burp up reasons to violate constitutional protections. They just need people like you to give them statistical support coveragr.

Milk that cow !

[hebertrich]

Do not worry , they will find a way to make all content on the internet including you tube new paid for by subscription services.
Claiming it's fair return because most of what we find there is copyrighted material being shown illegally , hence lost revenues for the majors bla bla
Dont worry .. they will milk the internet cow till she's giving powdered milk .

why licensing?

[stenvar]

What justification in the world would there be for the FCC to regulate and license video transmissions over the Internet? Their job was to ensure orderly sharing of the public airwaves, nothing else.

Re:why licensing?

[kthreadd]

That was then. This is now.

Re:why licensing?

[Em Adespoton]

Yes, but the FCC has already been slapped down for this kind of action in the past decade; it's way outside their purview. This should belong to the FTC or the ITU.

Re:why licensing?

[reve_etrange]

Their job was to ensure enforce speech codes on the public airwaves, nothing else.

I'm sure they can come up with plenty of "justifications" on demand.

Re:why licensing?

[pthisis]

What justification in the world would there be for the FCC to regulate and license video transmissions over the Internet?

There's nothing here about regulating Netflix or Hulu or Youtube or anything else that's just video transmissions over the Internet.

IPTV refers to services like AT&T u-verse and CenturyLink PrismTV, that essentially use the internet to gateway traditional television signals. As the FCC analysis says, "[f]rom a customer's perspective, there is likely not much difference between IPTV and other video services, such as cable service".

Their job was to ensure orderly sharing of the public airwaves, nothing else.

This is false. The FCC from the outset was designed to regulate wired networks as well as broadcasts--it superseded the earlier FRC (the radio commission) which only dealt with the airwaves, and from its original charter in the Federal Communications Act of 1934 has been tasked with regulating telegraph, telephone, and other communications independent of the airwaves. From the very first section of the Act: "PURPOSES OF ACT, CREATION OF FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION for the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio."

This has been interpreted to include internet & broadband communications through court decisions that have since been explicitly affirmed by acts of Congress (including the Telecommunications act of 1996).

Re:why licensing?

[n8_f]

FTFA: "IPTV is digital television delivered through a high speed Internet connection, instead of by the traditional cable method." They are talking about FiOS and Google Fiber (which is why people who read it also noticed a reference to a comment from a Google). Don't worry, grandpa, the guvmint isn't coming to take away your Internets.

Re:why licensing?

[jsepeta]

define "television". is it live broadcast? is it sitcoms? is it advertiser-supported movies? watching a movie thru netflix is different than at a movie theatre, although content is streamed in both instances. i prefer torrents that avoid the advertising completely, unlike netflix/hulu/movie theaters

Re:why licensing?

[sgt scrub]

And here I thought the web was public airwaves. Maybe the media companies, less a couple telco's, actually do own the web. I sure hope that isn't the case.

Re:why licensing?

[stenvar]

You thought wrong. The concept of "public airwaves" derives from the fact that there is a single spectrum that is usable everybody without investment. The FCC was created to regulate this public, free resource. "The web" is a collection of largely privately owned, privately financed cables and routers. Congress might craft laws to promote neutrality, but that's never the same as "public airwaves", and without specific legislation and justification, there is no reason for the FCC to regulate "the web".

Re:why licensing?

[Kohath]

The FCC has guys with guns backing them up. Justification is irrelevant. They're the US Federal Government.

Re:why licensing?

[shentino]

"interstate commerce"

Re:why licensing?

[ArsonSmith]

I've watched a lot of netflix and have yet to see a single advertisement. Where are these at?

Re:why licensing?

[dywolf]

this is nothing to do with the internet or with streaming.
but hey, dont bother to RTFA or anything before speaking.

What you can be sure it will include

[mysidia]

• Hulu
• Netflix
• Youtube
• Vimeoh
• Veoh
• Metacafe
• FunnyOrDie

Internet streaming sites. Expanding the definition of cable service: the whole purpose is to get additional fees from media streaming.

MAYBE All Internet Service Providers.

Maybe other video streaming sites; and web site operators that embed streaming video from these providers ("rebroadcasters")

Re:What you can be sure it will include

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

What it won't include: Pirate Sites

Re:What you can be sure it will include

[mysidia]

What it won't include: Pirate Sites

It will add new ammunition to prosecute them --- suddenly they are guilty of the federal crime of evading the tax man. With the FCC; if you fail to file and pay fees, they can assess massive forfeitures.

For example mom and pop ISPs or VoIP providers that buy PSTN connectivity from a wholesalers that fail to meet the new complicated FCC Reporting requirements, about their number of customers down to the level of ZIP code and Census tract, can be assessed fines of millions of dollars a day, and thrown in jail until they pay.

Re:What you can be sure it will include

[pthisis]

False. It includes only licensees, which are things like AT&T uverse and CenturyLink Prism. As they note in the paper, it's basically stuff that to the end-user looks exactly like cable ("[f]rom a customer's perspective, there is likely not much difference between IPTV and other video services, such as cable service") but happens to use the Internet for data transport rather than dedicated cable lines. It's not an extension to generic video streaming a la Netflix, Youtube, hulu, justin.tv, whatever.

Re:What you can be sure it will include

[mysidia]

it's basically stuff that to the end-user looks exactly like cable

You didn't notice that with the right set top box Hulu on the screen looks just like Cable?

They are pretty indistinguishable, and you can be sure they had to license or reuse a broadcast right to that content to stream it....

Re:What you can be sure it will include

[pthisis]

FCC licensees, not people who happen to have random content licenses with third parties.

This whole things been ongoing for a couple of years, you'll have to wait for the final report for it to be set in stone but it's pretty apparent to people who've been following it that the issues are a) Closing the loophole that allows uverse/prism/etc to avoid paying the type of regulatory fees that cable/satellite/fios providers pay; and b) Determining whether there should be a lower rate for Internet TV providers than for cable ones based on regulatory burdens. It's not at all targeted at Netflix or Hulu.

Re:What you can be sure it will include

[mysidia]

FCC licensees, not people who happen to have random content licenses with third parties.

What comes to mind then is that ATT could just create a new company who won't be a FCC licensee. Transfer the content licenses to the new company

Setup an exclusive agreement with a cross-marketing deal and a piggybacking arrangement.

Update the uverse product and the fine print -- so you have uVerse including a broadband service provided by ATT

An IP (Internet protocol) service provided by an exclusive contracter of the other company using ATT's broadband network; with a cross-marketing deal for the IP service, and a service level assurance (A percentage of each subscriber's broadband connection reserved for IP traffic exclusive to the provider).

And finally, the product includes video service on top of the IP network; again with a company that has a deal with the company buying the IP service from ATT.

And through some complicated network of contractual framework, a 3rd party "service company" provides the installation services for the product on behalf of all 3 companies.

And most of the benefits get transferred back to ATT shareholders.

Thus you wind up with a video service that looks exactly like cable: provided by a company who is not a FCC licensee.

Re:What you can be sure it will include

[Rockoon]

FCC licensees, not people who happen to have random content licenses with third parties.

The FCC licensees include everyone that the FCC has demanded have a licenses.

In other words, you arent saying much.. even though you thought yourself clever.

Re:What you can be sure it will include

[pthisis]

If that subsidiary's doing something that requires an FCC license (E.g. simulcasting networks) then they're going to need a license and to pay regulatory fees. Going 15 shell companies deep doesn't change that.

If they're not, there's no reason they can't operate a Netflix/Hulu-style subsidiary that does internet streaming without licensing.

Re:What you can be sure it will include

[pthisis]

The FCC licensees include everyone that the FCC has demanded have a licenses.

Which is a wildly different set of people from "Everyone who's licensed content from a third party," which is what I was pointing out (and is certainly important given the conflation of the two on the part of the post I was replying to).

In other words, you arent saying much.. even though you thought yourself clever.

If you don't think there's a massive difference between the set of people who license copyrighted material and the people who are FCC licensed, I don't know what to say.

Re:What you can be sure it will include

[Kohath]

I don't think any pirate streaming sites are within the jurisdiction of the FCC.

Neither are IPTV sites.

Re:What you can be sure it will include

[lightknight]

*smacks forehead* Of course, that's what we've been doing wrong all this time, why didn't we see it? Obviously the problem with getting people to not use pirate websites is that we simply weren't using a big enough stick.

Re:What you can be sure it will include

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how you're so hooked on your millenial trough that you missed the only true live broadcasting service that pays no licensing fees to anyone.. Aereo.

Re:What you can be sure it will include

[Rockoon]

If you don't think there's a massive difference between the set of people who license copyrighted material and the people who are FCC licensed, I don't know what to say.

Have you ever observed the FCC reduce its regulator scope, or has it always been increasing its regulator scope?

Thanks for not accepting reality.

Re:What you can be sure it will include

[pthisis]

Have you ever observed the FCC reduce its regulator scope, or has it always been increasing its regulator scope?

That's completely irrelevant to question at hand.

One last time: there's a set of people who are FCC licensees. Those people are potentially affected by the IPTV regulations. There's a different set of people who license copyright from third parties. These sets are distinct but not disjoint. Members of the latter set are not affected by the IPTV regulations, except insofar as they happen to overlap with the first set of people. There is absolutely nothing clever or insightful about this, it's plainly obvious and I only pointed it out because the post I was replying to conflated those two sets of people.

no fee for satellite

[Joe_Dragon]

DBS is better then comcast for tv

Dear FCC

[rossdee]

The Internet is not only in the USA - it is also in the rest of the world and outside your jurisdiction

Re:Dear FCC

[jsepeta]

gotta' teach that to Congress too you know, the guys whom Comcast and AT&T pay...

Re:Dear FCC

[Lost Race]

The Internet is ... outside your jurisdiction.

FTFY.

Re:Dear FCC

[dywolf]

at what point did this have anything to do with teh internet?
oh right, you didnt read the article before posting.

Re:I cuut the cable 5yrs ago

[pthisis]

Netflix isn't an IPTV service, none of this applies to them (or likely to any of the sites you're talking about). It's to ensure that AT&T uverse, CenturyLink Prism, and the like (which are essentially cable/fios systems that use the internet for transmission rather than purpose-built lines) don't have a regulatory loophole simply because they use a different technology for transport.

New tech same old story

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

This is at the behest of somebody to use government to twist somebody else to their advantage. End of story.

Re:its not television, its broadcasting.

[jonbryce]

What about my local council's traffic cams? Webcams that let you look at various roads around the town.

Am I the only one that wants this?

[Anonymous Coward]

As an AT&T Uverse subscriber, I definitely want the FCC to start regulating my IPTV. To the end user, the services provided by Uverse are identical to those provided by Comcast except that Comcast is more strongly regulated by the FCC. Perhaps the most immediate concern to me is that Uverse requires all subscribers to indefinitely rent their equipment. There is no rent to own for AT&T, and there are no 3rd party options. You must rent their DVR. You must rent their set-top boxes.

With Comcast the situation is not much better, but it _is_ better. You can purchase a TiVo, or an HD Homerun Prime, or a Ceton InfiniTV and use a CableCard. This was mandated by the FCC because they are allowed to regulate cable TV. I would definitely like the FCC to begin regulating AT&T, and force them to allow 3rd party devices such as PC tuners and TiVo-like DVRs.

Obviously their jurisdiction would have to be properly limited, but I definitely see benefits to allowing the FCC to regulate IPTV offerings.

samething for DBS use the smartcard like an cable

[Joe_Dragon]

samething for DBS use the smartcard like an cablecard and let me buy my own DBS box.

FCC has no right

[Karmashock]

The FCC was created to regulate radio.

It shouldn't be regulating cable tv and has no right to regulate internet communication.

Re:FCC has no right

[profplump]

No. The Federal Radio Commission was create to regulate radio. It was supersede by the Federal Communications Commission which is empowered to regulate both wireless and wired networks. To quote 47 USC 151: "Federal Communications Commission created for the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio"

Re:I cuut the cable 5yrs ago

[dywolf]

Mod up. nearly this entire comment section is people not RTFA and bitching about nothing because they dont even understand what is going on.
in other words.. just another day on /.

Mission Creep

[intermodal]

The main reasons for an FCC are to prevent monopolization of the existing infrastructure and to determine the usage of wireless frequencies. IP-based services do not fall in either category. The FCC just wants to seem relevant.