FCC Wants Consumers To Get Refunds For Annoying Cable TV Contract Blackouts
from the about-time dept
For decades now, cable TV has been plagued by programming contract feuds that routinely end with users losing access to TV programming they pay for.
Basically, media companies will demand a rate hike in new content negotiations, the cable TV provider will balk, and then each side blames the other guy for failing to strike a new agreement on time like reasonable adults. Content then gets blacked out for months, without consumers ever getting a refund. After a few months, the two sides strike a new confidential deal, your bill goes up, and nobody much cares how that impacts the end user. Wash, rinse, repeat.
For a long time the FCC would occasionally chirp about this, but generally treated these disputes as just “boys being boys,” and fairly broadly ignored how customers were getting screwed. There’s a chance this regulatory position might be finally changing.
The FCC says it’s now contemplating new rules requiring that cable and broadcast companies inform the FCC about any blackouts that last longer than 24 hours, and provide potential refunds for users:
“Enough with the blackouts,” said Chairwoman Rosenworcel. “When consumers with
traditional cable and satellite service turn on the screen, they should get what they pay for. It’s not right when big companies battle it out and leave viewers without the ability to watch the local news, their favorite show, or the big game. If the screen stays dark, they deserve a
refund.”
Granted this is, of course, just a proposal, and a successful implementation will require consistent FCC enforcement, not the agency’s strong suit. But it’s still a notable improvement for a media regulator that spent the better part of a generation apathetic to consumers routinely being ripped off.
Filed Under: blackouts, cable, consumers, content, fcc, jessica rosenworcel, retrans feuds, tv
Comments on “FCC Wants Consumers To Get Refunds For Annoying Cable TV Contract Blackouts”
I want the FCC to have teeth but at the same time, depending on who is in charge, I want the FCC to go away. The last guy, I want them the go away, this person, give her teeth. This wouldn’t be needed if it weren’t for the government funded monopolies that the media companies have. If they had competition, I feel it would be better.
And it’ll be the DOJ that would enforce any fines the FCC doles out for violation of this (if it even goes through)?
Somehow I’m not too optimistic :/
Wishful thinking...
Even if the FCC had the balls… they don’t.
If the DOJ cared… they don’t.
If the next administration flip didn’t erase it all, again… it will.
The FCC gives a shit about one thing… no overlapping frequencies. We should all stop pretending they are there for anything else.
Balance of Power?
I absolutely get that the consumer should get what they pay for. You’re not providing me the full service you agreed to provide? OK, I don’t owe you the full payment I agreed to provide. However, it seems like this would shift power in favor of the content provider. “Cable company, you’re not willing to pay us our newly inflated fees for your content? Fine, black us out and start refunding money to your customers. We’ll wait.” This might lead to more blackouts and more impact, not less. And if the cable company caves to avoid refunding money, you can be sure that the increased cost will get passed down to the consumer.
Re:
You say that like it was a bad thing, and it would be, you’re correct. If a provider withholds content, and the carrier is the only one on the hook to the consumer, then indeed the whole system would fall apart, sooner rather than later.
But what if the refunds were to be funded equally (50/50) by both the provider and the carrier? That would definitely force the negotiations to move along with alacrity, wouldn’t it? All that would then be necessary for consumers to be somewhat complacent about any subscription fee increase would be full transparency in the negotiations. I mean full, as in all negotiations are to be conducted in public view. Anything that stinks of a back-room deal would be subject to a court review, pursuant to a suit brought by a member of the public. (Who of course must be a paid subscriber that was ‘blacked out’.)
Have I covered everything? Anything missing?
Everyone should have cancelled cable TV long before now but there’s no time like the present. The whole industry is spiraling down the toilet and it’s going to just get worse.
Tough thing to regulate
The regulation imposes an obligation on the distribution companies to compensate the consumers. That shifts bargaining power to the media companies, who will use it. Raises prices, it appears.
YouTube TV FTW
I mean, I think Google is evil as much as the next guy, but you have to hand it to YouTube TV. When they have a blackout, they give you a discount for that period of time. It just makes sense that this should be the de facto standard…
Re:
YouTube TV has existed for 6½ years, and has only 6.6 million subscribers. Don’t expect it to be around for long.
It's only fair
If the cable providers tack on loads of bullshit fees, bovine constipation should constitute grounds for refunds.
Imagine a world where all the channels were ala carte.
Then consumers would have an idea what the channels cost them and is it worthwhile to put up with the fights.
Thank and faux news might collapse if people could opt to not support it.
Re:
There is no way the equivalents of Fox News would take a major hit from people electing not to see them. The sensational headlines feed a need that is only counteracted by shame, and shame is not a primary motivator of humans, or we wouldn’t have the current crop of politicians.
Re: Re:
There are enough people who don’t want Faux News in their tv who if given a chance would drop it.
This would hurt Faux’s bottom line, this is a good thing.
Automatic refund
They should also require ALL service interruptions generate an automatic refund, not allow the providers to require customers call and ask.
I don’t pay electric, water or gas when they are disrupted.