Retrans Proposals 'Ignore the Plain Meaning' of Communications Act, NAB Says

meaning of [Section 325 of the Communications Act] and adopt proposals requiring the retransmission of broadcasters' signals without consent." Much of the NAB opprobrium focused on American TV Alliance arguments raised earlier this week about justifications the FCC has for good-faith negotiation rules revisions (see 1603160036). The parts of the act cited by MVPDs don't override Section 325 -- which spells out retrans rules for MVPDs' carriage of over-the-air TV -- and broadcasters' control of their signals, NAB said. While the FCC has the right to enforce remedies in cases of bad-faith negotiation, NAB said, it can't "trample on a stations' unqualified right to control its signal by ordering forced carriage as the remedy for a broadcasters' violation of the good faith rules." MVPD proposals also fall short of the Supreme Court's 1984 Chevron v. NRDC decision because Congress' intention to give broadcasters full control of their signals was unequivocal, it said. In a statement, ATVA said, "NAB's new legal analysis is as faulty as its earlier claim that broadcaster price increases don't harm consumers. The statute says that broadcasters must grant 'consent' for carriage. But it also says that broadcasters must negotiate in good faith. NAB seems to argue that only the first provision really means anything. That's not what the law says, and that's not what Congress intended. ATVA's filing demonstrated that the FCC has unquestionable legal authority to adopt each of ATVA's proposals. We urge the Commission to act decisively to protect consumers from harmful and abusive behavior." In a separate ex parte filing Wednesday in the same docket, meanwhile, AT&T said it met with FCC staff including Media Bureau Chief Bill Lake to argue that prohibition of online blocking isn't a First Amendment issue since it doesn't regulate broadcasters' speech at all, but even if it did such a rule would be content neutral. AT&T also said the FCC has legal authority to stop joint negotiation of retrans agreements under the same rules that let it regulate transferring control of broadcast licenses, and that broadcasters' demanding retrans fees for subscribers who receive a broadcaster's signal over the air is contrary to the broadcaster's duty to transmit programming for free over the air.