"In our carriage talks, the broadcasters and programmers take advantage of the fact that we're a small government run system operator. They make take-it-or-leave-it offers, and coerce us into signing contracts with pages upon pages of complicated terms and conditions. Our city doesn't have the money to hire outside attorneys to help us, so we're left with little option but to sign these contracts which lead to our customers paying higher rates, and we certainly do not make any money."
"Our small size would make it difficult to handle a dual carriage obligation. I don't know how an operator in our situation affords the headend equipment and other costs."
With the upcoming round of retransmission consent negotiations, we know that we'll be forced to pay fees to broadcasters for the first time, and unfortunately our customers will have to foot the bill. As a small cable operator, programming is our already largest expense by far, and we simply cannot absorb any more increases in our carriage fees.
~David Shipley, Business Manager
Independent cable operators face unique challenges that require special consideration by the FCC in terms of how it deals with the digital television transition to ensure requirements do not impact the consumers or communities served - specifically, the digital must-carry requirements. Read More
In order for small cable operators to provide their customers with popular programming, large programmers often make them provide undesired programming on their most widely subscribed to tiers. Consumers pay the price for this abusive practice with higher cable rates and programming that is not aligned with their interests. Read More
When broadcasters abuse their market power to demand exorbitant fees from cable operators who want to offer their signals, consumers always pay the price. Broadcasters often discriminate against small and medium-sized cable operators, extracting retransmission consent fees at substantially higher per-subscriber rates than charged larger providers. Read More
|14||ACA Asks Court To Reject FCC’s Classification Of Broadband ISPs As Title II Providers |
|13||ACA Agrees With FCC: Cable Operators Are Subject To Effective Competition|
|7||ACA To FCC: Use Sec. 706 To Curb Surging Programming Costs Inhibiting Broadband Investment|
|3||ACA Commends FCC For Recognizing Cable’s Right To Participate In Online Video Market|
|18||ACA Praises New Cybersecurity Report As Helpful Development In Managing Nation’s Cyber Threats|
|9||ACA: Rising Video Programming Costs A Drag On Broadband Deployment|
|6||ACA’s Reform Agenda Takes Center Stage At D.C. Summit|
|5||Impact Of Title II Debated At ACA Summit|
|14||D.C. Circuit Petition for Review re: FCC's Open Internet Order|
|9||FCC Comments re Amending the FCC's Rules Concerning Effective Competition|
|6||FCC Reply Comments re Possible Steps to Accelerate Broadband Deployment Pursuant to Section 706|
In order to protect the interests of independent cable operators, it is essential that members of Congress understand and respect the important role that ACA's more than 900 small and medium sized companies play in delivering communications services to more than 7 million households across the United States.
Featured Associate Member
Chuck Flournoy - VP
Mapcom Systems is the developer of M4 Solutions - a visual operations platform for managing communications networks, including outside and inside plant at the physical and logical levels.