A group of Maryland county cable regulatory officials met this week with the legal advisors to all the FCC commissioners and the chief of the Media Bureau to argue that cable operators can't have it both ways when it comes to redefining over-the-top video, and that the FCC should "subject (their term) OTT's to the same regulatory and statutory obligations as MVPD's.
The FCC has proposed to apply carriage and access obligations to linear OTT's but has asked whether other obligations--PEG and leased access, for example, should also apply.
According to a copy of an ex parte filing (http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001299574), the county officials were there to put their personal exclamation points on three issues: First, they wanted the FCC to know they thought it had plenty of authority to define OTT providers of linear service as MVPD's, and that it could lead to increased competition and choice, so long last the were subject to all the same rights and responsibilities.
Where they parted company with the FCC was its tentative conclusions that while IP-based service from a cable provider within its footprint must be regulated as a cable service (cable operators are migrating delivery of their traditional cable service to IP), a cable operator's provision of an OTT service over the Internet should not be.
The FCC is not saying that if cable operators offer a separate over-the-top service that meets the new linear OTT definition they should not be subject to the new OTT redefinition in that instance and whatever obligations and rights redound, only that an OTT service should not de facto be regulated as a cable service because a cable operator is delivering it.
The officials say the distinction definitely needs clarifying.