TWC: NAB Retrans Arguments Are Off Mark

Says there is big difference between coordinated selling and coordinated buying

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 6/10/2013 9:01:16 AM

The battle between cable operators and the National Association of Broadcasters continues with the weapon of choice -- the FCC filing.

The latest was Time Warner Cable's response to NAB in the FCC's open docket on retransmission consent reforms. Various comments are the only action in the docket as the FCC has made no moves to adopt any of its proposed tweaks.

In a filing dated Feb. 7, Time Warner Cable said that despite NAB's defense of the practice, "there simply is no legal or policy justification for such collusive negotiations."

Those are the joint sales and services agreements that cable operators say are just a way to skirt local ownership caps and jointly negotiate retrans.

TWC argues that the negotiations are effectively collusion by competitors in selling goods and services, which is a violation of antitrust law.

In its filing, NAB had claimed that TWC's argument was hypocritical because TWC negotiates retrans for Bright House Networks. TWC says there are big differences, including that Bright House Networks are held in partnership with TWC, and that even if that were not the case, TWC and Bright House are buyers, not sellers, and that antitrust law has recognized that, unlike joint selling arrangements by competitors, joint purchasing arrangements are generally pro-competitive, and that in any event TWC and Bright House systems do not overlap.

TWC wants the FCC to adopt a "bright line" rule against coordinated retrans negotiations.