The National Cable Television Cooperative is a video content buying consortium, made up of hundreds of cable companies, large and small. NCTC has a long history of pooling buying power of its members for expensive video content, lowering per subscriber fees for its members as a result.
NCTC membership brings tremendous advantage to smaller video service providers because the cost of content can make or break a video business case. Large national providers like Comcast hold a huge advantage over smaller operators because of their buying power. The NCTC levels the playing field somewhat, at least as it relates to content costs.
Recently, membership in NCTC has become somewhat controversial. As the competitive landscape heats up, small telcos and municipal utilities are competing with traditional cable companies, and they want in on NCTC as well. Conventional wisdom suggests that NCTC legacy members wouldn’t exactly be thrilled at the prospect of their new competitors gaining the same content cost advantage they enjoy as a result of their NCTC membership (although many of those legacy cable companies are actually owned by telcos). NCTC’s ‘company line’ has always been that they welcome all providers, regardless of their competitive situation, as long as they meet certain criteria. That’s where it gets a little controversial.
BroadbandReports.com points our attention to a brewing fight over this issue. LUS, a Louisiana based municipal utility that offers a triple play bundle, claims their membership application to NCTC is being blocked by their main competitor, Cox. Cox is NCTC’s largest member and a Cox representative sits on NCTC’s board. LUS is none too pleased, and has filed a complaint with the FCC, requesting an expedited response. The dust-up also caused NCTC to file suit against LUS.
This type of charge is no news to some IPTV operators, many of whom claim access to NCTC has also been denied to them. NCTC, a traditionally closed-lip organization, has never offered any official response to these claims. In my communication with them, they’ve always said they’ve never blocked any company from joining because of who they may compete with. But they do admit to a selective admission process, reviewing each applicant individually to ensure they meet NCTC ‘criteria’ before offering membership. That criteria is a ‘gray area’ to say the least. There is also a pretty significant membership fee to join – a fee that some operators claim is an additional barrier to entry.
NCTC even had a moratorium on all new membership a couple years back – a moratorium they tell me has now since been lifted. This controversy has given rise to other sources of content for interested service providers (especially those needing IP video rights), including Telechannel and NRTC.
This latest video content controversy will be an interesting one to watch. Stay tuned.
11 thoughts on “NCTC Membership Fight Stirs Up Controversy, FCC Asked to Intervene”
We're a telco and have been 'snow balled' by NCTC. We gave up trying.
Call NTTC, great to work with.
sure would help if we could get discovery through nctc. we get most of what we need there, but discovery hurts
Back in the early 90's we developed a new subsidiary to operate our CATV systems, we then applied for membership with NCTC and received, been a member in "good standing" since then On Jan 1, 2010 we merged our subsidiaries into our coop ILEC and changed our name Same company as before, but NCTC has put us on "Account Hold" and is requiring us to reapply for Membership, complete with fees and business plan data, territory boundary requests, etc. I wouldn't get away with this type of treatment of my coop members.
That is because you had a chance of control in the ownership structure and the majority of programming contracts speak to ownership. Since cooperatives have issues with companies buying other companies to try and get access to the memebrship that is why these processes are reviewed.
The NTTC is also an option and great people to work with.
I've heard multiple times of xLECs buying small CATV operations just so they could get access to NCTC membership and the related video content
The real issues here are rights and rates. The NCTC may or may not have the IP rights an operator needs. Their rates are volume discount based and their upfront fee may be a disadvantage based on a subscriber base. I have been in the business of programming delivery for over 20 years. With Telechannel we continue to grow our subscriber base to reach volume discounts for our affiliates and work diligently with programmers to create channel placement flexibility.
In the end – does it really matter how it's delivered or who is delivering the program. Everyone gets their revenue per the signed agreements. The argument of Cable, Satellite or IPTV is absurd. You will be discussing Wireless and OTT in the near future. Everyone argues security ….. traditional cable and satellite far less secure than IPTV.
NCTC, NTTC, Telechannel or direct agreements – doesn't matter. The Department of Justice has clear language addressing the issue LUS is alleging. It's not about the organization – it's about equal treatment and mandates from all.
Whether it makes sense or not, it does matter to the content creators and distributors. And that's the environment we're in.
Nickols Worth, thanks for your comments. The content aggregator makes a significant difference for the system and their content needs. Some provide success, some don't . NTTC provides great service, pricing and content flexabilities, their members success is due to the service and diligence NTTC provides. For content needs, call NTTC based in Tennessee.