Given the catastrophic landfall of Hurricane Ian, the FCC has extended the filing deadline for all regulatory fees across the country from Sept. 28 to Sept. 30.

"Hurricane Ian may cause significant damage within its path, including storm surge, wind damage, and flooding," the FCC said Friday. By press time Wednesday afternoon it had definitely done that, hitting Florida as a category 4 storm.

The FCC also said some others were facing "technical challenges" in paying their fees.

The FCC funds its ongoing operations via annual regulatory fees charged to licensees including broadcast, cable and satellite. ■

The FCC has decided to extend its COVID-19-related financial hardship waiver process for its regulatory fees.

The FCC supports its ongoing operations through fees assessed FCC licensees including broadcasters and cable operators.

While its latest such fees must be paid by Sept. 28, it said Tuesday (Sept. 13) that it would extend the streamlined waiver process adopted in 2020 to those fees "due to the ongoing effects of the pandemic."

The FCC said it will again "waive, reduce or defer" the fees, but only for those "unambiguously articulating 'extraordinary circumstances' outweighing the public interest in recouping the cost of the Commissions regulatory services."

Such waiver requests must be received by Sep. 28 and provide evidence that it is unable to both pay the fee and maintain its service to the public and how the pandemic has affected that inability to pay.

Broadcasters, in arguing for reduced fees in 2022, which the FCC did not grant, certainly suggested they still need pandemic-related help with fees. "With stations dealing with continued fallout from the coronavirus pandemic and other inflationary pressures, many stations are simply trying to stay in business," the National Association of Broadcasters told the FCC in initial comments on the 2022 fees, citing the "increased need for fee relief among small regulatory fee payors due to the pandemic." ■

Broadcasters did not get the breaks they were hoping for from the Federal Communications Commission when it comes to the fees they pay for the privilege of being regulated.

The FCC released an order Friday (September 2) setting the fee schedule for 2022 and it did not include a price break for TV or radio. The FCC supports itself on money collected from license holders including broadcasters, cable, satellite operators and telcos. 

Also: State Broadcasters Say FCC Fee Regime Is Illegal

In addition to not getting the commission to start making Big Tech companies pay for FCC operations, given how much they benefit from the use of unlicensed spectrum the agency also oversees, broadcasters did not get a raft of other asks related to the fees. 

Broadcasters had complained that their fees were going up by too much — 13% from 2021 to 2022 — without explanation from the FCC. Station owners argued the fees should instead be reduced across the board, including because of “broadcasters’ longstanding special place in the fabric of American society.”

For example, TV and radio stations have a public-interest standard to adhere to that does not apply to their cable and satellite  — or streaming —- competitors, the last of which are not regulated by the FCC at all. Broadcasters also pointed out that they don't charge for their service and argued they have been particularly hard-hit by the pandemic since they lack a base of paid subscribers to cushion the blow from lost ad revenue.

The FCC said it felt broadcasters’ pain but it was statutorily required to cover its costs so, given that zero-sum game, it could not cut fees across the board for any category based on ability to pay or financial circumstances. Thus, it had to deny the request by the National Association of Broadcasters and others.

Other broadcaster asks to which the FCC answered “no:”

1) Broadcasters wanted the FCC to charge VHF TV stations less since they are less valuable than UHFs after the digital transition due to signal limitations. The FCC said “there is nothing inherent in VHF transmission that creates signal deficiencies,” and would not lower the fees, though it pointed out VHFs can apply for waivers to operate at higher power levels.

2) Broadcasters wanted the FCC to stop basing fees on population, preferring to base it on the Nielsen designated market area (DMA). The FCC said no, explaining: “We recognize that the population-based methodology increases fees for some licensees and reduces fees for others, but in the end the population-based metric better conforms with the actual service authorized here — broadcasting television to the American people.”

3) Broadcasters asked that the FCC continue to exempt them from costs associated with the FCC's congressional mandate in the Broadband DATA Act for a one-time expenditure to improve broadband mapping, which the FCC did in 2021, lowering broadcast fees by almost 9%. The FCC said that was a one-time-only deal, and pointed out that was why broadcasters' fees increased by almost 13% in 2022, when it would longer be getting that price break.

4) Broadcasters asked that the FCC increase from $1,000 to $1,200 the de minimis threshold for fee collection. Currently, the FCC has calculated that it will not collect from any broadcaster whose fee is $1,000 or less because it costs more that $1,000 in administrative fees to collect it. Broadcasters wanted that raised a smidge to $1,200, suggesting the FCC's costs had gone up. The FCC said it had checked, and they hadn't, even including some additional costs the agency had suggested had done so (though the FCC did not concede those had) and said the collection cost was still not above $1,000. Again, it said no.

5) The NAB had asked the FCC to reclassify some employees it said were working on broadband subsidies, arguing broadcasters should not have to bear any of their costs. The FCC declined, but in a small victory said how it calculates the fees associated with them needed to be adjusted. ■

The National Association of Broadcasters said the Federal Communications Commission should start imposing regulatory fees on businesses that benefit indirectly from its activities, particularly internet service providers — regulation of which is taking up a lot of the agency’s resources.

The FCC supports itself entirely from fees levied on its licensees, including broadcasters, cable providers and satellite services. The NAB, whose constituency includes owners of broadcast TV stations, has been telling the FCC — and anyone else within earshot — that it’s time for that to change. 

Congress directed the FCC to collect fees from those who benefit from its services, and the NAB said that should include those who benefit indirectly.

Also: NAB Says Court Decision Means FCC Is Free To Charge Fees to Big Tech

The NAB‘s most recent pitch came in comments to the FCC this week on its 2022 regulatory fees and the agency‘s own inquiry into whether it should, indeed, reach beyond the usual fee-payers to others.

“Broadcasters’ fees are skyrocketing to unsustainable levels because of a fee methodology that both fails to perform any analysis of the benefits provided to industries by 75% of the Commission and is inconsistently applied, and the Commission’s willingness to force broadcasters to subsidize other companies by paying for broadband-related activities that the Commission acknowledges do not provide any benefits to broadcasters,” the NAB said. “Broadcasters should not be penalized because the Commission’s fee methodology has not kept pace with market changes and technological convergence in other industries.”

It is past time for the FCC to add an ISP fee category, and to consider adding one for edge providers such as Google, Netflix and Amazon as well, the NAB said.

The FCC is also considering whether to add Big Tech to those who have to pay into the Universal Service Fund subsidies for broadband buildouts. ■

Add every state broadcasters’ association to the list of those arguing that a recent court ruling requires the Federal Communications Commission to reform its regulatory-fee process and start levying charges on those who benefit from agency work — and not just those, like broadcasters, that hold FCC licenses. To do otherwise, they said, is illegal.

The National Association of Broadcasters made that argument earlier this week.

In a June 4 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit dismissing Telsat Canada’s challenge to the FCC's decision to charge it a fee even though it is not a licensee, the court found that it was reasonable for the commission to charge Telesat Canada a regulatory fee because it benefitted from FCC activities.

The FCC has based fees on how many full-time employees (FTEs) are needed to handle the regulatory load of any particular service — broadcast, cable, satellite, etc.

In a June 22 filing with the FCC, the associations said: “The D.C. Circuit made clear that under the RAY BAUM’s Act of 2018 [RBA], benefits, rather than licenses (or, the State Associations would add, FTEs), are the ‘touchstone’ for assessing regulatory fees … By failing to assess regulatory fees consistent with the benefit of its regulatory activities to the payor, the FCC violates the [law].”

The state associations and the National Association of Broadcasters have argued that RAY BAUM’s Act fundamentally changes how the FCC is supposed to determine to whom it charges fees. Now, they said, a court has put an exclamation point on that change and the FCC must follow the law.

That means two things, said the state associations: “1) The FCC must justify requiring broadcasters to shoulder costs unrelated to broadcasting on something more than the mere fact that broadcasters hold a license," they said, and “2) the FCC must reach beyond the low-hanging fruit of regulatees to whom it has issued a license to those who receive the benefits of the commission’s regulatory activities … paying a share relative to the benefit they receive."

That means big tech, and for broadcasters particularly Microsoft, which has been taking up the FCC's time in seeking more "white spaces" spectrum in the TV band for unlicensed use by computers and smart devices accessing the internet. Microsoft has argued that its Airband unlicensed airwaves initiative can help close both the rural, and in a more recent argument, urban, divides.

The FCC has proposed increasing broadcasters regulatory fees, but the state associations say that violates the RBA. They go further, though, and argue that contributing to the free problem is a lack of transparency — it calls the fee process "intractably opaque" A- and inaccuracies in FCC data that make it tough for anyone to help the FCC craft a policy that squares with the RBA.

"[T]he commission must modernize its regulatory fee approach, not only in the interests of fairness and regulatory parity, but because the RBA requires it,": they said.

The National Association of Broadcasters said a recent appeals court decision has established the precedent for commission authority to levy regulatory fees on Big Tech.

NAB has been pushing the FCC to start charging Big Tech and other unlicensed spectrum users such a fee, as it does broadcasters and other FCC licensees and said it is now clear the FCC has the authority to make it happen.

In initial comments to the FCC, NAB said that the base of payors should be expanded to include unlicensed spectrum users that also take up a "substantial" amount of FCC resources but don't have to pay for the privilege.

Also Read: NAB Says No Free Regulatory Ride for Microsoft, Google, Others

The FCC charges fees based on how many full-time employees are engaged in work related to a particular service--broadcasting, cable and satellite, for example.

In reply comments on the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Fiscal Year 2021 regulatory fees, NAB pointed to a June 4 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit dismissing a challenge by Telesat Canada to the FCC's decision to charge it a fee even though it is not an FCC licensee. The court found, said NAB, that it was reasonable for the commission to charge Telesat Canada a regulatory fee because it benefitted from FCC activities.

"Congress made clear that the Commission’s regulatory fee schedule should take account of 'the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission’s activities,'" the court concluded in denying a challenge to the FCC's decision. "This suggests benefits—not licenses—should be the touchstone for whether it is reasonable for the FCC to collect regulatory fees."

NAB said that directly supports its argument to expand the base of fee payors to include Big Tech, which is one of the big drivers of policy work by the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology, said NAB.

Given that court decision, NAB said the FCC needs to at least put out a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

NAB has been arguing that the FCC has boosted their fees to "unsustainable levels," in part thanks to its decision to require broadcasters to pay for some of the added funding Congress has said the FCC needs to use to create better broadband maps. Yet Big Tech companies that will benefit from those maps pay nothing.

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr last month called for the FCC to start making Big Tech contribute some money to the universal broadband effort the government is subsidizing with billions of dollars in tax money. 

"NAB agrees with Commissioner Carr’s recent call for the Commission to finally stop allowing Big Tech companies, many of which generated over $1 trillion in revenue in 2020 alone, to free ride on the Commission’s activities," the association said.

Broadcasters joining the call for the FCC to start assessing its regulatory fees on Big Tech — computer companies, streamers, and other edge providers — saying they should not have to pay for computer company efforts — Microsoft in particular — to "degrade" their service.

In comments to the FCC on its proposed fees for fiscal year 2021, the National Association of Broadcasters said that the base of payors should be expanded to include unlicensed spectrum users that also take up a "substantial" amount of FCC resources but don't have to pay for the privilege.

The FCC supports itself through annual user fees levied on broadcasters and cable operators and satellite operators and their use of licensed spectrum. The fee is calculated according to how many full time employees (FTEs) are employed to regulate the various services.

Also Read: NAB Brands Airband Initiative Failed Science Project

NAB has been arguing that the FCC has boosted their fees to "unsustainable levels," in part thanks to its decision to require broadcasters to pay for some of the added funding Congress has said the FCC needs to use to create better broadband maps. Yet Big Tech companies that will benefit from those maps pay nothing.

NAB told the FCC this week it should be reaching into the deep pockets of computer companies for money. It pointed to broadcasters' long-standing battle with Microsoft over the latter's use of the broadcast band's so-called white spaces to deliver wireless broadband, but said others should be paying their own way as well. Microsoft this week expanded that primarily rural broadband effort to large cities.

Microsoft wants the FCC to allow it to use spectrum closer to broadcasters, while broadcasters say that runs a risk of interfering with its signals just as it is rolling out NextGen TV.

"Microsoft is using significant resources of the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) to urge the Commission to adopt further rule changes that will increase the risk of interference to television broadcasters to support its 'Airband Initiative,'" NAB told the FCC, and "only months after the FCC adopted earlier rule changes that benefit this technology. Microsoft is also seeking to overturn rules the Commission recently adopted to further the deployment of Next Generation TV services that will enhance service to television viewers. Yet despite the substantial Commission resources Microsoft and other unlicensed users utilize in these and other proceedings for their benefit, they pay absolutely nothing in regulatory fees to support the work of OET or the Commission generally, while Media Bureau regulatees pay for over 36% of the Commission’s costs."

NAB was focused on Microsoft, but said that Google, Apple, Facebook reap the benefits of commission activities as well. 

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr recently called for the FCC to start making Big Tech contribute some money to the universal broadband effort the government is subsidizing with billions of dollars in tax money. "NAB agrees with Commissioner Carr’s recent call for the Commission to finally stop allowing Big Tech companies, many of which generated over $1 trillion in revenue in 2020 alone, to free ride on the Commission’s activities," the association said.

The FCC has adopted its 2020 regulatory fee framework, declining cable ops' request that it start charging DBS providers the same fee as cable and declining broadcasters' request that the FCC not raise fees due to COVID-19's impact on the industry and that it decrease the fee for radio.

Related: Cable Says Flash Cut to Full DBS Fee

The commission also decided to complete the transition from basing broadcast regulatory fees on Nielsen DMA to population reached by a station.

The FCC supports itself through its regulatory fees and had proposed increases for broadcasters and others.

The commission voted May 13 to propose collecting $339 million in regulatory fees for 2020. That includes the fee increase for broadcasters and continuing to increase the fee DBS operators pay to get it closer to that paid by cable MVPDs. The FCC voted this week to approve that proposal.

The FCC increased the DBS fee to 72 cents per sub and cable to 89 cents. The FCC used to charge DBS per satellite license, but decided in FY2015 to switch to the per-sub fee cable and IPTV pay, starting at 12 cents and ramping it up to, eventually, match those other MVPDS.

Cable operators--NCTA and ACAC--wanted the FCC to go ahead and charge DBS the same rate as cable/IPTV rather than continue the glide path to parity, as it were. "It is reasonable, based on the record, to continue to phase in this fee," the report and order said. But the FCC also rejected AT&T and and Dish's arguments that the fee should not ramp up any further. "We do not agree with the DBS providers’ argument that MVPD issues are predominantly cable specific and that we should not continue to move closer to parity," it said.

The FCC began moving to a population-based fee for full power broadcast TV in 2019, using a hybrid model. It has now moved to a full population-based calculation, which will be population times .78 of one cent.

"We recognize that the adoption of the population-based methodology increases fees for some licensees and reduces fees for others but in the end the population-based metric better conforms with the actual service authorized here—broadcasting television to the American people," the FCC said. The TV station fees range from a few hundred dollars for the smallest markets to six figures for New York.

“ACA Connects is pleased that the FCC continued its phase-in of the regulatory fee assessed on Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) providers to support the work of the Media Bureau," said ACA Connects President Matt Polka. "For Fiscal Year 2020, the gap between regulatory fees paid by cable/IPTV providers and the lower fees assessed on DBS providers narrowed by nine cents per subscriber.

 “That said, next year the FCC must eliminate this long-inexplicable disparity between cable/IPTV and DBS regulatory fees once and for all. Cable/IPTV and DBS providers are all MVPDs that equally utilize Media Bureau resources and therefore should be assessed the same regulatory fee for Media Bureau activities."

“NAB believes strongly that the Commission’s methodology for calculating regulatory fees is deeply flawed and would not survive judicial review," said NAB SVP of communications Ann Marie Cumming. "However, we very much appreciate Chairman Pai and his staff correcting certain errors in the proposal’s original calculations to result in reduced fees for many radio broadcasters. NAB urges the Commission to convene stakeholders to take a closer look at its approach to regulatory fees to ensure they are fairly and equitably applied for all entities that utilize Commission resources.”

Broadcasters are ramping up the pressure, and the rhetoric, in their attempt to get the FCC to hold off on increasing the regulatory fees it charges TV and radio stations, especially during a pandemic that has done a number on revenue. 

The FCC supports itself through its regulatory fees and has proposed increases for broadcasters and others. Official comments were due by the end of last month, but that hasn’t stopped broadcasters from weighing in.

In two socially distanced meetings with FCC staffers, executives with the National Association of Broadcasters said that given the pandemic’s dramatic impact on “certain industries,” the FCC should not raise any industry segment’s contribution, “apart possibly from any planned increases due to previously determined changes in policy.” That appeared to be a reference to the FCC’s ramping up of fees on direct broadcast satellite-TV operators, increases that have been levied incrementally over the past five years to bring them in line with what cable operators pay — though not sufficiently in line or sufficiently fast enough to suit cable operators.

The NAB executives called the FCC’s regulatory-fee process a “frustrating and impenetrable exercise” and came armed with examples:

1) “[T]he commission’s current approach results in broadcasters arbitrarily paying for a higher percentage of FTEs [full-time employees] in offices such as the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET), which is largely focused on unlicensed spectrum issues and provides little to no benefits to broadcasters.” Like a variant of the old lightbulb joke, the FCC apportions fees according to how many FTEs it takes to regulate a particular industry segment.

2) The NAB said the FCC still has not sufficiently explained how it figures out who is working on what. “For example, is staff working on TV broadcaster repacking designated as benefiting broadcasters — who were forced to move frequencies — or wireless companies, the true beneficiaries of the work?”

3) The FCC has not explained how it apportions time spent working on an issue that involves multiple segments, the NAB said. “When ACA Connects files yet another missive on retransmission consent, is that handled by an FTE assigned to cable or broadcast payors? The commission fails to describe how they are apportioned in such circumstances and its rationale for doing so.”

4) The NAB pointed out it already pays a processing fee for applications, so basing the regulatory fee on FTEs working on processing such applications would mean broadcasters are paying twice for the same service.

The NAB also noted that some well-funded tech companies — like Microsoft, which it did not mention — are not charged a fee, though they participate actively in FCC proceedings and generate “significant” staff work and “profit from commission activity without contributing any regulatory fees to support those activities.” Microsoft and the NAB have long squared off in FCC filings over the issue of the white spaces between TV channels that the tech giant wants to go to rural broadband. 

In a separate filing, state broadcast associations said an “untold number” of regulated entities “may well crack under the weight of those regulatory fees.”

The FCC could be a tough sell. While it has been granting plenty of waivers and loosening rules during the pandemic, in May it declined a broadcaster request to hold off and voted to include the fee increase for broadcasters in the 2020 fee collection.

A bipartisan House duo has asked the FCC to cut broadcasters some slack when it comes to regulatory fees given that TV and radio are critical components of COVID-19 response and that their ad revenue has taken a big hit.

Reps. Ann McLane Kuster (D-N.H.) and Chris Stewart (R-Utah) wrote FCC chair Ajit Pai to ask the FCC not to increase annual broadcast regulatory fees during the pandemic.

The FCC recently voted to proceed with the increases. The FCC did seek comment as part of the approved Notice of Proposed Rulemaking--which is not a final order--on how the FCC could help regulated entities hammered by the pandemic.

"The FCC can take meaningful, positive action by halting the increase in regulatory fees on local broadcasters who continue to support and inform their communities during this challenging time," they said. "This action does not require an act of Congress and would have a meaningful impact on radio and television broadcasters that have been economically harmed by the COVID-19 pandemic."

Cable operators are telling the FCC there is no justification for continuing the glide path toward DBS paying the same FCC regulatory fees as cable operators. 

The FCC's operations are funded by fees levied on regulated entities, including broadcaster, cable operators and satellite operators. 

FCC Proceeds with 2020 Regulatory Fees 

On May 13, the FCC proposed to proceed with collecting $339 million in regulatory fees for 2020 despite the COVID-19 pandemic's hit on media outlets. That includes continuing to increase the fee DBS operators pay to get it closer to that paid by cable MVPDs. 

The FCC back in 2015 decided it was time to stop charging DBS a per-satellite-license fee and start charging them according to how many FCC staffers were involved in regulating them, as they do for cable, traditional and IPTV. 

But NCTA-The Internet & Television Association and ACA Connects told the FCC, in comments on that May proposal, that it needs to get off the stick and start charging all MVPDS on the same basis ASAP.  

"[C]able, IPTV, and DBS providers are all MVPDs that equally utilize Media Bureau resources and should be assessed the same regulatory fee for Media 

Bureau activities," it said. "However, even five years after the Commission recognized that DBS operators share fully in the benefits of Media Bureau activities and use Media Bureau resources, and so should pay Media Bureau regulatory fees, the Commission again proposes to continue a 'phase in' approach to the fees DBS providers pay – which would leave cable operator fees to increase yet again, and perpetuate the long-inexplicable disparity between cable/IPTV and DBS regulatory fees. It is long past the time to abandon this approach."

Some broadcasters are asking the FCC to postpone any consideration of an increase in broadcast regulatory fees--radio and TV--during the current pandemic. 

Paul Rotella, the president of the New Jersey Broadcasters Association (the state is one of the hardest hit by the COVID-19 virus) wrote FCC chairman Ajit Pai to say he had grave concern about the FCC's plan to consider the fee boost at the May 13 public meeting (by teleconference). 

Related: FCC Tells Industry to Get Those Regulatory Fees In

He said the FCC should postpone the rulemaking until "our nation’s societal way of life and economy have been fully restored" (which could be measured in years rather than months).  

He said some stations have seen their revenues "vaporized" in the past 30 days and suggested that an increased fee could be an existential threat in some cases. 

"[T]his move to raise Regulatory Fees during this time of catastrophic economic upheaval, coupled with the precarious economic forecasts ahead, is simply imprudent and will likely further hobble local broadcasters’ efforts to survive in the aftermath of COVID-19." 

The FCC is not suspending its regulatory fee increase on broadcasters during the pandemic, as some broadcasters had asked.

The FCC's operations are funded by fees levied on regulated entities, including broadcaster, cable operators and satellite operators.

The commission Wednesday (May 13) voted to propose collecting $339 million in regulatory fees for 2020. That includes the fee increase for broadcasters continuing to increase the fee DBS operators pay to get it closer to that paid by cable MVPDs.

Satellite operators used to pay per-license, but the FCC several years ago migrated it to a per-sub fee, similar to cable, but starting low and ramping up the fee annually.

The FCC will also, for the first time, charge non-U.S. licensed space station operators with access to the U.S. market a license fee, as they do U.S. companies.

New Jersey broadcasters had asked the FCC to postpone the fee item rulemaking until "our nation’s societal way of life and economy have been fully restored" (which could be measured in years rather than months). They argued that some stations have seen their revenues "vaporized" in the past 30 days and suggested that an increased fee could be an existential threat in some cases.

The FCC did seek comment as part of the approved Notice of Proposed Rulemaking--which is not a final order--on how the FCC could help regulated entities hammered by the pandemic.

"I thank the Chairman for including questions in the FY2020 fee proposal to allow commenters to offer suggestions for mitigating the burden of regulatory fees during the pandemic, as many industries grapple with how to continue providing services while facing dramatically decreased revenue," said FCC commissioner Michael O'Rielly.

The FCC has set the deadlines for comment on whether it is overstating the reach of VHF TV broadcasters and should lower their regulatory fees accordingly. 

That is because its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking teeing up that issue has finally been published in the Federal Register. The FCC adopted the item Aug. 15. 

Related: Broadcasters Say Leave Satellite TV Fees Alone 

The FCC pays for its ongoing operations through fees to regulated entities. 

Comments are due Nov. 22 and reply comments Dec. 23. Those dates were dependent on when the item was published (Oct. 23) because the FCC had said back in August that the comment and reply dates would be 30 and 60 days after publication, respectively. 

That Dec. 23 date could wind up being pushed given its proximity to Christmas, one of the reasons the FCC often moves such dates if asked to. 

Broadcasters have argued that the FCC's methodology overstates the population VHF stations actually reach, a reach on which the fee is based, and wants the FCC to lower the fees. They cite terrain blockage, for example, which may limit the population reach but is not factored into the FCC's calculation.  

The FCC wants to know if that overstatement is the case and, if so, how it should reflect that in the fee calculation. 

The FCC has proposed to continue raising the DBS regulatory fee to get it closer to the fee cable operators pay and wants to know whether changes in the fee process passed by Congress in the RAY BAUMs FCC reauthorization act affects that decision.

That is according to the FY 2019 regulatory fee Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted this week by the FCC. The FCC has to collect $339 million in regulatory fees to cover its operating expenses.

The FCC is proposing to raise the cable fee from 77 cents to 86 cents, and DBS from 48 cents to 60 cents.

Fees are based on how many full time employees (FTEs) it takes to regulate a particular service.

The FCC's Media Bureau has to collect $67.02 from cable, IPTV and DBS in 2019 and proposes to assess Cable and IPTV at the same per-sub rate, but DBS is treated differently, or at least has been.

Satellite broadcasters used to be assessed a smaller, per-license fee, but the FCC in 2015 changed that to the same per-sub fee basis it uses for cable and IPTV, and began lowering cable fees and raising satellite.

That per-sub satellite fee began at 12 cents per sub, but the FCC has been raising it annually to move closer to the cable/IPTV rate, increasing it to 27 cents, 38 cents, 48 cents, and the new, proposed, 60 cents. It has been cutting the cable rate at the same time, from 96 cents in 2017 to 77 cents in 2018, but it is proposing raising it to 86 cents unless it decides to increase DBS to match cable and IPTV.

DirecTV owner AT&T and Dish have asked for no increase, while cable operators have argued that the FCC should move immediately to parity.

Instead, the FCC has continued to raise the rate, but it is also asking if it can, or should, continue to do so. "[W]e invite comment concerning whether this continued 'phase in' is still permissible under the RAY BAUM’S Act and whether this continued 'phase in' is still good policy," the FCC said. "In the alternative, we seek comment on including DBS fully in the cable television/IPTV rate, which would then be approximately 77 cents per subscriber per year [for both cable and DBS], or adopting a different rate for DBS."

Cable operators and DBS providers continue to square off over FCC regulatory fees.

Earlier this month, the FCC gave notice in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that it plans to collect $322,035,000 in regulatory fees for FY 2018, which includes proposing to further lower the cable rate and raise the DBS rate in its ongoing effort to equalize the payments between the two, as cable operators have pushed for.

The FCC pays for itself through the fees it charges regulated entities, including broadcasters, cable and satellite operators, according to how many full time FCC employees (FTEs) it takes to regulate them.

Related: FCC Proposes Boosting DBS Fees, Lowering Cable

In comments to the FCC, Dish and DirecTV owner AT&T said that the boost from 12 cents per sub of three years ago to 48 cents today is uncalled for.

"Such an increase cannot be justified based on Media Bureau resources devoted to DBS providers and DBS providers’ participation in Media Bureau proceedings cited in the NPRM, and it would harm consumers," they told the commission. They said there appeared to be no basis for the ever-escalating fees."

They also said the FCC sites the same record in lowering cable fees by 20% as it does in raising DBS fees by 25%, while it should be clear that hundreds of cable operators impose more burdens on Media Bureaus staffers than two DBS companies.

NCTA begs to differ, sort of, saying that "over the past year, as in prior years, DBS providers have continued to meet with Media Bureau staff, submit filings in Media Bureau dockets and otherwise use Media Bureau resources at a rate significantly exceeding the vast majority of MVPDs and comparable only to the other largest MVPDs."

Cable operators also take issue with the DBS price, but because DBS is still not as much as they pay--currently 77 cents, though that has come down as the FCC tried to even that MVPD playing field.

In its comments on the fees, NCTA called the pace of regularization "glacial" and pushed for evening them up ASAP, as did the American Cable Association.

"ACA applauds the FCC for its steady march toward parity. However, it is now time for the FCC to complete the journey and adopt an identical rate for DBS and cable television/IPTV providers," ACA President Matthew Polka said. "As the FCC has recognized again and again, the burden on Media Bureau full time employees (FTEs) of regulating and overseeing DBS and cable/IPTV providers is 'roughly the same.'"

DBS operators used to pay per license, but three years ago the FCC decided to require DBS to pay on a per-sub basis, as do MVPDs.

The FCC decided to stagger the increase as it worked to regularize the payments--while DBS was paying 38 cents per sub in 2017, MVPDs (cable and IPTV) were paying 96 cents.