Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of )

ETFs Are Standard Contractual Provisions that Benefit Video Consumers At the outset, we challenge the notion that ETFs are inherently anti-consumer – a view that is central to the Billing Practices NPRM but even more extreme than the position taken by the Biden White House.4 To the contrary, ETFs often benefit consumers through lower prices, as the International Center for Law & Economics explaine. [...] 5 Nevertheless, Public Knowledge in its comments baldly and unequivocally proclaimed that ETFs "have no economic rationale, other than the fact that MVPDs can get away with charging them, and no economic benefit, other than to the MVPDs who impose them."6 But more substantive responses to the Billing Practices NPRM conclusively establish that long-term contracts – and the ETFs that render them fin. [...] Should a customer cancel prior to the [end of] the agreed-upon term, the operator's costs are increased and its return reduced, undercutting the basis for the lesser rate.9 Accordingly, there in fact is a legitimate economic rationale underlying long-term agreements that include an ETF that delivers economic benefit to both parties to the agreement. [...] Section 623(a)(2) of the 1984 Cable Act clearly states that, where effective competition exists (that is, effectively everywhere), the Commission may not regulate the "rates for the 9 Comments of NCTA – The Internet & Television Association, Promoting Competition in the American Economy: Cable Operator and DBS Provider Billing Practices, MB Docket No. [...] For example, ACA Connects emphasized that the Commission has never before suggested that how customers pay for service should be addressed as a 'customer service standard'" (emphasis in original).14 NCTA explained that "a rate is not just the price, but the price relative to a specific amount of the product" – and reminded us that, in a similar context, the FCC concluded that "regulation of 'rate.