FCC Web Documents citing 76.1001

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 07 01

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-767A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-767A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-767A1.txt
  • as amended, (``Communications Act'') and Section 76.1002(c) of the Commission's rules. Knology also alleged that Defendants were engaged in discrimination in violation of Section 628(c)(2)(B) of the Communications Act and Section 76.1002(b) of the Commission's rules. In addition, Knology contended that the Defendants were engaged in unfair methods of competition in violation of Section 628(b) of the Act and Section 76.1001 of the Commission's rules. Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, the parties requested that we suspend processing of the matter pending the resolution of settlement negotiations. On March 12, 2001, Knology filed a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice requesting dismissal of its complaint against the Defendants on the grounds that the matter has been resolved by settlement among all
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4077A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4077A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4077A1.txt
  • Everest Midwest Licensee, L.L.C. d/b/a Everest Connections and Ex-Op of Missouri, Inc. d/b/a Unite (collectively ``Everest'' ) have filed a program access complaint against Kansas City Cable Partners (``Kansas City Cable'') and Metro Sports (``Metro'') alleging that Kansas City Cable is in violation of Sections 628(b) and 628(c)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act''), and Sections 76.1001 and 76.1002(c)(2) of the Commission's rules. Everest requests that the Commission either award damages or initiate forfeiture proceedings against Kansas City Cable for violation of its rules. For the reasons discussed below, we deny Everest's complaint and decline to award damages or institute forfeiture proceedings. BACKGROUND In enacting the program access provisions as part of the Cable Television Consumer Protection
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.txt
  • prescribe regulations that govern the access by competing multichannel video programming distributors to satellite cable and satellite broadcast programming. Need: These rules implement section 19 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, which adds section 628 to the Communications Act of 1934. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 152(a), 154(i), and 303(r). Section Number and Title: 76.1000 Definitions. 76.1001 Unfair practices generally. 76.1002 Specific unfair practices prohibited. 76.1003 Program access proceedings. SUBPART Q -- REGULATION OF CARRIAGE AGREEMENTS Brief Description: These rules govern agreements between multichannel video programming distributors and video programming vendors. Need: These rules implement section 12 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, which adds a new section 616 to the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1784A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1784A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1784A1.txt
  • 76.1003(a) of the Commission's rules. EchoStar alleged that ID's fee structure for the sale of INHD programming violated Section 628(c)(2)(B) of the Act and Section 76.1002(b) of the Commission's rules because it discriminated in its price, terms and conditions. EchoStar also alleged that ID's fee structure constituted an unfair practice in violation of Section 628(b) of the Act and Section 76.1001 of the rules. EchoStar further alleged that ID's conduct amounted to a de facto exclusive reservation of the INHD programming to cable systems and violated the Commission's prohibition on exclusive cable contracts. On September 6, 2006, pursuant to Section 76.7(a)(4)(iii) of the Commission's rules, EchoStar withdrew its program access complaint against ID and asked the Commission to dismiss the complaint
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2292A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2292A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2292A1.txt
  • Accordingly, Verizon's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and its program access complaint against Cablevision Systems Corporation and Rainbow Media Holdings, LLC IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.283 of the Commission's rules. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Steven A. Broeckaert Deputy Chief, Policy Division Media Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 548(b); see 47 C.F.R. � 76.1001. 47 U.S.C. � 548(c)(2)(B); see 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(b). 47 C.F.R. � 0.283. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 06-2292 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-XXX �@��� $ ; P Q ` � @& �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-799A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-799A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-799A1.txt
  • of the Commission's rules. DIRECTV alleged that ID's fee structure for the sale of its INHD programming violated Section 628(c)(2)(B) of the Act and Section 76.1002(b) of the Commission's rules because it discriminated in its price, terms and conditions. DIRECTV also alleged that ID's fee structure constituted an unfair practice in violation of Section 628(b) of the Act and Section 76.1001 of the Commission's rules. On April 7, 2006, pursuant to Section 76.7(a)(4)(iii) of the Commission's rules, DIRECTV withdrew its program access complaint against ID and asked the Commission to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. Accordingly, DIRECTV's request is GRANTED and its program access complaint against iN DEMAND, LLC IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FEDERAL COMUNICATIONS COMMISSON Steven A. Broeckaert Deputy Chief,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-530A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-530A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-530A1.txt
  • Released: March 9, 2009 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: introduction On October 6, 2008, Complainant Pacific Bell Telephone Company d/b/a SBC California d/b/a AT&T California and AT&T Services, Inc. (``AT&T'') filed a program access complaint against CoxCom, Inc. (``Cox'') pursuant to Sections 628(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Sections 76.7(a), 76.1001 and 76.1003(a) of the Commission's rules. AT&T alleges Cox's withholding of channel Cox-4 from carriage by AT&T on its U-verse TV system in San Diego, California constitutes an unfair practice under Section 628(b) because the purpose or effect of Cox's actions has been to significantly hinder AT&T's ability to provide satellite-delivered programming to consumers. In addition, AT&T seeks an injunction
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-73A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-73A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-73A1.txt
  • Document Request at TW0001-0013. TWC Oct. 9, 2008 Ex Parte at 2; Time Warner Nov. 17, 2008 Response to Document Request at TW0001, TW0017. Time Warner May 21, 2008 Press Release. Id. Application at Exhibit B-2, n.9; SNL Interactive: Time Warner Cable Inc. Briefing Book: TV Networks (last visited Jan. 28, 2009). See supra note 1. See 47 C.F.R. �� 76.1001-76.1003. RCN Corporation Petition to Condition Consent or Deny Application at 1-2 (``RCN Petition''); DISH Network Corporation Comments at 1-2 (``DISH Comments''). RCN Petition at 6-11; DISH Comments at 2-3. 47 C.F.R. � 76.1301(c); see also 47 C.F.R. � 76.1301(a) (prohibiting cable operator or other MVPD, regardless of vertical integration, from requiring a financial interest in any program service as a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1099A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1099A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1099A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit June 21, 2010 NOTICE OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF PROGRAM ACCESS COMPLAINT RULES: 47 C.F.R. �� 76.1001(b)(2), 76.1003(c)(3), AND 76.1003(l) MB Docket No. 07-198 On January 20, 2010, the Commission adopted the First Report and Order in MB Docket No. 07-198, which promulgated rules addressing unfair acts involving terrestrially delivered, cable-affiliated programming, and rules establishing procedures for the Commission's consideration of requests for a temporary standstill in program access cases. Those rules, except for new Sections 76.1001(b)(2)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-679A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-679A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-679A1.txt
  • due to its affiliation with Advance-Newhouse and is therefore subject to the program access rules). See Sky Angel Petition at 4-5. See id. at 5-6. See id. at 6. See id. See Discovery Opposition at 9-13. See id. at 1, 12-13. See id. at 1, 3, 13-17. See id. at 17-19. See id. at 19-20; see also 47 C.F.R. � 76.1001. See Discovery Opposition at 21. See id. See id. at 22-24. See id. at 4, 24-25. See id. at 26. See, e.g., Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. FPC, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1958); see also Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Comm'n v. Holiday Tours, 559 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (clarifying the standard set forth in Virginia Petroleum Jobbers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-818A1.pdf
  • the First Report and Order, pursuant to Sections 628(b) and 628(c) of the Act, the Commission established rules for the consideration of complaints alleging that a cable operator, a satellite cable programming vendor in which a cable operator has an attributable interest, or a satellite broadcast programming vendor, has engaged in unfair acts involving terrestriallydelivered, cable-affiliated programming. See47 C.F.R. � 76.1001(b). �Complainants maypursue claims involving terrestriallydelivered, cable- affiliated programming similar to claims theymaypursue withrespect to satellite-delivered, cable-affiliated programming under the program access rules: exclusive contracts, discrimination, and undue or improper influence. 3 oSection 628(b) onlyaddresses those unfair acts that have the purpose or effect of hinderingsignificantlyor preventing an MVPD from providing satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast programming to subscribers or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1212A1.txt
  • an order of the Federal Communications Commission. I acknowledge that this Protective Order is also a binding agreement between the undersigned and the Submitting Party. (signed) ___________________________________________________ (printed name) ______________________________________________ (representing) _______________________________________________ (title) _____________________________________________________ (employer) _________________________________________________ (address) ___________________________________________________ (phone) ____________________________________________________ (email) ____________________________________________________ (date) _____________________________________________________ See LUS, Complaint for Violations of Section 628 of the Communications Act and 47 C.F.R. � 76.1001 et seq., File No. CSR-8357-P (filed June 8, 2010) (the ``Complaint''). See Issue I Discovery Status Report, File No. CSR-8357-P (filed July 1, 2011) (``Joint Status Report''). As the parties suggest, and to the extent necessary, we will consider the issue of whether the membership decision at issue in this proceeding was ``unfair'' after discovery and supplemental briefing as to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1594A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1594A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1594A1.txt
  • 2011 By the Chief, Media Bureau Table of Contents Heading Paragraph # I. Introduction 1 II. Background 2 A. Commission's Rules Addressing Unfair Acts Involving Terrestrially Delivered, Cable-Affiliated Programming 2 B. Appeal of the 2010 Order 5 C. Verizon's Complaint 6 III. Discussion 10 A. Count I - ``Unfair Act'' in Violation of Section 628(b) of the Act and Section 76.1001(a) of the Rules 10 1. Verizon Properly Invoked the Framework Adopted in the 2010 Order 11 2. Verizon Has Demonstrated that Defendants Violated Section 628(b) of the Act and Section 76.1001(a) of the Rules 12 a. Both MSG LP and Cablevision Are Proper Defendants to Count I 13 (i) MSG LP 13 (ii) Cablevision 16 b. Defendants' Withholding of MSG
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1595A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1595A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1595A1.txt
  • I. Introduction 1 II. Background 2 A. Commission's Rules Addressing Unfair Acts Involving Terrestrially Delivered, Cable-Affiliated Programming 2 B. Appeal of the 2010 Order 5 C. AT&T's Complaint 6 III. Discussion 10 A. AT&T's Complaint is Not Barred by the October 2007 Release 10 B. Count I - ``Unfair Act'' in Violation of Section 628(b) of the Act and Section 76.1001(a) of the Rules 11 1. AT&T Properly Invoked the Framework Adopted in the 2010 Order 12 2. AT&T Has Demonstrated that Defendants Violated Section 628(b) of the Act and Section 76.1001(a) of the Rules 13 a. Both MSG LP and Cablevision Are Proper Defendants to Count I 14 (i) MSG LP 14 (ii) Cablevision 17 b. Defendants' Withholding of MSG
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1694A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1694A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1694A1.txt
  • October 11, 2011 Released: October 11, 2011 By the Chief, Media Bureau On September 22, 2011, the Media Bureau (``Bureau'') issued an Order finding that MSG Holdings, L.P. (``MSG''; formerly Madison Square Garden, L.P.) and Cablevision Systems Corporation (``Cablevision'') (MSG and Cablevision together, the ``Defendants'') violated Section 628(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and Section 76.1001(a) of the Commission's rules by withholding the high definition (``HD'') versions of the MSG and MSG+ Regional Sports Networks (``RSNs'') from AT&T Services, Inc. and Southern New England Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Connecticut (collectively, ``AT&T'') in the state of Connecticut. The Order requires MSG to enter into an agreement to license such programming to AT&T within 30 days of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1695A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1695A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1695A1.txt
  • October 11, 2011 Released: October 11, 2011 By the Chief, Media Bureau On September 22, 2011, the Media Bureau (``Bureau'') issued an Order finding that MSG Holdings, L.P. (``MSG''; formerly Madison Square Garden, L.P.) and Cablevision Systems Corporation (``Cablevision'') (MSG and Cablevision together, the ``Defendants'') violated Section 628(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and Section 76.1001(a) of the Commission's rules by withholding the high definition (``HD'') versions of the MSG and MSG+ Regional Sports Networks (``RSNs'') from Verizon Telephone Companies and Verizon Services Corporation (collectively, ``Verizon'') in the New York and Buffalo Designated Market Areas (``DMAs''). The Order requires MSG to enter into an agreement to license such programming to Verizon within 30 days of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-847A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-847A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-847A1.txt
  • that MSG Inc. during renewal negotiations insisted on tying [REDACTED]. DISH claims that MSG Inc. [REDACTED]. In response, MSG Inc. [REDACTED]. MSG Inc. also contends that DISH [REDACTED]. Moreover, MSG Inc. contends that DISH [REDACTED] and that [REDACTED]. DISH contends that MSG Inc.'s alleged tying violates Section 628(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and Section 76.1001(a) of the Commission's rules, which prohibit ``unfair acts'' that have the ``purpose or effect'' of ``significantly hindering'' an MVPD from providing satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast programming to subscribers or consumers. DISH claims that MSG Inc.'s conduct amounts to an ``unfair act'' under Section 628(b), which MSG Inc. disputes. DISH claims further that MSG Inc.'s conduct has the ``purpose
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-953A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-953A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-953A1.txt
  • by June 6, 2011, either requests for discovery or a letter stating that the party elects not to request discovery. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.283 of the Commission's rules. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William T. Lake Chief, Media Bureau See LUS, Complaint for Violations of Section 628 of the Communications Act and 47 C.F.R. � 76.1001 et seq., File No. CSR-8357-P (filed June 8, 2010) (``Complaint''). See Complaint at 1; see also 47 U.S.C. � 548, 47 C.F.R. � 76.1001 et seq. We note that this is an interlocutory order and does not resolve LUS' complaint. Reconsideration or review of interlocutory orders prior to a decision on the merits is limited by Section 76.10 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-715A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-715A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-715A1.txt
  • Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the above-captioned proceeding IS GRANTED and the Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.283 of the Commission's rules. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Steven A. Broeckaert Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division Media Bureau LUS, Complaint for Violations of Section 628 of the Communications Act and 47 C.F.R. � 76.1001 et seq., File No. CSR-8357-P (filed June 8, 2010) (the ``Complaint''). LUS v. NCTC et al., Order, 26 FCC Rcd 7690 (MB, 2011). The Defendants that the Media Bureau dismissed were NCTC and Utilities Service Alliance, Inc. Lafayette Utilities System's Motion to Dismiss, File No. CSR-8357-P (filed May 2, 2012). The motion states that the parties have agreed that each
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-223381A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-223381A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-223381A2.txt
  • Sections 12 and 19 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Development of Competition and Diversity in Video Programming Distribution and Carriage, 8 FCC Rcd 3359, 3412 (1993); recon. 10 FCC Rcd 1902 (1994), further recon. 10 FCC Rcd 3105 (1994). 47 U.S.C. � 548(c)(2)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(a). 47 U.S.C. � 548(b); 47 C.F.R. � 76.1001. N O � ) �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-307457A1.pdf
  • 40 under common control with a cable operator or covered satellite programming vendor, the latter entity "can appropriately be held responsible for the discriminatory acts of its program supplier affiliate because it controls the supplier and the supplier's unfair actions are designed to benefit [the entity]." 2010 Order, 25 FCC Rcd. at 786 � 57; see also 47 C.F.R. � 76.1001(b)(1)(ii) (codifying this rule). Petitioners first argue that imposing liability on cable operators based on control or common control runs afoul of section 628 because such operators are liable under subsection (c)(2)(A) only when they "unduly or improperly influenc[e]" an affiliated programmer's decision. But for reasons explained at length in Part II, see supra pp. 14�17, subsection (c)(2)'s minimum requirements impose
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-404A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-404A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-404A1.txt
  • and petitioners have identified no legal basis whatsoever that might support this cause of action. To the extent that the Bureau thought it had authority to evaluate Comcast's conduct to see if the company had run afoul of some unspecified duty not to ``evade'' the program access rules, the Bureau erred. See 47 U.S.C. �� 554(b), (c); 47 C.F.R. �� 76.1001, 76.1002(a), (b). DIRECTV v. Comcast, 13 FCC Rcd 21822 (CSB 1998) ("DIRECTV Order"); EchoStar v. Comcast, 14 FCC Rcd 2089 (CSB 1999) ("EchoStar Order"). EchoStar Order, 14 FCC Rcd at � 19. RCN Telecom Services, Inc. (``RCN'') filed a Motion to Consolidate and for Oral Argument seeking to consolidate with this proceeding RCN's application for review of a Bureau decision
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-127A1.txt
  • for hearing. For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent. RCN is an open video system operator and a multichannel video program distributor (``MVPD'') in New York City. 47 C.F.R. � 1.115. RCN Telecom Services of New York, Inc. v. Cablevision Systems Corporation et al., 14 FCC Rcd 17093 (1999) (``Order''). 47 U.S.C. � 548(b), (c); see also 47 C.F.R. �� 76.1001, 76.1002(a), (b), (c). Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 17094. RCN also filed a Motion for Expedited Consideration and Cablevision filed an Opposition. In addition, RCN filed a Motion for Consolidation and for Oral Argument seeking to consolidate this proceeding with two other Applications for Review then pending at the Commission filed by DIRECTV, Inc. and EchoStar Communications against Comcast Corporation.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-176A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-176A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-176A1.txt
  • Sections 12 and 19 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Development of Competition and Diversity in Video Programming Distribution and Carriage, 8 FCC Rcd 3359, 3412 (1993); recon. 10 FCC Rcd 1902 (1994), further recon. 10 FCC Rcd 3105 (1994). 47 U.S.C. � 548(c)(2)(A); 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(a). 47 U.S.C. � 548(b); 47 C.F.R. � 76.1001. Section 628(c)(2)(D) generally prohibits, in areas served by a cable operator, exclusive contracts for satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast programming between vertically integrated programming vendors and cable operators. 47 U.S.C. � 548(c)(2)(D). 47 U.S.C. � 548(c)(5). See Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 280 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 2002). See Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. See
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-330A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-330A1.txt
  • is an entity engaged in the production, creation or wholesale distribution for sale of satellite cable programming. 47 C.F.R. � 76.1000(i). Communications Act � 628(b); 47 U.S.C. � 548(b). Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, 17 FCC Rcd 12123 (2002) (``Program Access Order''). Program Access Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 12153. 47 C.F.R � 76.1001. 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1002(b)(4). The exclusivity prohibition sunsets on October 5, 2007, unless extended by the Commission. 47 C.F.R. � 1002(c)(6). 47 C.F.R. � 76.1003. 47 C.F.R. �76.1003(g) and (h). Program Access Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 12130 �15. Id. at 12138 � 32. Id. at 12125 � 4. Id. at 12143 � 45. Id. at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-105A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-105A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-105A1.txt
  • of satellite cable programming. 47 C.F.R. � 76.1000(i). Over-the-air broadcast programming is not subject to the program access rules. A ``satellite broadcast programming vendor'' is a fixed service satellite carrier that provides service pursuant to 17 U.S.C. � 119 with respect to satellite broadcast programming. 47 C.F.R. � 76.1000(g). Communications Act � 628(b); 47 U.S.C. � 548(b). 47 C.F.R � 76.1001. 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(b). 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(c)(2) and (4). The exclusivity prohibition sunsets on October 5, 2007, unless extended by the Commission. 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(c)(6); see infra para. 41. 47 C.F.R. � 76.1003. 47 C.F.R. � 76.1003(h). Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, 17 FCC Rcd 12124 (2002) (``Program Access Order''). Program
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-17A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-17A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-17A1.txt
  • Program Access Complaint We establish specific procedures for the Commission's consideration of requests for a temporary standstill of the price, terms, and other conditions of an existing programming contract by a program access complainant seeking renewal of such a contract. The specific procedures adopted herein only apply to requests for a standstill involving program access complaints filed pursuant to Sections 76.1001 or 76.1003 of the Commission's rules. Thus, a complainant may use these procedures to seek a temporary standstill in program access complaint proceedings involving terrestrially, cable-affiliated delivered programming as well as satellite-delivered, cable-affiliated programming. As competitive MVPDs note, such a process will have several benefits, such as minimizing the impact on subscribers who may otherwise lose valued programming pending resolution
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-30A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-30A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-30A1.txt
  • specific corrections are discussed in the following paragraphs. In paragraph 81 of the First Report and Order, we correct the reference to 76.1003(i) to read 76.1003(l), such that this paragraph reads as follows: ``81. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rules adopted herein WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register, except for Sections 76.1001(b)(2), 76.1003(c)(3), and 76.1003(l) which contain new or modified information collection requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE after the Commission publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing such approval and the relevant effective date.'' In the final rule text for amended Section 76.1000, found
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-167A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-167A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-167A1.txt
  • Order (``MO&O''), we deny an Application for Review filed by MSG Holdings, L.P. (``MSG''; formerly Madison Square Garden, L.P.) and Cablevision Systems Corporation (``Cablevision'') (MSG and Cablevision together, the ``Defendants'') of the Media Bureau's (``Bureau'') Order released September 22, 2011. The Order found that Defendants violated Section 628(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 76.1001(a) of the Commission's rules by withholding the high definition (``HD'') versions of the MSG and MSG+ Regional Sports Networks (``RSNs'') from Verizon Telephone Companies and Verizon Services Corporation (collectively, ``Verizon'') in the New York and Buffalo Designated Market Areas (``DMAs''). The Order required MSG to enter into an agreement to license such programming to Verizon within 30 days of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-168A1.txt
  • Order (``MO&O''), we deny an Application for Review filed by MSG Holdings, L.P. (``MSG''; formerly Madison Square Garden, L.P.) and Cablevision Systems Corporation (``Cablevision'') (MSG and Cablevision together, the ``Defendants'') of the Media Bureau's (``Bureau'') Order released September 22, 2011. The Order found that Defendants violated Section 628(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 76.1001(a) of the Commission's rules by withholding the high definition (``HD'') versions of the MSG and MSG+ Regional Sports Networks (``RSNs'') from AT&T Services, Inc. and Southern New England Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Connecticut (collectively, ``AT&T'') in the State of Connecticut. The Order required MSG to enter into an agreement to license such programming to AT&T within 30 days of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-4A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-4A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-4A1.txt
  • used in the Adelphia Order, but our modeling has evolved since those transactions. See ACA Comments - Rogerson Report at 22. See 31-COM-00000298, [REDACTED] at 35. See id. at 25, 30, 37. See News Corp.-Hughes Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 513-14, �� 84-87. In addition, our program access rules do not apply to broadcast programming. See generally 47 C.F.R. �� 76.1001, 76.1003(d). See News Corp.-Hughes Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 552-53, 572-73, �� 175-76, 220-21. . Recently we have recognized the need to extend this remedy to other types of programming on a case by case basis. See Terrestrial Loophole Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 778, � 48. See supra � 36. See Application at 117. See 47 U.S.C. � 522(20)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-30A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-30A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-30A1.txt
  • on whether these existing protections are sufficient to preserve and protect competition in the video distribution market if the exclusive contract prohibition were to sunset and whether any additional safeguards should be adopted. Section 628(b) Complaints The Act and the Commission's existing rules allow for the filing of complaints alleging a violation of Section 628(b) of the Act and Section 76.1001(a) of the Commission's rules. These provisions require a complainant to establish three elements in order to demonstrate a violation: (i) the defendant is one of the three entities covered by these provisions (i.e., a cable operator, a satellite cable programming vendor in which a cable operator has an attributable interest, or a satellite broadcast programming vendor); (ii) the defendant has
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99288.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99288.txt
  • the program access rules' definition of an attributable interest. WCA states that, although the program access rules are designed to address problems created by the common ownership of a cable company and a satellite cable programming vendor, the rules appear to apply only where a cable company has an attributable interest in a programming vendor and not vice versa. Section 76.1001 of our rules covers a ``cable operator, [a] satellite programming vendor in which a cable operator has an attributable interest, [and] a satellite broadcast programming vendor.'' Because this language does not specifically state that the rule applies to an entity that holds an attributable interest in both a cable operator and a cable programmer, WCA states that some parties have
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc01001.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc01001.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc01001.txt
  • Programming Distribution and Carriage, CS Docket No. 97-248, RM No. 9097, Report and Order ("Program Access Order''), 13 FCC Rcd 15822, 15856-7 �� 70-71 (1998). Program Access Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 15856-7 � 71. Id. RCN Comments at 16; DirecTV Comments at 15; WCN Comments at 8. EchoStar Comments at 7-8. See 47 U.S.C. � 548(b) and 47 C.F.R. �76.1001 (unfair practices generally). RCN Comments at 17. See App D, Table D-3. RCN Comments at 14-17. See �� 178-182 supra for a more detailed description of program access. DirecTV Comments at 14 Id. See also Application for Review of Orders of the Cable Services Bureau Denying Program Access Complaints, CSR 5122-P and CSR 5244-P, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 00-404,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc98335.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc98335.txt
  • Time Warner (50) Notes: Superstations included in the source data are not included in this ranking. Source: Paul Kagan Assocs., Inc., Second Quarter 1998 Prime-Time Ratings, Cable Program Investor, Aug. 14, 1998, at 6. Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-335 1Communications Act �628(c), 47 U.S.C. � 548(c); 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(b). 2Communications Act �628(b), 47 U.S.C. � 548(b); 47 C.F.R. � 76.1001. 3Subsequent to the Bureau's decision in this matter, TCI filed a letter stating that it had notified Americast, prior to the Bureau's decision, that it would not claim the benefit of, and would not seek to enforce, any exclusivity arrangement it had regarding the FX programming service that would prevent FX from authorizing the carriage of its programming by Americast.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99288.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99288.txt
  • the program access rules' definition of an attributable interest. WCA states that, although the program access rules are designed to address problems created by the common ownership of a cable company and a satellite cable programming vendor, the rules appear to apply only where a cable company has an attributable interest in a programming vendor and not vice versa. Section 76.1001 of our rules covers a ``cable operator, [a] satellite programming vendor in which a cable operator has an attributable interest, [and] a satellite broadcast programming vendor.'' Because this language does not specifically state that the rule applies to an entity that holds an attributable interest in both a cable operator and a cable programmer, WCA states that some parties have
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc01001.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc01001.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc01001.txt
  • Programming Distribution and Carriage, CS Docket No. 97-248, RM No. 9097, Report and Order ("Program Access Order''), 13 FCC Rcd 15822, 15856-7 �� 70-71 (1998). Program Access Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 15856-7 � 71. Id. RCN Comments at 16; DirecTV Comments at 15; WCN Comments at 8. EchoStar Comments at 7-8. See 47 U.S.C. � 548(b) and 47 C.F.R. �76.1001 (unfair practices generally). RCN Comments at 17. See App D, Table D-3. RCN Comments at 14-17. See �� 178-182 supra for a more detailed description of program access. DirecTV Comments at 14 Id. See also Application for Review of Orders of the Cable Services Bureau Denying Program Access Complaints, CSR 5122-P and CSR 5244-P, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 00-404,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc98335.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc98335.txt
  • Time Warner (50) Notes: Superstations included in the source data are not included in this ranking. Source: Paul Kagan Assocs., Inc., Second Quarter 1998 Prime-Time Ratings, Cable Program Investor, Aug. 14, 1998, at 6. Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-335 1Communications Act �628(c), 47 U.S.C. � 548(c); 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(b). 2Communications Act �628(b), 47 U.S.C. � 548(b); 47 C.F.R. � 76.1001. 3Subsequent to the Bureau's decision in this matter, TCI filed a letter stating that it had notified Americast, prior to the Bureau's decision, that it would not claim the benefit of, and would not seek to enforce, any exclusivity arrangement it had regarding the FX programming service that would prevent FX from authorizing the carriage of its programming by Americast.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/1996/dd960829.html
  • 29, 1996. EX PARTE PRESENTATIONS AND POST-REPLY COMMENT PERIOD FILINGS IN NON-RESTRICTED PROCEEDINGS [TWO PUBLIC NOTICES]. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- AMERICAN CABLE COMPANY. Denied complaint filed against TeleCable of Columbus, Inc. alleging violations of the geographic rate uniformity requirement and the program access provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 623(d) and 628(b) and Sections 76.984 and 76.1001 of the Commission's rules. Action by Chief, Cable Services Bureau. Adopted: August 27, 1996. by Order. (DA No. 96-1457). CSB Internet URL: [1]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1996_TXT/da961457 DANIELS CABLEVISION INC. Granted Daniels's Petition for Revocation of the Certification of San Diego County, California to regulate its Basic Cable Service Rates. Action by Chief, Cable Services Bureau. Adopted: August 19, 1996. by MO&O. (DA No.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2010/dd100621.html
  • information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 202/418-2555 June 21, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE DATED AND RELEASED TODAY: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- PUBLIC NOTICES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Report No: 47261 Released: 06/21/2010. BROADCAST ACTIONS. MB [1]DOC-298868A1.pdf [2]DOC-298868A2.txt Report No: 27261 Released: 06/21/2010. BROADCAST APPLICATIONS. MB [3]DOC-298867A1.pdf [4]DOC-298867A2.txt Released: 06/21/2010. NOTICE OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF PROGRAM ACCESS COMPLAINT RULES: 47 C.F.R. SECTIONS 76.1001(B)(2), 76.1003(C)(3), AND 76.1003(L). (DA No. 10-1099). (Dkt No 07-198 ). MB . Contact: David Konczal at (202) 418-2228, email: David.Konczal@fcc.gov or Diana Sokolow at (202) 418-0588, email: Diana.Sokolow@fcc.gov. News Media Contact: Janice Wise at (202) 418-8165, email: Janice.Wise@fcc.gov [5]DA-10-1099A1.doc [6]DA-10-1099A1.pdf [7]DA-10-1099A1.txt Released: 06/21/2010. FEE DECISIONS OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. (DA No. 10-1098). (Dkt No 86-285 ).
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/76print.html
  • and educational programming used in lieu of designated commercial leased access capacity. [135]76.980 Charges for customer changes. [136]76.981 Negative option billing. [137]76.982 Continuation of rate agreements. [138]76.983 Discrimination. [139]76.984 Geographically uniform rate structure. [140]76.985 Subscriber bill itemization. [141]76.986 "A la carte" offerings. [142]76.987 New product tiers. [143]76.990 Small cable operators. Subpart O -- Competitive Access to Cable Programming [144]76.1000 Definitions. [145]76.1001 Unfair practices generally. [146]76.1002 Specific unfair practices prohibited. [147]76.1003 Program access proceedings. [148]76.1004 Applicability of program access rules to common carriers and affiliates. [149]76.100576.1010 [Reserved] Subpart P -- Competitive Availability of Navigation Devices [150]76.1200 Definitions. [151]76.1201 Rights of subscribers to use or attach navigation devices. [152]76.1202 Availability of navigation devices. [153]76.1203 Incidence of harm. [154]76.1204 Availability of equipment performing conditional
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/part76.pdf
  • annual reporting requirement. � 76.980 Charges for customer changes. � 76.981 Negative option billing. � 76.982 Continuation of rate agreements. � 76.983 Discrimination. � 76.984 Geographically uniform rate structure. � 76.985 Subscriber bill itemization. � 76.986 "A la carte" offerings. � 76.987 New product tiers. � 76.990 Small cable operators. Subpart O-Competitive Access to Cable Programming � 76.1000 Definitions. � 76.1001 Unfair practices generally. � 76.1002 Specific unfair practices prohibited. � 76.1003 Program access proceedings. � 76.1004 Applicability of program access rules to common carriers and affiliates. �� 76.1005-76.1010 [Reserved] Subpart P-Competitive Availability of Navigation Devices � 76.1200 Definitions. � 76.1201 Rights of subscribers to use or attach navigation devices. � 76.1202 Availability of navigation devices. � 76.1203 Incidence of harm.
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/echostar-directv/national_petdeny020402.pdf
  • on the Merger, neither the Commission nor interested parties will have an opportunity to evaluate the implications of the new arrangement. 251 Opposition of EchoStar Communications Corporation, General Motors Corporation and Hughes Electronics Corporation, CS Docket No. 01-348, January 17, 2002, amended January 18, 2002. 252 Id., p. 6. 253 Eighth Annual Competition Report, �156. See also 47 C.F.R. � 76.1001. 254 Vivendi's investment in EchoStar apparently would fall within the purview of the Commission's provisions designed to control the anti-competitive effects of vertical integration in the cable industry. These rules attribute all voting and nonvoting equity interests, including insulated limited partnership interests, of 5% or more. See 47 C.F.R. �� 76.1000; 76.501, Notes 1-5. 71 162. The Applicants' disclosures to