FCC Web Documents citing 76.1002

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
  • and Interactive Services, a division of AT&T Corp. (``AT&T''); Comcast Corporation (``Comcast''); Acme Television Holdings, LLC (``Acme/WBLN''); AVN, Inc. (``AVN/WBEK''); Benedek Broadcasting Corp. (``Benedek/WTVY''); and Lewis Broadcasting Corp. (``Lewis/WLTZ'') (collectively the ``Defendants''). Knology alleged that the Defendants were parties to exclusive programming contracts in violation of Section 628(c)(2)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, 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
• 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
  • 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 and Competition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1136A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1136A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1136A1.txt
  • of 1934, as amended, and Sections 76.7(a) and 76.1003(a) of the Commission's rules. VOOM alleged that ID violated Section 628(b) of the Act because it refused to negotiate a non-discriminatory, commercially reasonable agreement with VOOM for carriage of ID's INHD1 and INHD2 high definition television programming channels. VOOM also alleged that ID violated Section 628(c) of the Act and Section 76.1002(c)(2) of the Commission's rules because ID made its programming available exclusively to cable television operators. On April 13, 2005, citing recent developments related to VOOM's operations, a letter was submitted withdrawing VOOM's program access complaint against ID. Accordingly, the request to withdraw the program access complaint filed by Rainbow DBS Company LLC against iN DEMAND, L.L.C. is GRANTED and the
• 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
  • 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 Act of 1934. Legal
• 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
  • July 5, 2005, a program access compliant was filed on behalf of EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. (``EchoStar'') against iN DEMAND L.L.C. (``ID'') pursuant to Section 628(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 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
• 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
  • 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
  • : On June 29, 2005, a program access complaint was filed on behalf of DIRECTV against iN DEMAND L.L.C. (``ID'') pursuant to Section 628 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 76.1000-1003 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4849A1.pdf
  • and expeditious resolution of program access complaints bymodifying its procedures for resolving these complaints. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Prohibition of Exclusive Distribution Contracts for Affiliated Programming Networks Basic Requirement �The Commission's rules prohibit: o a cable operator from entering into an exclusive distribution contract with a programming network that is owned in whole or in part byany cable operator(47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(c)(2));and o a common carrier that providesvideo programming services directlyto subscribers from entering into an exclusive distribution contract with a programming network that is owned in whole or in part byany common carrier (47 C.F.R. � 76.1004(b)). �The prohibition is referred to here as the "exclusive contract prohibition." The programming networkssubject to the exclusive contract prohibition are referred to here as
• 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
  • 3281, � 32; News Corp.-Hughes Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 505, � 62; Comcast-AT&T Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 23282, � 90; EchoStar-DIRECTV HDO, 17 FCC Rcd at 20610, � 119. Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, 47 U.S.C. � 521, nt. 1, � 2(a)(5) (``1992 Cable Act''). 47 U.S.C. � 548(a). 47 C.F.R. �� 76.1001 and 76.1002 (describing prohibited unfair practices under the Commission's program access rules). 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002; see e.g. Liberty Media-DIRECTV Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3295, � 68. 47 C.F.R. � 76.1301(c). 47 U.S.C. � 536. Implementation of Sections 12 and 19 of The Cable Television Consumer Protection And Competition Act Of 1992 - Development of Competition and Diversity in Video Programming
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-818A1.pdf
  • to address were: (i) exclusive contracts between a cable operator and a cable-affiliated programmer; (ii) discrimination bya cable-affiliated programmer in the prices, terms, and conditions for sale of programming among multichannel video programming distributors ("MVPDs"); and (iii) efforts by a cable operator to unduly influence the decision of its affiliated programmer to sell programming to competitors. See 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002. �MVPDs that compete with incumbent cable operators widelycredit the program access rules for the increase in competition in the video distribution market that has occurred since these rules were adopted. oCongress did not require the Commission to adopt program access rules for cable- affiliated programming that is delivered to cable operators via terrestrial means ("terrestrially delivered programming"). Basic Rules oIn
• 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
  • HD and MSG+ HD terrestrially. Based on this lack of evidence of evasion, we deny Count III. Count IV - Undue or Improper Influence In Count IV, Verizon claims that Cablevision is exercising undue or improper influence over MSG LP's decision to withhold MSG HD and MSG+ HD from Verizon, in violation of Section 628(c)(2)(A) of the Act and Section 76.1002(a) of the Commission's rules. Verizon alleges only a violation of Section 628(c), which does not apply to the terrestrially delivered MSG HD and MSG+ HD. Verizon thus appears to be arguing that MSG HD and MSG+ HD should be considered satellite-delivered because the underlying programming content is delivered via satellite on MSG SD and MSG+ SD, an argument we reject
• 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
  • HD and MSG+ HD terrestrially. Based on this lack of evidence of evasion, we deny Count III. Count IV - Undue or Improper Influence In Count IV, AT&T claims that Cablevision is exercising undue or improper influence over MSG LP's decision to withhold MSG HD and MSG+ HD from AT&T, in violation of Section 628(c)(2)(A) of the Act and Section 76.1002(a) of the Commission's rules. AT&T alleges only a violation of Section 628(c), which does not apply to the terrestrially delivered MSG HD and MSG+ HD. AT&T thus appears to be arguing that MSG HD and MSG+ HD should be considered satellite-delivered because the underlying programming content is delivered via satellite on MSG SD and MSG+ SD, an argument we reject
• 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 its conduct has the ``purpose or effect'' of ``significantly hindering'' DISH. MSG Inc. contends that [REDACTED]; [REDACTED]; [REDACTED]; DISH does not carry another RSN in the New York market, thus demonstrating [REDACTED]; and [REDACTED]. In Count II, DISH alleges, based on information and belief, that MSG Inc. violated the discrimination provision in Section 628(c)(2)(B) of the Act and Section 76.1002(b) of the Commission's rules by refusing to provide DISH with access to MSG and MSG+ [REDACTED]. DISH claims that MSG Inc. [REDACTED]. DISH also states that it [REDACTED]. In response, MSG Inc. contends that it [REDACTED]; [REDACTED]; and it [REDACTED]. MSG Inc. also states that it [REDACTED]. In Count III, DISH alleges, based on information and belief, that Cablevision violated
• 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
  • programmer would have. Once again, this demonstrates the over-inclusiveness of the current ban that sweeps in cable operators who have a 5% ownership stake in the programmer. See, e.g., United States Telecom Ass'n v. FCC, No. 00-1012 (D.C. Cir., May 24, 2002) (reversing Commission order based on failure to justify sweeping national rules). 47 U.S.C. � 548(c)(2)(B); 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(b); In the Matter of Implementation of 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-202A1.txt
  • at 4-5; Ameritech Comments at 19. Ameritech Comments at 19-23. Ameritech Comments at 18-19. 47 C.F.R. �� 76.1000-76.1004. 47 U.S.C. � 548. 1992 Cable Act � 2(a)(5). The attribution of corporate interests for purposes of the program access rules is determined under sections 76.501 and 76.1000(b) of the Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R. �� 76.501 n.2., 76.1000(b). 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(a). 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(b). This restriction is subject to certain limited exceptions. Id. 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(c). Relief may be granted pursuant to a Commission determination that specific exclusive arrangements are in the public interest. 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(c)(4). In addition, exclusive arrangements entered into prior to June 1, 1990, are "grandfathered," or exempt from the exclusivity prohibition, provided they
• 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
  • 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 involving
• 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
  • 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. Cablevision
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-12A1.doc
  • cable system headend. 47 C.F.R. �� 76.1000-76.1004; see also AT&T-MediaOne Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 9852-55 �� 77-83. 47 U.S.C. � 548. 1992 Cable Act � 2(a)(5). The attribution of corporate interests for purposes of the program access rules is determined under sections 76.501 and 76.1000(b) of the Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R. �� 76.501 n.2., 76.1000(b). 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(a). 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(b). This restriction is subject to certain limited exceptions. Id. 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(c). Relief may be granted pursuant to a Commission determination that specific exclusive arrangements are in the public interest. 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(c)(4). In addition, exclusive arrangements entered into prior to June 1, 1990, are "grandfathered," or exempt from the exclusivity prohibition, provided they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-307A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-307A1.txt
  • 1992: Petition for Rulemaking of Ameritech New Media, Inc. Regarding Development of Competition and Diversity in Video Programming Distribution and Carriage, 13 FCC Rcd 15822 (1998), the Commission amended the program access rules. 47 U.S.C. � 548(a). 47 U.S.C. � 548(b). 47 U.S.C. � 548(c). 47 U.S.C. � 548(c)(2)(C). 47 U.S.C. � 548(c)(2)(D). 47 U.S.C. � 548(c)(2)(D); 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(c)(2). 47 U.S.C. � 548(c)(2)(4). 47 U.S.C. � 548(c)(4); 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(c)(4); see e.g., New England Cable News, 9 FCC Rcd 3231 (1994) (finding public interest factors favored limited 7 year period of exclusivity for startup regional news programmer); Time Warner Cable, 9 FCC Rcd 3221 (1994) (finding public interest factors did not favor requested 15 year exclusivity request related
• 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
  • Video and Cable Television Service The authority citation for Part 76 continues to read as follows: AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 503, 521, 522, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, 573. Section 76.1002(c)(6) is amended as follows: � 76.1002 Specific Unfair Practices Prohibited. ***** (c)(6) Sunset provision. The prohibition of exclusive contracts set forth in paragraph (c)(2) of this section shall cease to be effective on October 5, 2007, unless the Commission finds, during a proceeding to be conducted during the year preceding such date, that said prohibition continues to be necessary to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-310A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-310A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-310A1.txt
  • not address the anticompetitive concerns raised by extending these provisions to the Comcast territories because the Applicants have committed not to enforce these provisions. Letter from Arthur S. Block, Senior Vice President, Comcast Corporation, to W. Kenneth Ferree, Chief, Media Bureau (Oct. 7, 2002). 47 C.F.R. �� 76.1000-76.1004. Id. 47 U.S.C. � 548. See Program Access Order. 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(a). 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(b). 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(c). See, e.g., EchoStar Comments at 7; Everest Comments at 5-6; RCN Comments at 35; SBC Comments at 32. EchoStar Comments at 4. RCN Comments at 19-20. EchoStar Comments at 4; RCN Comments at 19-20; see also Everest Comments at 5-6. BELD Comments at 2. BellSouth Comments at 29-30; EchoStar Comments at 2-4;
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-328A1.txt
  • the program access rules as DBS operators are not included within the exclusivity prohibition. See 47 C.F.R. � 1002(c). This condition would only be of significance in the event either Applicant or Liberty Media otherwise ceases to be subject to the Commission's program access jurisdiction. Although most of the program access rules will remain applicable unless terminated by Congress, Section 76.1002(c), the prohibition on exclusive contracts, sunsets in October 2007 unless the Commission finds that the prohibition continues to be necessary to protect competition in the distribution of video programming. See 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(c)(2). In the year prior to the sunset, the Commission will conduct a proceeding to evaluate the circumstances in the video programming marketplace. See 47 C.F.R. 76.1003.
• 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
  • 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 12125 � 4. Id.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-5A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-5A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-5A1.txt
  • at 2-3. Quest Comments at 9. Quest recognizes that programmers may charge new entrants and overbuilders higher prices on the basis of economies of scale, differences in delivery technologies and transmission costs, expected viewership and advertising revenues, and the small size of the new entrant's subscribership under section 628(c)(2)(B). See also Comcast Reply Comments at 17 (citing 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(b), which permits programmers to offer volume discounts to their largest customers). ACA Comments at 2. Notice, 18 FCC Rcd at 16046 � 15. 1998 Report, 13 FCC Rcd at 24387 � 187. See also 2003 GAO Report at 30-31. DirecTV Comments at 13-14; A&E Comments at 8-9. These commenters note that premium, pay-per-view and some sports programming has historically been
• 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
  • 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 Access Order, 17 FCC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-169A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-169A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-169A1.txt
  • that, pursuant to the authority found in Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 628 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), and 548, the Commission's rules ARE HEREBY AMENDED as set forth in Appendix D. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (i) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. � 553(d)(3) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.427(b), the amendment to Section 76.1002(c)(6) and new Sections 76.1003(i) and 76.1003(k) WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE upon publication in the Federal Register; and (ii) the amendment to Section 76.1003(e)(1) and new Section 76.1003(j) contain information collection requirements subject to the PRA and WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE upon approval by the Office of Management and Budget. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-7A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-7A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-7A1.txt
  • February 7, 2007 Released: February 20, 2007 Comment Date: (30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register) Reply Comment Date: (45 days after date of publication in the Federal Register) By the Commission: INTRODUCTION We issue this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``Notice'') pursuant to Section 628(c)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and Section 76.1002(c)(6) of the Commission's rules. In areas served by a cable operator, Section 628(c)(2)(D) generally prohibits exclusive contracts for satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast programming between vertically integrated programming vendors and cable operators. Section 628(c)(5) directed that this prohibition on exclusive programming contracts would cease to be effective on October 5, 2002, unless the Commission found that such prohibition ``continues
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-66A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-66A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-66A1.txt
  • � 76.1000(h). EchoStar Petition at 23 (``Liberty should not be permitted to evade the programming protections adopted by the Commission through the use of these technologies.''). Id. at 23-24. Id. at 23-24. DIRECTV Opposition of Apr. 9, 2007 at 19; Discovery Opposition at 7-9. The Viacom networks, such as MTV and Nickelodeon, fall into the second category. See 47 C.F.R. �76.1002(c)(2), (4). For example, the networks owned by Time Warner , such as HBO, fall into this category. For example, RCN contends that DIRECTV already has market power and that the transaction would enhance DIRECTV's ability to secure exclusive agreements with non-vertically integrated programmers for ``must have'' programming. RCN Comments at 4-5, Atts A, B; ACA Reply Comments at 9-10. As
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-50A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-50A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-50A1.txt
  • Id. at 3340-49, App. B. Id. at 3315, � 108 and 3320-22, �� 119-21, and 3325-26, �� 126-27. Liberty-DIRECTV Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3325-26, �� 126-27. See News Corp.-Hughes Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 531-33, �� 127-28. The program access rules apply to cable operators that are affiliated with satellite cable programming vendors and vice versa. 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002. News Corp. is a satellite cable programming vendor and, at the time it acquired DIRECTV, was affiliated with a cable operator, Liberty, via Liberty's investment in News Corp. News Corp.-Hughes Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 531, � 127. Thus, News Corp. was subject to the program access rules. However, the program access rules do not apply to affiliations between satellite
• 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
  • for terrestrially delivered, cable-affiliated programming will differ from the exclusive contract prohibition applicable to satellite-delivered, cable-affiliated programming in the following ways. First, the Commission's program access rules applicable to satellite-delivered, cable-affiliated programming generally prohibit exclusive contracts unless the cable operator or cable-affiliated programmer demonstrates that an exclusive contract serves the public interest based on the factors set forth in Section 76.1002(c)(4). The rules we adopt in this Order, however, assign the burden of proof to the complainant to demonstrate (sometimes with the benefit of a presumption) that the exclusive contract has the purpose or effect set forth in Section 628(b). Second, while the Commission's rules applicable to satellite-delivered, cable-affiliated programming draw distinctions between exclusive contracts in served areas and unserved areas,
• 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
  • contracts offered by a defendant programming vendor or by a terrestrial cable programming vendor alleged to have engaged in conduct described in � 76.1001(b)(1)(ii) of this part, that an alternative multichannel video programming distributor has been identified by the defendant as being more properly compared to the complainant in order to determine whether a violation of � 76.1001(a) or � 76.1002(b) of this part has occurred. * * * * * * * *'' In the final rule text for amended Section 76.1003, found in Appendix B of the First Report and Order: We correct the first sentence of paragraph 5 to read: ``Section 76.1003 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(3), by revising the first sentence of paragraph (e)(1), by revising
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-119A1.txt
  • community antenna television industry under Section 4(i)), with Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. FCC, 487 F.2d 865, 875-76 (2d Cir. 1973) (holding that Section 4(i) cannot be used to circumvent ``statutorily prescribed procedures with consequent frustration of the statutory purpose.''). Compare 47 U.S.C. � 536(a)(3), and 47 C.F.R. � 76.1301(c), with 47 U.S.C. � 548(c)(2)(B), and 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(b) (showing that the program carriage rules make discrimination unlawful only insofar as it is ``on the basis of affiliation,'' whereas the program access rules make discrimination unlawful across the board. Further, the program carriage rules prohibit MVPDs from discriminating in the ``selection, terms or conditions of carriage'', whereas the program access rules prohibit discrimination in the ``prices, terms or conditions''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-119A3.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-119A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-119A3.txt
  • community antenna television industry under Section 4(i)), with Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. FCC, 487 F.2d 865, 875-76 (2d Cir. 1973) (holding that Section 4(i) cannot be used to circumvent ``statutorily prescribed procedures with consequent frustration of the statutory purpose.''). Compare 47 U.S.C. � 536(a)(3), and 47 C.F.R. � 76.1301(c), with 47 U.S.C. � 548(c)(2)(B), and 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(b) (showing that the program carriage rules make discrimination unlawful only insofar as it is ``on the basis of affiliation,'' whereas the program access rules make discrimination unlawful across the board. Further, the program carriage rules prohibit MVPDs from discriminating in the ``selection, terms or conditions of carriage'', whereas the program access rules prohibit discrimination in the ``prices, terms or conditions''
• 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
  • may include (among other things) the contracting practices of a C-NBCU Programmer prior to December 3, 2009 and/or the contracting practices of peer companies. A C-NBCU Programmer may also enter into agreements or arrangements forbidding, limiting or creating economic incentives to limit distribution of Video Programming through OVDs upon Commission approval after following the procedures provided under 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(c)(5) and demonstrating that the agreement or arrangement serves the public interest under 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(c)(4), provided that for purposes of such demonstration (i) the term ``multichannel video programming distribution market'' in 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(c)(4)(iv) shall include OVDs; and (ii) the term ``satellite cable programming'' in 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(c)(4)(iii) shall be replaced with the term Video Programming. 3.
• 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
  • broadcast programming. Third, the current exclusive contract prohibition forbids all exclusive contracts between a cable operator and a satellite-delivered, cable-affiliated programmer pertaining to satellite-delivered, cable-affiliated programming, unless a cable operator or programmer can satisfy its burden of demonstrating that an exclusive contract serves the public interest based on the factors set forth in Section 628(c)(4) of the Act and Section 76.1002(c)(4) of the Commission's rules. If the exclusive contract prohibition were to sunset (wholly or partially), however, the situation would be reversed. That is, such exclusive contracts would be permitted, unless an MVPD could carry its burden of demonstrating that the exclusive contract violates Section 628(b) (or, potentially, Section 628(c)(2)(B)). We seek comment on the above interpretations of Section 628(b) as
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/1998/fcc98068.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/1998/fcc98068.wp
  • 6) petition for reconsideration of certification (47 C.F.R. � 76.911); 7) petition for recertification (47 C.F.R. � 76.916); 8) petition for review of rates (47 C.F.R. � 76.933); 9) rate complaint (47 C.F.R. � 76.950); 10) commercial leased access dispute (47 C.F.R. � 76.975); 11) program access adjudicatory proceedings (47 C.F.R. � 76.1003); 12) petition for exclusivity (47 C.F.R. � 76.1002); 13) carriage agreement adjudicatory proceeding (47 C.F.R. � 76.1302). Each type of petition or complaint has particular requirements regarding the conditions that must be satisfied before a filing can be made, who must be served with the filing, and the deadline time for a response. One reason for this variation is that our rules have been adopted over a period
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99024.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99024.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99024.wp
  • from improperly �influencing the decisions of the vendor with respect to the sale or delivery, including prices, terms, and �conditions of sale or delivery, of satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast programming to any � The rules also prohibit vertically integrated satellite programming distributors �from discriminating in the prices or terms and conditions of sale of satellite(c)delivered programming to � 76.1002(c). Relief may be granted pursuant to a Commission determination that specific � 76.1002(c)(4). In addition, exclusive arrangements �entered into prior to June 1, 1990, are "grandfathered," or exempt from the exclusivity prohibition, provided they � Those provisions of the program access rules that apply to "cable �operators" apply equally to any common carrier or its affiliate that provides video programming
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00099.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00099.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00099.txt
  • anti-competitive practices such as illegal tying and bundling. The answer probably lies somewhere between these two interpretations and we trust the sometimes confused [Commission], as we often do, to properly divine the real intent of a sometimes confused Congress. 145 Cong. Rec. S15017 (daily ed. Nov. 19, 1999) (statement of Sen. Kohl). Notice at � 19; see 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(b) (program access standard); 47 C.F.R. � 76.1503(a) (open video system standard). Notice at � 19. DIRECTV Comments at 13-14; EchoStar Comments at 18. Several commenters assert that the Commission's program access and open video system rules provide an ideal model and suggest that only the following acts or practices constitute competitive marketplace considerations that a broadcaster may take into account
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00202.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00202.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00202.txt
  • at 4-5; Ameritech Comments at 19. Ameritech Comments at 19-23. Ameritech Comments at 18-19. 47 C.F.R. �� 76.1000-76.1004. 47 U.S.C. � 548. 1992 Cable Act � 2(a)(5). The attribution of corporate interests for purposes of the program access rules is determined under sections 76.501 and 76.1000(b) of the Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R. �� 76.501 n.2., 76.1000(b). 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(a). 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(b). This restriction is subject to certain limited exceptions. Id. 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(c). Relief may be granted pursuant to a Commission determination that specific exclusive arrangements are in the public interest. 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(c)(4). In addition, exclusive arrangements entered into prior to June 1, 1990, are "grandfathered," or exempt from the exclusivity prohibition, provided they
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc98335.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc98335.txt
  • matters resolved since the 1997 Report. All but one program access complaint dealt with exclusivity concerns rather than price discrimination issues. 766The Commission's program access rules are set forth at 47 C.F.R. �� 76.1000-76.1003, and the program carriage rules are set forth at 47 C.F.R. �� 76.1300-76.1302. See also 47 U.S.C. � 536(a)(2); 47 U.S.C. � 548. 76747 C.F.R. � 76.1002(b). 76847 C.F.R. � 76.1002(c)(2). 769See Section 19 of the 1992 Cable Act, Development of Competition and Diversity in Video Programming Distribution. See also 47 U.S.C. � 548. 770See Petition for Rulemaking of Ameritech New Media, Inc. Regarding Development of Competition and Diversity in Video Programming Distribution and Carriage, In the Matter of Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/1998/fcc98068.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/1998/fcc98068.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/1998/fcc98068.wp
  • 6) petition for reconsideration of certification (47 C.F.R. � 76.911); 7) petition for recertification (47 C.F.R. � 76.916); 8) petition for review of rates (47 C.F.R. � 76.933); 9) rate complaint (47 C.F.R. � 76.950); 10) commercial leased access dispute (47 C.F.R. � 76.975); 11) program access adjudicatory proceedings (47 C.F.R. � 76.1003); 12) petition for exclusivity (47 C.F.R. � 76.1002); 13) carriage agreement adjudicatory proceeding (47 C.F.R. � 76.1302). Each type of petition or complaint has particular requirements regarding the conditions that must be satisfied before a filing can be made, who must be served with the filing, and the deadline time for a response. One reason for this variation is that our rules have been adopted over a period
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/1999/fcc99406.doc
  • cost justifications, but not anti-competitive practices such as illegal tying and bundling. The answer probably lies somewhere between these two interpretations and we trust the sometimes confused [Commission], as we often do, to properly divine the real intent of a sometimes confused Congress. 145 Cong. Rec. S15017 (daily ed. Nov. 19, 1999) (statement of Sen. Kohl). See 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(b) (program access standard); 47 C.F.R. � 76.1503(a) (open video system standard). See Review of the Commission's Regulations Governing Television Broadcasting, MM Docket No. 91-221, Television Satellite Stations Review of Policy and Rules, MM Docket No. 87-8, FCC 99-209 (rel. Aug. 6, 1999). Cf. Interconnection First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15576. S. 1948, the Intellectual Property and Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/da992968.doc
  • SPORTS DIRECT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. CSR-5412-P Adopted: December 20, 1999 Released: December 23, 1999 By the Chief, Consumer Protection and Competition Division, Cable Services Bureau: 1. EchoStar Satellite Corporation (``EchoStar'') filed a program access complaint pursuant to Section 628(c)(2)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 76.1002(b) of the Commission's rules against Fox/Liberty Networks, LLC, Fox Sports Net, LLC, and Fox Sports Direct (collectively ``Fox''). EchoStar alleged in its complaint that Fox unlawfully discriminated against EchoStar in prices and other terms and conditions for making available the regional sports programming of Fox Sports Arizona. Fox filed an answer and EchoStar filed a reply. 2. On December 9,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99024.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99024.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99024.wp
  • from improperly �influencing the decisions of the vendor with respect to the sale or delivery, including prices, terms, and �conditions of sale or delivery, of satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast programming to any � The rules also prohibit vertically integrated satellite programming distributors �from discriminating in the prices or terms and conditions of sale of satellite(c)delivered programming to � 76.1002(c). Relief may be granted pursuant to a Commission determination that specific � 76.1002(c)(4). In addition, exclusive arrangements �entered into prior to June 1, 1990, are "grandfathered," or exempt from the exclusivity prohibition, provided they � Those provisions of the program access rules that apply to "cable �operators" apply equally to any common carrier or its affiliate that provides video programming
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da000269.doc
  • ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: February 10, 2000 Released: February 14, 2000 By the Chief, Consumer Protection and Competition Division, Cable Services Bureau: 1. On December 30, 1999, EchoStar Satellite Corporation (``EchoStar") filed a program access complaint (the ``Complaint'') against Comedy Partners. In the Complaint, EchoStar alleged that Comedy Partners violated Section 628(b) of the Communications Act and Section 76.1002(b) of the Commission's rules by unlawfully discriminating against EchoStar in the rates and other terms and conditions pursuant to which it offers the cable programming service known as Comedy Central to EchoStar. EchoStar simultaneously filed a motion to stay the pleading cycle in order to allow the parties to attempt to negotiate a resolution of the program license dispute underlying
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00099.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00099.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00099.txt
  • anti-competitive practices such as illegal tying and bundling. The answer probably lies somewhere between these two interpretations and we trust the sometimes confused [Commission], as we often do, to properly divine the real intent of a sometimes confused Congress. 145 Cong. Rec. S15017 (daily ed. Nov. 19, 1999) (statement of Sen. Kohl). Notice at � 19; see 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(b) (program access standard); 47 C.F.R. � 76.1503(a) (open video system standard). Notice at � 19. DIRECTV Comments at 13-14; EchoStar Comments at 18. Several commenters assert that the Commission's program access and open video system rules provide an ideal model and suggest that only the following acts or practices constitute competitive marketplace considerations that a broadcaster may take into account
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00202.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00202.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00202.txt
  • at 4-5; Ameritech Comments at 19. Ameritech Comments at 19-23. Ameritech Comments at 18-19. 47 C.F.R. �� 76.1000-76.1004. 47 U.S.C. � 548. 1992 Cable Act � 2(a)(5). The attribution of corporate interests for purposes of the program access rules is determined under sections 76.501 and 76.1000(b) of the Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R. �� 76.501 n.2., 76.1000(b). 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(a). 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(b). This restriction is subject to certain limited exceptions. Id. 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(c). Relief may be granted pursuant to a Commission determination that specific exclusive arrangements are in the public interest. 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(c)(4). In addition, exclusive arrangements entered into prior to June 1, 1990, are "grandfathered," or exempt from the exclusivity prohibition, provided they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2001/fcc01012.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2001/fcc01012.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2001/fcc01012.txt
  • cable system headend. 47 C.F.R. �� 76.1000-76.1004; see also AT&T-MediaOne Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 9852-55 �� 77-83. 47 U.S.C. � 548. 1992 Cable Act � 2(a)(5). The attribution of corporate interests for purposes of the program access rules is determined under sections 76.501 and 76.1000(b) of the Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R. �� 76.501 n.2., 76.1000(b). 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(a). 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(b). This restriction is subject to certain limited exceptions. Id. 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(c). Relief may be granted pursuant to a Commission determination that specific exclusive arrangements are in the public interest. 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(c)(4). In addition, exclusive arrangements entered into prior to June 1, 1990, are "grandfathered," or exempt from the exclusivity prohibition, provided they
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc98335.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc98335.txt
  • matters resolved since the 1997 Report. All but one program access complaint dealt with exclusivity concerns rather than price discrimination issues. 766The Commission's program access rules are set forth at 47 C.F.R. �� 76.1000-76.1003, and the program carriage rules are set forth at 47 C.F.R. �� 76.1300-76.1302. See also 47 U.S.C. � 536(a)(2); 47 U.S.C. � 548. 76747 C.F.R. � 76.1002(b). 76847 C.F.R. � 76.1002(c)(2). 769See Section 19 of the 1992 Cable Act, Development of Competition and Diversity in Video Programming Distribution. See also 47 U.S.C. � 548. 770See Petition for Rulemaking of Ameritech New Media, Inc. Regarding Development of Competition and Diversity in Video Programming Distribution and Carriage, In the Matter of Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/1997/dd970711.html
  • certain Texas communities. Action by Chief, Consumer Protection and Competition Division, Cable Services Bureau. Adopted: July 3, 1997. by MO&O. (DA No. 97-1437). CSB Internet URL: [17]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1997/da971437.txt BELL ATLANTIC VIDEO SERVICES CO. V. RAINBOW PROGRAMMING HOLDINGS, INC., AND CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORP. Program Access Complaint, CSR-4983-P. Found that Rainbow Programming Holdings, Inc., violated the Commission's program access rules, 47 C.F.R. section 76.1002, and ordered the company to sell its SportsChannel New York programming on a nondiscriminatory basis to Bell Atlantic Video Services Co. for carriage on the Dover Township, New Jersey open video system operated by Bell Atlantic-New Jersey. Action by Chief, Cable Services Bureau. Adopted: July 10, 1997. by MO&O. (DA No. 97-1452). CSB Internet URL: [18]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1997/da971452.txt BEND, OREGON. Granted Sunriver
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2007/dd071002.html
  • at (202) 418-2325, email: Carmell.Weathers@fcc.gov or Kimberly Jackson at (202) 418-7393, email: Kimberly.Jackson@fcc.gov, TTY: (202) 418-0484 [13]DA-07-4111A1.doc [14]DA-07-4111A1.pdf [15]DA-07-4111A1.txt ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CABLE TELEVISION CONSUMER PROTECTION AND COMPETITION ACT OF 1992: SUNSET OF EXCLUSIVE CONTRACT PROHIBITION; REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S PROGRAM ACCESS RULES AND EXAMINATION OF PROGRAMMING TYING ARRANGEMENTS. Retained exclusive contract prohibition in Section 76.1002(c)(2) for five years, modified program access complaint procedures, and seeks comment on revisions to the program access and retransmission consent rules. (Dkt No. 07-29, 07-198). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 09/11/2007 by R&O/NPRM. (FCC No. 07-169). MB [16]FCC-07-169A1.doc [17]FCC-07-169A2.doc [18]FCC-07-169A3.doc [19]FCC-07-169A4.doc [20]FCC-07-169A5.doc [21]FCC-07-169A6.doc [22]FCC-07-169A1.pdf [23]FCC-07-169A2.pdf [24]FCC-07-169A3.pdf [25]FCC-07-169A4.pdf [26]FCC-07-169A5.pdf [27]FCC-07-169A6.pdf [28]FCC-07-169A1.txt [29]FCC-07-169A2.txt [30]FCC-07-169A3.txt [31]FCC-07-169A4.txt [32]FCC-07-169A5.txt [33]FCC-07-169A6.txt TELEPHONE NUMBER PORTABLITY, NUMBERING RESOURCES
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/76print.html
  • 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 access or security functions.
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/part76.pdf
  • 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. � 76.1204 Availability of equipment
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2002/01-1032.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2002/01-1032.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2002/01-1032.pdf
  • instructs the Commission to promulgate regulations to prevent a cable operator from "unduly or improperly influencing" the sales decisions of its affiliated satellite cable programming vendor, and to prohibit an affiliated satellite cable programming vendor from discriminating in the prices, terms, and conditions of sale or delivery of satellite cable programming, which the Commission has done, see 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002. The Cable Services Bureau denied EchoStar's complaint in its entirety. The Bureau held first that EchoStar's claims under the regulations -- based upon the Comcast affiliates' refusal to sell it SportsNet, and upon Comcast's unduly influencing its affiliates -- failed because SportsNet, being terrestrially distributed, is not "satellite cable programming." EchoStar Communications Corp. v. Comcast Corp., 14 F.C.C. Rcd. 2089,
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/att-comcast/jointdoc.pdf
  • of the cluster, if there are competitors. Please respond to part (2) of this question in an electronic spreadsheet format. 2. Please identify and describe all programming that each Applicant currently distributes to its cable systems terrestrially that, were it distributed via satellite, would be subject to the prohibition on exclusivity in the Commission's program access rule, 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(c)(2). Identify each cable system to which such programming is delivered and provide the number of subscribers in each area that receive such programming. Please respond to this question in an electronic spreadsheet format. 1 Declaration of Gregory Braden (Attachment to Reply Comments) at � 19. Document and Information Request MB Docket 02-70 June 11, 2002 2 3. Provide all documents
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/att-comcast/verizon_petdeny042902.pdf
  • equity in new or 43 See Merger Application at 42, 44. 44 See, e.g., Eighth Annual Video Competition Report, � 171. 45 Although the program access rules currently are intended to give competitors access to Comcast and AT&T Broadband's satellite-delivered video programming, these rules are scheduled to sunset on October 5, 2002. See 47 U.S.C. � 628(c)(5); 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(c)(6). Further, the program access rules do not cover terrestrially delivered programming. See Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses and Section 214 Authorizations by Time Warner Inc. and America Online, Inc., Transferors, to AOL Time Warner Inc., Transferee, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 6547, 6651-652 (2001); Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/echostar-directv/genmot3_reply022502.pdf
  • with Vivendi is hardly the type of relationship that should draw any concern from the Commission as having negative consequences for consumers. 304 Significantly, the Commission's cable program access rules are phrased in terms of a "cable operator that has an attributable interest in a satellite cable programming vendor. . . ." as opposed to vice versa. 47 C.F.R. � 76.1002(a)(emphasis added). While EchoStar has an option to acquire a 10% interest in the new programming services to be developed by Vivendi, this is strictly a potential investment in the potential economic upside from these services. Far from being inspired by any nefarious exclusionary intent, the agreement is conditioned on the services achieving significant penetration on other distribution platforms. 305 Vivendi