FCC Web Documents citing 76.503

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-577A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-577A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-577A1.txt
  • an administrative law judge pursuant to this paragraph. ***** Section 76.501 is amended by revising Note 5 to read as follows: § 76.501 Cross-ownership. ***** Note 5 to § 76.501: Certifications pursuant to this section and these notes shall be sent to the attention of the Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. ***** Section 76.503 is amended by revising Note 1 to read as follows: § 76.503 National subscriber limits. ***** Note 1 to § 76.503: Certifications made under this section shall be sent to the attention of the Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. ***** Section 76.630 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: §
• 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
  • OWNERSHIP OF CABLE SYSTEMS Brief Description: These rules restrict the ownership interests of cable operators and their ability to own or control video programming services. Need: These rules provide for diversity in the ownership of cable television systems and video programming providers. . Section Number and Title: 76.501 Cross-ownership. 76.502 Time limits applicable to franchise authority consideration of transfer applications. 76.503 National subscriber limits. 76.504 Limits on carriage of vertically integrated programming. SUBPART M -- CABLE INSIDE WIRING Brief Description: These rules allow subscribers the opportunity to acquire cable home wiring upon voluntary termination of service in order to use it for alternative providers and to avoid the disruption of having the wiring removed. Need: These rules are required by section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-210610A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-210610A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-210610A2.txt
  • Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 98-146, Second Report, FCC 00-290 (rel. Aug. 21, 2000) at ¶ 3 (``Second 706 Report'') (noting that ``[w]ith advanced telecommunications capability consumers can take advantage of advanced services that allow residential and business consumers to create and access content, sophisticated applications, and high-bandwidth services''). See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. §§ 533(f), 548; 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.503, 76.504, 76.1000-76.1004; AT&T-MediaOne Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 9835 ¶ 38. 47 U.S.C. § 521(4). 47 U.S.C. § 523(a). Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 663 (1994) (quoting United States v. Midwest Video Corp., 406 U.S. 649, 668 n.27 (1972)). Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 663 (1994); see also id., 512 U.S. at
• 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
  • diversity in the provision of video programming. Compliance With the Horizontal Ownership Certification Provision Consumers Union raises two procedural arguments to deny the merger and a collateral, but substantively related, request for forfeiture. First, Consumers Union argues that the Application is procedurally defective and should be dismissed because it does not contain a cable horizontal ownership certification pursuant to Section 76.503(c) of the Commission's rules, which was in effect at the time the Application was filed. The horizontal certification provision in effect at that time required cable operators that reach 20% or more of homes passed nationwide to certify, prior to acquiring additional systems, the percentage change in ownership resulting from such acquisition. Consumers Union argues that the former Section 76.503
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-221A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-221A1.txt
  • Act of 1992, CS Docket No. 98-82, Report and Order, FCC 99-288 (rel. Oct. 20, 1999) (Cable Attribution Order); and Review of the Commission's Regulations Governing Attribution of Broadcast and Cable/MDS Interests, MM Docket No. 94-150, Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd. 12559, 12582, para. 47 (1999) (Broadcast Attribution Order)). 228See 47 C.F.R. § 73.3555 Note 2(j); 47 C.F.R. § 76.503 Note 2(i). 229Broadcast Attribution Order at para. 47. Attribution is triggered under the broadcasting debt-equity-plus rule only when the requisite financial interest is coupled with one of two triggering relationships (major program supplier or same market media entity). Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-221 52 voices we seek to promote."230 Therefore, reflecting our view that relationships that offer potential for significant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-447A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-447A1.pdf
  • 99-251, Memorandum Opinion and Order (``Merger Order''), 15 FCC Rcd. 9816 (2000). The Order's ``Video Condition'' requires AT&T, by May 19, 2001, to either (a) divest its interests in TWE, (b) terminate its involvement in TWE's video programming activities (pursuant to the limited partnership exemption and the officers/directors attribution waiver provisions of the cable ownership attribution rules, 47 C.F.R. § 76.503 n.2), or (c) divest its interests in other cable systems, such that it will have attributable ownership interests in cable systems serving no more than 30% of MVPD subscribers nationwide. See Ordering Clause paragraph 186. See Letter from James W. Cicconi, General Counsel, AT&T Corp., to Deborah A. Lathen, Chief, FCC Cable Services Bureau dated Dec. 15, 2000; Letter from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-456A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-456A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-456A2.txt
  • and Order on Technical Streamlining, FCC 00-368, (rel. Nov. 1, 2000). 47 U.S.C. § 623(a)(2); 47 C.F.R. § 76.905 (a). 47 C.F.R. § 76.907. The Satellite Home Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA), Title I of the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999 (IPACORA), Pub. Law No. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501. Id. 47 U.S.C.§ 533. 47 C.F.R § 76.503. Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. v. United States of America, 211 F.3d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 2000). 47 U.S.C. § 534 (b)(4)(B). Carriage of the Transmissions of Digital Television Broadcast Stations, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 15092 (1998). Commercial Availability of Competitive Navigation Devices, Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 7596 (1999). General Instrument
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-12A1.doc
  • Authorizations from MediaOne Group, Inc., Transferor, to AT&T Corp., Transferee, CS Docket No. 99-251, AOL Comments at 12-17; In the Matter of Application for Consent to the Transfer of Licenses and Section 214 Authorizations from Tele-Communications, Inc, Transferor, to AT&T Corp., Transferee, CS Docket No. 98-178, AOL Comments at 30-39. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. §§ 533(f), 548; 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.503, 76.504, 76.1000-76.1004; AT&T-MediaOne Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 9835 ¶ 38. In the Matter of America Online, Inc. and Time Warner Inc.¸ FTC Docket No. C-3989, Agreement Containing Consent Orders; Decision and Order, 2000 WL 1843019 (FTC) (proposed Dec. 14, 2000) (``FTC Consent Agreement''). See Appendix A for a list of commenters in this proceeding. See Nondiscrimination in the Distribution
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-12A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-12A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-12A2.txt
  • Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 98-146, Second Report, FCC 00-290 (rel. Aug. 21, 2000) at ¶ 3 (``Second 706 Report'') (noting that ``[w]ith advanced telecommunications capability consumers can take advantage of advanced services that allow residential and business consumers to create and access content, sophisticated applications, and high-bandwidth services''). See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. §§ 533(f), 548; 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.503, 76.504, 76.1000-76.1004; AT&T-MediaOne Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 9835 ¶ 38. 47 U.S.C. § 521(4). 47 U.S.C. § 523(a). Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 663 (1994) (quoting United States v. Midwest Video Corp., 406 U.S. 649, 668 n.27 (1972)). Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 663 (1994); see also id., 512 U.S. at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-262A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-262A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-262A1.txt
  • depends on how advertisers respond to higher rates, and the proportion of total ``production'' costs that are accounted for by advertising expenditures. Ferguson, supra note 69, at 636. Belo Comments at 11-13; Chronicle Comments at 16; Gannett Comments at 22; Tribune Comments at 60-65. Time Warner Entertainment v. FCC, 240 F.3d 1126 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (Time Warner). 47 C.F.R. § 76.503. Id. at § 76.504. United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (1968). Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 662-63 (1994). Time Warner, 240 F.3d at 1130. Id. at 1133. Id. at 1135-1136. NCCB, 436 U.S. at 797. Biennial Review Report, 15 FCC Rcd at 11105, ¶ 88. Local TV Ownership Report & Order, 14 FCC Rcd
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-263A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-263A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-263A1.txt
  • cable programming. We request commenters to address how an open field limit could be crafted to adequately address elasticities of supply and demand, and take into account market power, rather than just measure market presence or share. We also ask commenters to address whether the Commission should consider a more stringent reporting requirement than that currently set forth in Section 76.503(g) for purposes of monitoring cable ownership levels. Finally, we seek comment in response to this discussion, and in response to the discussion below, with regard to how issues of diversity are properly weighed in our analysis. The court previously upheld the statute, thus sustaining it against constitutional challenge based on the governmental interests in promoting both competition and diversity. The
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-314A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-314A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-314A1.txt
  • against scrambling and encryption, and must comply with the public file requirements in connection with such waiver. 5. Section 76.1510 is revised to read as follows: § 76.1510 Application of certain Title VI provisions The following sections within Part 76 shall also apply to open video systems; §§ 76.71, 76.73, 76.75, 76.77, 76.79, 76.1702, and 76.1802 (Equal Employment Opportunity Requirements); §§76.503 and 76.504 (ownership restrictions); § 76.981 (negative option billing); and §§ 76.1300, 76.1301 and 76.1302 (regulation of carriage agreements); provided, however, that these sections shall apply to open video systems only to the extent that they do not conflict with this subpart S. Section 631 of the Communications Act (subscriber privacy) shall also apply to open video systems. 6. Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-47A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-47A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-47A1.txt
  • Competition Act of 1992 Horizontal OwnershipRules, Order on Reconsideration, MM Docket No. 92-264, 15 FCC Rcd 1167 (2000). The D.C. Circuit upheld Section 613(f)'s subscriber provision on May 19, 2000. See Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. v. United States, 211 F.3d 1313, 1315 (2000). Accordingly, cable operators were required to comply with the Commission's horizontal ownership limit, 47 C.F.R. § 76.503, by November 15, 2000. The Merger Order allowed AT&T an additional six months to come into compliance with section 76.503. See Merger Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 9848-50. CU's reply at 1. CU's petition at 7-19; CU's reply at 1-9. See n. 6, supra. SBC's comments address imposition of a mandated ``open access'' requirement as well. CU's petition at 7-8.
• 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
  • TWI will be jointly referred to herein as TWE. , infra. In order to avoid double-counting when combining the total subscribers of AT&T and TWE, we include the 1.48 million subscribers in AT&T's total subscriber count of 18.51 million subscribers, but we subtract them from TWE's total subscriber count of 12.8 million. The cable ownership attribution rules, 47 C.F.R. § 76.503 n.2, determine whether the size or type of an entity's ownership interest in a cable system is such that it confers on the entity the ability to influence or control the operations of the cable system or creates economic incentives to take actions that concern the Commission. See Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-37A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-37A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-37A1.txt
  • Remove Section 76.620. § 76.620 [removed] 8. Section 76.1510 is revised to include Section 76.611 as part of the requirements and should read as follows: § 76.1510 Application of certain Title VI provisions. The following sections within part 76 shall also apply to open video systems; §§ 76.71, 76.73, 76.75, 76.77, 76.79, 76.1702, and 76.1802 (Equal Employment Opportunity Requirements); §§ 76.503 and 76.504 (ownership restrictions); § 76.981 (negative option billing); and §§ 76.1300, 76.1301 and 76.1302 (regulation of carriage agreements); § 76.611 (signal leakage restrictions); provided, however, that these sections shall apply to open video systems only to the extent that they do not conflict with this subpart S. Section 631 of the Communications Act (subscriber privacy) shall also apply to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • the owners or originators (of programs or channels of programming) that distribute six or fewer channels of commonly-owned video programming over a leased transport facility. For purposes of this subpart, programming services are "commonly- owned" if the same entity holds a majority of the stock (or is a general partner) of each program service. * * * * * Section 76.503 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: § 76.503 National Subscriber Limits. * * * * * (e) "Multichannel video-programming subscribers" means subscribers who receive multichannel video-programming from cable systems, direct broadcast satellite services, direct-to-home satellite services, BRS/EBS, local multipoint distribution services, satellite master antenna television services (as defined in § 76.5(a)(2)), and open video systems. *
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-75A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-75A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-75A1.txt
  • [Removed and Reserved] 13. Section 76.1510 is revised to include Sections 76.611, 76.1803 and 76.1804 as part of the requirements and should read as follows: § 76.1510 Application of certain Title VI provisions. The following sections within part 76 shall also apply to open video systems; §§ 76.71, 76.73, 76.75, 76.77, 76.79, 76.1702, and 76.1802 (Equal Employment Opportunity Requirements); §§ 76.503 and 76.504 (ownership restrictions); § 76.981 (negative option billing); and §§ 76.1300, 76.1301 and 76.1302 (regulation of carriage agreements); § 76.611 (signal leakage restrictions); § 76.1803 and 76.1804 (signal leakage monitoring and aeronautical frequency notifications); provided, however, that these sections shall apply to open video systems only to the extent that they do not conflict with this subpart S. Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-96A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-96A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-96A1.txt
  • 12990, 991-993 ¶ 2, 4 (1998) (1998 Cable Attribution NPRM). The Commission also observed that the legislative history of the 1992 Act expressly suggested use of the broadcast attribution standard. 1998 Cable Attribution NPRM, 13 FCC Rcd at 12993 ¶ 4. The ``general'' cable attribution rules apply to such broad structural limitations as the horizontal ownership limits, 47 C.F.R. § 76.503; channel occupancy limits, 47 C.F.R. § 76.504; cable/SMATV cross-ownership, 47 C.F.R. § 76.501(d); and cable-telco buyout prohibition, 47 C.F.R. § 76.505. In contrast, for those rules implemented under the 1992 Act to deter specific improper practices and also to promote competition and diversity, such as commercial leased access and program access, the Commission adopted additional, stricter cable attribution standards. See
• 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
  • limit. None of the parties, however, presents persuasive evidence that Comcast's national reach will exceed the limit as a result of the transactions. Using a Commission 2004 figure for the total number of households served by cable systems, EchoStar asserts that Comcast will control access to more than 35% of the nation's cable subscribers. For purposes of compliance with section 76.503, however, the relevant measure is a cable operator's reach in terms of all MVPD subscribers, not cable subscribers. Free Press argues that both Time Warner and Comcast will have national subscriberships above 30% because all of Time Warner's cable systems should be attributed to Comcast, and vice versa. Free Press reasons that such cross-attribution is appropriate because the two companies
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-219A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-219A1.txt
  • attribution rules and by the Commission's ``discretion to review individual cases that present unusual issues on a case-by-case basis where it would serve the public interest to conduct such a review''? Cable Insulated Limited Partnership Criteria Under the insulated limited partnership or ``ILP'' criteria of the cable attribution rules, a limited partner can avoid attribution for purposes of Sections 76.501, 76.503, and 76.504 of the Commission's cable ownership rules if it is not ``materially involved'' in the management and operations of the partnership with respect to its video programming activities. ``Non-material'' involvement is permitted in some significant partnership activities, without attribution, so that limited partners can ensure that their investments are protected. More particularly, a limited partnership interest is not attributable
• 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
  • that we designate the Application for hearing. 47 U.S.C. § 309(e). See, e.g., Sirius-XM Merger Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 12364, ¶ 30; Liberty Media-DIRECTV Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3276, ¶ 22; SBC-AT&T Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 18300, ¶ 16; Verizon-MCI Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 18442-43, ¶ 16. See 47 C.F.R. § 76.504. See 47 C.F.R. § 76.503. See 47 C.F.R. § 73.3555(b). Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, P.L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (``1992 Act''), Communications Act § 613(f), 47 U.S.C. § 533(f). Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 579 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (finding that the rule capping the market share of any single cable television operator at 30 percent of all subscribers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-65A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-65A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-65A1.txt
  • one is available. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.1000-1004. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.1300-1302. See 47 C.F.R. § 76.56. See 47 C.F.R. § 76.64. See 47 U.S.C. § 541; 47 C.F.R. § 76.41. See 47 C.F.R. § 76.2000. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.801-806. See 47 C.F.R. § 76.1602. See 47 C.F.R. § 76.701. See 47 C.F.R. § 76.501, 47 C.F.R. § 76.503. A franchising authority may require a cable operator to use channel capacity for public, educational, or governmental (PEG) use. 47 U.S.C. § 531. DBS operators are required to reserve 4 percent of their channel capacity for noncommercial programming of an educational or informational nature. 47 C.F.R. § 25.701. See Comcast-NBCU Order at ¶ 3; EchoStar-DIRECTV HDO, 17 FCC Rcd at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-98-26A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-98-26A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-98-26A1.txt
  • daily newspaper in the same community, 47 C.F. R. § 73.3555; and prohibit the ownership of MMDS (or wireless cable systems) by cable systems in their franchise area, 47 C.F.R. § 21.912. A currently stayed rule prohibits any person from reaching, through owned or attributed cable systems, more than 30% of all homes passed nationwide by cable. 47 C.F.R. § 76.503. We note, however, that pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, we recently repealed all national ownership limits on radio broadcast stations and relaxed local radio broadcast station ownership limits. Implementation of Sections 202(a) and 202(b)(1) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Broadcast Radio Ownership)(Order), FCC 96-90 (1996). There are also pending rulemaking dockets in which questions have been raised
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/1999/nrcb9016.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/1999/nrcb9016.html http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/1999/nrcb9016.txt
  • today's Order reaffirms the 30% cap based on a fresh record. In the end, the issue of lifting the stay boils down to whether the Commission is serious about implementing Congress' express directive to establish reasonable horizontal ownership limits. Today's decision indicates that it is not. These rules apply to the following cable rules: horizontal ownership limits, 47 C.F.R. § 76.503; and channel occupancy limits, 47 C.F.R. § 76.504; cable/SMATV cross-ownership, 47 C.F.R. § 76.501(d); cable-telco buyout prohibition 47 C.F.R. § 76.505; and the effective competition test 47 C.F.R. § 76.905. These rules apply to the following cable rules: commercial leased access, 47 C.F.R. § 76.970; program access, 47 C.F.R. § 76.1000; carriage discrimination, 47 C.F.R. § 76.1300; open video systems,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/2001/fcc01263.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/2001/fcc01263.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/2001/fcc01263.txt
  • cable programming. We request commenters to address how an open field limit could be crafted to adequately address elasticities of supply and demand, and take into account market power, rather than just measure market presence or share. We also ask commenters to address whether the Commission should consider a more stringent reporting requirement than that currently set forth in Section 76.503(g) for purposes of monitoring cable ownership levels. Finally, we seek comment in response to this discussion, and in response to the discussion below, with regard to how issues of diversity are properly weighed in our analysis. The court previously upheld the statute, thus sustaining it against constitutional challenge based on the governmental interests in promoting both competition and diversity. The
• 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
  • Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications ÔCommission at 1. TCI filed the letter reporting the number of homes passed by its systems pursuant to the Ä proceeding, which requires operators Ôwhose systems reach 20% or more of the homes passed nationwide by cable operators to report the incremental ÃImplementation of r Ä, MM À 76 (1998) Ä also stayed the À 76.503) pending a decision by the ÔUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ("D.C. Circuit") on challenges to the rules and Ãsee Time Às horizontal Àno person or entity shall be permitted to reach more than 30% of all homes passed Ônationwide through cable systems owned by such person or entity or in which such person or
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99288.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99288.txt
  • of the influence that directors and officers have over an entity. Time Warner argues that the recusal standard for the officers and directors of a parent company with regard to a subsidiary is imprecise or overbroad. As a general matter, we believe that the recusal standard is appropriate. In addition to the guidance provided by the rule, 47 C.F.R. § 76.503(h) (officer or director's duties must be ``wholly unrelated to the broadcast licensee or cable television system subsidiary''), the Commission has provided interpretative guidance in a series of decisions. We have stated that parties must take steps to prevent ``the recused director from exercising authority or influence in areas that will affect'' the subsidiary. For example, we have approved steps where
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99289.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99289.txt
  • of the Horizontal Ownership Limit 36 VII. The Minority Control Allowance 66 VIII. Motion to Lift Stay of Enforcement of Horizontal Ownership Rules 71 IX. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 74 X. Paper Work Reduction Act 87 XI. Ordering Clauses 89 Appendix A: List of Commenters Appendix B: Rule Amendments INTRODUCTION This Third Report and Order resolves the issues regarding Section 76.503 of our rules (the ``horizontal ownership rules'') on which the Commission sought further comment in its Second Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``Second Order on Reconsideration'' and ``Further Notice'') issued in this proceeding. In the Second Order on Reconsideration, the Commission denied petitions to reconsider the horizontal ownership rules, which were adopted pursuant
• 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
  • diversity in the provision of video programming. Compliance With the Horizontal Ownership Certification Provision Consumers Union raises two procedural arguments to deny the merger and a collateral, but substantively related, request for forfeiture. First, Consumers Union argues that the Application is procedurally defective and should be dismissed because it does not contain a cable horizontal ownership certification pursuant to Section 76.503(c) of the Commission's rules, which was in effect at the time the Application was filed. The horizontal certification provision in effect at that time required cable operators that reach 20% or more of homes passed nationwide to certify, prior to acquiring additional systems, the percentage change in ownership resulting from such acquisition. Consumers Union argues that the former Section 76.503
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00447.doc
  • 99-251, Memorandum Opinion and Order (``Merger Order''), 15 FCC Rcd. 9816 (2000). The Order's ``Video Condition'' requires AT&T, by May 19, 2001, to either (a) divest its interests in TWE, (b) terminate its involvement in TWE's video programming activities (pursuant to the limited partnership exemption and the officers/directors attribution waiver provisions of the cable ownership attribution rules, 47 C.F.R. § 76.503 n.2), or (c) divest its interests in other cable systems, such that it will have attributable ownership interests in cable systems serving no more than 30% of MVPD subscribers nationwide. See Ordering Clause paragraph 186. See Letter from James W. Cicconi, General Counsel, AT&T Corp., to Deborah A. Lathen, Chief, FCC Cable Services Bureau dated Dec. 15, 2000; Letter from
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc98335.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc98335.txt
  • Report, 12 FCC Rcd at 4509-12 App. F, Tbl. F-1 1997 Report, 13 FCC Rcd at 1213-16 App. F, Tbl. F-1 with infra App. D, Tbl. D-1. 675Compare 1996 Report, 12 FCC Rcd at 4509-12 App. F, Tbl. F-1 1997 Report, 13 FCC Rcd at 1213-16 App. F, Tbl. F-1 with infra App. D, Tbl. D-1. 676See 47 C.F.R. § 76.503, 47 C.F.R. § 76.504. 677See 47 C.F.R. § 76.1000(b). 678Kent Gibbons, Glenn Jones Cashes In Now, Multichannel News, Aug. 17, 1998, at 1. 96 ratings, nine of the top 15 video programming services are vertically integrated, whereas seven of the top 15 services were vertically integrated in 1997 and eight of top 15 were vertically integrated in 1996.672 163. Vertical
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01262.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01262.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01262.txt
  • depends on how advertisers respond to higher rates, and the proportion of total ``production'' costs that are accounted for by advertising expenditures. Ferguson, supra note 69, at 636. Belo Comments at 11-13; Chronicle Comments at 16; Gannett Comments at 22; Tribune Comments at 60-65. Time Warner Entertainment v. FCC, 240 F.3d 1126 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (Time Warner). 47 C.F.R. § 76.503. Id. at § 76.504. United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (1968). Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 662-63 (1994). Time Warner, 240 F.3d at 1130. Id. at 1133. Id. at 1135-1136. NCCB, 436 U.S. at 797. Biennial Review Report, 15 FCC Rcd at 11105, ¶ 88. Local TV Ownership Report & Order, 14 FCC Rcd
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/biennial2000report.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/biennial2000report.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/biennial2000report.txt
  • Technical Streamlining Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 5282 n.43. 47 U.S.C. § 623(a)(2); 47 C.F.R. § 76.905 (a). 47 C.F.R. § 76.907. The Satellite Home Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA), Title I of the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999 (IPACORA), Pub. Law No. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501. Id. 47 U.S.C.§ 533. 47 C.F.R § 76.503. Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. v. United States of America, 211 F.3d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 2000). 47 U.S.C. § 534 (b)(4)(B). Carriage of the Transmissions of Digital Television Broadcast Stations, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 15092 (1998) Commercial Availability of Competitive Navigation Devices, Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 7596 (1999). General Instrument
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Speeches/Powell/Statements/2000/stmkp017.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Speeches/Powell/Statements/2000/stmkp017.html http://transition.fcc.gov/Speeches/Powell/Statements/2000/stmkp017.txt
  • a local market. See Section 202(a) & (b), Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, 110-11 (1996) (broadcast ownership); 47 C.F.R. § 73.3555(a) (1999) (same). See also 47 C.F.R. § 73.3555(b) (1999) (local television multiple ownership). See Section 202(c)(1); 47 C.F.R. § 73.3555(e) (1999). See 47 C.F.R. § 73.3555(c) & (d) (1999). See 47 C.F.R. § 76.503 (1999). See, e.g., In the Matter of Review of the Commission's Regulations Governing Television Broadcasting, Television Satellite Stations Review of Policy and Rules, MM Docket Nos. 91-221, 87-8, FCC 99-209, Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 12903, ¶¶ 1, 15 (1999) ("ultimate objectives of [the Commission's] ownership rules are to promote diversity and to foster economic competition. . ."); In
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Speeches/Tristani/Statements/2001/stgt121.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Speeches/Tristani/Statements/2001/stgt121.html http://transition.fcc.gov/Speeches/Tristani/Statements/2001/stgt121.txt
  • Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 98-146, Second Report, FCC 00-290 (rel. Aug. 21, 2000) at ¶ 3 (``Second 706 Report'') (noting that ``[w]ith advanced telecommunications capability consumers can take advantage of advanced services that allow residential and business consumers to create and access content, sophisticated applications, and high-bandwidth services''). See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. §§ 533(f), 548; 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.503, 76.504, 76.1000-76.1004; AT&T-MediaOne Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 9835 ¶ 38. 47 U.S.C. § 521(4). 47 U.S.C. § 523(a). Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 663 (1994) (quoting United States v. Midwest Video Corp., 406 U.S. 649, 668 n.27 (1972)). Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 663 (1994); see also id., 512 U.S. at
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/11/releases/deforder.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/11/releases/deforder.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/11/releases/deforder.wp
  • FCC Rcd at 3609-10 (citing Amendment of Multiple Ownership Rules, 18 FCC Rcd 288, 350 292-93 (1953)). 47 C.F.R. § 73.3555, n. 2. 351 Id. See also Attribution Notice, 10 FCC Rcd at 3628-30 (where the Commission sought comment on whether the 10 352 percent attribution level should be raised). 47 C.F.R. § 76.501, n. 2. 353 47 C.F.R. § 76.503(f). 354 47 C.F.R. § 76.504(h). 355 47 C.F.R. § 21.912(c), n. 1. 356 47 U.S.C. § 153(l). 357 55 conveys to its holder actual working control (including investor control) is already attributable under our rules. We believe generally, however, that even an entity that does not have de facto 347 or de jure control but owns a 20 percent or
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/1999/nrcb9016.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/1999/nrcb9016.html http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/1999/nrcb9016.txt
  • today's Order reaffirms the 30% cap based on a fresh record. In the end, the issue of lifting the stay boils down to whether the Commission is serious about implementing Congress' express directive to establish reasonable horizontal ownership limits. Today's decision indicates that it is not. These rules apply to the following cable rules: horizontal ownership limits, 47 C.F.R. § 76.503; and channel occupancy limits, 47 C.F.R. § 76.504; cable/SMATV cross-ownership, 47 C.F.R. § 76.501(d); cable-telco buyout prohibition 47 C.F.R. § 76.505; and the effective competition test 47 C.F.R. § 76.905. These rules apply to the following cable rules: commercial leased access, 47 C.F.R. § 76.970; program access, 47 C.F.R. § 76.1000; carriage discrimination, 47 C.F.R. § 76.1300; open video systems,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/2001/fcc01263.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/2001/fcc01263.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Notices/2001/fcc01263.txt
  • cable programming. We request commenters to address how an open field limit could be crafted to adequately address elasticities of supply and demand, and take into account market power, rather than just measure market presence or share. We also ask commenters to address whether the Commission should consider a more stringent reporting requirement than that currently set forth in Section 76.503(g) for purposes of monitoring cable ownership levels. Finally, we seek comment in response to this discussion, and in response to the discussion below, with regard to how issues of diversity are properly weighed in our analysis. The court previously upheld the statute, thus sustaining it against constitutional challenge based on the governmental interests in promoting both competition and diversity. The
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/err99289.doc
  • e. Paragraph 92 has been revised to read as follows: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 47 C.F.R. § 503(a)-(f) as set forth in Attachment B is STAYED until the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issues a decision upholding Section 613(f)(1)(A) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 533(f)(1)(A), and 47 C.F.R. § 76.503, and affected parties in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 503(a)-(f) will come into compliance within one hundred and eighty (180) days after the court issues its mandate. f. Paragraph 93 has been revised to read as follows: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that parties shall continue to comply with the reporting requirements of Section 503 of our rules, as modified by
• 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
  • Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications ÔCommission at 1. TCI filed the letter reporting the number of homes passed by its systems pursuant to the Ä proceeding, which requires operators Ôwhose systems reach 20% or more of the homes passed nationwide by cable operators to report the incremental ÃImplementation of r Ä, MM À 76 (1998) Ä also stayed the À 76.503) pending a decision by the ÔUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ("D.C. Circuit") on challenges to the rules and Ãsee Time Às horizontal Àno person or entity shall be permitted to reach more than 30% of all homes passed Ônationwide through cable systems owned by such person or entity or in which such person or
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99288.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99288.txt
  • of the influence that directors and officers have over an entity. Time Warner argues that the recusal standard for the officers and directors of a parent company with regard to a subsidiary is imprecise or overbroad. As a general matter, we believe that the recusal standard is appropriate. In addition to the guidance provided by the rule, 47 C.F.R. § 76.503(h) (officer or director's duties must be ``wholly unrelated to the broadcast licensee or cable television system subsidiary''), the Commission has provided interpretative guidance in a series of decisions. We have stated that parties must take steps to prevent ``the recused director from exercising authority or influence in areas that will affect'' the subsidiary. For example, we have approved steps where
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99289.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99289.txt
  • of the Horizontal Ownership Limit 36 VII. The Minority Control Allowance 66 VIII. Motion to Lift Stay of Enforcement of Horizontal Ownership Rules 71 IX. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 74 X. Paper Work Reduction Act 87 XI. Ordering Clauses 89 Appendix A: List of Commenters Appendix B: Rule Amendments INTRODUCTION This Third Report and Order resolves the issues regarding Section 76.503 of our rules (the ``horizontal ownership rules'') on which the Commission sought further comment in its Second Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``Second Order on Reconsideration'' and ``Further Notice'') issued in this proceeding. In the Second Order on Reconsideration, the Commission denied petitions to reconsider the horizontal ownership rules, which were adopted pursuant
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da000077.doc
  • (Nov. 24, 1999). See Public Notice, ``AT&T Corp. and MediaOne Group, Inc. File Submission on Compliance with New Cable Ownership Rules,'' DA 99-2661 (Nov. 30, 1999) (``Public Notice''). See Reply Comments of AT&T Corp. and MediaOne Group, Inc. at 30 (Dec. 21, 1999) (requesting Commission to waive the ``program sale prong'' of the insulated limited partnership exemption, 47 C.F.R. § 76.503 n.2(b)(2)). CU Motion at 4. See CU Motion at 3-4; Opp. of AT&T and MediaOne at 3-5. See CU Motion at 4. See Public Notice at 2-3. See id. Federal Communications Commission DA 00-77 - \ \ u y z y z 3 3 <
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da000978.doc
  • Chief, Cable Services Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we initiate enforcement action against AT&T Corp. (``AT&T''), pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules. For the reasons discussed below, we find that AT&T, and its predecessor Tele-Communications, Inc. (``TCI''), apparently willfully and repeatedly violated former Section 76.503(c) of the Commission's rules. Section 76.503(c), in effect at the time of the conduct at issue here, required cable operators that reach 20% or more of homes passed by cable nationwide to certify, prior to acquiring additional systems, the percentage change in ownership resulting from such acquisition. AT&T and TCI violated this rule by failing to file certifications prior to
• 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
  • diversity in the provision of video programming. Compliance With the Horizontal Ownership Certification Provision Consumers Union raises two procedural arguments to deny the merger and a collateral, but substantively related, request for forfeiture. First, Consumers Union argues that the Application is procedurally defective and should be dismissed because it does not contain a cable horizontal ownership certification pursuant to Section 76.503(c) of the Commission's rules, which was in effect at the time the Application was filed. The horizontal certification provision in effect at that time required cable operators that reach 20% or more of homes passed nationwide to certify, prior to acquiring additional systems, the percentage change in ownership resulting from such acquisition. Consumers Union argues that the former Section 76.503
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/fcc00447.doc
  • 99-251, Memorandum Opinion and Order (``Merger Order''), 15 FCC Rcd. 9816 (2000). The Order's ``Video Condition'' requires AT&T, by May 19, 2001, to either (a) divest its interests in TWE, (b) terminate its involvement in TWE's video programming activities (pursuant to the limited partnership exemption and the officers/directors attribution waiver provisions of the cable ownership attribution rules, 47 C.F.R. § 76.503 n.2), or (c) divest its interests in other cable systems, such that it will have attributable ownership interests in cable systems serving no more than 30% of MVPD subscribers nationwide. See Ordering Clause paragraph 186. See Letter from James W. Cicconi, General Counsel, AT&T Corp., to Deborah A. Lathen, Chief, FCC Cable Services Bureau dated Dec. 15, 2000; Letter from
• 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
  • Authorizations from MediaOne Group, Inc., Transferor, to AT&T Corp., Transferee, CS Docket No. 99-251, AOL Comments at 12-17; In the Matter of Application for Consent to the Transfer of Licenses and Section 214 Authorizations from Tele-Communications, Inc, Transferor, to AT&T Corp., Transferee, CS Docket No. 98-178, AOL Comments at 30-39. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. §§ 533(f), 548; 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.503, 76.504, 76.1000-76.1004; AT&T-MediaOne Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 9835 ¶ 38. In the Matter of America Online, Inc. and Time Warner Inc.¸ FTC Docket No. C-3989, Agreement Containing Consent Orders; Decision and Order, 2000 WL 1843019 (FTC) (proposed Dec. 14, 2000) (``FTC Consent Agreement''). See Appendix A for a list of commenters in this proceeding. See Nondiscrimination in the Distribution
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc98335.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc98335.txt
  • Report, 12 FCC Rcd at 4509-12 App. F, Tbl. F-1 1997 Report, 13 FCC Rcd at 1213-16 App. F, Tbl. F-1 with infra App. D, Tbl. D-1. 675Compare 1996 Report, 12 FCC Rcd at 4509-12 App. F, Tbl. F-1 1997 Report, 13 FCC Rcd at 1213-16 App. F, Tbl. F-1 with infra App. D, Tbl. D-1. 676See 47 C.F.R. § 76.503, 47 C.F.R. § 76.504. 677See 47 C.F.R. § 76.1000(b). 678Kent Gibbons, Glenn Jones Cashes In Now, Multichannel News, Aug. 17, 1998, at 1. 96 ratings, nine of the top 15 video programming services are vertically integrated, whereas seven of the top 15 services were vertically integrated in 1997 and eight of top 15 were vertically integrated in 1996.672 163. Vertical
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01262.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01262.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01262.txt
  • depends on how advertisers respond to higher rates, and the proportion of total ``production'' costs that are accounted for by advertising expenditures. Ferguson, supra note 69, at 636. Belo Comments at 11-13; Chronicle Comments at 16; Gannett Comments at 22; Tribune Comments at 60-65. Time Warner Entertainment v. FCC, 240 F.3d 1126 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (Time Warner). 47 C.F.R. § 76.503. Id. at § 76.504. United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (1968). Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 662-63 (1994). Time Warner, 240 F.3d at 1130. Id. at 1133. Id. at 1135-1136. NCCB, 436 U.S. at 797. Biennial Review Report, 15 FCC Rcd at 11105, ¶ 88. Local TV Ownership Report & Order, 14 FCC Rcd
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2000/dd000502.html
  • Inc. d/b/a Opticom a limited waiver of the authorization and verification requirements of the Commission's rules and Carrier Change Orders. Action by Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau. Adopted: May 1, 2000. by Order. (DA No. 00-975). CCB Internet URL: [13]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000975.doc AT&T CORPORATION. Found AT&T apparently liable for forfeiture in the amount of $9,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating former Section 76.503(c) of the Commission's rules By Notice of Apparent Liability. Action by Chief, Cable Services Bureau. Adopted: May 1, 2000. by Order. (DA No. 00-978). CSB Internet URL: [14]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da000978.doc IN THE MATTER OF AMENDMENT OF SECTION 73.202(B), TABLE OF ALLOTMENTS, FM BROADCAST STATIONS, (ANNISTON AND ASHLAND, ALABAMA, AND COLLEGE PARK, COVINGTON, MILLEDGEVILLE, AND SOCIAL CIRCLE, GEORGIA. Erratum to R&O (DA 00-322)
• http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Powell/Statements/2000/stmkp017.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Powell/Statements/2000/stmkp017.html http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Powell/Statements/2000/stmkp017.txt
  • a local market. See Section 202(a) & (b), Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, 110-11 (1996) (broadcast ownership); 47 C.F.R. § 73.3555(a) (1999) (same). See also 47 C.F.R. § 73.3555(b) (1999) (local television multiple ownership). See Section 202(c)(1); 47 C.F.R. § 73.3555(e) (1999). See 47 C.F.R. § 73.3555(c) & (d) (1999). See 47 C.F.R. § 76.503 (1999). See, e.g., In the Matter of Review of the Commission's Regulations Governing Television Broadcasting, Television Satellite Stations Review of Policy and Rules, MM Docket Nos. 91-221, 87-8, FCC 99-209, Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 12903, ¶¶ 1, 15 (1999) ("ultimate objectives of [the Commission's] ownership rules are to promote diversity and to foster economic competition. . ."); In
• http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Tristani/Statements/2001/stgt121.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Tristani/Statements/2001/stgt121.html http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Tristani/Statements/2001/stgt121.txt
  • Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 98-146, Second Report, FCC 00-290 (rel. Aug. 21, 2000) at ¶ 3 (``Second 706 Report'') (noting that ``[w]ith advanced telecommunications capability consumers can take advantage of advanced services that allow residential and business consumers to create and access content, sophisticated applications, and high-bandwidth services''). See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. §§ 533(f), 548; 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.503, 76.504, 76.1000-76.1004; AT&T-MediaOne Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 9835 ¶ 38. 47 U.S.C. § 521(4). 47 U.S.C. § 523(a). Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 663 (1994) (quoting United States v. Midwest Video Corp., 406 U.S. 649, 668 n.27 (1972)). Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 663 (1994); see also id., 512 U.S. at
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/76print.html
  • Candidate rates. [53]76.209 Fairness doctrine; personal attacks; political editorials. [54]76.213 Lotteries. [55]76.225 Commercial limits in children's programs. [56]76.227 [Reserved] Subpart H -- General Operating Requirements [57]76.309 Customer service obligations. Subpart I -- Forms and Reports [58]76.403 Cable television system reports. Subpart J -- Ownership of Cable Systems [59]76.501 Cross-ownership. [60]76.502 Time limits applicable to franchise authority consideration of transfer applications. [61]76.503 National subscriber limits. [62]76.504 Limits on carriage of vertically integrated programming. [63]76.505 Prohibition on buy outs. Subpart K -- Technical Standards [64]76.601 Performance tests. [65]76.605 Technical standards. [66]76.606 Closed captioning. [67]76.609 Measurements. [68]76.610 Operation in the frequency bands 108-137 and 225-400 MHz -- scope of application. [69]76.611 Cable television basic signal leakage performance criteria. [70]76.612 Cable television frequency separation standards.
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/part76.pdf
  • 76.209 Fairness doctrine; personal attacks; political editorials. § 76.213 Lotteries. § 76.225 Commercial limits in children's programs. § 76.227 [Reserved] Subpart H-General Operating Requirements § 76.309 Customer service obligations. Subpart I-Forms and Reports § 76.403 Cable television system reports. Subpart J-Ownership of Cable Systems § 76.501 Cross-ownership. § 76.502 Time limits applicable to franchise authority consideration of transfer applications. § 76.503 National subscriber limits. § 76.504 Limits on carriage of vertically integrated programming. § 76.505 Prohibition on buy outs. Page 2of 243 Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: 5/6/2011 http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=a0b1c7045abd9e3f08f6d3233a640e58&rg... Subpart K-Technical Standards § 76.601 Performance tests. § 76.602 Incorporation by reference. § 76.605 Technical standards. § 76.606 Closed captioning. § 76.609 Measurements. § 76.610 Operation in the frequency bands 108­137 and
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/94-1035.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/94-1035.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/94-1035.pdf
  • The second type is vertical, addressing operators' integration with "programmers" (suppliers of programs to be carried over cable systems): "limits on the number of channels on a cable system that can be occupied by a video programmer in which a cable operator has an attributable interest." 47 U.S.C. § 533(f)(a)(1)(B). The FCC has duly promulgated regulations. See 47 C.F.R. § 76.503-04. Petitioners Time Warner and AT&T challenge the horizontal limit as in excess of statutory authority, as unconstitutional infringements of their freedom of speech, and as products of arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking which violate the Administrative Procedure Act. Time Warner similarly challenges the vertical limit. Together with AT&T, Time Warner also challenges as arbitrary and capricious the rules for determining what
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/aol-tw/aol-tw_rc051100.pdf
  • except in the most limited circumstances. Even after conversion to a GM common stock that tracks the economic performance of Hughes, AOL's interest would still not be attributable under any even potentially relevant FCC attribution rule; for example, AOL's voting interest would be significantly below the 5 percent threshold for attribution under the horizontal ownership provision. See 47 C.F.R. § 76.503. 40 implicate any of the Commission's MVPD or video programming-related concerns. Although no commenter seriously questions the conclusion that this interest would not be attributed to the merged company, the American Cable Association ("ACA") and MAP nevertheless call for the Commission to require AOL to divest this interest as a condition on approval of the merger.107 Neither MAP nor ACA
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/att-comcast/comcast_appli022802.pdf
  • regard to any vote on the admission of new general partners to TWE;117 (5) has no rights to remove TWE general partners; (6) does not perform any 115 See Implementation of Section 11(c) of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992; Horizontal Ownership Limits, 14 FCC Rcd 19014, ¶ 57 n.163 (1999). 116 See 47 C.F.R. § 76.503 (note 2(c)). 117 See TWE LPA § 12.1(c)(i)(G). The admission of a new general partner requires the consent of both AOL Time Warner's and AT&T Broadband's representatives on the TWE Board of Representatives. Consequently, AOL Time Warner may exercise veto power over the admission of any new general partner by simply refusing to approve such admission. 62 services for TWE
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/ltrfromaoltw062600.doc http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/ltrfromaoltw062600.pdf
  • Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20006 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 719-4232 (202) 939-7900 Counsel for America Online, Inc. Counsel for Time Warner Inc. 120922.2 In the Matter of Applications of America Online, Inc. and Time Warner Inc. for Transfers of Control, CS Docket No. 00-30, Order Adopting Protective Order, DA 00-780 (CSB April 6, 2000). See 47 C.F.R. § 76.503. See Excerpts from General Motors Corporation Offer to Exchange 1.065 Shares of Class H Common Stock for each share of $1 2/3 Par Value Common Stock, at 117 (``Exchange Offer''). The complete document is available at . Id. AOL is entitled to vote on amendments or alterations to any provision of the GM Restated Certificate of Incorporation or the