FCC Web Documents citing 76.65

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

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-128A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-128A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-128A1.txt
  • may not provide sufficient incentive to the D Block winning bidder to meet the needs of public safety. We therefore invite commenters that advocate this option to discuss these concerns and how they might be addressed. For example, should we establish a specific standard for what will constitute an act of bad faith, similar to the standard incorporated at Section 76.65(b) of our rules? We further seek comment on whether, instead of eliminating binding adjudication, we should modify its application or scope. For example, should we limit the issues of adjudication to the requirements specified in our rules? If so, what rules should apply to disputes regarding other terms? Alternatively, should we adopt a specific measure, such as a presumption that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1865A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1865A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1865A1.txt
  • Angeles, Inc. And KCAL-TV ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. CSR-5655-C Adopted: August 2, 2001 Released: August 6, 2001 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau: INTRODUCTION EchoStar Satellite Corporation (``EchoStar'') has filed a retransmission consent complaint against the above-captioned parties (collectively, ``Young''), pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.65 of the Commission's rules. EchoStar alleges that Young has breached its obligation to negotiate in good faith terms for EchoStar's local retransmission of Young's ABC affiliate, WKRN, in Nashville, Tennessee and its NBC affiliate, KRON, in San Francisco, California. EchoStar's complaint arises out of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (``SHVIA''). The SHVIA authorizes satellite carriers to offer
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-102A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-102A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-102A1.txt
  • in a manner that would unduly delay the course of negotiations and asserts that, despite repeated communications by DirecTV during the course of the summer and fall of 2000, Paxson refused to respond substantively to any of its inquires requesting comments or status with respect to execution of a Definitive Agreement. Id. at 3 and 12, citing 47 C.F.R. � 76.65(b)(1)(C). Federal Communications Commission DA 02-102 Federal Communications Commission DA 02-102 Federal Communications Commission DA 02-102 C D  �� 8 ���� ��
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2864A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2864A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2864A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( DA 03-2864 MEDIA BUREAU ACTION CORRECTION TO SECTION 76.65 RULES PERTAINING TO GOOD FAITH AND EXCLUSIVE RETRANSMISSION CONSENT COMPLAINTS I. CS DOCKET NO. 99-363 On March 14, 2000, the Commission adopted the First Report and Order, CS Docket No. 99-363 (FCC 00-99) (2000). In the First Report and Order, the Commission adopted Section 76.65 as a final rule for good faith and exclusive retransmission consent complaints. A summary of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2297A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2297A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2297A1.txt
  • Macon, Georgia v. Monroe, Georgia Water Light and Gas Commission d/b/a Monroe Utilities Network ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR No. 6237-C CSR No. 6254-C Adopted: July 23, 2004 Released: July 27, 2004 By the Deputy Chief, Media Bureau: INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.65 of the Commission's rules, the Monroe, Georgia Water Light and Gas Commission, d/b/a Monroe Utilities Network (``Monroe Utilities''), a municipally-owned cable operator serving incorporated and unincorporated portions of Walton and Morgan Counties, Georgia, has filed a retransmission consent complaint and petition for declaratory ruling (``Monroe Utilities Complaint'') against Morris Network, Inc. (``Morris''), owner of television station WMGT (NBC Ch. 41),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-133A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-133A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-133A1.txt
  • media information 202/418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202/418-2830 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov MEDIA BUREAU ACTION January 19, 2005 Media Bureau Sets Expedited Pleading Cycle in Retransmission Consent Complaint filed by Horry Telephone Cooperative, Inc. against GE Media, Inc., Licensee of Television Station WFXB Horry Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (``HTC'') filed an Emergency Complaint pursuant to Section 325 of the Communications Act and Sections 76.64 and 76.65 of the Commission's rules alleging that GE Media, Inc. (``GE Media''), licensee of television broadcast station WFXB (Myrtle Beach, SC), violated the prohibition on exclusive retransmission consent agreements as well as the statutory obligation to negotiate in good faith for retransmission consent of WFXB's digital television (``DTV'') signal. HTC alleges that GE Media has entered into a prohibited exclusive retransmission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-136A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-136A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-136A1.txt
  • Horry Telephone Cooperative, Inc. v. GE Media, Inc., Licensee of WFXB ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER Adopted: January 26, 2005 Released: January 27, 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: On January 18, 2005, Horry Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (``HTC'') filed an Emergency Complaint pursuant to Section 325 of the Communications Act and Sections 76.64 and 76.65 of the Commission's rules alleging that GE Media, Inc. (``GE Media''), licensee of television broadcast station WFXB (Myrtle Beach, SC), violated the prohibition on exclusive retransmission consent agreements as well as the statutory obligation to negotiate in good faith for retransmission consent of WFXB's digital television (``DTV'') signal. HTC alleged that GE Media has entered into a prohibited exclusive retransmission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2452A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2452A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2452A1.txt
  • This extension does not affect the rights of any stations who have already exercised their carriage elections or of any cable or satellite operators who have already entered into carriage agreements. We remind broadcasters, cable operators and satellite carriers of their obligation to negotiate retransmission consent in good faith in accordance with Section 325(b)(3)(C) of the Communications Act and Section 76.65 of the Commission's rules. Lastly, we strongly encourage the parties to expiring retransmission consent agreements in these DMAs to agree to extensions during the emergency's aftermath to maintain the flow of vital information to the public. For additional information on this matter, please contact Ronald Parver at (202) 418-7200. Action by the Acting Chief, Media Bureau. - FCC - PUBLIC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2534A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2534A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2534A1.txt
  • This extension does not affect the rights of any stations who have already exercised their carriage elections or of any cable or satellite operators who have already entered into carriage agreements. We remind broadcasters, cable operators and satellite carriers of their obligation to negotiate retransmission consent in good faith in accordance with Section 325(b)(3)(C) of the Communications Act and Section 76.65 of the Commission's rules. Lastly, we strongly encourage the parties to expiring retransmission consent agreements in these DMAs to agree to extensions during the emergency's aftermath to maintain the flow of vital information to the public. For additional information on this matter, please contact Ronald Parver at (202) 418-7200. Action by the Acting Chief, Media Bureau. - FCC - PUBLIC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2996A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2996A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2996A1.txt
  • 2005 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: On January 20, 2005, CoxCom, Inc., Cox Southwest Holdings, L.P., Cox Communications Louisiana, LLC and TCA Cable Partners (collectively ``Cox'') filed a Complaint for Enforcement against Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. (``Nexstar'') and Mission Broadcasting, Inc. (``Mission'') pursuant to Section 325(b)(3)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 76.7 and 76.65 of the Commission's rules. Cox alleged that Nexstar and Mission violated Section 325(b)(3)(C) of the Communications Act and Section 76.65 of the Commission's rules by failing to negotiate in good faith for the renewal of retransmission consent agreements relating to a number of their local broadcast television stations carried on Cox cable systems. On November 3, 2005, citing the successful
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1098A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1098A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1098A1.txt
  • Mediacom failed to respond to its mandatory carriage request. W62DE maintains that this complaint is timely filed within 60 days of November 16, 2005, the date by which Mediacom was required to respond to W62DE's October 17, 2005 letter. W62DE asserts that it is eligible for carriage on Mediacom's cable system because it meets each of the requirements of Section 76.65(d) of the Commission's rules. Specifically, W62DE asserts that it broadcasts 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. It also contends that it is within 35 miles of the cable system's principal headend and that it delivers a good quality signal to that headend as recently verified by Mediacom's local manager in Tifton. W62DE also states that its community of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1137A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1137A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Adopted: June 2, 2006 Released: June 5, 2006 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Guadalupe Valley Communications Systems, L.P. (``GVCS'') filed a retransmission consent complaint against Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc. and its subsidiary Post-Newsweek Stations, San Antonio, LP, licensee of KSAT-TV, San Antonio, TX (collectively ``KSAT''), pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.65 of the Commission's rules. GVCS alleged that KSAT refused to negotiate in good faith with GVCS for consent to retransmit KSAT's digital signal. On May 16, 2006, KSAT informed the Commission that the parties entered into a retransmission consent agreement on December 19, 2005 that resolved the pending matter. KSAT requested that the retransmission consent complaint be dismissed. Accordingly, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-140A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-140A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-140A1.txt
  • to Withdraw Complaint ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-6928-C ORDER Adopted: January 24, 2006 Released: January 25, 2006 By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: On October 3, 2005, MetroCast Cablevision of New Hampshire, LLC (``MetroCast'') filed with the Commission a retransmission consent complaint against Viacom, Inc. (``Viacom''), pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 76.65. In a Joint Motion to Withdraw Complaint, filed on January 19, 2006, MetroCast and Viacom state that they have engaged in negotiations for retransmission consent for WBZ and WSBK. The parties jointly seek to withdraw MetroCast's complaint and ask the Commission to terminate this proceeding. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw Complaint filed by MetroCast and Viacom
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1454A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1454A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1454A1.txt
  • EX PARTE PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED FOR CEBRIDGE ACQUISITION, LLC d/b/a SUDDENLINK COMMUNICATIONS' EMERGENCY RETRANSMISSION CONSENT COMPLAINT (CSR 7038-C) AS WELL AS FOR SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC.'S EMERGENCY PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING AND FOR IMMEDIATE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CSR 7039-C) On July 5, 2006, Cebridge Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Suddenlink Communications (``Suddenlink'') filed an Emergency Retransmission Consent Complaint (``Complaint'') pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.65 of the Commission's rules. Suddenlink's Complaint alleges that Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (``Sinclair'') violated its duty to negotiate retransmission consent in good faith for two Charleston, West Virginia television broadcast stations, WCHS-TV (ABC) and WVAH-TV (Fox) (the ``Stations''). In addition, Suddenlink alleges that Sinclair has demanded that Suddenlink terminate retransmission of the Stations during a ``sweeps'' period in violation of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2274A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2274A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2274A1.txt
  • days after submission of the responsive pleading. On November 2, 2006, Mediacom filed an Emergency Request for Designation as ``Permit-But-Disclose'' Proceeding and for Ex Parte Contacts in connection with its Complaint. On November 3, 2006, Sinclair filed an Opposition to Emergency Request for Designation as ``Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding and for Ex Parte Contacts. Although a retransmission consent complaint pursuant to Section 76.65 is ordinarily treated as a ``restricted'' proceeding in which ex parte presentations are generally prohibited pursuant to Section 1.1208 of the Commission's rules, the Commission, or its staff pursuant to delegated authority, under Section 1.1200(a), may adopt modified ex parte procedures in particular proceedings ``where the public interest so requires.'' Mediacom's Complaint raises time sensitive policy issues as to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-994A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-994A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-994A1.txt
  • has no right to assert mandatory carriage during this election cycle. 8. A commercial television station, however, that fails to make an election regarding satellite carriage defaults to retransmission consent status.27 WMBC indicates that it has entered into retransmission consent negotiations with DirecTV, during which WMBC maintains that DirecTV has failed to negotiate in good faith as required by Section 76.65 of the Commission's rules.28 If WMBC believes that DirecTV has not met its obligations under the Commission's rules, it may file a complaint with the Commission. If WMBC files a complaint, it should fully state the facts and circumstances surrounding its allegations. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 338 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1264A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1264A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1264A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit DA 07-1264 Released: March 13, 2007 Jorge L. Bauermeister Counsel for Choice Cable T.V. VIG Tower 1225 Ponce de Leon Ave. Suite 1505 Santurce, PR 00907 Re: CSR No. 7059-C Dear Mr. Bauermeister: WLII/WSUR Licensee Partnership, G.P. (``WLII/WSUR'') filed an Emergency Petition Seeking Enforcement Order for Violation of Sections 76.65, 76.1601, and 76.1603 of the Commission's Rules and for Immediate Injunctive Relief (``Petition'') against your client, Choice Cable T.V. (``Choice''). Among other allegations, WLII/WSUR asserts that Choice has failed to negotiate in good faith in the context of retransmission consent negotiations in violation of the Commission's rules. Section 76.65 of the Commission's rules imposes a duty on television broadcast stations
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) CSR-7058-C Adopted: January 4, 2007 Released: January 4, 2007 By the Chief, Media Bureau: INTRODUCTION On October 31, 2006, Mediacom Communications Corporation (``Mediacom'') filed an Emergency Retransmission Consent Complaint and Complaint for Enforcement for Failure to Negotiate Retransmission Consent Rights in Good Faith (``Complaint'') against Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (``Sinclair''), pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.65 of the Commission's rules. Mediacom alleges that Sinclair violated its duty to negotiate retransmission consent in good faith for carriage of certain Sinclair owned and/or operated local broadcast television stations (the ``Stations''). Mediacom requests that the Commission find Sinclair in violation of its obligation to negotiate in good faith for retransmission consent, direct Sinclair to immediately commence negotiations in good
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-66A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-66A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-66A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) CSR-7058-C ORDER Adopted: January 12, 2007 Released: January 12, 2007 By the Chief, Media Bureau: 1. On October 31, 2006, Mediacom Communications Corporation (``Mediacom'') filed an Emergency Retransmission Consent Complaint and Complaint for Enforcement for Failure to Negotiate Retransmission Consent Rights in Good Faith (``Complaint'') against Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (``Sinclair''), pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.65 of the Commission's rules. On January 4, 2007, the Media Bureau issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order finding no violation of the Commission's rules and denying Mediacom's Complaint. Prior to the ruling by the Media Bureau, Mediacom filed a Supplement to ``Request for Order Permitting Interim Carriage of Sinclair Stations and Request for Expedited Treatment'' (``Supplement''). In its Supplement, Mediacom
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2396A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2396A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2396A1.txt
  • and that ``an open discourse with all parties present, rather than a series of one-sided presentations, is the best way to insure that the Commission understands the issues.'' On November 5, 2009, Mediacom filed a Reply to the Opposition arguing that Sinclair's reasons for maintaining ``restricted'' ex parte status are not persuasive. Although a retransmission consent complaint pursuant to Section 76.65 is ordinarily treated as a ``restricted'' proceeding in which ex parte presentations are generally prohibited pursuant to Section 1.1208 of the Commission's rules, the Commission, or its staff pursuant to delegated authority, under Section 1.1200(a), may adopt modified ex parte procedures in particular proceedings ``where the public interest so requires.'' Mediacom's Complaint and its Petition for Interim Carriage raise time
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-246A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-246A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-246A1.txt
  • February 18, 2009 Released: February 18, 2009 By the Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau: Introduction On August 15, 2008, ATC Broadband LLC and Dixie Cable TV, Inc. (collectively ``ATC Broadband'') filed a retransmission consent complaint and petition for declaratory ruling against Gray Television Licensee, Inc., licensee of television station WSWG-DT, Valdosta, Georgia (``WSWG'') pursuant to Sections 76.7 and 76.65 of the Commission's Rules. WSWG is a CBS affiliate serving the Albany, Georgia Designated Market Area (``DMA''). ATC Broadband sought to retransmit WSWG outside the station's DMA on ATC Broadband's cable systems serving communities in the Savannah, Georgia and Jacksonville, Florida DMAs. ATC Broadband alleges WSWG failed to negotiate with it in good faith for retransmission consent by abruptly ending
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-230A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-230A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-230A1.txt
  • Bureau Letter, our precedent confirms that stations must make elections for each triennial carriage cycle. See Mountain Broad. Corp. v. DirecTV, 21 FCC Rcd 5094, 5097, � 7 (2006). (enter zip codes corresponding to areas in Harrisburg, Lancaster, Lebanon, or York, Pennsylvania - e.g., 17101, 17601, 17042, 17415) (last visited Jan. 15, 2010). See supra n.9. See 47 C.F.R. � 76.65(a). See 47 C.F.R. � 76.65(c). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 10-230 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-230 � " � � � � F 0 0 �@ �@ � �@ �@ �@ �@ �@ �@ �@ �@
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1333A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1333A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1333A1.txt
  • agreements between multichannel video programmers (MVPDs) and broadcast stations under which the MVPDs are permitted to transmit the programming of those broadcast stations. Need: The rules require that parties negotiate in good faith and establish time limits for complaints in order to ensure that retransmission of broadcast programming may be accomplished. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 325(b)(3)(C). Section Number and Title: 76.65 Good faith and exclusive retransmission consent complaints. SUBPART E-EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY REQUIREMENTS Brief Description: These rules require that multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) provide equal opportunity in employment and that MVPDs analyze on an ongoing basis their efforts to recruit, hire, promote and use services without discrimination. Need: This requirement helps to ensure that MVPDs provide equal opportunity in employment.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1454A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1454A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1454A1.txt
  • the corresponding local (in-market) station will be considered ``available'' to the satellite carrier when the station: (a) elects mandatory carriage or grants retransmission consent; (b) provides a good quality signal to the satellite carrier as required by Section 76.66(g) of the rules; and (c) is otherwise in compliance with the ``good faith negotiation'' and carriage provisions set forth in Sections 76.65 and 76.66 of the rules. The Commission also determined that the HD format requirement would (1) apply only where a satellite carrier retransmits to a subscriber the significantly viewed station in HD format and not to restrict a satellite carrier from retransmitting to a subscriber the significantly viewed station in standard definition (SD) format; and (2) require satellite carriage of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-507A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-507A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-507A1.txt
  • Act and Sections 1.1, 1.1200(a), and 76.7(e) of the Commission's Rules. See 47 U.S.C. � 4(j); 47 C.F.R �� 1.1, 1.1200(a), 76.7(e). See 47 U.S.C. � 548; 47 C.F.R. �� 76.1000-1004. Among other things, these rules require cable-affiliated programmers to make their programming available to MVPDs on nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions. See 47 U.S.C. � 325(b)(3)(C)(ii); 47 C.F.R. � 76.65(b). Among other things, these rules require broadcasters to negotiate with MVPDs in good faith. See 47 U.S.C. � 536; 47 C.F.R. �� 76.1300-1302. See 47 U.S.C. � 549; 47 C.F.R. �� 76.1200-1210. See 47 U.S.C. � 325(b)(3)(C)(iii); 47 C.F.R. � 76.65(b). See 47 C.F.R. �� 76.71-79, 76.1792, 76.1802. See 47 C.F.R. �� 79.1-2. A non-MVPD that makes video programming available
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254432A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254432A1.txt
  • Retrans Consent Over Must Carry, Communications Daily, October 3,2004, at 4-5. (The majority of broadcast stations opted for retransmission consent with only stations in smaller markets choosing must carry). This report does not reflect the fact that noncommercial television stations cannot elect retransmission consent and have must carry as their only option. 340See 47 U.S.C. 0 325(b)(3)(C); 47 C.F.R. 6 76.65; Implementation of Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, Retransmission Consent Issues: Good Faith Negotiation and Exclusivity 15 FCC Rcd 5445, 5463 ("Good Faith Order"). Under the Act, the exclusivity requirements are effective "until January 1, 2006." See 47 U.S.C. 9 325(b)(3)(C). 34' 47 U.S.C. 0 325(b)(3)(A). 342 Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, 8 FCC Rcd at 3005-06. 343 See generally,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266857A1.txt
  • BellSouth 57.95 44.57 0.12 69.62 Texas Brownsville SBC 37.36 28.27 0.08 66.76 Texas Corpus Christi SBC 40.11 31.01 0.08 66.62 Texas Dallas SBC 53.19 41.53 0.08 66.92 Texas Fort Worth SBC 45.80 35.25 0.08 66.18 Texas Houston SBC 48.95 37.39 0.08 65.60 Texas San Antonio SBC 40.72 30.93 0.08 65.60 Utah Logan Qwest 31.82 25.80 0.08 61.56 Virginia Richmond Verizon 76.65 27.85 0.19 101.12 Virginia Smithfield Verizon 52.52 38.25 0.16 54.40 Washington Everett Verizon 46.55 32.62 0.02 86.60 Washington Seattle Qwest 40.14 30.28 0.07 63.10 West Virginia Huntington Verizon 65.91 33.89 0.16 86.90 Wisconsin Milwaukee SBC 26.17 0.09 64.65 Wisconsin Racine SBC 26.15 0.09 64.65 Table 1.10 Telephone Rates in the Sample Cities for a Business with a Single Line -
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.txt
  • 56.72 Texas Fort Worth 34.44 34.50 34.2737.51 38.8134.8337.25 38.47 42.69 44.72 45.80 48.65 49.58 Texas Houston 41.27 41.37 40.3539.48 42.8542.8539.87 49.45 47.76 47.80 48.95 51.80 52.32 Texas San Antonio 34.19 34.14 33.8630.95 30.9531.5633.12 39.00 39.81 39.69 40.72 43.63 44.62 Utah Logan 31.88 31.93 30.2230.14 28.4627.8229.56 32.12 31.37 30.09 31.82 31.06 33.80 Virginia Richmond 75.06 75.06 72.5372.53 NA74.5677.97 78.63 78.74 76.85 76.65 76.86 61.59 Virginia Smithfield 30.08 30.08 30.0829.98 29.9829.9830.94 50.23 52.89 52.68 52.52 52.42 45.51 Washington Everett 39.98 39.98 39.9839.98 39.9841.3742.31 43.98 44.05 43.83 46.55 46.47 48.34 Washington Seattle 37.03 37.03 37.0337.19 36.4736.4737.42 40.82 40.92 40.18 40.14 39.89 40.12 West Virginia Huntington 73.39 73.39 75.0573.03 72.0272.0267.31 60.60 60.90 65.32 65.91 65.83 65.96 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.48 37.48 37.5139.69 39.6940.8041.15 41.04 40.84 41.94
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-417A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-417A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-417A1.txt
  • Viewer Improvement Act of 1999-Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 12147 (2000)(hereinafter, ``Notice''). See Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999-Retransmission Consent Issues, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 21736 (1999); Retransmission Consent Issues: Good Faith Negotiation and Exclusivity, First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5445 (2000). See 47 C.F.R. �76.65. See 17 U.S.C. �122(a) (as amended by �1002 of the SHVIA). Section 122 of the Copyright Act is attached as Appendix I of the Report and Order. 47 U.S.C. �338(a)(1) (as amended by �1008 of the SHVIA). 47 U.S.C. �338(g). The legislative history states that the procedural provisions applicable to Section 338 (concerning costs, avoidance of duplication, channel positioning, compensation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-229A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-229A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-229A1.txt
  • clarification is unnecessary, but do not oppose the clarification requested by US WEST and WCA. We grant US WEST and WCA's request for clarification. Section 325(b)(3)(C) imposes an affirmative duty on broadcasters to negotiate retransmission consent in good faith until 2006. This duty applies to all retransmission consent negotiations during this period, including renewal negotiations. The intent in adopting Section 76.65(e)(2) was to ensure that complainants do not sit on grievances and that they bring good faith complaints in a timely manner. For example, if a broadcaster and MVPD negotiate a five-year retransmission consent agreement in Year 1 and subsequently encounter a dispute regarding the proper interpretation of a provision of such agreement in Year 3, Section 76.65(e)(2) would bar a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-187A1.txt
  • ``endanger'' WTXL-TV's carriage, that Bureau decision was not appealed and is now final. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.104, 1.115. See 47 C.F.R. � 76.55(c). Id. at � 76.56(b). WTXL-TV Must Carry Application at 2. Id. Id. Complaint Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4692. WTXL-TV Must Carry Application at 11-13. In its underlying must carry complaint, WTXL-TV sought ``a waiver of Section 76.65(b)(5) ... to exclude Live Oak from the Gainesville ADI for purposes of WTXL-TV's carriage.'' WTXL-TV Must Carry Complaint at 3. WTXL-TV Must Carry Application Reply at 3. Id. Time Warner Must Carry Opposition at 3, citing Complaint Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4692. Id. WTXL-TV Must Carry Application at 12-13. See 47 U.S.C. � 614(b)(5). See 47 C.F.R. � 76.56(b)(5).
• 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 number of nationally distributed channels to 11. Application at Attachment F. See News Corp. at www.newscorp.com/investor/download/bearstearns03/sld019.gif; Fox Sports at www.newscorp.com/management/foxsports.html. See Fox Sports Net at www.newscorp.com/management/fsn.html. Application at 49. Application at 53, Attachment G. Applicants' Reply at 63. See, e.g., Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, PL 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501, Appendix I (1999) (``SHVIA''). 47 C.F.R. � 76.65. Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999: Retransmission Consent Issues, 16 FCC Rcd 1918, 1928 (2000). 47 C.F.R. � 76.66(b)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 76.66(i) (channel position); 47 C.F.R. � 76.66(j) (manner of carriage) 47 C.F.R. � 76.66(m) (remedies). See 47 U.S.C. � 536(a)(3); 47 C.F.R. � 76.1301(c). See 47 C.F.R. � 76.1003. The following is a
• 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
  • 102-862 ("Conference Report"), 102d Cong., 2d Sess. (1992), reprinted at 138 Cong. Rec. H8308 (Sept. 14, 1992) at 2. Conference Report at 3. Conference Report at 3. Noncommercial television stations do not have retransmission consent rights. 47 C.F.R. � 76.56. 47 C.F.R. � 76.60. 47 C.F.R. � 76.64. 47 C.F.R. � 76.66. See 47 U.S.C. � 325(b)(3)(C); 47 C.F.R. � 76.65; Implementation of Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, Retransmission Consent Issues: Good Faith Negotiation and Exclusivity 15 FCC Rcd 5445, 5463 � 45 (``Good Faith Negotiation Order''). See 47 U.S.C. � 325(b)(3)(C). See also, 47 C.F.R. � 76.65(f)(good faith negotiation requirement sunsets at midnight on Dec. 31, 2005). See H.R. Rep. No. 106-79 at 11-15 (1999); Satellite Home Viewer
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-119A1.txt
  • to affect the ultimate ability of an MVPD to decide not to enter into retransmission consent with a broadcaster. The Notice stated that the Commission believed that the implementation of Section 207 most consistent with the apparent intent of Congress is to amend our existing rules to apply equally to both broadcasters and MVPDs and tentatively concluded Sections 76.64(l) and 76.65 should be amended accordingly. The Notice sought comment on that approach and any other reasonable implementation of Section 207. 9. The majority of commenters agreed with the implementation proposed by the Commission in the Notice as it applies to in-market negotiations. The Network Affiliates assert that: [b]ecause it is presumed that Congress acts with knowledge of the existing regulatory framework
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-187A1.txt
  • assert that a carrier's inadvertent failure to notify all broadcast stations in a market 60 days prior to carrying significantly viewed stations is not bad faith absent demonstration of actual bad faith. DIRECTV at 19; EchoStar at 17-18. EchoStar at 18. Black's Law Dictionary characterizes bad faith as having a dishonest belief or purpose. See also, e.g., 47 C.F.R. � 76.65(d) (burden of proof is on the complainant to establish a good faith violation); Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, 18 FCC Rcd 16978, 17406, � 706 (2003) (stating that a party's gamesmanship, refusal to negotiate, or actions causing unnecessary delay may lead to a finding of bad faith). Black's Law Dictionary characterizes a frivolous
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-49A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-49A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-49A1.txt
  • not to affect the ultimate ability of an MVPD to decide not to enter into retransmission consent with a broadcaster. We believe that the implementation of Section 207 most consistent with the apparent intent of Congress is to amend our existing rules to apply equally to both broadcasters and MVPDs. We tentatively conclude that we should amend Sections 76.64(l) and 76.65 as set forth on Appendix A of this Notice. We seek comment on this proposal and any other reasonable implementation of Section 207. 8. We note that the original SHVIA good faith provision by its terms applied to ``television broadcast stations.'' Similarly, the SHVERA good faith provision applies to ``multichannel video programming distributors.'' We seek comment whether, under the statute,
• 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
  • considered reasons for rejecting any aspects of the MVPD's offer. Sixth, a broadcaster is prohibited from entering into an agreement with any party conditioned upon denying retransmission consent to any MVPD. Finally, a broadcaster must agree to execute a written retransmission consent agreement that sets forth the full agreement between the broadcaster and the MVPD. Id.; see 47 C.F.R. � 76.65(b)(1)(i)-(vii). Good Faith Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 5458; 47 C.F.R. � 76.65(b)(2). 47 C.F.R. � 76.65(b)(1)(iv). Good Faith Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 5463, � 43. American Cable Association's Petition for Inquiry into Retransmission Consent Practices (filed October 1, 2002). This petition will be placed in the record of this proceeding. ACA also filed a ``Petition for Rulemaking to Amend
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-206A1.txt
  • again in this proceeding. The report concludes that broadcasters do not have the type or degree of market power that leads to harm to competition or to consumers. Moreover, according to the report, obtaining carriage for nonbroadcast programming in return for retransmission consent does not harm competition in the MVPD programming market. Joint Broadcasters Reply at 2-4. 47 C.F.R � 76.65; Mediacom Communications Corporation v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., 22 FCC Rcd 35 (MB 2007). Id. at 38 � 6. Id. at 45 � 25. The Commission stated that both parties could agree to final binding arbitration by the Bureau. We stated that if both parties agreed to final binding arbitration by the Media Bureau, we would require Sinclair to authorize
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-128A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-128A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-128A1.txt
  • may not provide sufficient incentive to the D Block winning bidder to meet the needs of public safety. We therefore invite commenters that advocate this option to discuss these concerns and how they might be addressed. For example, should we establish a specific standard for what will constitute an act of bad faith, similar to the standard incorporated at Section 76.65(b) of our rules? We further seek comment on whether, instead of eliminating binding adjudication, we should modify its application or scope. For example, should we limit the issues of adjudication to the requirements specified in our rules? If so, what rules should apply to disputes regarding other terms? Alternatively, should we adopt a specific measure, such as a presumption that
• 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
  • No. 108-447, 118 Stat 2809 (2004) (codified in scattered sections of 17 and 47 U.S.C.) (``SHVERA''). Additionally, broadcasters and DBS operators are prohibited from entering into exclusive retransmission consent agreements (although terms, conditions, and prices may vary if based on competitive marketplace considerations), and they must negotiate in good faith. See 47 U.S.C. � 325(b)(3)(C)(ii), (iii); 47 C.F.R. �� 76.64(l), 76.65. By statute and regulation, the exclusivity and good faith negotiation requirements are effective until January 1, 2010. 47 U.S.C. � 325(b)(3)(C)(ii), (iii); 47 C.F.R. �� 76.64(l), 76.65(f). News Corp.-Hughes Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 572-73 �� 220-21. Id. Id. Id.; see also id. at 572 � 219. Application at 2 n.2, 18. Supplement to Application at 2. The letter states
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-113A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Implementation of Section 1003(b) of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 ) ) ) ) ORDER Adopted: December 28, 2009 Released: December 28, 2009 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION In this Order, we amend Sections 76.64(l) and 76.65(f) of the Commission's rules in accordance with Section 1003(b) of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010. Section 325(b)(3)(C)(ii) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), required the Commission to adopt regulations that, until January 1, 2010, prohibit a television broadcast station that provides retransmission consent from engaging in exclusive contracts for carriage or failing to negotiate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-193A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-193A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-193A1.txt
  • the corresponding local (in-market) station will be considered ``available'' to the satellite carrier when the station: (1) elects mandatory carriage or grants retransmission consent; (2) provides a good quality signal to the satellite carrier as required by Section 76.66(g) of the rules; and (3) is otherwise in compliance with the ``good faith negotiation'' and carriage provisions set forth in Sections 76.65 and 76.66 of the rules. However, the HD signal of the corresponding local station will be deemed ``available'' despite failure to reach agreement on the terms of retransmission if the satellite carrier is not in compliance with Section 76.65. The HD format requirement requires satellite carriage of a secondary HD stream of a local station's multicast signal if that stream
• 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
  • to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, MB Docket No. 07-42 (Dec. 9, 2008) at 2-3 (stating that non-vertically integrated operators have ``no history of discriminating against independent programmers, nor have any incentive or ability to do so''). See supra � 65. See 47 U.S.C. � 536(a). 47 U.S.C. � 536(a)(3). See id. See supra �� 44-47. See 47 C.F.R. � 76.65(b)(1) (The seven actions or practices that violate a duty to negotiate retransmission consent agreements in good faith are: ``(i) Refusal by a Negotiating Entity to negotiate retransmission consent; (ii) Refusal by a Negotiating Entity to designate a representative with authority to make binding representations on retransmission consent; (iii) Refusal by a Negotiating Entity to meet and negotiate retransmission consent at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-161A1.txt
  • 10682-83, paras. 31-32. See also, e.g., 2011 Pole Attachment Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5286, para. 100 (revising the Commission's rules to require executive-level negotiations for pole attachments to demonstrate good faith); 47 C.F.R. � 1.721(a)(8) (requiring that complaints include ``certification that the complainant has, in good faith, discussed or attempted to discuss the possibility of settlement''); 47 C.F.R. � 76.65 (requiring good faith in retransmission consent negotiations). 47 U.S.C. � 160. . 47 U.S.C. � 251(c)(1). See 47 C.F.R. � 51.301(c). . 47 U.S.C. �� 251(c)(1); 252. . The Need to Promote Competition and Efficient Use of Spectrum for Radio Common Carrier Services, Declaratory Ruling, 2 FCC Rcd 2910, 2912-13, para. 21 (1987) (CMRS Interconnection Declaratory Ruling). Id. Id. at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-29A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-29A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-29A1.txt
  • a wireless system would also have to ensure that its contemplated operations would meet all applicable service rule requirements, such as interference protection standards, and obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act and other federal statutes. Southern California Tribal Chairmen's Association, Ex Parte Letter, GN Docket Nos., 09-47, 09-51, 09-137, Feb. 9, 2011. Id. Id. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 76.65. Cf. Implementation of Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, Retransmission Consent Issues: Good Faith Negotiation and Exclusivity, First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5445 (2000) (adopting rules and complaint procedures including a two-part good faith test, which consists of 1) a set of objective standards and; 2) a totality of the circumstances standard, related to the obligation of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-31A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-31A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-31A1.txt
  • the Federal Register] By the Commission: Chairman Genachowski and Commissioners Copps, McDowell, Clyburn, and Baker issuing separate statements. Table of Contents Heading Paragraph # I. Introduction 1 II. Background 4 A. Retransmission Consent 4 B. Good Faith Negotiations 8 C. Petition for Rulemaking 13 D. Consumer Impact 15 III. Discussion 17 A. Strengthening the Good Faith Negotiation Standards of Section 76.65(b)(1) 20 B. Specification of the Totality of the Circumstances Standard of Section 76.65(b)(2) 31 C. Revision of the Notice Requirements 34 D. Application of the ``Sweeps'' Prohibition to Retransmission Consent Disputes 38 E. Elimination of the Network Non-Duplication and Syndicated Exclusivity Rules 42 F. Other Proposals 46 IV. Conclusion 47 V. Procedural Matters 48 A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
• 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
  • 561, 571, 572, 573. Section 76.64(m) is amended as follows: � 76.64 Retransmission Consent. ***** (m) Exclusive retransmission consent agreements are prohibited. No television broadcast station shall make or negotiate and agreement with one multichannel video programming distributor for carriage to the exclusion of other multichannel video programming distributors. This paragraph shall terminate at midnight on December 31, 2005. Section 76.65 is added to Subpart D to read as follows: � 76.65 Good Faith and Exclusive Retransmission Consent Complaints. Duty to Negotiate in Good Faith. Television broadcast stations that provide retransmission consent shall negotiate in good faith the terms and conditions of such agreements to fulfill the duties established by section 325(b)(3)(C) of the Act; provided, however, that it shall not
• 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
  • 561, 571, 572, 573. Section 76.64(m) is amended as follows: � 76.64 Retransmission Consent. ***** (m) Exclusive retransmission consent agreements are prohibited. No television broadcast station shall make or negotiate and agreement with one multichannel video programming distributor for carriage to the exclusion of other multichannel video programming distributors. This paragraph shall terminate at midnight on December 31, 2005. Section 76.65 is added to Subpart D to read as follows: � 76.65 Good Faith and Exclusive Retransmission Consent Complaints. Duty to Negotiate in Good Faith. Television broadcast stations that provide retransmission consent shall negotiate in good faith the terms and conditions of such agreements to fulfill the duties established by section 325(b)(3)(C) of the Act; provided, however, that it shall not
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-3.pdf
  • -0.41 -12.53 -28.51 442143 C SOUTH PLAINS TEL. COOP.,INC. 6.39 0.83 5.51 30.39 442147 C SUGAR LAND TEL. CO. 1.30 0.64 0.66 0.00 442150 C TATUM TEL. CO. -3.20 1.48 -4.60 -8.55 442151 C TAYLOR TEL. CO-OP.,INC. 3.95 1.38 2.53 0.45 442153 C TEXAS-ALLTEL, INC. -3.32 1.99 -5.20 -33.21 442154 C GTE-SW DBA VERIZON SW INC.-TX (CONTEL) -42.82 3.90 -44.96 -76.65 442159 C VALLEY TELEPHONE CO-OP. INC. - TX 1.70 3.05 -1.32 0.21 442166 C WEST TEXAS RURAL TEL. CO-OP. INC. 4.85 0.00 4.85 5.17 442168 C WES-TEX TELEPHONE CO-OP. 17.03 -0.38 17.47 40.87 442170 C XIT RURAL TELEPHONE CO-OP. INC. 2.48 3.85 -1.32 0.71 442262 C E.N.M.R. TEL. COOP.,INC.-TX -2.50 2.64 -5.01 0.00 445216 C SOUTHWESTERN BELL-TEXAS 5.90 -2.32 8.42
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2003/dd030910.html
  • TELEVISION RELAY SERVICE (CARS) APPLICATIONS RE: ACTIONS ON PENDING APPLICATIONS. MB. Contact: (202) 418-7000 [19]DOC-238798A1.pdf [20]DOC-238798A1.txt Released: 09/10/2003. MEDIA BUREAU ACTION CSR-6235-Z REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SUBSCRIBER TERMINAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION. (DA No. 03-2862). MB. Contact: Wayne T. McKee at (202) 418-2355. News Media Contact: Michelle Russo at (202) 418-7200 [21]DA-03-2862A1.doc [22]DA-03-2862A1.pdf [23]DA-03-2862A1.txt Released: 09/10/2003. MEDIA BUREAU ACTION CORRECTION TO SECTION 76.65 RULES PERTAINING TO GOOD FAITH AND EXCLUSIVE RETRANSMISSION CONSENT COMPLAINTS. (DA No. 03-2864). (Dkt No 99-363). MB. Contact: Kenneth Lewis at (202) 418-2622, TTY: (202) 418-7172. News Media Contact: Michelle Russo at (202) 418-7200 [24]DA-03-2864A1.doc [25]DA-03-2864A1.pdf [26]DA-03-2864A1.txt Released: 09/10/2003. EX PARTE PRESENTATIONS AND POST-REPLY COMMENT PERIOD FILINGS IN PERMIT-BUT-DISCLOSE PROCEEDINGS (2 OF 3). OMD. Contact: Avis Mitchell @ (202) 418-0310
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2009/dd091229.html
  • Media Bureau. Adopted: 12/28/2009 by MO&O. (DA No. 09-2636). MB [10]DA-09-2636A1.doc [11]DA-09-2636A1.pdf [12]DA-09-2636A1.txt * * * * * ADDENDA: THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, RELEASED DECEMBER 28, 2009, DID NOT APPEAR IN DIGEST NO. 252: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 1003(B) OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010. Adopted an order amending sunset dates in Sections 76.64 and 76.65 of the Rules. Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 12/28/2009 by ORDER. (FCC No. 09-113). MB [13]FCC-09-113A1.doc [14]FCC-09-113A1.pdf [15]FCC-09-113A1.txt References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295383A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295383A2.txt 3. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295382A1.pdf 4. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295382A2.txt 5. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295395A1.pdf 6. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295395A1.txt 7. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2637A1.doc 8. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2637A1.pdf 9. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2637A1.txt 10. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2636A1.doc 11. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2636A1.pdf 12. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2636A1.txt 13. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-113A1.doc 14. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-113A1.pdf 15. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-113A1.txt
• http://www.fcc.gov/fox-letter-2010-26-10.pdf
  • F.3d 1406, 1415 (7th Cir. 1995). 4 Consent Order, In the Matter of America Online, Inc. and Time Warner, Inc., Docket No. C-3989, 131 F.T.C. 829, 2001 WL 36166896 (F.T.C. April 17, 2001);Consent Order, In the Matter of Time Warner, Inc., et al., Docket No. C-3709, 123 F.T.C. 171, 1997 WL 33483295 (F.T.C. February 3, 1997). 5 47 CFR � 76.65(b)(1)(iv). 3 form of consideration.6 Fox has already demonstrated the multiple serious attempts to negotiate in good faith with Cablevision. D. The timing of RTC negotiations is irrelevant to the good faith rules. Cablevision next claims that Fox deliberately structured the timing of its agreements so that expiration would coincide with "must see" programming. Nothing in such a tactic would be
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/76print.html
  • Subpart D -- Carriage of Television Broadcast Signals [11]76.51 Major television markets. [12]76.53 Reference points. [13]76.54 Significantly viewed signals; method to be followed for special showings. [14]76.55 Definitions applicable to the must-carry rules. [15]76.56 Signal carriage obligations. [16]76.57 Channel positioning. [17]76.59 Modification of television markets. [18]76.60 Compensation for carriage. [19]76.61 Disputes concerning carriage. [20]76.62 Manner of carriage. [21]76.64 Retransmission consent. [22]76.65 Good faith and exclusive retransmission consent complaints. [23]76.66 Satellite broadcast signal carriage. [24]76.70 Exemption from input selector switch rules. Subpart E -- Equal Employment Opportunity Requirements [25]76.71 Scope of application. [26]76.73 General EEO policy. [27]76.75 EEO program requirements. [28]76.77 Reporting requirements. [29]76.79 Records available for public inspection. Subpart F -- Network Non-duplication Protection, Syndicated Exclusivity and Sports Blackout [30]76.92 Cable
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/part76.pdf
  • markets. � 76.53 Reference points. � 76.54 Significantly viewed signals; method to be followed for special showings. � 76.55 Definitions applicable to the must-carry rules. � 76.56 Signal carriage obligations. � 76.57 Channel positioning. � 76.59 Modification of television markets. � 76.60 Compensation for carriage. � 76.61 Disputes concerning carriage. � 76.62 Manner of carriage. � 76.64 Retransmission consent. � 76.65 Good faith and exclusive retransmission consent complaints. � 76.66 Satellite broadcast signal carriage. � 76.70 Exemption from input selector switch rules. Page 1of 243 Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: 5/6/2011 http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=a0b1c7045abd9e3f08f6d3233a640e58&rg... Subpart E-Equal Employment Opportunity Requirements � 76.71 Scope of application. � 76.73 General EEO policy. � 76.75 Specific EEO program requirements. � 76.77 Reporting requirements and enforcement. � 76.79