NASA RENEWS ATTACK ON BIG 4 NETWORKS, SEEKS DECLARATORY RULING
In what it termed “a streamlined and targeted process” for FCC consideration of charges against Big 4 TV networks, Network Affiliated Stations Alliance (NASA) asked Commission Fri. to issue declaratory rulings in 3 areas where it said one or more of networks had “demanded affiliation terms” that were counter to Communications Act and FCC rules. NASA charged one or more of networks had “asserted excessive control” over affiliates in programming decisions, future use of digital spectrum and to “interfere with or manipulate” proposed sale of stations (CBS is specifically excluded from last charge).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
NASA asked Commission for early action on 3 “disputed areas… that most impair affiliate independence and thus undermine localism, diversity and local licensee control over the programming and operation of television stations.” NASA filed pleading 31 days before deadline for comments, it said, “to facilitate Commission consideration of the central issues” raised in its charges against networks filed more than 3 months ago (CD March 9 p2).
Under FCC rules, declaratory rulings are appropriate to “terminate controversy” or “remove uncertainty,” NASA said in filing: “There is no question that a controversy exists here and that uncertainty” about FCC rules were at issue. NASA said that because of “growing imbalance of power” in favor of networks “network view increasingly carries the day in affiliation negotiations -- notwithstanding affiliates’ belief that certain of provisions insisted upon [by networks] are inconsistent with existing law.”
NASA said its lengthy filing, which included many examples of controls it said networks exercised over affiliates, “clearly and pristinely” defines issues separating affiliates from their networks and gives Commission enough information to resolve issues based on only pleadings and counterpleadings. Networks have said disputed issues should be settled in “business negotiations,” NASA wrote, “but the legal principles at issue here are fundamental issues of licensee control that Congress and the Commission have determined may not be negotiated away.”