Comcast’s appeal of a FCC carriage order on its distribution...
Comcast’s appeal of a FCC carriage order on its distribution of the Tennis Channel is effectively an attempt to eviscerate statutory discrimination protections for independent TV networks, Bloomberg said in a would-be amicus brief filed with the U.S. Court of…
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.
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Comcast appealed an FCC order requiring it to distribute Tennis Channel to as many subscribers as it distributed some of its own networks, and the D.C. Circuit blocked the order’s effectiveness while it hears the appeal (CD Sept 4 p2). Comcast’s interpretation of section 616 of the Cable Act would give the FCC’s program carriage rules “limited application and certainly not enough to warrant the significant time and expense required to bring forward a program carriage complaint,” Bloomberg said. By arguing such relief must be restricted to pay-TV operators that have bottleneck monopoly power, Comcast reveals a “fundamental misunderstanding of the scope and purpose of Section 616,” Bloomberg said. It’s not an antitrust law, Bloomberg said. “Rather, the law is intended to promote diversity in programming and protect against competitive harms inflicted by vertically-integrated cable operators seeking to bestow advantages on affiliated programmers.” Moreover, changes in the industry don’t justify “dismantling” section 616, Bloomberg said. If Comcast believes otherwise, it should argue that before Congress, not the courts or FCC, it said. “Unlike other provisions of the Cable Act, Section 616 has no sunset provision,” Bloomberg said. “This court should decline Comcast’s invitation to manufacture one.” The court has yet to rule on whether it will accept Bloomberg’s brief.