The FCC should cancel or reduce the proposed...
The FCC should cancel or reduce the proposed $2.25 million fine for retransmission consent violations against master antenna operator TV Max, said a filing from the subjects of the Notice of Apparent Liability issued by the FCC in June. The…
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.
“staggering” proposed forfeiture should be reduced or cancelled because it’s “grossly excessive” and based on erroneous information, and the respondents don’t have the ability to pay it, said the TV Max filing. The FCC proposed the fine after TV Max allegedly continued to broadcast the signals of six Houston TV stations owned by several major broadcasters for more than a year after retransmission consent agreements with the stations expired (CD June 26). TV Max has claimed that its retransmissions fell under the Master Antenna exception, and in Thursday’s filing disputed the amount of time it was in violation by retransmitting the broadcasters’ signals. TV Max said it was retransmitting the signals in violation of the rules for only 90 days for some of the stations, and just 29 days for one ABC affiliate. FCC claims that TV Max’s customers are receiving signals from an offsite cable headend rather than its MATV antennas are false, TV Max said. “There is nothing in the record that establishes” that TV Max subscribers are “receiving off-air programming from any source other than the installed antennas,” said TV Max. The company also challenged the FCC’s right to go after TV Max corporate officers individually, and the FCC’s claim that the many affiliates of TV Max are actually commonly controlled pieces of the same company. “Patching together stray items of information like common addresses or ‘indirect’ ownership cannot substitute for a careful analysis of corporate relationships,” said TV Max. The company and its officers aren’t doing well financially, and can’t pay the proposed forfeiture, TV Max also argued. “There is simply no ability on the part of the TV Max respondents to make any forfeiture payment,” said the filing. Along with asking for a reduction to the fine, TV Max also filed a statement of compliance, as directed in the NAL, saying it will be converting the 7,000 customers that had been receiving its content to Dish Network by the end of 2013.