Responsive Document - CREW: FCC: Regarding Influence Over FCC Regulation of News Corp: 8/15/2011 -...

8/6/2019 Responsive Document - CREW: FCC: Regarding Influence Over FCC Regulation of News Corp: 8/15/2011 - fcc docs 1

1/57

tInitcd tat cS1latCWASHNGT0N, DC 20510

May 7, 2007

Chairman Kevin MartinFederal Communications Commission445 12th Street SW.Washington, D.C. 20554Dear Mr. Chairman:We write today 10 express sLipport for a petition submitted by t he North Dakota BroadcastersAssociation regarding the transfer of control by News Coqoration to Liberty Media of DirecTV,We urge your strongconsideration of requirements that DirecTV offer local into local service inall 21 () designated market areas by the end of 2008 before such a transfer is approved.In 2004, when News Corporation was in th e process of obtaining Federal CommunicationsCommission (FCC) approval for i ts acquisition of 34% of DirecTV, the company committed tothe FCC that it would provide local into local service in all rated markets by t he end of 2008.Unfortunately, this promise was no t incorporated as an enforceable condition of the licensetransfer, and DirecTV now states that its intention was always that the service would notnecessarily be delivered via satellite.It is entirely reasonable and wholly in the publ ic interes t to require local channel delivery viasatellite to all 210 markets. if the Liberty acquisition is to be approved, such local channeldelivery should be a condition on approval.DirccTV serves the majority of the 35,245 households within the MinotlBismarck DesignatedMarket Area who receive their subscription television service from a Direct Broadcast Satelliteservice (DBS). These viewers do not have regular access to North Dakota emergency alertinformation, Amber Alerts, or weather advisories.DirecTV currently provides local into local service in only 142 of2l0 designated market areasnationwide. This means that thousands of subscribers in 68 market areas and 31 states, includingours, are not able to receive local programming from DirccTV. These customersoverwhelmingly reside in rural areas that arc more expensive to serve than urban settings.The transfer application currently before you makes no reference to providing local into localservice for all DirecTV customers. It appears that DirecTV intends to utilize current and futuresatellite capacity to increase high definition service, rather than provide l ocal into local coverage


2/57

in unserved are as. in fact, DirecTV has announced that it intends to provide one hundred highdefinition channels by the summer of 2007.The goal of communications policy has always been to further localism . P ublic information,public safety, and (he overarching public interest demand that local into local se rvice heex tended to all of DirccTVs consume rs, re gardles s of geographical location. We encourage youto closely examine this transaction, and require DirccTV and Liberty Media to provide universallocal into local se rvice to all of its customers by the end of 2008 as a condition of the licensetrans (or.Thank you for you r consideration of this request.

Si ncerely,

KENT CONRAD 1YN DORGAN fUnited Stales Se nate United St ales S enatecc: Commissioner Michael J. Copps

Commissioner Jonathan S. AdclsteinCornmissioner De borah Taylor TateCommissioner Robert .M . M cDo w ell

7


3/57

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONWASHINGTON

The Honorable Kent ConradUnited States Senate530 Hart Senate Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Conrad:Thank you for your letter concerning the proposed transfer of control of DIRECTV fromNews Corporation to Liberty Media Corporation. In your letter you ask that thetransaction be conditioned on a requirement that DIRECTV provide local-into-localservice in all television markets in the country.Although neither of the two maj or satellite television carriers, DIRECTV and DishNetwork, offers local-into-local service in all ofNielsens 210 Designated Market Areas(DMAs), 179 markets receive local-into-local service and more than 97% of U.S.households a re in markets in which satellite-delivered local stations are available.Specifically, DJRECTV offers local-into-local service in 144 DMAs today and is in theprocess of launching local-into-local service in an additional six markets for a total of 150DMAs.Unlike the cable must-carry statute that requires all cable systems to carry all localstations, Congress chose not to require satellite operators to carry local broadcast signalsin every market. Th e statutory requirements for satellite carriage give satellite carriers achoice of whether or no t to carry local stations in a market. Specifically, by enacting theSatellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA), Congress decided toallow, bu t no t require, satellite carriers to offer local stations. Satellite carriers thatchoose to offer one station in a market must carry all the stations in the market thatrequest carriage. This is known as carry one, carry all. In 2004, Congress amended thestatute to require carriage (must carry) in Alaska and Hawaii.DIRECTV has represented to the Commission in the license transfer proceedinginvolving Liberty Media that it is fully committed to offering local broadcast signals inall 210 DMAs by 2008, either via satellite o r v ia the integration of digital tuners into set-top boxes. In those markets where it d oes not currently plan to roll ou t local-into-localservice via satellite, DIRECTV will offer a seamless, integrated local channel packageby integrating digital tuners into set-top boxes. Some consumers already have set-topboxes that include digital tuners; these tuners al low consumers to receive digitalbroadcast signals an d view them on analog television sets without the need for separatedigital-to-analog converters. For other consumers in markets no t served by satellite local-

OFF(CE OFTHE CHAIRMAN


4/57

into-local, DIRECTV will offer a component that attaches to the set-top box. Consumerswho want to take advantage of this option would be charged $50 fo r the component butwould not be charged for the local package. In addition to converting digital s ignals toanalog for display on analog televisions, the component will ensure that the broadcastprogramming is displayed on DIRECTVs electronic program guide and will enableconsumers to apply other set-top box functions (such as DVR capability) to broadcastprogramming. Consumers using the additional component would no t need a separatedigital-to-analog converter.Please do no t hesitate to contact me if I may be of further assistance with this or any othermatter.

Sincerely,

Kevin JMartinChairman


5/57

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONWASHING TO N

Th e Honorable Byron DorganUnited States Senate322 Hart Senate Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Dorgan:Thank you for your letter concerning the proposed transfer of control of DIRECTV fromNews Corporation to Liberty Media Corporation. In your letter you ask that thetransaction be conditioned on a requirement that DTRECTV provide local-into-localservice in all television markets in the country.Although neither of th e two major satellite television carriers, DIRECTV and DishNetwork, offers local-into-local service in all of Nielsens 210 Designated Market Areas(DMAs), 179 markets receive local-into-local service and more than 97% ofU.S.households are in markets in which satellite-delivered local stations are available.Specifically, DIRECTV offers local-into-local service in 144 DMAs today and is in theprocess of launching local-into-local service in an additional six markets fo r a total of 150DMAs,Unlike the cable must-carry statute that requires all cable systems to carry all localstations, Congress chose not to require satellite operators to carry local broadcast signalsin every market. Th e statutory requirements fo r satellite carriage give satellite carriers achoice of whether or no t to carry local stations in a market. Specifically, by enacting theSatellite Home Viewer Improvement Ac t of 1999 (SHVIA), Congress decided toallow, bu t no t require, satellite carriers to offer local stations. Satellite carriers thatchoose to offer on e station in a market must carry all the stations in the market thatrequest carr iage. Th is is known as carry one, carry all. In 2004, Congress amended thestatute to require carriage (must carry) in Alaska and Hawaii.DLRECTV has represented to the Commission in the license transfer proceedinginvolving Liberty Media that it is fully committed to offering local broadcast signals inall 21 0 DMAs by 2008 , either via satellite or via the integration of digital tuners into set-top boxes. In those markets where it does no t currently plan to roll ou t local-into-localservice via satellite, DIRECTV will offer a seamless, integrated local channel packageby integrating digital tuners into set-top boxes. Some consumers already have set-topboxes that include digital tuners; these tuners allow consumers to receive digitalbroadcast signals and view them on analog television sets without the need for separatedigital-to-analog converters. For other consumers in markets no t served by satellite local-

OFFICE OFTHE CHAIRMAN


6/57

into-local, DIRECTV will offer a component that attaches to the set-top box. Consumerswho want to take advantage of this option would be charged $50 for the component bu twould not be charged for the local package. In addition to converting digital signals toanalog for display on analog televisions, the component will ensure that the broadcastprogramming is displayed on DIRECTVs electronic program guide and will enableconsumers to apply other set-top box functions (such as DVR capability) to broadcastprogramming. Consumers using the additional component would not need a separatedigital-to-analog converter.Please do no t hesitate to contact me if I may be of further assistance with this or any othermatter.

Sincerely,

Kevin IMartinChairman


7/57

!YRON L. DORGANA

u1

i1ntted Statcs dllarc WASHNOTON, DC 2O5i(-34O5j r,

M AM A .- NAugust . Ji07

7i W

(hairnan Kevin J. Martinlederal Communications Commission445 12 Street SWWashington. D.C. 20554Dear Chairman Martin:As you are aware. News Corporation (News Corp.) has reached an agreement to acquireDow Jones & Company (i)ow Jones) for $5 billon. (.iien that Do Jones publishes thefl/till Sirect Journal, one of ou r countrys tv newspapers vvith a national circulation, Iam concerned about potential concentration in our national media sector as a result fthissale, and other recent mergers and acquisitions in our nations media sector,To date, News (orp. has rapidly expanded its media empire by developing the cablechannel Fox News and 20h Century Fox. and acquiring the \a )ork Post, 1 Unide,and MySpace, among numerous other media outlets. Do Jones owns Thw,on v.MarketWatch, Factiva. Dow Jones Newswires and local newspapers in a number ofstates. If approved, the proposed merger between News (oii. and l)ow Jones wntildresult in one single company controlling one of the three national newspapers ithcirculations above one million, one of the live national broadcast networks. and one ofthe countrys few cable news networks. Furthermore. apart from this proposedtransaction, our nations media outlets with a national reach he it print, broadcast, orcable - are already heavily concentrated,The current FCC rules attempt to prevent concentration and crossoncrship in localmarkets. I recognize that there are issues of local diversity affected by this agreement and1 expect the Commission will address such issues through existing processes. 13u1 theCommissions media ownership rules state, diversi lication of mass media ov nershipserves the public interest by promoting diversity of program and service viewpoints, aswell as by preventing undue concentration of economic power.The proposed merger between News Corp. and Dow Jones raises the serious question ofwhether a single companys concentration on a miliona scale should continue to heunfettered and unchecked. I believe the FCC should consider studying hether the publicinterest would be served if media crossownership rules existed at Lhe national level.I urge the Commission to initiate a proceeding to examine v heihcr the currentunregulated state of media crossownership at the national level may necessitate newF( C v, Nat! Ciii:,is Comm. For Broad,, 436 U.S. 775. 750 (1 75t.


8/57

rules to retain the dive rsity ol vitwpomts and democratic voices in our media. In thesp irit of the Commissions longstanding media ownership rules . the proceeding shouldinclu de an inquiry into the proposed merger between News Corp. and i)ow Jones and itsimpact on media concentration at the natio nal level,Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely.

Ce:Commiss ioner Michael J. CoppsCoininissionci Jonathan S. AdeisteinCommiss ioner Deborah 1, Tatet*oITlm I%smo nem Robt it N! \4c. Do LII


9/57


The Honorable Byron L. DorganUnited States Senate322 Hart Senate Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20510Dear Senator Dorgan:

Thank you for your letter regarding News Corporations proposal to acquire Dow Jones& Company. I appreciate your concerns regarding the proposed transactions potential effect onmedia concentration.

As you note, our current rules limit cross-ownership at the local level . Indeed, theCommission has previously determined that the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rules areno t designed to affect an owner of a national newspaper. Evening News Association, 102F.C.C.2d 1263 (1986). Moreover, while Congress has specifically directed the Commission toestablish national limits for broadcast networks and cable subscribership, Congress has no tdirected or specifically authorized the Commission to address cross-ownership at the nationallevel.

Finally , the Commissions authority to review a broadcast station/local newspapercombination historically has been exercised when an application to assign or to renew the licenseof the local broadcast station comes before the Commission. The proposed acquisition ofDowJones by News Corporation, however, does no t involve the transfer of control or assignment ofany broadcast licenses. Thus , the Commissions jurisdiction to review the proposed NewsCorporation/Dow Jones transaction is circumscribed.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance with this o r a ny other matter.Sincerely,

Kevin J. MartinChairman



10/57

WASHINGTON OFP1CEUS RUSSU. SN S OIIC Bu.oNSWA8H1NCTON DC 20510

(202) 22425237Db (202) 2245484

STATE OFFICE:30 LEwis WrE6t, $vfl 101

NTOao , CT 061031560) 256-60407Db (560) b20746

HOME PAGE I1rplldodd,4e541e,govE.MAIU sp1ii6od .sena5e.goviwemii

I write to you today to express my grave concern over the pending buyout by the NewsCorporation of Dow Jones & Co., the parent company of the Wall Street Journal. In my view, thisbuyout will result in an overly-consolidated mediamarket, imperiling the diversity of opinionsavailable to residents of the greater New York area and across the country.

If allowed to acquire the Wall Street Journal, the News Corpcwation would be in control oftwo of the top v e most circulated newspapers nationwide. The News Corporation already owns twotelevision stations in the New York market and a newspaper, the New York Post, which is the fifthhighest circulating newspaper in America. If allowed to also control the Wall Street Journal, thesecond highest circulating newspaper nationwide,the News Corporation would be in control of anunacceptably high concentration ofmedia outlets.In 2003, the Court o f Appeals for the Third Circuit, in the case ofPrometheus Radio Project

v. Federal Communications Commission, made the compelling argument that regulating theownership of media outlets to protect a diversity of opinions is in the public interest and well withinthe purview of the Federal Communications Commission, Indeed, the FCC itself has stated that itsdecision to lift this long-time ban was to further its core goal of balancing the publics interests incompetition, localism, and diversity. In my view, allowing the News Corporation to acquire theWall Street Journal would dramatically undermine all three of those principles.As your colleague Commissioner Michael Copps has publicly stated, [t)his deal means moremedia consolidation and fewer independent voices, and it specifically impacts the local market inNew York City. I strongly agree with the viewpoint of Commissioner Copps and hope tha t theFederal Communications Commission will take seriously its duty to protect the public interest in

regulating media ownership. I would appreciate an investigation into this matter and a responsedetailing how this proposed merger will affect consumers access to a diversity of opinions in themarketplace and what s teps the FCC will take to ensure the continued vitality of the media,

pIN7ED ON ROCYCLEO PAPOR

CHRISTOPI-IER J. DODDCON NECllCUTCOMMIfltES;

bANKING, i-lOUSING, ANDURBAN APPAIRSOREION RELATIONS

HEALTh, EDUCATION. LA5OR,AND PENSIONSAULES AND ADMINISTRATiON

The Honorable Kevin I. MartinChairmanFederal Communications Commission445 12th Street SWWashington. DC 20554Dear Chairman Martin:

LtIt fuiewxIWASHINGTON, DC 20510-0702

August 2, 2007

CIRISTOPHER 3. DODDUnited States Senator

RECEIVED TIME AUG. 2. 7:49PM PRINT TIME AUG. 2. 7:5DPM


11/57


The Honorable Christopher J. DoddUnited States Senate448 Russell Senate Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20510Dear Senator Dodd:

Thank you for your letter regarding News Corporations proposal to acquire Dow Jones& Company. I appreciate your concerns regarding the proposed transactions potential effect onmedia concentration.

Our current rules limit cross-ownership at the local level. Indeed, the Commission haspreviously determined that the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rules are not designed toaffect an owner of a national newspaper. Evening News Association, 102 F.C.C.2d 1263(1986). Moreover, while Congress has specifically directed the Commission to establish nationallimits fo r broadcast networks and cable subscribership, Congress has no t directed or specificallyauthorized the Commission to address cross-ownership at the national level.

Finally, the Commissions authority to review a broadcast stationllocal newspapercombination historically has been exercised when an application to assign or to renew the licenseof the local broadcast station comes before the Commission. The proposed acquisition of DowJones by News Corporation, however, does not involve the transfer of control or assignment ofany broadcast licenses. Thus, the Commissions jurisdiction to review the proposed NewsCorporation/Dow Jones transaction is circumscribed.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance with this or any other matter.Sincerely,



_________


12/57

504 CANNON HOUSE OFFIcE BUILDINGWASHINGTON, DC 20515(202) 225-8531

FAx: (202) 2253013jirn.niarshaltlSmail.house.gov682 CHERRY STREET, SUITE 300MACON, GA 31201

(478) 4640255II FAx; (478) 4640277rI TOLL FREE: 18774640255

503 BELLEVUE AVENUE. SUITE CDUBLIN, GA 31021(478) 2962023FAx: (478) 2962802

CITY HALL, 130 EAsT 1ST STREETTIFTON, GA 31794(229) 5567418

F,,x: (229) 5567419

JM:kl

Thank you.Very truly yours,

4.QIonrc of tije nIteb tate

out of epreentatibeJIM MARSHALL

8TH DISTRICT, GEORGIA

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICESTERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONALTHREATS AND CAPABILrIIES

AIR AND LAND FORCESREADINESS

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICESCAPITAL MARKETS, INSURANCE ANDGOVERNMENT

SPONSORED ENTERPRISES0OMESTC AND INTERNATIONALMONETARY

POLICY. TRADE AND TECHNOLOGY

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTUREGENERAL FARM COMMODITIES

AND RISK MANAGEMENTSPECIALTY CROPS AND

FOREIGN AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS Sptember 7, 2007

The Honorable Kevin Martin, ChairmanFederal Communications CommissionRoom 8-B201445 12th Street, SWWashington, D.C. 20554-000 1Dear Chairman Martin:

I am concerned about Media Bureau Docket Number 07-18, the LibertyMedia acquisition of DirecTV from News Corp.It is my understanding that under the terms of the agreement that leadto News Corp. gaining control of DirecTV, they pledged to carry localbroadcasts to their subscribers. DirecTV should honor its agreement to providelocal-into-local television service by satellite in all 210 markets by 2008 ascondition of the FCCs approval of the Liberty Media transaction. Access to localnews, weather, sports, public safety information, and other local coverage isimportant, especially to rural viewers, who currently are missing out on thistype of programming. The FCC should hold DirecTV accountable for theirprevious agreement.

V


13/57

FEDERAL COMMUNCATfONS COMMISSIONW AS H N GTO N

The Honorable Jim MarshallUnited States House ofRepresentatives504 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Marshall:Thank you for your letter concerning the proposed transfer of control ofDIRECTV fromNews Corporation to Liberty Media Corporation. In your letter you ask that thetransaction be conditioned on a requirement that D1RECTV provide local-into-localservice in all television markets in the country.Although neither of the two major satellite television carriers, DIRECTV and DishNetwork, offers local-into-local service in all ofNielsens 210 Designated Market Areas(DMAs), 179 markets receive local-into-local service and more than 97% ofU.S.households are in markets in which satellite-delivered local stations are available.Specifically, D]RECTV offers local-into-local service in 144 DMAs today and is in theprocess of launching local-into-local service in an additional six markets for a total of 150DMAs.Unlike the cable must-carry statute that requires all cable systems to carry all localstations, Congress chose not to require satellite operators to carry local broadcast signalsin every market. The statutory requirements for satellite carriage give satellite carriers achoice of whether or not to carry local stations in a market. Specifically, by enacting theSatellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA), Congress decided toallow, bu t not require, satellite carriers to offer local stations. Satellite carriers thatchoose to offer one station in a market must carry all the stations in the market thatrequest carriage. This is known as carry one, carry all. In 2004, Congress amended thestatute to require carriage (must carry) in Alaska and Hawaii.DIRECTV has represented to the Commission in the license transfer proceedinginvolving Liberty Media that it is filly committed to offering local broadcast signals inall 210 DMAs by 2008, either via satellite or via the integration of digital tuners into set-top boxes, In those markets where it does not currently plan to roll out local-into-localservice via satellite, DIRECTV will offer a seamless, integrated local channel packageby integrating digital tuners into set-top boxes. Some consumers already have set-topboxes that include digital tuners; these tuners allow consumers to receive digitalbroadcast signals and view them on analog television sets without the need for separatedigital-to-analog converters. For other consumers in markets not served by satellite local-

OFCE OFTHE CHAIHMAN


14/57

into-local, DIRECTV will offer a component that attaches to the set-top box. Consumerswho wan t t o take advantage of this option would be charged $50 for the component bu twould not be charged for the local package. In addition to converting digital signals toanalog for display on analog televisions, the component will ensure that the broadcastprogramming is displayed on DIRECTVs electronic program guide and will enableconsumers to apply other set-top box functions ( such as DVR capability) to broadcastprogramming. Consumers using the additional component would not need a separatedigital-to-analog converter.Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of further assistance with t hi s o r any othermatter.

Sincerely,

Kevin MartinChairman


15/57

(onre of tjc Initcb tatea1jinton, 20510

November 13, 2007

The Honorable Kevin MartinChairmanFederal Communications Commission445 l2 Street, SW 6ashington, DC 20554Dear Chairman Martin:We write regarding the potential sale ofNews Corporations controlling interest inDirecTV to Liberty Media Corporation. We believe that this sale could prove detrimentalto the availability of local programming in smaller media markets if local-into-localrequirements are not preserved as a condition of the sale.As you know, News Corporation was charged with carrying local broadcasters viasatellite in each of the 210 Nielsen Designated Market Areas by 2008. Now , as thedeadline is approaching, News Corporation seeks to sell DirecTV without keeping itspromise to the FCC or DirecTV subscribers. Any agreement to sell controlling interest ofDirecTV should include the same local-into-local requirement.In your statement from the June 28 , 2007 hearing concerning localism, you stressed theimportance ofmaintaining a local broadcasting system. We could not agree more. Localbroadcasts keep communities connected and inform residents of important events, butthey are also a matter of public safety. Residents of our sta te re ly on local broadcasts towarn and update them about threatening weather situations and the location and directionof dangerous wildfires. Without local-into-local requirements, it could be difficult forthese subscribers to receive their local news and emergency programming.As you consider this potential sale, we encourage you to keep small market subscribers inmind and maintain local-into-local requirements in any sale of the controlling interest inDirecTV. We look forward to hearing from you about this matter .

U.S Senate


16/57

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONWASHINnTON

The Honorable John ThuneUnited States Senate493 Russell Senate Office BuildingWashington, DC. 20510

Dear Senator Thune:Thank you for your letter concerning the proposed transfer of control ofDIRECTV fromNews Corporation to Liberty Media Corporation. In your letter you ask that thetransaction be conditioned on a requirement that DIRECTV provide local-into-localservice in a ll television markets in the country.Although neither of the two major satellite television carriers, DIRECTV and DishNetwork, offers local-into-local service in all ofNielsens 210 Designated Market Areas(DMAs), 179 markets receive local-into-local service and more than 97% ofU.S.households are in markets in which satellite-delivered local stations are available.Specifically, DIRECTV offers local-into-local service in 144 DMAs today and is in theprocess of launching local-into-local service in an additional six markets for a total of 150DMAs.Unlike the cable must-carry statute that requires all cable systems to carry all localstations, Congress chose not to require satellite operators to carry local broadcast signalsin every market. The statutory requirements for satellite carriage give satellite carriers achoice of whether or not to carry local stations in a market. Specifically, by enacting theSatellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA), Congress decided toallow, but not require, satellite carriers to offer local stations. Satellite carriers thatchoose to offer one station in a market must carry all the stations in the market thatrequest carriage. This is known as carry one, carry all. In 2004, Congress amended thestatute to require carriage (must carry) in Alaska and Hawaii.DIRECTV has represented t o the Commission in the license transfer proceedinginvolving Liberty Media that it is filly committed to offering local broadcast signals inall 210 DMAs by 2008, either via satellite or via the integration of digital tuners into set-top boxes. In those markets where it does not currently plan to roll out local-into-localservice via satellite, D1RECTV will offer a seamless, integrated local channel packageby integrating digital tuners into set-top boxes. Some consumers already have set-topboxes that include digital tuners; these tuners allow consumers to receive digitalbroadcast signals and view them on analog television sets without the need for separatedigital-to-analog converters. Fo r other consumers in markets not served by satellite local-



17/57

into-local, D1RECTV wil l offer a component that attaches to the set-top box. Consume rswho want to take advanta ge of this option wo uld be charged $50 for the component butwould not be charged for the local packa ge. In addition to converting digital signals toanalog for display on analog telev ision s, the com ponent wil l ensure that the bro adcastprogramming is displayed on DIRECTVs electronic program guide and will enableconsumers to apply other set-top box func tions (such as DVR capability) to bro adca stpro gram ming. Co nsumers using the addit ional componen t would not need a separatedigital-to-analog converter .Please do not hesitate to contac t me if I may be of further assis tance with this or any oth ermatter.

Sincerely,

Ke vin J4via rti nChairma n


18/57

FEDERAL COMMUNCATONS COMMISSIONWAS H N G TO N

The Honorable Tim JohnsonUnited States Senate136 Hart Senate Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Johnson:Thank you for your letter concerning the proposed transfer of control ofDIRECTV fromNews Corporation to Liberty Media Corporation. In your letter you ask that thetransaction be conditioned on a requirement that DIRECTV provide local-into-localservice in all television markets in the country.Although neither of the two major satellite television carriers, DJRECTV and DishNetwork, offers local-into-local service in all ofNielsens 210 Designated Market Areas(DMAs), 179 markets receive local-into-local service and more than 97% ofU.S.households are in markets in which satellite-delivered local stations are available.Specifically, DIRECTV offers local-into-local service in 144 DMAs today and is in theprocess of launching local-into-local service in an additional six markets for a total of 150DMAs.Unlike the cable must-cany statute that requires all cable systems to carry all localstations, Congress chose not to require satellite operators to carry local broadcast signalsin every market. The statutory requirements for satellite carriage give satellite carriers achoice of whether or no t to carry local stations in a market. Specifically, by enacting theSatellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA), Congress decided toallow, but not require, satellite carriers to offer local stations. Satellite carriers thatchoose t o o ffe r o ne station in a market must carry all the stations in the market tha trequest carr iage. This is known as carry one, carry all. In 2004, Congress amended thestatute to require carriage (must carry) in Alaska and Hawaii.DIRECTV has represented t o th e Commission in the license transfer proceedinginvolving Liberty Media that it is flilly committed to offering local broadcast signals inall 210 DMAs by 2008, either via satellite or via the integration of digital tuners into set-to p bo xes. In those markets where it does not currently plan to roll out local-into-localservice via satellite, DIRECTV will offer a seamless, integrated local channel packageby integrating digital tuners into set-top boxes. Some consumers already have set-topboxes that include digital tuners; these tuners allow consumers to receive digitalbroadcast signals and view them on analog television sets without the need for separatedigital-to-analog converters, For other consumers in markets not served by satellite local-



19/57

into-local, DIRECTV will offer a component that attaches to the set-top box. Consumerswho wan t to take advantage of this option would be charged $50 for the component bu twould not be charged for the local package . I n addition to converting digital signals toanalog for display on analog televisions, the component will ensure that the broadcastprogramming is displayed on DIRECTVs electronic program guide and will enableconsumers to apply other set-top box functions (such as DVR capability) to broadcastprogramming. Consumers using the additional component would not need a separatedigital-to-analog converter.Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of further assistance with this or any othermatter.

Sincerely,/Kevin fMartinChairman


20/57

FEDERAL COMMUNCATONS COMMISSIONWA S H I N GTO N

The Honorable Stephanie Herseth SandlinUnites States House ofRepresentatives331 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, DC. 20515

Dear Congresswoman Sandlin:Thank you for your letter concerning the proposed transfer of control ofDIRECTV fromNews Corporation to Liberty Media Corporation. In your letteryou ask that thetransaction be conditioned on a requirement that D1RECTV provide local-into-localservice in all television markets in the country.Although neither of the two major satellite television carriers, DIRECTV and DishNetwork, offers local-into-local service in all ofNielsens 210 Designated MarketAreas(DMAs), 179 markets receive local-into-local service and more than 97% ofU.S.households are in markets in which satellite-delivered local stations are available.Specifically, DIRECTV offers local-into-local service in 144 DMAs today and is in theprocess of launching local-into-local service in an additional six markets for a total of 150DMAs.Unlike the cable must-carry statute that requires all cable systems to carry all localstations, Congress chose no t to require satellite operators to carry local broadcast signalsin every market . The s ta tu tory requirements for satellite carriage give satellite carriers achoice ofwhether o r not to carry local stations in a market. Specifically, by enacting theSatellite Home Viewer Improvement Ac t of 1999 (SHVIA), Congress decided toallow, bu t no t require, satellite carriers to offer local stations. Satellite carriers thatchoose to offer one station in a market must carry all the stations in the market thatrequest carriage. This is known as carry one, carry all. In 2004, Congress amended thestatute to require carriage (must carry) in Alaska and Hawaii.DIRECTV has represented to the Commission in the license transfer proceedinginvolving Liberty Media that it is fully committed to offering local broadcast signals inall 210 DMAs by 2008, either via satelli te or via the integration of digital tuners into set-top boxes. In those markets where it does not currently plan to roll ou t local-into-localservice via satellite, DIRECTV will offer a seamless, integrated local channel packageby integrating digital tuners into set-top boxes. Some consumers already have set-topboxes that include digital tuners; these tuners allow consumers to receive digitalbroadcast signals and view them on analog television sets without the need for separatedigital-to-analog converters. Fo r other consumers in markets not served by satellite local-

OFFICE CFTHE CHAIRMAN


21/57

into-local, DIRECTV will offer a component that attaches to the set-top box. Consumerswho want to take advantage of this option would be charged $50 for the component bu twould no t be charged for the local package. In addition to converting digital signals toanalog for display on analog televisions, the component will ensure that the broadcastprogramming is displayed on DIRECTVs electronic program guide and will enableconsumers to apply other set-top box functions (such as DVR capability) to broadcastprogramming. Consumers using the additional component would not need a separatedigital-to-analog converter,Please do no t hesitate to contact me if I may be of further assistance with this or any othermatter.

Sincerely,

Kevin fMartinChairman


22/57

12/04/2007 1728 FAX 202 228 0428 REP JOHN TAI(NER 7 002

1-lonorable Kevin 3. MartinChairmanFederal Communications Commission445 12th Street. SWWashington, D.C. 20554Dear Chaiiman Martin:

I respectfully request that the Federal Communications Commission, in consideration ofthe Liberty Media transaction (Media Bureai.i Docket Number 07-1 ), require DirecTV toprovide 100% local-into-local television service programming.It is my understanding that DirecTV has submitted a letter arguing that no conditionshould be imposed on DirecTV requiring it to provide local-into-local service in the remaining61 rural television markets in 31 states. The Jackson, Tennessee market, which is in myCongressional district, is one of the remaining un-served television areas. Local-into-localtelevision service programming is vital to promote competition and provide information to the

community in the event of an emergency.Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Please feel free to contact my officeif I can provide any further information.

CC: Deborah Taylor Tate, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission

1226 LONGWORTh BLJILDINe FOST OFI9c 8ox 629 ROOM t7 , FSOAL UILDNG 8120 HIGNWAi 51 NORmW*SHIN6TON D.C. 20515 203 WE5T CKWICII SmEEr JACKSON, TN 38301 SurrE 3(202) 225-4714 UNION Cm,, TN 38261 (731) 423-4848 MILLINGTON, TN 38453FAX (202) 2251755 (731) 8857070 FAX (731) 4271537 (901) 8735690FAX (731)8857094 FAX (901) 8736692

JOHN TANNERSm DsmIC rT5NNE5SEE

www.house.gov/tannorCONGRESS OF THE UNITE]) STATES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESWASHINGTON, DC 20515-4208December 4, 2007

WAYS AND MEANS cOMMflTEEFORE(CN A1FAJ9S COMMrrTEEHOUSE NATO PA9LIAMENTAFiY

ASSEMB(.Y DELEGATiON


23/57


The Honorable John TannerUnited States House ofRepresentatives1226 Longworth House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Tanner;Thank you for your letter concerning the proposed transfer of control ofDIRECTV fromNews Corporation to Liberty Media Corporation. In your letter you ask that thetransaction be conditioned on a requirement that DIRECTV provide local-into-localservice in all television markets in the country.Although neither of the two major satellite television carriers, DIRECTV and DishNetwork, offers local-into-local service in all ofNielsens 210 Designated Market Areas(DMAs), 179 markets receive local-into-local service and more than 97% ofU.S.households are in markets in which satellite-delivered local stations are available.Specifically, DJRECTV offers local-into-local service in 144 DMAs today and is in theprocess of launching local-into-local service in an additional six markets for a total of 150DMAs.Unlike the cable must-carry statute that requires all cable systems t o car ry a ll localstations, Congress chose no t to require satellite operators to cany local broadcast signalsin every market. Th e statutory requirements for satellite carriage give satellite carriers achoice of whether or no t to carry local stations in a market. Specifically, by enacting theSatellite Home Viewer Improvement Ac t of 1999 (SHVIA), Congress decided toallow, but not require, satellite carriers to offer local stations. Satellite carriers thatchoose to offer one sta tion in a market must carry all the stations in the market thatrequest carriage. This is known as carry one, carry a ll. I n 2004, Congress amended thestatute to require carriage (must carry) in Alaska and Hawaii.DIRECTV has represented to the Commission in the license transfer proceedinginvolving Liberty Media that it is fully committed to offering local broadcast signals inall 210 DMAs by 2008, either via satellite or via the integration of digital tuners into set-top boxes. In those markets where it does not currently plan to roll out local-into-localservice vIa satellite, DIRECTV will offer a seamless, integrated local channel packageby integrating digital tuners into set-top boxes. Some consumers already have set-topboxes that include digital tuners; these tuners allow consumers to receive digitalbroadcast signals and view them on analog television sets without the need for separatedigital-to-analog converters. For other consumers in markets not served by satellite local-

OFFICE OFTIlE CHAIRMAN


24/57

into-local, DIRECTV will offer a component that attaches to the set-top box. Consumerswho want to take advantage of this option would be charged $50 for the component bu twould no t be charged for the local package. In addition to converting digital signals toanalog for display on analog televisions, the component will ensure that the broadcastprogramming is displayed on DIRECTVs electronic program guide and will enableconsumers to apply other set-top box functions (such as DVR capability) to broadcastprogramming. Consumers using the additional component would not need a separatedigital-to-analog converter.Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of further assistance with this or any othermatter.

Sincerely,



25/57

25+3057 u.s Rep CUBIN 02:51.56 p.m. 02-21 -2008 1/1COMM ITT& ON WASHNGT0N OFFiCEENERGY AND COMMERCE 1114 LONGWOITN House OrFIcO BUILDING

WASIIINQION, DC 20515TEI.ECOMMLJNICATIONS AND THO )NT!NrT (202) 225-2311iiijjpr Fx (202) 225-3051WYOMJNG OFFiCES:onres of the !lnitei1 tatez cs , WY 8260260141Yiause of Reprsentatiues F97

BARBARA CUBN Zl2OCAprroLAvoeuEBonE 2015CHEVENN!,WY 62001WYOMINGAT LARGE (307)772-2595February 21, 2008 FAX: (307)

2515 FOOTHILL SOIJLEVARDTh e Honorable Kevin J. Martin I)fj J fj RocgSpyBZOOlChairman, Federal Communications Commission . I FAc (307) 362-4097445 12th St., SW (w JWashington, DC 20554 \ IDear Chairman Martin:I write today to express concern about the stated, yet unfulfilled commitment ofDirecTV and NewsCorpto offer local-into-local service to a ll 210 Designated Market Areas (DMA) by 2008. While I do notoppose the stalce swap between NewsCorp and Liberty Media, I urge the Commission to carefullyreview NewsCorp and DirecTVs 2003 pledge in light of this transaction.As you know, in an effort to win approval of its initial acquisition ofDirecTV, NewsCorp wrote that, asearly as 2006 and no later than 2008, (1) DIRECTV will offer a seamless, integrated local channelpackage.in all 210 DMAs. Unfortunately, DirecTV has not lived up to this pledge. In fact,approximately 3.5 million television households still do not receive local-into-local service.In the current ownership transfer filings, DirecTV now argues it never intended to offer satellite serviceto all 210 DMAs. Given that DirecTV is a Direct Broadcast Satellite company, it is difficult to believethat DirecTV intended to serve customers with anything other than satellite service, Moreover, requiringcustomers to purchase both a converter box and an external antenna to continue receiving local stationsfollowing the digital transition cannot be considered seamless, at least no t from the consumers point ofview.Given that rural customers disproportionately depend on satellite technologies, but are alsodisproportionately excluded from satellite television coverage, I ask that the Commission no t looklightly upon DirecTVs pledge.

Sincerely,C?5aecBarbara CubinMember of Congress

CC : Commissioner Jonathan AdelsteinCommissionerMichael CoppsCommissioner Deborah Taylor TateCommissioner Robert McDowell

FEINTED ON EECYCIED PAFEA


26/57

02/21/2008 16:29 FA X 202 228 0012 SEN. BEN NELSON ti 002/002E. ENJAM1N NELSON

NEERACA720 HAriT SENATE OPPcE 8UIIJ)INC

WASHINOTON, DC 20610(202) 2246681

F.*.x (202) 2280012www.bennelgonaenMagov

As you consider the pending transaction between News CorporatiowDlR.ECTV Group, Inc. and LibortyMedia Corporation, I urge you to consider the issue ofLocal-Into-Local (LIL) service in order to ensurethat consumers it small markets still have access to local broadcasts.In Nebraska, there are two DesignatedMarket Aj-eas in which DIR.ECTV currently does not provide LII,service: Scottsbluff and North Platte. D1RECTV has lived up to commitments to provide service in thetop 150 markets nationwide; and of course, consumers in the remaining markets in excess of 150 arewanting access to the same service. I understand the technical arid cost constraints ofmeeting a mandateto provide LIL service in all 210 market, but I believe it is important to give consideration to the impacton consumers of no t having access to local broadcasts.Many in rural areas ofmy home state have no option other than direct broadcast service to receivetelevision broadcasts. Access to local broadcasts in these areas means more than just the convenience andenjoyment ofwatching local stations; it is a public safety matter. Without access to local broadcasts,people living in remote areas are at risk of no t receiving timely weather information and emergencyalerts. In a. slate where severe weather is not uncommon, access to this vital information and service is ofcritical importance.Because of the significance of this issue to my constituents living in rural areas ofNebraska, I urge you toensure that consumers in remote, rural areas have access to local broadcasts as you consider thistransaction, Thaik you for your consideration.

EBN:ajscc: Commissioner Jonathan S. AdelsteinCommissioner Michael 3. CoppsCommissioner Robert M. McDoweflCommissioner Deborah Taylor Tate

440 NoHn4 8T4 S5ETSurrs 120LINCOLN. NE 66508(402) 4414600F*.X: (402) 476a75

PIELD ERE8ENTATIVEPOST OFFICE BOX 2106KEAINEY, NE 66848(300) 2935818

Fisi.o AEPRE5ENTA1IVPosr OPPiCE BOx 1472Scc1-rsLuF. NE 68363(308) 6317614

FIELD REPRESENTATIVEPOST OpC BOx 791Soumi SIOUX CIW, NE 66776402) 2093595

7502 PACIRC SThEFrSurrs 208OMANA, NE 68114(402)3913411Fc (402) 3914725

The Honorable Kevin I. Martin, ChairmanFederal Communications Commission445 12th Street, SW.Washington, DC 20554.0001Reference; MB Docket No . 07-18Dear Chairman Martin:

nitzd tats tnatzPebruaiy 20, 2008

Sincerely,

United


27/57

10/12/2010 17:30 FAX CANON 3175 IlO0iCOMMITTEE ON 2161 PAYOURN LI8EOFRCS UILDIMCFOREIGN AFFAIRS WASNINETON, C 16fl.3i7CHRMAN Io) 225-2484WESTERN HEMI5PEM DISThIC1 OFFICES:5UacOMMIflE 355 JOI4NCN AVENUEOThER SL.JSCOMMrrIEES; QNX. NY 10483

N Ofltt of die tUtb tate 5ORAMATANAVENUEMIDDLE EAST AND $OUTh AS SUITE 208MOUNTV5NON. NV 10550CoMMI1rEEoN RII4LIU I014I83-4to0ENERGYANOCOMMEFICE El 101 I Mwi 281 W!STNYAKROADSUDCOMMrrIEES: I-Iw.I WSSTNVACK.NV1OBS4

HALTh 17th DISTRICT, NEW VOI< 1645 1000NERGV AND ENV1!0NMENT W5SrTE: pIonI.hjii.Qv

ASEIIANTDEMOCRATICWIUP October 13, 2010

The Honorable Julius Oenachowski, ChairmanFederal Communications Commission V445 Twelfth Street, S.W.Washington, D.C. 20554Dear Cluiinnan Genachowsk V

I am writing as a follow up to my previous letter ofMarch 2, 2010 about the Vretransmission consent issUe. Today, there is a similar situation brewing. The currentimpasse between Cablevision andNews Corporation threatens my constituents withlosing access to the Fox network on Friday, October 15.In March, my letter to you asked for the FCC to provide a regulatory fix whichwould allow broadcasters and networks to be compensated fairly for their product while

not charging cable and satellite providers outrageously high rates. Today, I repeat myrequest for the FCC to intervene to protect my constituents.V

The next proposed broadcast cutoff is scheduled to occur in the midst of theMajor League Baseball playoffs, and only days before the New York Yankees potentiallyenter the World Series. In a previous retransmission consent dispute, the broadcast of theAcademy Awards was nearly disrupted. I have been hearing from a large number ofconstituents requesting Congressional action on this issue.

This situation has to stop. My constituents cannot constantly be on the hook andbe held hostage while two giant corporations fight over revenues, Broadcast blackouts arepainful a t a ll times, bu t they are particularly hanuful regarding live sporting orentertainment events which cannot be viewed enjoyably after the event takes pLane.I understand that broadeast networks are the most highly viewed channels on

cable, and that broadcasters deserve to be fairly compensated for their product However,this compensation must be agreed to without causIng the viewers to be held hostage.Television viewers are being subjected to Sit increasing number of retransmissiondisputes that continue to threaten their favorite programming. To prevent the continuationof these threats to consumers, I respectfully request that the FCC expeditiously take athorough loak into the retransmission consent system. While investigating the situation

10/3.1/201 17:30 FAX CA NO N 3175 IO


28/57

0 02

the FCC should propoe a solution which would enstre that consumers wil l nOt hsve theirsignal shut off, esp ecially dtiring som e of their most popular programming of the year.Al though 1 am a strong proponent of allowing businesses to work out theirdisputes without having the government intervene. I cannot stand icily by ifmyconstituentS Con tinue to be harmed, and I must ask for 1CC in te rv ention.1 would apprecia te a thoughtful and prompt response reg ardin g this issue.

Sincerely,gA.44_ Af4LEliot L. EngelMember of Congress


29/57

c. c. 1r.rarrEL)1ST Oi,ucr,NRr CAtLIi4

DEPUTY WFHP4I CWAS )C 213(12c 2G1 214 n tIps 3nttb tutt

UtOctober 15, 2010

MfliEE ONENERGY AND C0MMURCEVICS CUSIS. ir s

AmE th5SM) C SUMSS

COMMFEE ONSTANDARDS OtOFFiCtAL CONDUCTUS. tD3L$ :N1U OMMISSTON

The Honorable Julius Genach:oWskiChairmanFederal Communications Commission12 Street, SWWishington, DC 20554

Dear Chairman Genachowski:As the retrapsmissin onset ngOtiations between Cablcvisioi and Fox over carriage of Focprogramming continue, the parties involved. shouki negotiate th terms of their agreement withoutgove.rnmert influence.As you know, these negotiations attempt to achieve a very delicate balance between two sizeablemedia companies. A.s with aiy business negotiation, cIiscusions about the termsof retransmissionconsent can, at times, become quite contentious. However, government intervention in businesstobusiness negotiations of this nature could impact this slid future retransmission consent negotiatotis.,The marketplace has changed greatly since the 1992 Cable Act created tbe retransmission consentregulations, much to th benefit ofviewers, Today, there are many niultichamiel video programmin.gdistributors (MV.PD) and other content viewing options available to consumers that were notavailable nearly a decade ago. In many markets, including those covered in this current negotiation,consumers have many options for viewing coiitent: a cable operator, two satellite providers, twotelephone companies, the Internet, and overthealr,Programming and distributiOn of video content is a vibrant and competitive market. In order tocontinue fostering strong competition, private companies should engage in these negotiations withoutgovernment intervention. The current. retransmission, consent regulations have worked. wel l fornearly two decades, to the bcnefit of viewers, MVPDs and content owners.Should yo have any questions, please feel free to contact me or Saul Heraandez on my staff at (202)225-3101 *Thank yot very much.

s.I9 WIA .flthflIflat5urJ3,4aN (252)23951C1SMRZ (29t36

309 W,s T1t,D SrssrrWr 1 W4. NC 2?WT 1,UUtM1 252) 53-423lrSsu0 2525345I0

1658

G. K. ButterfieldMember otCongress


30/57

Urircd 2 rates SenateWASHtNG tON, DC 205W

October 18, 2010 1659Chairman Julius GenachowskiFederal Communications Commission445 1 Dth Street, SWWashington. DC 20554Dear Chairman Genachowsk i:

News Corp. (FOX) and Cables ision r ecen tl f ai led to reach an agreement for theretransmission of WNVW (NY channel 5), WWOR NJ channel 9) and WlXF(Philadelphia channel 29). Because FOX has been unv illing to keep its signal on hilethe parties continue to negotiate, approximately 3 million Cablevision subscribers in NewJersey, New York and Connecticut are left without access to these broadcast channels.and th e local news, sports. and other programming they offer. We ask that the FCC takeimmediate action to move the patties to a prompt resolution of this dispute and tominimize the impact of future disputes.

ttnfortunatelv, th e FOX and Cablevision dispute is not an isolated incident.Disputei between broadcasters and video providers appear to he increasing. Just lastMarch, Cablevision anti Disney/WABC-TV failed to reach an agreement and the WA BC-TV signal was pulled from Cablevision. While that signal as eventually restored, it asonl> after Cablevision customers sere without \\A13CTV for approximatel> 2( hours,including the first 15 minutes of the Academy Awards broadcast. Upcomingretransmission consent negotiations between FOX and the 01511 Network may put evenmore hardworking New Jersevans at risk of losing television programming that the havecome to expect and rely on tbr their local news and entertainment. We are deeplytroubled that consumers are repeatedly being used as pawns in these programmingdisputes.We ask th at th e lCC exercise all of its available authority to promptl> resole theFOX and Cablevision dispute. it is our understanding that the FCC suggested that FOXand Cablevision resolve their dispute through mediation, but FOX declined. \\ e ask that

you immediately ifl\ ite representatives from both parties to meet with you and other FCCofficials in order to reenergize and resolve these negotiations.Ihe FCC also needs to reexamine its existing regulations for retransmissionconsent negotiations. As you know, a petition to modify these rules has been pendingbefore the FCC since March 2010. We urge the FCC to work diligently andexpeditiously to consider the comments that have been filed on that petition and revise itsrules. We ask that the FCC provide us with a response within live business tia> s thatoutlines a firm schedule for the FCCs action on the pending retransmission consent


31/57

petWon (MB Docket No. 1 071). Continued delay in retorming the retransmissionconsent process will only harm consumers in New Jersey and ihroubout the country.

Sincerely,


32/57


October 29, 2010

The Honorable Frank R. LautenbergUnited States Senate324 Hart Senate Office BuildingWashington, D.C . 205 10Dear Senator Lautenberg:

Thank you for your letter of October 18, 2010, expressing concern that the current frameworkfor negotiation of the terms of retransmission consent by broadcasters, cable companies. and satelliteoperators is in nccd of reform.I agree with you that recent events raise issues of real concern. Negotiations betweenbroadcasters and pay television providers have become increasingly fractious and we are now in themidst of an impasse resulting in a sustained blackout. I share your concern that the current systemrelegates television viewers to pawns between companies batt ling over retransmission fees.Under the present system, the FCC has very few tools with which to protect consumersinterests in the retransmission consent process. Congress granted th e FCC limited ability to encourageagreement by ensuring that the parties negotiate in good faith. But current law does not give theagency the tools necessary to prevent service disruptions, Accordingly, 1 believe that it is time forCongress to revisit the current retransmission l aw and assess whether changes in the marketplace call

for new tools to strike the appropriate balance of private negotiations and consumer protection. Suchtools might include, for example, mandatory mediation and binding arbitration, which could preventthe kind of unfortunate stalemate that now exists between Cablevision and Fox.

The companies in the current dispute share responsibility for viewer disruption. TheCommission will continue to push the companies to reach an agreement and serve the viewing public.Fo r weeks the Commission has been admonishing the parties to reach an agreement, as so many othercompanies do each year. To protect viewers, the Commission issued consumer advisories informingCablevision customers of their options in the event of the blackout that has now come to pass. Wehave urged the parties to agree to private thirdparty mediation. Ihe Commission also launched aninvestigation into whether each party is complying with its legal duty to negotiate in good faith.I look forward to working closely with you and your colleagues in Congress as you considerreforms to the retransmission consent law.

Sineriy,

oFFc; OFTH F CRMAN

itiids Genachowski


33/57

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISStONWASHINGTON

October 29. 2010

The Honorable Robert MenendezUnited States Senate528 hart Senate Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20510Dear Senator Menendez:

Thank you for your letter of October 18, 2010, expressing concern that the current frameworkfor negotiation of the terms of retransmission consent by broadcasters, cable companies, and satelliteoperators is in need of reform.

I agree with, you that recent events raise issues of real concern. Negotiations betweenbroadcasters and pay television providers have become increasingly fractious and we are now in themidst of an impasse resulting in a sustained blackout. I share your concern that the current systemrelegates television viewers to pawns between companies battling over retransmission fees.

Under the present system, the FCC has very few tools with which 1.0 protect consumersinterests in the retransmission consent process. Congress granted the FCC limited ability to encourageagreement by ensuring that the parties negotiate in good faith, But current law does not give theagency the tools necessary to prevent service disruptions . Accordingly, I believe that it is t ime forCongress to revisit the current retransmission law and assess whether changes in the marketplace callfor new tools to strike the appropriate balance of private negotiations and consumer protection. Suchtools might include, for example, mandatory mediation and binding arbitration, which could preventthe kind of unfortunate stalemate that now exists between Cablevision and Fox.

The companies in the current dispute share responsibility for viewer disruption. TheCommission will continue to push the companies to reach an agreement and serve the viewing public.Fo r weeks the Commission has been admonishing the part ies to reach an agreement, as so many othercompanies do each year. To protect viewers, the Commission issued consumer advisories informingCablevision customers of their options in the event of the blackout that has now come to pass. Wehave urged the parties to agree to private thirdparty mediation. The Commission also launched aninvestigation into whether each party is complying with its legal duty to negotiate in good fttith.

I look forward to working closely with you and your colleagues in Congress as you considerreforms to the retransmission consent law.

OFFICE OFTHE ZHAIRMP.N

Gcnachowski


34/57

RUSH HOLT ChairTwelfth District, New Jersey Select Intelligence Oversight PanelCommittee on Appropriations1214 Longworth Dailding

Washington, D.C. 20515 Committee on Education202-225-5801. and LaborFax 202-22.5-602.5

W35O ngrii of flr 3Jjnitt tatis Perm an:ntSel t Committee609-750-9365Fax 609-750-0618 Committee on Natural Resources

http:/Jholt.houne.gov Octob er 19, 20101660

The Honorab le Julius GenachowskiFederal Communica tions Commission

12 Street , SWWashing ton, DC 20554Dea r Chairman Genachowsk i,I am writing to urge immedia te action to bring a resolution to the curren t dispute between News Corp andCablev ision that is res ulting in my c onstituents not being able to see importan t pro gramming.La st week , I sent let ters to eac h p arty in the dispute (see attach ed) to ensure that the consumers we re notthe victim s of this dispute through the loss of programming . Unfortuna tely, an agreement was notreached, and at this point t he re i s no indication that the parties are making p rogres s on reach ing aresolution, thu s intensifring the risk tha t my constituen ts wi ll continue to suffer a loss of acc ess topro gram s they enjoy.As the FCC is the agency respons ible for ove rsee ing the ret ransmission consent p rocess and charged wi ththe obli ga tion to ens ure that broa dcas ters act i n t he public interest, I ask that you use all availab le means(inc ludin g arb itration or med iat ion ) to bring the parties togeth er to resolv e this d isput e as sw iftly aspossible. I wou ld appreciate it if you could advise of your intent in this regard at your earliestconven ience.

Sin cerely,

RUSH HOLTMember of Cong ress

CC: Commi ssioner Mich ae l CoppsCommissioner Mignon Clyb urnCommissioner Robert McDowellCommi ssioner Meredith Atwe ll Baker


35/57

JOHN KERRY caTrEEsMASCHJSU COficf. SCENC,MQTN1O

1tintd tate iia tWASHINGTO( DC 2i5iC)21O2, SM L

Octberl9,20i0 1661Th e Honorable Julius GenachowskiChairmanFederal Comniunications Commission445 1 2k Street, SWWashington, D.C. 20004Dear Chairman Genachowski:

As you know, News Corp (FOX) and Cablevision failed to reach an agrcemnt on Fridayfo r th e retransmission ofWNYW (NY hannei 5), WWOR (NJ channel 9) and WTXF(Philadelphia channel 29) As a result, approximately 3 million Cablevision subscribers in NewJersey,New York and Connecticut were left without access to these broadcast channels,including the widdy watdied New York 6iants game this weekend As the New York Timesrecently reported, these sorts of confrontations are now a regular event; indeed, BloombergNews recently reported that TV blackouts in the U.S.. have reached the highest level in a decadeand may ciinb as payTV operators fight higher fees sought by content producers.Rather than take sides in a conflict of corporate interests, we can all agree that this systemworks least of all for consumers, the primary interest we represent in matters of public policymaking I hope you will agree that the current process which forces all sides and partiuilarlyconsumers into lousy thoices is broken and in need of reloun Cunently, eithu paity,suf&icntly strong willed, an play a game of negotiating chicken with the consumer caught inthe middle. It incentivizes conflict over negotiation.Th e voices of angry consumers in this weekends news coverage speak volumes. Manyfootball tans had to leave home, denied the service they faithfully pay for , and even bring theirchildren to bars to watch the game. As one person,Marilyn Odeli, told the New York Times,shouting to be heard above th e crowd, Were too o ld to be in this place. A separate AssociatedPress story detailed oneof the owners of a bar that depends on its Cablevision subscriptioncomplaining, ThiS is ridiculous!.Jm relying on people to come in who arc Giants fans and

theyre walking out. even though I pay fOr the football package. He went on to say thatregular, everyday people get caught in the middle.There are important equities. and business interests at stake hi these negotiations, and inthis most recent case, both sides believe theyve negotiated in good faith Its not ou r job to takesides but it is clearly our responsibility to ask whether theres a bettet way forward as thesekinds of situations rise in frequency. In addition to this most recent dispute, just lastMarch,Cablevision and Disney!WABC-TV failed to reach an agreement and the WABC-TV signal waspulled from Cablevision. While that signal wa s eventually restored, it was only after Cablevision

rnnDoNCEPAR


36/57


37/57

The Hpnorabie Juliu s GenachciwskiOc tober 19, 2010Page 3require binding arbitration. The penalty for the broad cast er is forced participa tion inbinding arbitration.

Scenario 3 This will be the most like ly scenario m most cases The FCC finds thatboth parties have negotiated m good fa ith but reached a tru e impasse based on an honestdis agieement on th e v alue of the signal In tin s case, the FCC may i equeit them tosubmit to bindrng arbitrat ion If one party o r t he other refu ses to engage in bindingarbttra tion, then the FCC wi ll provide both parties with amodel notice by whick toinfonn consumeis of the poten tial loss of service as well as the ditlei ence in offers on. thetable so that consumers can judge for themselves who was making the fairest offer Thisadds a more consuinr friendly and tia nspalent way to end tiansmission of services itnec essary and creates an attr act ive option for arbitration for both parties.

Scenario 4 The FCC finds that neithe r party is nego tiating in good faith, then it canrequire bind ing arbitratioia and fin e bo th parties.I look fo rward to woik ing with you on a solu tion to this prob lem . If you have analternativ e so lutio n or be lieve you can make the process work for consume rs using yourregulatory auth ority, ple ase let me know.

Sincerely,

Joh n F. Kerry


38/57

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYRITE\COM1C\RETRAN3.

[STAFF WORKING DRAFTIOtr ro ii IS, 2010

111TH CO NG RES S2D SESSrON

n

S.To amend the Co imunienti unt Aet of 19.34 to faeiIitnty retro mi ssu

ngremti flt eon fIit rCso ut lUll. -

IN THE SENAT1 OF TE UNITEI)Nv4MIL_

Jtr. Kiinv (for himself, i\ir.. uu1 r. ) introduced the follnwiit- bill: hich s re 1 twice and reln red to the Coulmittee on

A BILLTa amend th Commumeations Act of 1934 to faci ita te

: ansimsion lgT ce!nex1t conflict i eolUtiOflI Re ti ena(ed bj the &nate oiut House of Repi egenta

ties of th Unitd States qfJ11nerica iz Qong ress qse?nbied3 SECTION 1. SHO RT TiTLE.4 This Act may be cited s the Retransmission Nego5 tiation Reform and Transparency Act of 2010.

October18, 2010 (9:51 a.m.)

S:\WPSFII\LEGCNSL\XYWRITEWOWO\ETRAN3


39/57

3-J

I SEC. 2; FINDINGS.2 The Congress finds the foll ow ing:3 (1) Broadcast television statiolLs rightJy rece ive4 free use of the public spec trum to. transmit a broad-5 cast sigiral in the public interest. Broadcasters aIscY6 ret ewe specia] government-granted benef its to e) I7 sure that they ai e able to taffihl their mandate etC8 sen e the public These include thc raaht% choose9 ertirer mandatot v vantage eallec[ %tal can y ot10 negotiated can iage horn a YKico pro11 gi ammmg distri bu to r undar .i etianszrnsum consent12 (2) Under the Peck mmcatron Corumis

*13 sior? s network ncpduphcataou i. egulat rons , a hi oad14 caster, in mo st cases, eflee fively rs the sole sou rce of15 populia, non-substitutable, network progiamrnmg in1 6 a given designated market area As a result, when17 a broasleaster thi eatexis to pull its signal, the multi-18 channel video prograinnung distnbutor cannot ac19 cess an oxistmg alternative source for the network20 pr ogi.amimng21 (3) When retransmission consent rights were22 grmitcd to conxmereiaI te levision broadcast stations23 in 1.992, it was expected. tha t such rights would be24 exercised in a maimer that would benefit consumers25 by enhancing competition in the video prograimrinig26 marketplace wh ile preserving and protecting the

October 18, 2b10 (9:51 tin .)

S:\WPSHR\LEOCNSL\XYWRITE\COMI0\RETRAN3


40/57

31 broadest avenlabibty of local television broadcast sta2 tions to all members of the viewing public at reason3 able prices.4 (4 ) Between 1992 and 2007, these expectations5 were largely met. Most television broadcast stations6 electing retransnrission consent were able ts reach7 carriage agreements with multichaimel video pio8 gramming distributors on mutually agreeable terms9 that provuEled additional vahio to . cousm we;rs. ar a rew

10 sonable price. As recently as 20.05, the Federal Corn11 nurnications Co.mmiwdori found that niest retrans12 mission consent agreeriiEad:s were based on an ox-13 change of in-Iclifd conideraion.14 (5) Iefansiissiou, . i isent negotiations have ,1 5 1 lowevey, become . increasingly contei itious with16 threats of Imjassi rising. As a . re sult, a. growing17 i in naber of negotiat ions create a period of uuoer18 tainty mid confusion fo r consumers as to their con19 tinned access to programming from broadcasters20 that they reasonably expected they would receive as

part of their multichannel video programming dis22 trihutor service.

.5 ISOctober 18, 2010 (9:51 asrt)

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\COM1G\RETRAN3


41/57

41 SEC. 3. RETRANSMiSSiON NEGOTiATION POST-IMPASSE2 TRANSPARENCY ANT) RESOLUTION.3 Section 325(b) of the (onuminications Act of 1 9344 (47 U.S.C. 32b)) is amended5 (1) by uedesiguating paragraph (7) as pars6 grp 1i (8); and7 (2) by inerthig after paragraph (3) the fol8 lowing: -9 (7) IEOIUTION OP10 RENEWAL CONFLICT.11 (A) IN GENERAL.por f exatiou of au

412 existing carriage agreemm wlucling any mutually13 agreed upon extpnsion thereof) he twc..n a MVPD14 and a broadeate that haii elected its right to grant15 retran,nw*uon oneiit under this subsection16 ii) the MVPD shal l coutmue to carry the17 .: sign al or signals of the broadcaster on the same1$ tn is as the expired agreement;19 (ii) the broadcaster shall allow continued20 ca rriage of its signal or signals on the same2 1 terms as the expired agieement; and22 (iii) within 10 days after the date on23 which the agreement eq)ircd, each party shall24 submit its last best offer to the Commission for25 a determination as to whether offer is in eo n26 sistciit with

isOctober18, 2010 (9:51 am.)

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\m.1TE\COM1O\EEmAN3


42/57

I (I) the duty to negotiate: iii good2 faith; or3 (II) market conditions, in4ncUng4 changes in the consumer pnee ind ex.5 The ()onumssion shall make its deteimination with6 zespeet to each such offet wfthm 20 busmess days7 after the date on which the agieement expn ed8 (13) Bio$ncAwrIR LASI DES V OFFIH 1NCON9 SISTENT WITH GOOD FAITH NEGOTh\ PIONS 011 MAR-

10 RET uown ro S 1 the Uomnns% ion detcimine s11 that12 (i ) the te1e ion broadcast stations last13 best offer cva meansistent with the duty to no-14 gotiate ni gooI faith oi with rnuket conditions,15 and16 (n)the MVPDs last best off ci as not17 nice steut with the duty to negotiate ui good18 tam or inaiket conditions,19 then the Comimsston shal l icqini e the pai ties to2Q :ubiuiit to binding arbitration. The broadcaster shall21 al lo contuniec i carnage of its signal oi signals din22 ing the pendemiy of arbitration pursuant to the23 terms of the expired agreement.

*5 ISOctober 18,2010 (9:51 a.m)

S:cWPSHR\LEGONSL\XYWRITE\COMIO\RETRNS


43/57

6I (C ) IVtVP1) LAST BEST OFFER INCONSISTENT2 WITH GOOD F ITII NEGOTIATIONS OR 2jARmEP CON-3 DITION&4 tti) If the Commission determines that the5 1VIVPDs last best offer was rneonsisteiat with6 the duty to negotiate in good faith 01 with rnai7 ket conditions, and the televisio n hi oadeast staS uons last best off rn was riot mcoiisistmt with9 tile duty to negotiate in g9od faith or mai k(t

10 conditions, thc,n ti le Commiss ion IUaV hue theIi 1VIVPD and the MVII) shall have 2 business12 days to agree to the tims of the tele ision13 broadcast station s fast best ottei i cia 0 active to14 the date on ;v1uel the eustrng a grcenwnt ox-15 piied and continue to caiiy the signal or sig16 nab

It -17 (i; ) 1 the MVP1) does not agree to the18 terms of the televi&ion hi oadeast sta tions las t19 best offer within that 2-day peri&i, then the20 MV1D shall tcrmmate carnage of the signal oi2l, signals upon 14 days no tice to eonsumer un-22 less the broadcaster requests, with in 2 business23 days after the end of that 2-d ay period, that24 the Commission require the parties to submit to25 binding arhitra ticyn. if the broadcaster -roquets

October 18, 2010 9:Sl am.)

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWR1TE\COM1O\RETRA.N3


44/57

7I the Commission to require bmthng arbitration,2 it shall allow continued carriage of its signal or3 signals during the pendency of arbitration. i)U 14 suant to the terms of the expired agreement.5 (iii) if the \IVPD does not accept the tel:6 evision. broadcast stations last best offer and7 the broadcaster does not request binding athi8 tration (or the Commission denies such re9 quest), then the IVEVPI) and (be broadcaster

10 shall notdy consumers, in accordance with regn11 lations prescribed by the Ubunnission, of the12 MVPDs termination. o[ carriage.13 (D) MUTUIMJJY FYXCJLUSIVE GOOD FAIT h OF-14 FERS. I15 j thI? Conunission determines that16 both parties negotiated in . good faith. but17 reached a true impasse and simply disagree on.18 a Pair price, it shall request the parties to sub1 9 thit to binding arbitration and notity the Coin20 mission of its decision within 5 business days.2L (ii) If either party declines to accept the22 Commissions request within tim 5-day Period,23 then each party shall prcmde 14 days notice to24 consumers of the pending disruption, in service25 and publicly disclose the retransmission consent

isOctober 18,2010(9:51 am.)

S: \WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\COMIO\RETRAN3


45/57

SI terms that it had offered in its last best otter.2 The Commiss ion may pr ovide a model notice3 for parties t.o disclose tile terms of their last4 best offer that would be aecessthle to consumers5 and a model notice to COI1SULTWIS regarding the6 pendmg termination of carriage of the sigilaL7 (E) BoTh IFER INCONSISTENT WITh GO(I) 8 FAIrH NEGOTIATIONS.iE the Cnmissicn9 mines that the last best offer of bothpartcs was in10 consistent with the duty to negotiath, in good faithii or with market c03Iditions then12 (i) the C JTmISOn haI1 requn e the di 13 ties to submit to bin ii arbitration;14 (n) the ConitnLsion may impose a fine on15 eJh Ptht a 116 iil) th? broadcaster shall allow continued17 arriage of its signal or signals during thel. P1IC11CY of arbitration pur suan t to the te rms19 of the expired agreement.

(F) BITRATION.Any arb itr ation required21 or requested imder this paragraph shall be eon.22 du.cted uider the auspices of the Commission or the23 American Arbitration Association, as determined by24 mutual agreement of the parties or by the Commis25 sion in the absence of such agreement. r[he final ar

rsOc tober 18, 2010 (9:51 am.)

S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\COM1O\RETRAN3


46/57

91 bitratcd terms cyf an arbitration under this pam2 graph shall be retroactive to the date on which the3 agreement exp ed.4 C(G) CoNPINuED NEGOTIATION NOT PIlE5 ULtIDEI) .Nothing in this subparagraph shall be6 construed to preelmie a broadcaster awl7 from continuing to negotiate after the expiratmtvot8 an exstmg carriage agreement and9 time, to cozthuuecl carriage on i utuJjctable10 terms.

ii (H) DEFINITIONS.1U this pa3-agraph:12 (i) 13ROAD*fEIL-The term broad13 caster mean a tekwison broadcast station as14 def ined in ubettion(c1)(7)(B) of this sec tion.15 (ii) IVIVFO.The term 1VLVPD means16 tiehairne]- crideo programming distributor as17 . :efizjl in sect ion 602 of this Act!.

_--,:-. --.

-

Is IsOctobet 18, 2010 (9:5 1 am.)


47/57

FEDERAL CCMMUNCA-RONS CQMMISSONWASHNGT0N

October 29 , 2011)

The I lonorable John F. KerryChairmanSubcommittee on Communications, Technology,and the InternetCommittee on Commerce, Science, and TransportationUnited States Senate218 Russell Senate Office BuildingWashington. 1).C. 205 10Dear Chairman Kerry:

Thank you for your letter of October 19, 2010, expressing concern that the currentIraniework for negotiation ol the terms of retransmission consent by broadcasters, cablecompanies, and satellite operators is broken and in need of reform.

I agree with you that recent events ra ise issues of real concern. Negotiations betweenbroadcasters and pay television providers have become increasingly fractious and w e are now inthe midst of an impasse resulting in a sustained blackout. I share your concern that the currentsystem relegates television viewers to awns between companies battling over retransmissionfees.

Under [lie present system, the F CC has very flnv tools with which to protect consumersinterests in the retransmission consent process. Congress granted the FCC l imi ted abil ity toencourage agreement by ensuring that the parties negotiate in good Iaiih. But current law doesnot give the agency the tools necessary to prevent service disruptions. Accordingly, I agree thatit is lime for Congress to revisit the current retransmission law and assess whether changes in th emarketplace cal l for new too ls to strike the appropriate balance of private negotiations andconsumer protection. Such tools might include, for example, mandatory mediation and bindingarbitration, which could prevent the kind of unlbrtunate stalemate that now exists betweenCablevision and Fox .

Th e companies in the current dispute share responsibility for viewer disruption. 1 heCommission will continue to push the companies to reach an agreement and serve the viewingpublic. For weeks the Commission has been admonishing the parties to reach an agreement, asso many other companies do each year. To protect viewers, the Commission issued consumeradvisories informing Cablevision customers oltheir options in the event of the blackout that hasnow come to pass, We have urged the parties to agree to private thirdparty mediation. TheCommission also launched an investigation into whether each party is complying with its legalduty to negotiate in good ftiith.

OFICE cwTHE CHAIRMAN


48/57

Page 2The Honorable John F. Kerry

I look forward to working closely with you and your colleagues in Congress as youconsider reforms to the retransmission consent law.Since y

ulius Genachowski

carra EDWA1D .3. MARKEY 2i 6 UN HOJ$E FFC 8O NGWA4NGTOW. tC 15-2Orn ay ma cowc 7f l O$TThCT. M.SSACitJAT,SS1JCOM.NTTEE ON


49/57

?ND rie4vrnoNMNr OSThCT OFF-flESoiie ot. tj T.idtt1 ETUT1S-L ECrCOMMnrrQN AO2I5t

CHA)8MAN CONCC3 STnT , surrz205152t07NMUgM. flESOUPcFa 7-2Utp:IImyiau.ovOctober 16 ,2010

Th.e Honorable Ju lius GenchowskiChairma n 1662445 12th Stre et SWWashington, DC 20554

Dear Chairman Genachowski:Th e f ailure ofNews Corp. (FOX) and Cablevision to reach a negotiatedretransm issio n agreement by th is mornings deadlin e depriv es Cab levis ion customers inNew York, New Jersey and Connec ticut of FOX programm ing that they expec t andvalue. I make no rep resentations as to the merits of either sides posit ion, as these arecontractua l discu ssions betWeen priv ate partie s, and I encourage both parties to remainengaged in. good faith negotiations.However, as the prima ry Hou se author of the Cable Act of 1992, which ine lude4the retransmission con sent provision in the law, in additiOn to monitoring the ongoingcommerc ia l n egotiation by the partie s, the Comm issions broader pub lic interest rolereq uire s the agency to take regulatory note of th un ique c ircumstan ces in th e New York

area. These includ e the diffic ulty Ofmany consumers in multiple dwelling units (MDUs)to obtain a free ove r-the-air signal in their apartments and the difficu lty of con sume rs inMDUs to install sa tellite dishe s or switc h to other pay TV alte rnatives in a tim ely fashion.The fact that millions ofNewYork area customers liv e in such MDUs frustrates theexercise ofmark etpl ace alternatives typ ica lly ava ilable in such disputes, namelyob taining either a fre e over-the-air signal or quickly subscribing , to another pay TVservice.in addition, I am particularly concerned by reports that access to In terne t-basedvideo from FOX is being blocked selectively for Cablevision broadband cu stome rs. Thisis not only contrary to the Commissions Broadband Internet Policy Sta tement of 2005,which states, in part, that ,..consumers are enti tled to access the lawful Internet conten tof their choic.e.. The tying of table TV subscriptio n to access to Internet fare freelyav ailable to other consumc rs is a very serious concern. Consumers are losing the irfreedom to acces s the Internet conten t of the ir choice - through no fault of their own - andth is is pate ntly anti-consum er. The FCC needs to mo re than monito r negotiations in suchcircumstances in my view. It needs to actively defend internet freedom and co nsum errights.

PMThOONCO.W PME


50/57

Clea rly, the pu blic interest wo uld be served if carria ge is restor ed by the parties atth e e arliest pos sible opportuni ty so tha t c onsum ers are no lo ng er disad vanta ged as a resultof this dispu te. Accord ingly, t request that yo u t ake action to brin g the part ies tog ethe r sothe se negotiations can be concluded in an equitable and ex peditious ma nner. Co nsumersshould not be caught in the midd le.

Sincerely)

Edwa rd Ma rkey

., t,

/

MAXINE WATERS P Rv0 C

3,l 1 s ,n c - C 1 :FD . 2341 Av1 HUuSE Ou iwrLi o.i. DC 2t5i O53


51/57

CHIEF DEPUTHP on grc ot tljc 1nitcb tatc P.FINANCIAL SEflVCES of tptCfltttUt rOi

110 li IEt1CLlJlfltOfl, C 205130533Li io CA IJI13JUDICIARY I33 77-AiO:323 579IPIC0MMF11E L1 Ci Too

t1 HouSmpmr October 22 2010o1Ir2 i, r Ct.i3

1690JuliLls GenachowskiChairmanFederal Communications Commission445 Twelfth Street, SWWashington, DC 20554

Dear Chairman Genachowski,As a Member ofte U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, 1write to express my ongo ing concern for the potential impact the ComcastNI3C mergercould have on our a lready heavi1yconsoiidatedmedia industry. Moreover, in light ofCablevisions current d ispute with News Corporation (News Corp.) over the fees it paysthe media conglomerate to carry Fox progrmnming, I have grown increasingly concernedwith the potential harm that could result i I such a dispute ever arose between a competing

cable company and a combmed Comcast-NI3C. Absent substantive diversity and otherpublic interest conditions, the ConicastNBC merger could prove harmful to competitionamong traditional cable and broadcast companies, as well as the American puhIicsability to access independent and alternative sources of news and entertainment. Itherefore urge the

Responsive Document - CREW: FCC: Regarding Influence Over FCC Regulation of News Corp: 8/15/2011 -...

Documents

Transcript of Responsive Document - CREW: FCC: Regarding Influence Over FCC Regulation of News Corp: 8/15/2011 -...