Cable Lobby To Sue Trump FCC Over Repeal of National TV Ownership Cap (arstechnica.com) 34
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ArsTechnica: Cable lobby groups notified the Federal Communications Commission that they will sue the agency to block its controversial repeal of the National Television Ownership Rule, which limits the number of broadcast TV stations a single company may own. The cable groups said that larger broadcast TV station groups will have leverage to demand higher retransmission fees from TV providers, resulting in "higher monthly TV bills for consumers." They said the FCC repeal order "arbitrarily and capriciously ignores the harms that will surely follow from allowing broadcast station groups to exceed the National Cap."
The cable lobby groups represent top providers Comcast, Charter, and various other cable operators. Top cable companies have also expanded through mergers. Charter completed a purchase of Cox in August after the FCC rejected protests by advocacy groups that said the cable deal "would create unchecked gatekeeper power over Internet distribution" and make it easier for the biggest cable companies to raise prices. [...] The TV ownership rule prohibits any single broadcast station owner from reaching more than 39 percent of all TV households in the US. Congress directed the FCC to set the cap at 39 percent in 2004. On Friday, cable lobby groups submitted a petition asking the FCC to keep the TV ownership cap in place until litigation over the FCC's authority to repeal the rule is over.
The cable groups' filing said the FCC repeal of the TV ownership cap violates the 2004 action by US lawmakers. The decision by Congress to set the cap at a precise numerical threshold was unambiguous, the filing said. "Congress established the National Cap at 39 percent in the 2004 CAA [Consolidated Appropriations Act] in direct response to the FCC's attempt to aggressively raise the Cap to 45 percent and made repeated references to the 39 percent Cap in the statute," the petition said. The petition to the FCC is mainly a procedural step as the commission isn't likely to stay its own order. The cable groups said they intend to sue the commission in a US appeals court once the FCC order is published in the Federal Register. After the lawsuit is filed, they can ask the court to issue a preliminary injunction that would keep the TV ownership cap in place pending the outcome of litigation.
[...] The cable groups' petition said the FCC can't change the cap because the 2004 law "references the 39 percent Cap as statutory, not regulatory." A provision requiring divestiture of stations "specified that someone exceeding 'the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in paragraph (1)(B)' of 'section 202(c)' of '[t]he Telecommunications Act of 1996' 'shall have not more than 2 years to divest,'" the petition said. "Likewise, Congress singled out the Commission's only mechanism for setting aside statutory requirements -- the Commission's forbearance authority under 47 U.S.C. 160 -- and made clear that it 'shall not apply to any person or entity that exceeds the 39 percent national audience reach limitation,'" the cable lobby petition said. The FCC order argued that the agency's "ability to forbear from enforcement of its rules is distinct from its power to alter or eliminate those rules," and that the FCC forbearance authority doesn't apply to regulation of broadcasters.
The cable lobby groups represent top providers Comcast, Charter, and various other cable operators. Top cable companies have also expanded through mergers. Charter completed a purchase of Cox in August after the FCC rejected protests by advocacy groups that said the cable deal "would create unchecked gatekeeper power over Internet distribution" and make it easier for the biggest cable companies to raise prices. [...] The TV ownership rule prohibits any single broadcast station owner from reaching more than 39 percent of all TV households in the US. Congress directed the FCC to set the cap at 39 percent in 2004. On Friday, cable lobby groups submitted a petition asking the FCC to keep the TV ownership cap in place until litigation over the FCC's authority to repeal the rule is over.
The cable groups' filing said the FCC repeal of the TV ownership cap violates the 2004 action by US lawmakers. The decision by Congress to set the cap at a precise numerical threshold was unambiguous, the filing said. "Congress established the National Cap at 39 percent in the 2004 CAA [Consolidated Appropriations Act] in direct response to the FCC's attempt to aggressively raise the Cap to 45 percent and made repeated references to the 39 percent Cap in the statute," the petition said. The petition to the FCC is mainly a procedural step as the commission isn't likely to stay its own order. The cable groups said they intend to sue the commission in a US appeals court once the FCC order is published in the Federal Register. After the lawsuit is filed, they can ask the court to issue a preliminary injunction that would keep the TV ownership cap in place pending the outcome of litigation.
[...] The cable groups' petition said the FCC can't change the cap because the 2004 law "references the 39 percent Cap as statutory, not regulatory." A provision requiring divestiture of stations "specified that someone exceeding 'the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in paragraph (1)(B)' of 'section 202(c)' of '[t]he Telecommunications Act of 1996' 'shall have not more than 2 years to divest,'" the petition said. "Likewise, Congress singled out the Commission's only mechanism for setting aside statutory requirements -- the Commission's forbearance authority under 47 U.S.C. 160 -- and made clear that it 'shall not apply to any person or entity that exceeds the 39 percent national audience reach limitation,'" the cable lobby petition said. The FCC order argued that the agency's "ability to forbear from enforcement of its rules is distinct from its power to alter or eliminate those rules," and that the FCC forbearance authority doesn't apply to regulation of broadcasters.
Where is the popcorn (Score:3, Insightful)
I love when the jackals start fighting each other..
Re: Where is the popcorn (Score:4, Insightful)
No kidding... gee, I wonder how they know quasi-monopolistic consortiums "will have leverage to demand higher retransmission fees"? Where could they have seen that play out before? Oh right, that's their own usiness plan.
Re: (Score:3)
The enemy of my enemy's enemy is my....?
Hm. What's the involution function rule for asshat corporations and their pet lobbyists?
Re: (Score:2)
ESPN and Fox News is keeping cable alive.
Trump admin you've done it again (Score:5, Insightful)
You managed, somehow, some way, against all common sense to make the fucking Cable Lobby have a good point and be on the correct side of the law.
That's right the Cable TV industry group has a better grasp on and care of US law and civics than the entire current Executive Branch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Trump admin you've done it again (Score:4, Informative)
Executive Branch includes the President and by certain legal understanding *is the entire entire branch*.
Is this a first?!! (Score:4)
As Big Cable ever... EVER... been for something good?
How bad it has to be the most hated companies are turning on their orange prophet of Satan.
Re:Is this a first?!! (Score:5, Informative)
Tangential but Tom Wheeler was head of the NCTA before he was Obama's FCC Chair. When he was appointed everyone thought he was gonna be a corporate shill but he actually was one of the staunchest Net Neutrality advocates and before Obama left office he was planning a change to the rules to require all cable TV operators to support streaming apps instead of locking people into physical boxes. This was a bit of a moot point with how streaming ended up taking over but still, was pretty consumer focused. He also was at the forefront of stopping Time Warner and Comcast from merging.
Rules he proposed in January would allow third parties to create their own devices that can air television content. As an example, a new version of devices like Google’s Chromecast or the Apple TV might include the ability to watch live television with your Comcast cable subscription as well as online programming through Netflix.
https://time.com/4258466/tom-w... [time.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Broken clocks are still broken, even when they occasionally tell the time correctly.
Re: (Score:1)
I challenge everyone in the administration to take a high school civics exam.
Re: (Score:3)
Feeling conflicted. (Score:2)
While the cable lobby is correct and I hope they prevail, I also hope they are forced to pay a huge fine for being a bunch of hypocritical assholes. We don't need to criminalize it, just make hypocrisy financially painful.
Wait! What? (Score:2)
What happened to the "must carry" rules? Where the Big, Bad cable companies had to carry local broadcasts? Including every 500 Watt Jesus Channel in town. It's getting so you can't tell who's on the receiving end of this corporate daisy chain anymore.
Here's an idea: Everyone divest themselves of content providers and studios. And become common carriers for local regions. Then let the big boys fight for room on your cable, fiber or r.f. spectrum with their cash. Which will go quite a ways toward funding lo
Re: (Score:2)
Except that nobody is really desperate to get on broadcast TV anymore in urban and suburban areas. Other than to get onto the cable systems via "must carry" rules. For free, to boot. There's no quicker way to get your Sunday Morning preacher carried all over the city than to put up a crappy low power transmitter and ask no remuneration. The Word of the Lord spread far and wide is sufficient compensation. Same for the shopping channels. They ask no money, so they can't get bounced off the cable. And they mak
Re: Wait! What? (Score:2)
So end neutrality on fiber? I don't like that at all.
Leopards eating faces. (Score:3)
"But I didn't think they would eat MY face!"
How many times do stupid people need to get burned before they learn the stove is hot?
Re: Leopards eating faces. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Aliens vs Predator... (Score:2)
Hate to be that TV snob guy (Score:2)
Re:Hate to be that TV snob guy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well except half the streaming services are rotten with ads these days.
Its exceptionally painful in election season too. Just ugh.
Nornally I can nuke most of it via ad-blockers, But that stupid 70" samsung TV, no such luck.
(Hey, hackers, how about jailbreaking these things. Be nice to have an alternative to loungeroom spyware again)
too bad (Score:5, Interesting)
A Unitary Executive can do whatever he wants with the agencies he controls. Additionally, the President may take over agencies that are independent because "reasons".
That's the kind of top-down hierarchy that America voted for. They wanted this country ran like a business. They invested into Trump a position of not just President, but as America's CEO. With total authority over this country.
It violates established norms and the Constitution. But who voted for the Constitution, just throw it out now that one side got what they wanted. And the next step is to make sure the Dems never get back into power. Easy way is to invalidate all their elections as rigged, fraud, or illegal.
What bizzare world is this? (Score:2)
What bizarre world is it that I actually want Comcast (of all companies) to WIN in a lawsuit.
SCotUS has 1 rule (Score:2)
Strange, how corporations like 'no limits' rules until it applies to them.
The problem here is, the law is very explicit on what must be done: That's something SCotUS tends to respect. The rules can still be bent by a corrupt administration, but the court is unlikely to bend on the idea that Tv. ownership is capped, as the law demands.
Cable is dead (Score:2)
Cable is desperately trying to retain regulatory capture in an effort to save a dying business model.