Responsive Document - CREW: FCC: Regarding Influence Over FCC Regulation of News Corp: 8/15/2011 - FCC Docs 1

tInitcd tat cS1latC
WASHNGT0N, DC 20510
May 7, 2007
Chairman Kevin Martin Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW. Washington, D.C. 20554 Dear Mr. Chairman: We write today 10 express sLipport for a petition submitted by the North Dakota Broadcasters Association regarding the transfer of control by News Coqoration to Liberty Media of DirecTV, We urge your strong consideration of requirements that DirecTV offer local into local service in all 21 () designated market areas by the end of 2008 before such a transfer is approved. In 2004, when News Corporation was in the process of obtaining Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approval for its acquisition of 34% of DirecT V, the company committed to the FCC that it would provide local into local service in all rated markets by the end of 2008. Unfortunately, this promise was not incorporated as an enforceable condition of the license transfer, and DirecTV now states that its intention was always that the service would not necessarily be delivered via satellite. It is entirely reasonable and wholly in the public interest to require local channel delivery via satellite to all 210 markets. if the Liberty acquisition is to be approved, such local channel delivery should be a condition on approval. DirccTV serves the majority of the 35,245 households within the MinotlBismarck Designated Market Area who receive their subscription television service from a Direct Broadcast Satellite service (DBS). These viewers do not have regular access to North Dakota emergency alert information, Amber Alerts, or weather advisories. DirecTV currently provides local into local service in only 142 of2l0 designated market areas nationwide. This means that thousands of subscribers in 68 market areas and 31 states, including ours, are not able to receive local programming from DirccTV. These customers overwhelmingly 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 local service for all DirecTV customers. It appears that DirecTV intends to utilize current and future satellite capacity to increase high definition service, rather than provide local into local coverage
in unserved areas. in fact, DirecTV has announced that it intends to provide definition channels by the summer of 2007.
one
hundred high
The goal of communications policy has always been to further localism. Public information, public safety, and (he overarching public interest demand that local into local service he extended to all of DirccTVs consumers, regardless of geographical location. We encourage you to closely examine this transaction, and require DirccTV and Liberty Media to provide universal local into local service to all of its customers by the end of 2008 as a condition of the license trans (or. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely,
KENT CONRAD United Stales Senate cc: Commissioner Michael J. Copps Commissioner Jonathan S. Adclstein Corn missioner Deborah Taylor Tate Commissioner Robert .M. McDowell
1YN DORGAN United Stales Senate
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS WASHINGTON
COMMISSION
OFF(CE OF THE CHAIRMAN
The Honorable Kent Conrad United States Senate 530 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Conrad: Thank you for your letter concerning the proposed transfer of control of DIRECTV from News Corporation to Liberty Media Corporation. In your letter you ask that the transaction be conditioned on a requirement that DIRECTV provide local-into-local service in all television markets in the country. Although neither of the two maj or satellite television carriers, DIRECTV and Dish Network, 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% of U.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 the process of launching local-into-local service in an additional six markets for a total of 150 DMAs. Unlike the cable must-carry statute that requires all cable systems to carry all local stations, Congress chose not to require satellite operators to carry local broadcast signals in every market. The statutory requirements for satellite carriage give satellite carriers a choice of whether or not to carry local stations in a market. Specifically, by enacting the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA), Congress decided to allow, but not require, satellite carriers to offer local stations. Satellite carriers that choose to offer one station in a market must carry all the stations in the market that request carriage. This is known as carry one, carry all. In 2004, Congress amended the statute to require carriage (must carry) in Alaska and Hawaii. DIRECTV has represented to the Commission in the license transfer proceeding involving Liberty Media that it is fully committed to offering local broadcast signals in all 210 DMAs by 2008, either via satellite or via the integration of digital tuners into settop boxes. In those markets where it does not currently plan to roll out local-into-local service via satellite, DIRECTV will offer a seamless, integrated local channel package by integrating digital tuners into set-top boxes. Some consumers already have set-top boxes that include digital tuners; these tuners allow consumers to receive digital broadcast signals and view them on analog television sets without the need for separate digital-to-analog converters. For other consumers in markets not served by satellite local-
into-local, DIRECTV will offer a component that attaches to the set-top box. Consumers who want to take advantage of this option would be charged $50 for the component but would not be charged for the local package. In addition to converting digital signals to analog for display on analog televisions, the component will ensure that the broadcast programming is displayed on DIRECTVs electronic program guide and will enable consumers to apply other set-top box functions (such as DVR capability) to broadcast programming. Consumers using the additional component would not need a separate digital-to-analog converter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of further assistance with this or any other matter.
Sincerely,
Kevin JMartin Chairman
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS WASHING TO N
COMMISSION
OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN
The Honorable Byron Dorgan United States Senate 322 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Dorgan: Thank you for your letter concerning the proposed transfer of control of DIRECTV from News Corporation to Liberty Media Corporation. In your letter you ask that the transaction be conditioned on a requirement that DTRECTV provide local-into-local service in all television markets in the country. Although neither of the two major satellite television carriers, DIRECTV and Dish Network, 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% of U.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 the process of launching local-into-local service in an additional six markets for a total of 150 DMAs, Unlike the cable must-carry statute that requires all cable systems to carry all local stations, Congress chose not to require satellite operators to carry local broadcast signals in every market. The statutory requirements for satellite carriage give satellite carriers a choice of whether or not to carry local stations in a market. Specifically, by enacting the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA), Congress decided to allow, but not require, satellite carriers to offer local stations. Satellite carriers that choose to offer one station in a market must carry all the stations in the market that request carriage. This is known as carry one, carry all. In 2004, Congress amended the statute to require carriage (must carry) in Alaska and Hawaii. DLRECTV has represented to the Commission in the license transfer proceeding involving Liberty Media that it is fully committed to offering local broadcast signals in all 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-local service via satellite, DIRECTV will offer a seamless, integrated local channel package by integrating digital tuners into set-top boxes. Some consumers already have set-top boxes that include digital tuners; these tuners allow consumers to receive digital broadcast signals and view them on analog television sets without the need for separate digital-to-analog converters. For other consumers in markets not served by satellite local-
Sincerely,
Kevin IMartin Chairman
!YRON L. DORGAN
A u1
i1ntted Statcs dllarc
WASHNOTON,
AMA
DC 2O5i(-34O5
j r,
August
- .
Ji07
7i
N
W
(hairnan Kevin J. Martin lederal Communications Commission 445 12 Street SW Washington. D.C. 20554
Dear Chairman Martin:
As you are aware. News Corporation (News Corp.) has reached an agreement to acquire Dow Jones & Company (i)ow Jones) for $5 billon. (.iien that Do Jones publishes the fl/till Sirect Journal, one of our countrys tv newspapers vvith a national circulation, I am concerned about potential concentration in our national media sector as a result fthis sale, and other recent mergers and acquisitions in our nations media sector, To date, News (orp. has rapidly expanded its media empire by developing the cable th channel Fox News and 20 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 of states. If approved, the proposed merger between News (oii. and l)ow Jones wntild result in one single company controlling one of the three national newspapers ith circulations above one million, one of the live national broadcast networks. and one of the countrys few cable news networks. Furthermore. apart from this proposed transaction, our nations media outlets with a national reach he it print, broadcast, or cable are already heavily concentrated,
-
The current FCC rules attempt to prevent concentration and crossoncrship in local markets. I recognize that there are issues of local diversity affected by this agreement and 1 expect the Commission will address such issues through existing processes. 13u1 the Commissions media ownership rules state, diversi lication of mass media ov nership serves the public interest by promoting diversity of program and service viewpoints, as well as by preventing undue concentration of economic power. The proposed merger between News Corp. and Dow Jones raises the serious question of whether a single companys concentration on a miliona scale should continue to he unfettered and unchecked. I believe the FCC should consider studying hether the public interest 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 current unregulated state of media crossownership at the national level may necessitate new
F( C
v,
Nat!
Ciii:,is
Comm. For Broad,, 436 U.S. 775. 750 (1 75t.
rules to retain the diversity ol vitwpomts and democratic voices in our media. In the spirit of the Commissions longstanding media ownership rules. the proceeding should include an inquiry into the proposed merger between News Corp. and i)ow Jones and its impact on media concentration at the national level,
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely.
Ce: Commissioner Michael J. Copps Coininissionci Jonathan S. Adeistein Commissioner Deborah 1, Tate t*oITlm I%smonem Robt it N! \4c. Do LII
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON
The Honorable Byron L. Dorgan United States Senate 322 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear 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 on & media concentration. As you note, our current rules limit cross-ownership at the local level. Indeed, the Commission has previously determined that the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rules are not designed to affect 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 national limits for broadcast networks and cable subscribership, Congress has not directed or specifically authorized the Commission to address cross-ownership at the national level. Finally, the Commissions authority to review a broadcast station/local newspaper combination historically has been exercised when an application to assign or to renew the license of the local broadcast station comes before the Commission. The proposed acquisition of Dow Jones by News Corporation, however, does not involve the transfer of control or assignment of any broadcast licenses. Thus, the Commissions jurisdiction to review the proposed News Corporation/Dow Jones transaction is circumscribed. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance with this or any other matter. Sincerely,
Kevin J. Martin Chairman
CHRISTOPI-IER J. DODD CON NECllCUT

COMMIfltES;
WASHINGTON OFP1CE
US RUSSU. SNS OIIC Bu.oNS

WA8H1NCTON
DC 20510
(202) 2242523
7Db (202) 2245484
bANKING, i-lOUSING, AND

URBAN APPAIRS OREION RELATIONS HEALTh, EDUCATION. LA5OR,
LtIt fuie wxI

WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0702
STATE OFFICE:
30 LEwis WrE6t, $vfl 101 NTOao, CT 06103 1560) 256-6040
AND PENSIONS AULES AND ADMINISTRATiON
7Db (560) b20746
August 2, 2007
HOME
PAGE I1rplldodd,4e541e,gov
E.MAIU sp1ii6od .sena5e.goviwemii
The Honorable Kevin I. Martin Chairman Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW Washington. DC 20554 Dear Chairman Martin: I write to you today to express my grave concern over the pending buyout by the News Corporation of Dow Jones & Co., the parent company of the Wall Street Journal. In my view, this buyout will result in an overly-consolidated media market, imperiling the diversity of opinions available 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 of two of the top ve most circulated newspapers nationwide. The News Corporation already owns two television stations in the New York market and a newspaper, the New York Post, which is the fifth highest circulating newspaper in America. If allowed to also control the Wall Street Journal, the second highest circulating newspaper nationwide, the News Corporation would be in control of an unacceptably high concentration of media outlets. In 2003, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in the case of Prometheus Radio Project v. Federal Communications Commission, made the compelling argument that regulating the ownership of media outlets to protect a diversity of opinions is in the public interest and well within the purview of the Federal Communications Commission, Indeed, the FCC itself has stated that its decision to lift this long-time ban was to further its core goal of balancing the publics interests in competition, localism, and diversity. In my view, allowing the News Corporation to acquire the Wall Street Journal would dramatically undermine all three of those principles. As your colleague Commissioner Michael Copps has publicly stated, [t)his deal means more media consolidation and fewer independent voices, and it specifically impacts the local market in New York City. I strongly agree with the viewpoint of Commissioner Copps and hope that the Federal 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 response detailing how this proposed merger will affect consumers access to a diversity of opinions in the marketplace and what steps the FCC will take to ensure the continued vitality of the media,
CIRISTOPHER 3. DODD United States Senator
pIN7ED
ON ROCYCLEO PAPOR
RECEIVED TIME
AUG. 2.
7:49PM
PRINT TIME AUG. 2.
7:5DPM
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON
The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd United States Senate 448 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear 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 on media concentration. Our current rules limit cross-ownership at the local level. Indeed, the Commission has previously determined that the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rules are not designed to affect 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 national limits for broadcast networks and cable subscribership, Congress has not directed or specifically authorized the Commission to address cross-ownership at the national level. Finally, the Commissions authority to review a broadcast stationllocal newspaper combination historically has been exercised when an application to assign or to renew the license of the local broadcast station comes before the Commission. The proposed acquisition of Dow Jones by News Corporation, however, does not involve the transfer of control or assignment of any broadcast licenses. Thus, the Commissions jurisdiction to review the proposed News Corporation/Dow Jones transaction is circumscribed. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance with this or any other matter. Sincerely,
__________
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND CAPABILrIIES AIR AND LAND FORCES
504 CANNON HOUSE OFFIcE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515
(202) 225-8531
FAx: (202) 2253013 jirn.niarshaltlSmail.house.gov
READINESS 4.
COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

CAPITAL MARKETS, INSURANCE AND GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES
0OMESTC AND INTERNATIONAL MONETARY POLICY. TRADE AND TECHNOLOGY
QIonrc of tije nIteb tate

out of epreentatibe
JIM MARSHALL
8TH DISTRICT, GEORGIA
II rI
682 CHERRY STREET, SUITE 300 MACON, GA 31201 (478) 4640255 FAx; (478) 4640277
TOLL FREE: 18774640255 503 BELLEVUE AVENUE. SUITE C DUBLIN, GA 31021
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
GENERAL FARM COMMODITIES AND RISK MANAGEMENT
(478) 2962023 FAx: (478) 2962802

CITY HALL, 130 EAsT 1ST STREET TIFTON, GA 31794
SPECIALTY CROPS AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS
Sptember 7, 2007
(229) 5567418 F,,x: (229) 5567419
The Honorable Kevin Martin, Chairman Federal Communications Commission Room 8-B201 445 12th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20554-000 1 Dear Chairman Martin: I am concerned about Media Bureau Docket Number 07-18, the Liberty Media acquisition of DirecTV from News Corp. It is my understanding that under the terms of the agreement that lead to News Corp. gaining control of DirecTV, they pledged to carry local broadcasts to their subscribers. DirecTV should honor its agreement to provide local-into-local television service by satellite in all 210 markets by 2008 as condition of the FCCs approval of the Liberty Media transaction. Access to local news, weather, sports, public safety information, and other local coverage is important, especially to rural viewers, who currently are missing out on this type of programming. The FCC should hold DirecTV accountable for their previous agreement. Thank you. Very truly yours,
JM:kl
FEDERAL COMMUNCATfONS
COMMISSION
W AS H
OFCE OF THE CHAIHMAN
N GTO N
The Honorable Jim Marshall United States House of Representatives 504 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Marshall: Thank you for your letter concerning the proposed transfer of control of DIRECTV from News Corporation to Liberty Media Corporation. In your letter you ask that the transaction be conditioned on a requirement that D1RECTV provide local-into-local service in all television markets in the country. Although neither of the two major satellite television carriers, DIRECTV and Dish Network, 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% of U.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 the process of launching local-into-local service in an additional six markets for a total of 150 DMAs. Unlike the cable must-carry statute that requires all cable systems to carry all local stations, Congress chose not to require satellite operators to carry local broadcast signals in every market. The statutory requirements for satellite carriage give satellite carriers a choice of whether or not to carry local stations in a market. Specifically, by enacting the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA), Congress decided to allow, but not require, satellite carriers to offer local stations. Satellite carriers that choose to offer one station in a market must carry all the stations in the market that request carriage. This is known as carry one, carry all. In 2004, Congress amended the statute to require carriage (must carry) in Alaska and Hawaii. DIRECTV has represented to the Commission in the license transfer proceeding involving Liberty Media that it is filly committed to offering local broadcast signals in all 210 DMAs by 2008, either via satellite or via the integration of digital tuners into settop boxes, In those markets where it does not currently plan to roll out local-into-local service via satellite, DIRECTV will offer a seamless, integrated local channel package by integrating digital tuners into set-top boxes. Some consumers already have set-top boxes that include digital tuners; these tuners allow consumers to receive digital broadcast signals and view them on analog television sets without the need for separate digital-to-analog converters. For other consumers in markets not served by satellite local-
Sincerely,
Kevin Martin Chairman
(onre of tjc Initcb tate

a1jinton,
20510
November 13, 2007
The Honorable Kevin Martin Chairman Federal Communications Commission 445 l2 Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Dear Chairman Martin:
We write regarding the potential sale of News Corporations controlling interest in DirecTV to Liberty Media Corporation. We believe that this sale could prove detrimental to the availability of local programming in smaller media markets if local-into-local requirements are not preserved as a condition of the sale. As you know, News Corporation was charged with carrying local broadcasters via satellite in each of the 210 Nielsen Designated Market Areas by 2008. Now, as the deadline is approaching, News Corporation seeks to sell DirecTV without keeping its promise to the FCC or DirecTV subscribers. Any agreement to sell controlling interest of DirecTV should include the same local-into-local requirement. In your statement from the June 28, 2007 hearing concerning localism, you stressed the importance of maintaining a local broadcasting system. We could not agree more. Local broadcasts keep communities connected and inform residents of important events, but they are also a matter of public safety. Residents of our state rely on local broadcasts to warn and update them about threatening weather situations and the location and direction of dangerous wildfires. Without local-into-local requirements, it could be difficult for these subscribers to receive their local news and emergency programming. As you consider this potential sale, we encourage you to keep small market subscribers in mind and maintain local-into-local requirements in any sale of the controlling interest in DirecTV. We look forward to hearing from you about this matter.
U.S Senate
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS WASHINnTON
COMMISSION
The Honorable John Thune United States Senate 493 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC. 20510 Dear Senator Thune: Thank you for your letter concerning the proposed transfer of control of DIRECTV from News Corporation to Liberty Media Corporation. In your letter you ask that the transaction be conditioned on a requirement that DIRECTV provide local-into-local service in all television markets in the country. Although neither of the two major satellite television carriers, DIRECTV and Dish Network, 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% of U.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 the process of launching local-into-local service in an additional six markets for a total of 150 DMAs. Unlike the cable must-carry statute that requires all cable systems to carry all local stations, Congress chose not to require satellite operators to carry local broadcast signals in every market. The statutory requirements for satellite carriage give satellite carriers a choice of whether or not to carry local stations in a market. Specifically, by enacting the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA), Congress decided to allow, but not require, satellite carriers to offer local stations. Satellite carriers that choose to offer one station in a market must carry all the stations in the market that request carriage. This is known as carry one, carry all. In 2004, Congress amended the statute to require carriage (must carry) in Alaska and Hawaii. DIRECTV has represented to the Commission in the license transfer proceeding involving Liberty Media that it is filly committed to offering local broadcast signals in all 210 DMAs by 2008, either via satellite or via the integration of digital tuners into settop boxes. In those markets where it does not currently plan to roll out local-into-local service via satellite, D1RECTV will offer a seamless, integrated local channel package by integrating digital tuners into set-top boxes. Some consumers already have set-top boxes that include digital tuners; these tuners allow consumers to receive digital broadcast signals and view them on analog television sets without the need for separate digital-to-analog converters. For other consumers in markets not served by satellite local-
into-local, D1RECTV will offer a component that attaches to the set-top box. Consumers who want to take advantage of this option would be charged $50 for the component but would not be charged for the local package. In addition to converting digital signals to analog for display on analog televisions, the component will ensure that the broadcast programming is displayed on DIRECTVs electronic program guide and will enable consumers to apply other set-top box functions (such as DVR capability) to broadcast programming. Consumers using the additional component would not need a separate digital-to-analog converter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of further assistance with this or any other matter.
Sincerely,
Kevin J4viartin Chairman
FEDERAL COMMUNCATONS WAS H N G TO N
COMMISSION
The Honorable Tim Johnson United States Senate 136 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Johnson: Thank you for your letter concerning the proposed transfer of control of DIRECTV from News Corporation to Liberty Media Corporation. In your letter you ask that the transaction be conditioned on a requirement that DIRECTV provide local-into-local service in all television markets in the country. Although neither of the two major satellite television carriers, DJRECTV and Dish Network, 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% of U.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 the process of launching local-into-local service in an additional six markets for a total of 150 DMAs. Unlike the cable must-cany statute that requires all cable systems to carry all local stations, Congress chose not to require satellite operators to carry local broadcast signals in every market. The statutory requirements for satellite carriage give satellite carriers a choice of whether or not to carry local stations in a market. Specifically, by enacting the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA), Congress decided to allow, but not require, satellite carriers to offer local stations. Satellite carriers that choose to offer one station in a market must carry all the stations in the market that request carriage. This is known as carry one, carry all. In 2004, Congress amended the statute to require carriage (must carry) in Alaska and Hawaii. DIRECTV has represented to the Commission in the license transfer proceeding involving Liberty Media that it is flilly committed to offering local broadcast signals in all 210 DMAs by 2008, either via satellite or via the integration of digital tuners into settop boxes. In those markets where it does not currently plan to roll out local-into-local service via satellite, DIRECTV will offer a seamless, integrated local channel package by integrating digital tuners into set-top boxes. Some consumers already have set-top boxes that include digital tuners; these tuners allow consumers to receive digital broadcast signals and view them on analog television sets without the need for separate digital-to-analog converters, For other consumers in markets not served by satellite local-
Sincerely,
/
Kevin fMartin Chairman
FEDERAL COMMUNCATONS WA S H I N GTO N
COMMISSION
OFFICE CF THE CHAIRMAN
The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin Unites States House of Representatives 331 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC. 20515 Dear Congresswoman Sandlin: Thank you for your letter concerning the proposed transfer of control of DIRECTV from News Corporation to Liberty Media Corporation. In your letter you ask that the transaction be conditioned on a requirement that D1RECTV provide local-into-local service in all television markets in the country. Although neither of the two major satellite television carriers, DIRECTV and Dish Network, 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% of U.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 the process of launching local-into-local service in an additional six markets for a total of 150 DMAs. Unlike the cable must-carry statute that requires all cable systems to carry all local stations, Congress chose not to require satellite operators to carry local broadcast signals in every market. The statutory requirements for satellite carriage give satellite carriers a choice of whether or not to carry local stations in a market. Specifically, by enacting the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA), Congress decided to allow, but not require, satellite carriers to offer local stations. Satellite carriers that choose to offer one station in a market must carry all the stations in the market that request carriage. This is known as carry one, carry all. In 2004, Congress amended the statute to require carriage (must carry) in Alaska and Hawaii. DIRECTV has represented to the Commission in the license transfer proceeding involving Liberty Media that it is fully committed to offering local broadcast signals in all 210 DMAs by 2008, either via satellite or via the integration of digital tuners into settop boxes. In those markets where it does not currently plan to roll out local-into-local service via satellite, DIRECTV will offer a seamless, integrated local channel package by integrating digital tuners into set-top boxes. Some consumers already have set-top boxes that include digital tuners; these tuners allow consumers to receive digital broadcast signals and view them on analog television sets without the need for separate digital-to-analog converters. For other consumers in markets not served by satellite local-
into-local, DIRECTV will offer a component that attaches to the set-top box. Consumers who want to take advantage of this option would be charged $50 for the component but would not be charged for the local package. In addition to converting digital signals to analog for display on analog televisions, the component will ensure that the broadcast programming is displayed on DIRECTVs electronic program guide and will enable consumers to apply other set-top box functions (such as DVR capability) to broadcast programming. Consumers using the additional component would not need a separate digital-to-analog converter, Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of further assistance with this or any other matter.
Sincerely,
Kevin fMartin Chairman
12/04/2007 1728 FAX 202 228 0428
REP JOHN TAI(NER
002
JOHN TANNER
Sm DsmICr T5NNE5SEE
WAYS AND MEANS cOMMflTEE
FORE(CN A1FAJ9S COMMrrTEE
www.house.gov/tannor
CONGRESS OF THE UNITE]) STATES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WASHINGTON, DC 20515-4208
HOUSE NATO PA9LIAMENTAFiY ASSEMB(.Y DELEGATiON
December 4, 2007 1-lonorable Kevin 3. Martin Chairman Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street. SW Washington, D.C. 20554 Dear Chaiiman Martin: I respectfully request that the Federal Communications Commission, in consideration of the Liberty Media transaction (Media Bureai.i Docket Number 07-1 ), require DirecTV to provide 100% local-into-local television service programming. It is my understanding that DirecTV has submitted a letter arguing that no condition should be imposed on DirecTV requiring it to provide local-into-local service in the remaining 61 rural television markets in 31 states. The Jackson, Tennessee market, which is in my Congressional district, is one of the remaining un-served television areas. Local-into-local television 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 office if I can provide any further information.
CC: Deborah Taylor Tate, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
1226
LONGWORTh BLJILDINe W*SHIN6TON D.C. 20515
FOST OFI9c 8ox 629 203 WE5T CKWICII SmEEr

UNION
ROOM t7, FSOAL UILDNG

JACKSON,
8120
HIGNWAi
51 NORm
(202) 225-4714 FAX (202) 2251755
TN 38301
SurrE 3
Cm,, TN
38261
(731) 423-4848
(731) 8857070
FAX (731)8857094
FAX (731) 4271537
MILLINGTON, TN 38453 (901) 8735690 FAX (901) 8736692
COMMISSION
OFFICE OF TIlE CHAIRMAN
The Honorable John Tanner United States House of Representatives 1226 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Tanner; Thank you for your letter concerning the proposed transfer of control of DIRECTV from News Corporation to Liberty Media Corporation. In your letter you ask that the transaction be conditioned on a requirement that DIRECTV provide local-into-local service in all television markets in the country. Although neither of the two major satellite television carriers, DIRECTV and Dish Network, 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% of U.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 the process of launching local-into-local service in an additional six markets for a total of 150 DMAs. Unlike the cable must-carry statute that requires all cable systems to carry all local stations, Congress chose not to require satellite operators to cany local broadcast signals in every market. The statutory requirements for satellite carriage give satellite carriers a choice of whether or not to carry local stations in a market. Specifically, by enacting the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA), Congress decided to allow, but not require, satellite carriers to offer local stations. Satellite carriers that choose to offer one station in a market must carry all the stations in the market that request carriage. This is known as carry one, carry all. In 2004, Congress amended the statute to require carriage (must carry) in Alaska and Hawaii. DIRECTV has represented to the Commission in the license transfer proceeding involving Liberty Media that it is fully committed to offering local broadcast signals in all 210 DMAs by 2008, either via satellite or via the integration of digital tuners into settop boxes. In those markets where it does not currently plan to roll out local-into-local service vIa satellite, DIRECTV will offer a seamless, integrated local channel package by integrating digital tuners into set-top boxes. Some consumers already have set-top boxes that include digital tuners; these tuners allow consumers to receive digital broadcast signals and view them on analog television sets without the need for separate digital-to-analog converters. For other consumers in markets not served by satellite local-
Sincerely,
25+3057
u.s
Rep CUBIN
02:51.56 p.m.
02-21 -2008
WASHNGT0N OFFiCE
1/1
COMM ITT& ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

TEI.ECOMMLJNICATIONS AND THO )NT!NrT iiijjpr
1114
LONGWOITN
House OrFIcO BUILDING WASIIINQION, DC 20515 (202) 225-2311

Fx (202) 225-3051 WYOMJNG OFFiCES:
onres of the !lnitei1 tatez

1Yiause of Reprsentatiues
BARBARA CUBN
WYOMINGAT LARGE
cs, WY 826026014
F97 Zl2OCAprroLAvoeuE BonE 2015 CHEVENN!, WY 62001 (307)772-2595
February 21, 2008 The Honorable Kevin J. Martin Chairman, Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., SW Washington, DC 20554 Dear Chairman Martin:
FAX: (307)
I)fj J
.
2515 FOOTHILL SOIJLEVARD
(wJ
fj I
RocgSpyBZOOl FAc (307) 362-4097
I write today to express concern about the stated, yet unfulfilled commitment of DirecTV and NewsCorp to offer local-into-local service to all 210 Designated Market Areas (DMA) by 2008. While I do not oppose the stalce swap between NewsCorp and Liberty Media, I urge the Commission to carefully review NewsCorp and DirecTVs 2003 pledge in light of this transaction. As you know, in an effort to win approval of its initial acquisition of DirecTV, NewsCorp wrote that, as early as 2006 and no later than 2008, (1) DIRECTV will offer a seamless, integrated local channel package.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 service to all 210 DMAs. Given that DirecTV is a Direct Broadcast Satellite company, it is difficult to believe that DirecTV intended to serve customers with anything other than satellite service, Moreover, requiring customers to purchase both a converter box and an external antenna to continue receiving local stations following the digital transition cannot be considered seamless, at least not from the consumers point of view. Given that rural customers disproportionately depend on satellite technologies, but are also disproportionately excluded from satellite television coverage, I ask that the Commission not look lightly upon DirecTVs pledge. Sincerely,
C?5ae
CC: Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein Commissioner Michael Copps Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate Commissioner Robert McDowell
Barbara Cubin Member of Congress
FEINTED ON EECYCIED PAFEA
02/21/2008 16:29 FAX 202 228 0012
SEN. BEN NELSON 720
ti 002/002
HAriT SENATE OPPcE 8UIIJ)INC WASHINOTON, DC 20610 (202) 2246681 F.*.x (202) 2280012 www.bennelgonaenMagov
E. ENJAM1N NELSON
NEERACA
nitzd tats tnatz

Pebruaiy 20, 2008
The Honorable Kevin I. Martin, Chairman
Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW. Washington, DC 20554.0001 Reference; MB Docket No. 07-18 Dear Chairman Martin: As you consider the pending transaction between News CorporatiowDlR.ECTV Group, Inc. and Liborty Media Corporation, I urge you to consider the issue of Local-Into-Local (LIL) service in order to ensure that consumers it small markets still have access to local broadcasts. In Nebraska, there are two Designated Market 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 the top 150 markets nationwide; and of course, consumers in the remaining markets in excess of 150 are wanting access to the same service. I understand the technical arid cost constraints of meeting a mandate to provide LIL service in all 210 market, but I believe it is important to give consideration to the impact on consumers of not having access to local broadcasts. Many in rural areas of my home state have no option other than direct broadcast service to receive television broadcasts. Access to local broadcasts in these areas means more than just the convenience and enjoyment of watching local stations; it is a public safety matter. Without access to local broadcasts, people living in remote areas are at risk of not receiving timely weather information and emergency alerts. In a. slate where severe weather is not uncommon, access to this vital information and service is of critical importance. Because of the significance of this issue to my constituents living in rural areas of Nebraska, I urge you to ensure that consumers in remote, rural areas have access to local broadcasts as you consider this transaction, Thaik you for your consideration. Sincerely,
United EBN:ajs cc: Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein Commissioner Michael 3. Copps Commissioner Robert M. McDowefl Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate
440 NoHn4 8T4 S5ET Surrs 120 PIELD ERE8ENTATIVE POST OFFICE BOX 2106 KEAINEY, NE 66848
Fisi.o AEPRE5ENTA1IV Posr OPPiCE BOx 1472 Scc1-rsLuF. NE 68363 (308) 6317614
NE 66508 (402) 4414600 F*.X: (402) 476a75

LINCOLN.
(300) 2935818
FIELD REPRESENTATIVE POST OpC BOx 791 Soumi SIOUX CIW, NE 66776
7502 PACIRC SThEFr

OMANA,
Surrs 208 NE 68114
402) 2093595
(402)3913411 Fc (402) 3914725
10/12/2010 17:30 FAX

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
CHRMAN WESTERN HEMI5PEM 5UacOMMIflE
CANON 3175
2161 PAYOURN
IlO0i
LI8EOFRCS UILDIMC WASNINETON, C 16fl.3i7 Io) 225-2484
OThER SL.JSCOMMrrIEES; N MIDDLE EAST AND $OUTh AS
DISThIC1 OFFICES: 355 JOI4NCN AVENUE QNX. NY 10483
Ofltt
of die tUtb tate
CoMMI1rEEoN
ENERGYANOCOMMEFICE SUDCOMMrrIEES: HALTh NERGV AND ENV1!0NMENT ASEIIANTDEMOCRATICWIUP
RII4LIU
5ORAMATANAVENUE SUITE 208 MOUNT V5NON. NV 10550 I014I83-4to0 281 W!STNYAKROAD WSSTNVACK.NV1OBS4 1645 1000 W5SrTE:
pIonI.hjii.Qv
El 101
Mwi
I-Iw.I
17th DISTRICT, NEW VOI<
October 13, 2010
The Honorable Julius Oenachowski, Chairman Federal Communications Commission 445 Twelfth Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Dear Cluiinnan Genachowsk
V
I am writing as a follow up to my previous letter of March 2, 2010 about the retransmission consent issUe. Today, there is a similar situation brewing. The current impasse between Cablevision and News Corporation threatens my constituents with losing access to the Fox network on Friday, October 15.
V
In March, my letter to you asked for the FCC to provide a regulatory fix which 1 would allow broadcasters and networks to be compensated fairly for their product while not charging cable and satellite providers outrageously high rates. Today, I repeat my request for the FCC to intervene to protect my constituents.
V
The next proposed broadcast cutoff is scheduled to occur in the midst of the League Baseball playoffs, and only days before the New York Yankees potentially Major enter the World Series. In a previous retransmission consent dispute, the broadcast of the Academy Awards was nearly disrupted. I have been hearing from a large number of constituents requesting Congressional action on this issue. This situation has to stop. My constituents cannot constantly be on the hook and be held hostage while two giant corporations fight over revenues, Broadcast blackouts are painful at all times, but they are particularly hanuful regarding live sporting or entertainment 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 retransmission disputes that continue to threaten their favorite programming. To prevent the continuation of these threats to consumers, I respectfully request that the FCC expeditiously take a thorough loak into the retransmission consent system. While investigating the situation 1
10/3.1/2010 17:30 FAX
CANON 3175
IO02
their the FCC should propoe a solution which would enstre that consumers will nOt hsve of the year. signal shut off, especially dtiring some of their most popular programming Although 1 am a strong proponent of allowing businesses to work out their disputes without having the government intervene. I cannot stand icily by if my constituentS Continue to be harmed, and I must ask for 1CC intervention. 1 would appreciate a thoughtful and prompt response regarding this issue. Sincerely,
gA.44_
Af4L
Eliot L. Engel Member of Congress
c. c. 1r.rarrEL)
1ST Oi,ucr,
NRr CAtLIi4
MfliEE ON ENERGY AND C0MMURCE

VICS CUSIS.
DEPUTY WFHP
4I C
ir
s
th5
AmE
WAS 2c
)C 213(1 2G1 214
n tIps 3nttb tutt

Ut
October 15, 2010
SM)
SUMSS
COMM FEE ON
STANDARDS Ot
OFFiCtAL CONDUCT US. tD3L$ :N1U OMMISSTON
The Honorable Julius Genach:oWski Chairman
Federal Communications Commission 12 Street, SW Wishington, DC 20554

Dear Chairman Genachowski:
1658
As the retrapsmissin onset ngOtiations between Cablcvisioi and Fox over carriage of Foc programming continue, the parties involved. shouki negotiate th terms of their agreement without gove.rnmert influence. As you know, these negotiations attempt to achieve a very delicate balance between two sizeable media companies. A.s with aiy business negotiation, cIiscusions about the termsof retransmission consent can, at times, become quite contentious. However, government intervention in businessto business 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 consent regulations, much to th benefit of viewers, Today, there are many niultichamiel video programmin.g distributors (MV.PD) and other content viewing options available to consumers that were not
available 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, two telephone companies, the Internet, and overthealr, Programming and distributiOn of video content is a vibrant and competitive market. In order to continue fostering strong competition, private companies should engage in these negotiations without government intervention. The current. retransmission, consent regulations have worked. well for nearly 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.
G. K. Butterfield Member ot Congress

s.I9 WIA .flthflI flat
5urJ3 ,4aN (252)23951C 1SMRZ (29t36
309 W,s T1t,D Srssrr Wr 1 W4. NC 2?W T 1,UUtM1 252) 53-4 23 lrSsu0 2525345I0
Urircd 2 rates Senate

WASHtNG tON, DC 205W
October 18, 2010 Chairman Julius Genachowski Federal Communications Commission 445 1 Dth Street, SW Washington. DC 20554 Dear Chairman Genachowsk i:
1659
News Corp. (FOX) and Cables ision recentl failed to reach an agreement for the retransmission 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 hile the parties continue to negotiate, approximately 3 million Cablevision subscribers in New Jersey, New York and Connecticut are left without access to these broadcast channels. and the local news, sports. and other programming they offer. We ask that the FCC take immediate action to move the patties to a prompt resolution of this dispute and to minimize the impact of future disputes. ttnfortunatelv, the FOX and Cablevision dispute is not an isolated incident. Disputei between broadcasters and video providers appear to he increasing. Just last March, Cablevision anti Disney/WABC-TV failed to reach an agreement and the WA BCTV signal was pulled from Cablevision. While that signal as eventually restored, it as onl> after Cablevision customers sere without \\A13CTV for approximatel> 2( hours, including the first 15 minutes of the Academy Awards broadcast. Upcoming retransmission consent negotiations between FOX and the 01511 Network may put even more hardworking New Jersevans at risk of losing television programming that the have come to expect and rely on tbr their local news and entertainment. We are deeply troubled that consumers are repeatedly being used as pawns in these programming disputes. We ask that the lCC exercise all of its available authority to promptl> resole the FOX and Cablevision dispute. it is our understanding that the FCC suggested that FOX and 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 FCC officials in order to reenergize and resolve these negotiations. Ihe FCC also needs to reexamine its existing regulations for retransmission consent negotiations. As you know, a petition to modify these rules has been pending before the FCC since March 2010. We urge the FCC to work diligently and expeditiously to consider the comments that have been filed on that petition and revise its rules. We ask that the FCC provide us with a response within live business tia> s that outlines a firm schedule for the FCCs action on the pending retransmission consent
petWon (MB Docket No. 1 071). Continued delay in retorming the retransmission consent process will only harm consumers in New Jersey and ihroubout the country.
Sincerely,
COMMISSION
oFFc; OF
THF CRMAN
October 29, 2010
The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg United States Senate 324 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 205 10 Dear Senator Lautenberg: Thank you for your letter of October 18, 2010, expressing concern that the current framework for negotiation of the terms of retransmission consent by broadcasters, cable companies. and satellite operators is in nccd of reform. I agree with you that recent events raise issues of real concern. Negotiations between broadcasters and pay television providers have become increasingly fractious and we are now in the midst of an impasse resulting in a sustained blackout. I share your concern that the current system relegates television viewers to pawns between companies battling over retransmission fees. Under the present system, the FCC has very few tools with which to protect consumers interests in the retransmission consent process. Congress granted the FCC limited ability to encourage agreement by ensuring that the parties negotiate in good faith. But current law does not give the agency the tools necessary to prevent service disruptions, Accordingly, 1 believe that it is time for Congress to revisit the current retransmission law and assess whether changes in the marketplace call for new tools to strike the appropriate balance of private negotiations and consumer protection. Such tools might include, for example, mandatory mediation and binding arbitration, which could prevent the kind of unfortunate stalemate that now exists between Cablevision and Fox. The companies in the current dispute share responsibility for viewer disruption. The Commission will continue to push the companies to reach an agreement and serve the viewing public. For weeks the Commission has been admonishing the parties to reach an agreement, as so many other companies do each year. To protect viewers, the Commission issued consumer advisories informing Cablevision customers of their options in the event of the blackout that has now come to pass. We have urged the parties to agree to private thirdparty mediation. Ihe Commission also launched an investigation 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 consider reforms to the retransmission consent law. Sineriy,
itiids Genachowski
COMMISStON
OFFICE OF THE ZHAIRMP.N
October 29. 2010
The Honorable Robert Menendez United States Senate 528 hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Menendez: Thank you for your letter of October 18, 2010, expressing concern that the current framework for negotiation of the terms of retransmission consent by broadcasters, cable companies, and satellite operators is in need of reform. I agree with, you that recent events raise issues of real concern. Negotiations between broadcasters and pay television providers have become increasingly fractious and we are now in the midst of an impasse resulting in a sustained blackout. I share your concern that the current system relegates 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 consumers interests in the retransmission consent process. Congress granted the FCC limited ability to encourage agreement by ensuring that the parties negotiate in good faith, But current law does not give the agency the tools necessary to prevent service disruptions Accordingly, I believe that it is time for Congress to revisit the current retransmission law and assess whether changes in the marketplace call for new tools to strike the appropriate balance of private negotiations and consumer protection. Such tools might include, for example, mandatory mediation and binding arbitration, which could prevent the kind of unfortunate stalemate that now exists between Cablevision and Fox.
.
The companies in the current dispute share responsibility for viewer disruption. The Commission will continue to push the companies to reach an agreement and serve the viewing public. For weeks the Commission has been admonishing the parties to reach an agreement, as so many other companies do each year. To protect viewers, the Commission issued consumer advisories informing Cablevision customers of their options in the event of the blackout that has now come to pass. We have urged the parties to agree to private thirdparty mediation. The Commission also launched an investigation 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 consider reforms to the retransmission consent law.
Gcnachowski
RUSH HOLT
Twelfth District, New Jersey 1214 Longworth Dailding Washington, D.C. 20515 202-225-5801 Fax 202-22.5-602.5
.
Chair Select Intelligence Oversight Panel
Committee on Appropriations Committee on Education and Labor
W35O 609-750-9365
ngrii
of flr 3Jjnitt tatis

October 19, 2010
Perman:ntSelt Committee
Fax 609-750-0618
http:/Jholt.houne.gov
Committee on Natural Resources
1660
The Honorable Julius Genachowski Federal Communications Commission 12 Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Dear Chairman Genachowski, I am writing to urge immediate action to bring a resolution to the current dispute between News Corp and Cablevision that is resulting in my constituents not being able to see important programming. Last week, I sent letters to each party in the dispute (see attached) to ensure that the consumers were not the victims of this dispute through the loss of programming. Unfortunately, an agreement was not reached, and at this point there is no indication that the parties are making progress on reaching a resolution, thus intensifring the risk that my constituents will continue to suffer a loss of access to programs they enjoy. As the FCC is the agency responsible for overseeing the retransmission consent process and charged with the obligation to ensure that broadcasters act in the public interest, I ask that you use all available means (including arbitration or mediation) to bring the parties together to resolve this dispute as swiftly as possible. I would appreciate it if you could advise of your intent in this regard at your earliest convenience. Sincerely,
RUSH HOLT Member of Congress
CC:
Commissioner Michael Copps Commissioner Mignon Clyburn Commissioner Robert McDowell Commissioner Meredith Atwell Baker
JOHN KERRY
MASCHJSU
caTrEEs
COficf. SCENC, MQ TN1O
1tintd tate iiat

WASHINGTO( DC 2i5iC)21O2,
SML
Octberl9,20i0 The Honorable Julius Genachowski Chairman Federal Comniunications Commission 445 1 2k Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20004 Dear Chairman Genachowski:
1661
As you know, News Corp (FOX) and Cablevision failed to reach an agrcemnt on Friday for the retransmission of WNYW (NY hannei 5), WWOR (NJ channel 9) and WTXF (Philadelphia channel 29) As a result, approximately 3 million Cablevision subscribers in New Jersey, 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 Times recently reported, these sorts of confrontations are now a regular event; indeed, Bloomberg News recently reported that TV blackouts in the U.S.. have reached the highest level in a decade and 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 system works least of all for consumers, the primary interest we represent in matters of public policy making I hope you will agree that the current process which forces all sides and partiuilarly consumers 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 in the middle. It incentivizes conflict over negotiation.

The voices of angry consumers in this weekends news coverage speak volumes. Many football tans had to leave home, denied the service they faithfully pay for, and even bring their children to bars to watch the game. As one person, Marilyn Odeli, told the New York Times, shouting to be heard above the crowd, Were too old to be in this place. A separate Associated Press story detailed oneof the owners of a bar that depends on its Cablevision subscription complaining, 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 that regular, everyday people get caught in the middle.
There are important equities. and business interests at stake hi these negotiations, and in this most recent case, both sides believe theyve negotiated in good faith Its not our job to take sides but it is clearly our responsibility to ask whether theres a bettet way forward as these kinds of situations rise in frequency. In addition to this most recent dispute, just last March, Cablevision and Disney!WABC-TV failed to reach an agreement and the WABC-TV signal was pulled from Cablevision. While that signal was eventually restored, it was only after Cablevision
rnnDoN CEPAR
The Honorable Julius enaohows. October 19, 2GW Page 2
customers. were:without WABC ripproximateiy 20 hours, including thetIrst 15 mimtes of the Academy Awards (Oscai.s) brjcast And upcommg retransmission consent negotiations between FOX and the DISH NetWor1 which will include thousands of households in Boston and millions nationwide and in December between Mediacom. and Sinclair Broadcasting could put even more Americans at risk of4osig television programming that they have come to expect and rely on for their local news ar4 enteinrnent. This Spring, you testified before the Senate Commerce Committee thatthe retransmissiOn. onsnt system wa under review and had been since the previous New Yeai Further, a petition that seeks to modif the FCCs iules for retiansmission consent negotiations has been pending before the FCC since March2010. The FCC has had sufficient time to consider the comments that hae been filed on that petition and begin the process to revise its iules But in the absence of FCC action, I feel a responsibility to begin to consider the smartest, least intrusive actiOns to reform the law. A discussion draft of the legislative language is attached The process e are trying to effect is two party negotiations that have a big Impact on an unrepresented third party, consumers. The goal iS to offer a path to potential resolution of differences an&proteet consumers It would stave off the terminatEon of carnage on expiration of an agreement and allow signals to continue transmrttmg until the FCC evaluates the behavior ofthe parties and recommends or does not recommend binding arbitration during which carnage would continue At the end of the day, the broadcaster would retain the right to pull the signal when there is a good faith impasse on terms, but it would not be able to do so without much greater transparency in process and a more systemic effort at reaching agreement without consumers getting caught in the middle.
In sbort lii any bro.adcster-disttibutor negotiation, there ac four basic possible impasse scenarios, for which I am considering a new process of resolution as. follows. Once both parties agree that they have reached,an impasse, they both submit their last best offer for FCC ealuation, and:
Scenario I The FCC finds that the. bioadcaster is negotiating in good faith and making an offer consistent with market conditions but the distributor is not In this case, the distributor shall agree to the broadcasters last best offer or terminate carnage and the rcc may fine the distributor for negotiating in bad faith In lieu of termination ofthe signal, the broadcaster can withdraw the last best offer and ask the CommissIon to, require binding arbitration..
Scenario 2 The FCC finds that the broadcaster is not negotiating ingood.faith or making an offer consistent with market conditions and the distributot is negotiating in good faith and making an offer consistent with market conditions, then the FCC can
The Hpnorabie Julius Genachciwski October 19, 2010 Page 3 require binding arbitration. The penalty for the broadcaster is forced participation in binding arbitration. Scenario 3 This will be the most likely scenario m most cases The FCC finds that both parties have negotiated m good faith but reached a true impasse based on an honest disagieement on the value of the signal In tins case, the FCC may i equeit them to submit to bindrng arbitration If one party or the other refuses to engage in binding arbttration, then the FCC will provide both parties with a model notice by whick to infonn consumeis of the potential loss of service as well as the ditlei ence in offers on. the table so that consumers can judge for themselves who was making the fairest offer This adds a more consuinr friendly and tianspalent way to end tiansmission of services it necessary and creates an attractive option for arbitration for both parties.
Scenario 4 The FCC finds that neither party is negotiating in good faith, then it can require binding arbitratioia and fine both parties.
I look forward to woiking with you on a solution to this problem. If you have an alternative solution or believe you can make the process work for consumers using your regulatory authority, please let me know. Sincerely,
John F. Kerry
S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYRITE\COM1C\RETRAN3.
[STAFF WORKING DRAFTI

Otrroii IS, 2010
111TH CONGRESS
2D
SESSrON
S.
-
To amend the Co imunienti unt Aet of 19.34 to faeiIitnty retro missu ngremtiflt eon fIit rCso ut lUll.
IN THE SENAT1 OF TE UNITEI)

Nv4MI L_ Jtr. Kiinv (for himself, i\ir.. duced the follnwiit- bill: mittee on
hich
uu1 r. ) intro s re 1 twice and relnred to the Coul
A BILL
Ta amend th Commumeations Act of 1934 to faci itate : ansimsion lgTce!nex1t conflict i eolUtiOfl
I Re ti ena(ed bj the &nate oiut House of Repi egenta
ties of th Unitd States qfJ11nerica iz Qongress qse?nbied
3 4
SECTION 1. SHORT TiTLE.
This Act may be cited s the Retransmission Nego
5 tiation Reform and Transparency Act of 2010.
October18, 2010 (9:51 a.m.)
S:\WPSFII\LEGCNSL\XYWRITEWOWO\ETRAN3
-J
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SEC. 2; FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following: (1) Broadcast television

statiolLs
rightJy receive
free use of the public spectrum to. transmit a broadcast sigiral in the public interest. Broadcasters aIscY ret ewe specia] government-granted benefits to e) I sure that they ai e able to taffihl their mandate etC sen e the public These include thc raaht% choose
9
10 11 12
13 14
ertirer mandatot v vantage eallec[ %tal can y

negotiated can iage horn a YKico
ot
pro
gi ammmg distributor undar .i etianszrnsum consent (2) Under the Peck sior? s network ncpduphcataou mmcatron Corumis * i. egulatrons, a hi oad rs the sole
source of
caster, in most cases, efleefively
15 16 17 18
19
populia, non-substitutable, network progiamrnmg in

a given designated market area As a result, when a broasleaster thi eatexis to pull
its
signal, the multi-
channel video prograinnung distnbutor cannot ac

cess an oxistmg alternative
source for the network
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
October 18, 2b10 (9:51 tin.)
pr ogi. amimng (3) When retransmission consent rights were grmitcd to conxmereiaI television broadcast stations in 1.992, it was expected. that such rights would be exercised in a maimer that would benefit consumers by enhancing competition in the video prograimrinig marketplace while preserving and protecting the
S:\WPSHR\LEOCNSL\XYWRITE\COMI0\RETRAN3
3 1 2
3 4
broadest avenlabibty of local television broadcast sta tions to all members of the viewing public at
able prices. (4) Between 1992 and reason
2007, these expectations
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1
were largely met. Most television broadcast stations electing retransnrission consent were able ts reach carriage agreements with multichaimel video pio gramming distributors on mutually agreeable terms that provuEled additional vahio to. cousm we;rs. ar a rew sonable price. As recently as 20.05, the Federal Corn nurnications Co.mmiwdori found that niest retrans mission consent agreeriiEad:s were based on an oxchange of in-Iclifd conideraion. (5) Iefansiissiou, 1 lowevey, become
. .
iisent negotiations have, contei itious result,
increasingly
with
16
17 18
threats of Imjassi rising. As a

i in naber tainty of negotiations create
a. growing
a period of uuoer to their

con
mid confusion for
consumers as from
19 20
tinned access to programming
broadcasters
that they reasonably expected they would receive as part of their multichannel video programming dis
22
trihutor service.
.5 October 18, 2010 (9:51 asrt)
IS
S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\COM1G\RETRAN3
4
1 SEC. 3. RETRANSMiSSiON NEGOTiATION POST-IMPASSE TRANSPARENCY ANT) RESOLUTION.
2 3
Section 325(b) of the (onuminications Act of 1 934
4 (47 U.S.C. 32b)) is amended 5 6 7 8 9 (1) by uedesiguating paragraph (7) as pars grp1i (8); and (2) by inerthig after paragraph (3) the fol
lowing: (7)
IEOIUTION OP
10 RENEWAL CONFLICT. 11 12 13 14 15 16 (A) IN GENERAL.por f

4
exatiou of au
existing carriage agreemm
wlucling any mutually
agreed upon extpnsion thereof) hetwc..n a MVPD
and
broadeate that haii elected its right to grant
retran,nw*uon oneiit under this subsection

ii) the MVPD shall coutmue to carry the
.:
17
1$ 19
signal or signals of the broadcaster on the same

tnis as the expired agreement; (ii) the broadcaster shall allow continued
carriage of its
20 21 22 23 24
25
signal or signals
on
the same
terms as the expired agieement; and (iii) within 10 days after the date
on
which the agreement eq)ircd, each party shall submit its last best offer to the Commission
for
a determination as to whether offer is ineon

sistciit
26
is
October18, 2010 (9:51 am.)
with
S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\m.1TE\COM1O\EEmAN3
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2Q 21 22 23 nice
(I) the duty to negotiate: faith; or (II) market conditions,
iii
good
in4ncUng
changes in the consumer pnee index. The ()onumssion shall make its deteimination with zespeet to each such offet wfthm 20 busmess days after the date on which the agieement expn ed (13) Bio$ncAwrIR
LASI DES V OFFIH 1NCON
SISTENT WITH GOOD FAITH NEGOTh\ PIONS 011 MARRET uown ro S
1 the Uomnns%ion detci mines
that
(i)
the te1eion broadcast stations last
best offer cva meansistent with the duty to nos 0 gotiate ni gooI faith oi with rnuket conditions, and (n)the MVPDs last best offci as not steut with the duty to negotiate ui good or inaiket conditions,
tam
then the Comimsston shall icqini e the pai ties to :ubiuiit to binding arbitration. The broadcaster shall allo contunieci carnage of
its
signal oi signals din
ing the pendemiy of arbitration pursuant to the terms of the expired

agreement.
*5 October 18,2010 (9:51 a.m)
IS
S:cWPSHR\LEGONSL\XYWRITE\COMIO\RETRNS
6
I (C)
IVtVP1) LAST
BEST OFFER INCONSISTENT
2 3 4
WITH GOOD F ITII NEGOTIATIONS OR 2jARmEP CONDITION&
(i) tt If the Commission determines that the 1VIVPDs last best offer was rneonsisteiat with the duty to negotiate in good faith
01
5 6
7 S
with
rnai
ket conditions, and the television hi oadeast sta uons last best offrn was riot mcoiisistmt with
tile duty to negotiate in g9od faith or mai k(t conditions, thc,n
tile
9 10 Ii
12 13 14 15
Commission
IUaV
hue
the
1VIVPD and the MVII) shall have 2 business

days to agree to the tims of the tele ision broadcast station s fast best ottei i cia 0 active to the date on ;v1uel the eustrng a grcenwnt oxpiied and continue to caiiy the signal or sig
16
17
nab
It
(i;)
1 the MVP1) does not agree to the

-
18 19 20
2l,
terms of the
televi&ion hi oadeast stations last peri&i,
best offer within that 2-day
then the
MV1D shall tcrmmate carnage of
the signal oi
signals upon 14 days notice to eonsumer un-
22 23
24
less the broadcaster requests, within 2
business
days after the end of that 2-day period, that the Commission require the
binding
arhitraticyn.
parties to submit
to
25
if the broadcaster -roquets
October 18, 2010 9:Sl am.)
S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWR1TE\COM1O\RETRA.N3
7 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13
the Commission to require bmthng arbitration, it shall allow continued carriage of its signal or signals during the pendency of arbitration.
i)U1
suant to the terms of the expired agreement. (iii) if the \IVPD does not accept the tel: evision. broadcast stations last best offer and the broadcaster does not request binding athi
tration (or the Commission denies such re
quest), then the IVEVPI) and (be broadcaster shall notdy consumers, in accordance with regn lations prescribed by the Ubunnission, of the MVPDs termination. o[ carriage.
(D) MUTUIMJJY FYXCJLUSIVE GOOD FAITh FERS. OF-
14 15 16 17 18 19
I
j
thI? Conunission determines that
both parties negotiated in. good faith. but reached a true impasse and simply disagree on. a Pair price, it shall request the parties to sub thit to binding arbitration and notity the Coin mission of its decision within 5 business days. (ii) If either party declines to accept the
20
2L
22
23 24 25
Commissions request within tim 5-day Period,

then each party shall prcmde 14 days notice to consumers of the pending disruption, in service and publicly disclose the retransmission consent
October 18,2010(9:51 am.)
is
S: \WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\COMIO\RETRAN3
S I
2
terms that it had offered

The
in
its last best otter.

a
Commission
may provide
model
notice
3 4 5 6
7
for parties t.o disclose tile terms of their last
best offer that would be aecessthle to consumers and a model notice to

COI1SULTWIS
regarding the
pendmg termination of carriage of the sigilaL (E) BoTh

IFER INCONSISTENT WITh
GO(I)
8
9
FAIrH NEGOTIATIONS.iE the Cnmissicn
mines that the last best offer of bothpartcs was in
10 ii 12 13 14 15
16
consistent with the duty to negotiath, in good faith or with market c03Iditions then
(i)
the C
JTmISOn
haI1 requn e the arbitration;
di
ties to submit to bin
7 ii
(n) the ConitnLsion may impose a fine on eJh Ptht a 1

iil) th? broadcaster shall allow continued arriage of its signal or signals during the
P1IC11CY of arbitration pursuant to the terms
17
l.
19
of the expired agreement.

(F) BITRATION.Any arbitration required
21 22 23 24 25
or requested imder this paragraph shall be eon. du.cted uider the auspices of the Commission or the American Arbitration Association, as determined by
mutual agreement of the parties or by the Commis
sion in the absence of such agreement. r[he final ar rs
October 18, 2010 (9:51 am.)
S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\COM1O\RETRAN3
1
2 3 4
bitratcd terms cyf an arbitration under this pam
graph shall be retroactive to the date on which the agreement exp ed.
C(G)
CoNPINuED
NEGOTIATION
NOT
PIlE
5 6 7
8
ULtIDEI) .Nothing
in this subparagraph shall be
construed
to
preelmie a broadcaster awl

to negotiate after
from continuing an exstmg

time, to
the expiratmtvot
carriage
agreement
and
i
9
10
ii
cozthuuecl
carriage on
utuJjctable
terms.
(H) DEFINITIONS.1U this pa3-agraph: (i) 13ROAD*fEIL-The
12
13
term
broad
caster mean a tekwison broadcast station as
14
defined in ubettion(c1)(7)(B) of this section.
15
16 17
.
(ii) IVIVFO.The term 1VLVPD means tiehairne]- crideo programming distributor as

:efizjl in section 602 of this Act!.
_--,:
-.
--.
Octobet 18, 2010 (9:51
am.)
Is
Is
FEDERAL CCMMUNCA-RONS WASHNGT0N
CQMMISSON
OFICE cw THE CHAIRMAN
October 29, 2011)
The I lonorable John F. Kerry Chairman Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation United States Senate 218 Russell Senate Office Building Washington. 1).C. 205 10 Dear Chairman Kerry:
Thank you for your letter of October 19, 2010, expressing concern that the current Iraniework for negotiation ol the terms of retransmission consent by broadcasters, cable companies, and satellite operators is broken and in need of reform. I agree with you that recent events raise issues of real concern. Negotiations between broadcasters and pay television providers have become increasingly fractious and we are now in the midst of an impasse resulting in a sustained blackout. I share your concern that the current system relegates television viewers to awns between companies battling over retransmission fees.
Under [lie present system, the FCC has very flnv tools with which to protect consumers interests in the retransmission consent process. Congress granted the FCC limited ability to encourage agreement by ensuring that the parties negotiate in good Iaiih. But current law does not give the agency the tools necessary to prevent service disruptions. Accordingly, I agree that it is lime for Congress to revisit the current retransmission law and assess whether changes in the marketplace call for new tools to strike the appropriate balance of private negotiations and consumer protection. Such tools might include, for example, mandatory mediation and binding arbitration, which could prevent the kind of unlbrtunate stalemate that now exists between Cablevision and Fox. The companies in the current dispute share responsibility for viewer disruption. 1 he Commission will continue to push the companies to reach an agreement and serve the viewing public. For weeks the Commission has been admonishing the parties to reach an agreement, as so many other companies do each year. To protect viewers, the Commission issued consumer advisories informing Cablevision customers oltheir options in the event of the blackout that has now come to pass, We have urged the parties to agree to private thirdparty mediation. The Commission also launched an investigation into whether each party is complying with its legal duty to negotiate in good ftiith.
Page 2The Honorable John F. Kerry
I look forward to working closely with you and your colleagues in Congress as you consider reforms to the retransmission consent law. Since y
ulius Genachowski
carra rnay ma cowc

S1JCOM.NTTEE ON ?ND rie4vrnoNMNr
E DWA1D .3. MARKEY

7fl O$TThCT. M.SSACitJAT,S
2i6 UN HOJ$E FFC 8ONG WA4NGTOW. tC 15-2O
S-LECrCOMMnrrQN
oiie ot. tj T.idtt1

t 205152t07
October 16,2010
OSThCT OFF-flES
ETUT1
AO2I5
CHA)8MAN NMUgM. flESOUPcFa
CONCC3 STnT,
surr z
7-2U
tp:IImyiau.ov
Th.e Honorable Julius Genchowski Chairman 445 12th Street SW Washington, DC 20554 Dear Chairman Genachowski:
1662
The failure of News Corp. (FOX) and Cablevision to reach a negotiated retransmission agreement by this mornings deadline deprives Cablevision customers in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut of FOX programming that they expect and value. I make no representations as to the merits of either sides position, as these are contractual discussions betWeen private parties, and I encourage both parties to remain engaged in. good faith negotiations. However, as the primary House author of the Cable Act of 1992, which inelude4 the retransmission consent provision in the law, in additiOn to monitoring the ongoing commercial negotiation by the parties, the Commissions broader public interest role requires the agency to take regulatory note of th unique circumstances in the New York area. These include the difficulty Of many consumers in multiple dwelling units (MDUs) to obtain a free over-the-air signal in their apartments and the difficulty of consumers in MDUs to install satellite dishes or switch to other pay TV alternatives in a timely fashion. The fact that millions ofNewYork area customers live in such MDUs frustrates the exercise of marketplace alternatives typically available in such disputes, namely obtaining either a free over-the-air signal or quickly subscribing, to another pay TV service. in addition, I am particularly concerned by reports that access to Internet-based video from FOX is being blocked selectively for Cablevision broadband customers. This is not only contrary to the Commissions Broadband Internet Policy Statement of 2005, which states, in part, that ,..consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choic.e.. The tying of table TV subscription to access to Internet fare freely available to other consumcrs is a very serious concern. Consumers are losing their freedom to access the Internet content of their choice through no fault of their own and this is patently anti-consumer. The FCC needs to more than monitor negotiations in such circumstances in my view. It needs to actively defend internet freedom and consumer rights.
-
PMThOON CO.W PME
Clearly, the public interest would be served if carriage is restored by the parties at the earliest possible opportunity so that consumers are no longer disadvantaged as a result of this dispute. Accordingly, t request that you take action to bring the parties together so these negotiations can be concluded in an equitable and expeditious manner. Consumers should not be caught in the middle.
Sincerely)
Edward Markey
.,t,
MAXINE WATERS
0 3,l 1s,nc- C1:FD.
Rv C
2341 Av1 HUuSE Ou iwr
Li
CHIEF DEPUTHP FINANCIAL SEflVCES

110
li
on grc ot tljc 1nitcb tatc

of tptCfltttUt
LlJlfltOfl, C 205130533
Li
o.i. DC 2t5i O53 P.
rOi
IEt1C
io
333 I
JUDICIARY
IC0MMF11E L1 Ci Too t1 HouSmpmr
CA IJI13 77-AiO
:323 579IP
October 22 2010
1Ir2 i, r
Ct.i3
1690
JuliLls Genachowski Chairman Federal Communications Commission 445 Twelfth Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Dear Chairman Genachowski,
As a Member ofte U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, 1 write to express my ongoing concern for the potential impact the ComcastNI3C merger could have on our already heavi1yconsoiidated media industry. Moreover, in light of Cablevisions current dispute with News Corporation (News Corp.) over the fees it pays the media conglomerate to carry Fox progrmnming, I have grown increasingly concerned with the potential harm that could result i I such a dispute ever arose between a competing cable company and a comb med Comcast-NI3C. Absent substantive diversity and other public interest conditions, the ConicastNBC merger could prove harmful to competition among traditional cable and broadcast companies, as well as the American puhIics ability to access independent and alternative sources of news and entertainment. I therefore urge the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) to conduct an extensive review, ensuring that if the merger is approved, it contains substantive and enforceable conditions that foster greater diversity, localism, and competition.
In the same manner that Fox is withholding its content from Cablevision customers, a similar dispute could have broader implications if Comcast Corporation is allowed to use its ownership of NBC content as leverage in negotiating higher rates for competing cable companies and content providers. While a combined Comcasl-NBCU would not have to charge itself a carriage fee, it could charge other companies exorbitant rates, driving competitors out of business, resulting in less consumer choice. The same illustration is true for online content as Comcast could also deny competing ISPs access to its online properties or charge competing Internet programmers higher rates to utilize its broadband platform to launch online media and entertainment content.
Today, Comcast Corporation is the nations largest cable company, owning multiple cable franchises in 39 states. Comeast has 23.9 million customers and 15 million highspeed Internet customers. Under the merger agreement, Comcast stands to gain majority ownership and control of NBC Universals national television networks. 26 local broadcast television stations, motion picture studio, television production company. A combined Comcust-NBCU would have unprecedented and online properties. economic incentive and leverage in negotiating with competing cable systems. [SPs. and other distribution platfbrrns, Any new channels and networks would he compelled to work with Comcast in order to reach a wide audience. Therefore, the FCC and DOJ should strongly onsider the impact the merger could have in areas where Corncast will own both a cable system and an NBC owned-and-operated broadcast station. I also encourage the FCC and Department of Justice (1)03) to closely examine the substance of Comcast and NBCs proposed diversity commitments. To date, these include commitments to: launch ten independent channels over 8 years, without specifying how those channels will he carried and how many subscribers the channels will reach; launch a $20 million capital fund For minority entrepreneurs, a marginal atiount considering the scale of modern media ownership and associated operational costs; and both companies have committed to improve diversity in management, recruitment, leadership, and procurement, without outlining in greater specificity how they intend to improve minority representation in these areas. In addition to my ongoing concerns flr diversity in media ownership, programming, management, and advertising, the Commission and the Justice Department should look to some of the broader, public interest proposals advanced by the FCC Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age. For example, the SLicense Proposal would allow full power broadcasters to suhlease a portion of its spectrum to a qualifying entity in exchange for a fee. If properly implemented, the proposal would promote greater media ownership diversity, furthering the FCCs goal to ensure efficient spectrum use. Further, the Advisory Committee has also called on the FCC to complete a comprehensive study on the impact the Commissions policies have had on media ownership opportunities fhr women and minorities (Adarand Studies). I believe the FCC should comply and fulfill this statutory obligation to determine if its policies are indeed fostering diversity of broadcast viewpoints. 1 do hope you will consider the very serious public interests concerns outlined above while conducting your ComcastNI3C merger review. If you have any further questions, please contact Twaun Samuel, of my staff, at 2022252201 or via email at TwaunSamueiniaiLhouse.gov. Sincerely,
4,
Maxine Waters Member of Congress 2
FEDERAL COMMLjNK:ATIDNS WASH; N GTON
CoA1vssaoN
OF TE. cJik.AN
December 16, 20 10
The I lonorable Max inc Waters I LS. I louse of Representatives 2344 Ravburn I louse 0111cc Building Washington, i).(, 20515
l)car Congresswoman Waters: Out fOllO\\ uf) Ittttt % it tatdtng tiit C nmssston s it % It of tlit pi opo t_d int venture between Comcast Corporation and the General Electric Company subsidiary, NBC Univcasai, Inc. (N BCE). as well as the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Diversity fur Coitmunications in the Digital Age. Your views are very important and your correspondence will be included in the record of the proceeding.
1 hank
OI.I fLU
I agree that an important part of the Conimissio&s analysis of the proposed Comeast( 1! transaction is the careful evaluation of the effect that the proposed transaction may have on minority participation. competition, and the distribution of content in the communications industry. As von discuss in your correspondence. the applicants have proposed a number of public interest commitments that the indicate will Promote diversity of ownership and programming content. The (ominission is looking closely at those voluntar eununitments, as well as other constructive ideas to toster increased diversity throughout the conintunications landscape. Please be assured that the issues discussed in your letter will be considered carefully as part of the Commissions independent review of the proposed C omeastGE transaction.
ln terms of the various recommendations ofidred by the Advisory Committee, the
Commission is hard at work evaluating each and every one, and has already addressed many of the Committees thoughtful suggestions. 1 have also announced recently the rechartering of the Committee for 201 1 -.2012.
I appreciate your interest in these important matters. Please let me know if 1 can he of tiniher assistLnlce.
Si ncrelv.
.1 ul ins (ienachowsk i
__
TIMOTHY H. SISHOP
1ST
22S CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILIJINO

-
Dismic NEW YoRK
WASNGTONDC2O55
FAX: (202) 2250143
COMMFrTEE ON THE BUDGET
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
nrc of tic nittb ttc ou of 3aeprtentatiie

11Sal)ifltOfl Qt 205t53201 Octber 18, 2010
wwwhouse.govltmbl,hop
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
The Honorable Julius Genachowski Federal Communications Commission 12 Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Dear Chairman Genachowski, 1 am writing to request your immediate attention and efforts to expedite a prompt resolution to the current impasse between News Corp. and Cablevision. As a result of this dispute, my constituents cannot view important programming, such as the National League Championship series and New York Giants football games. Last week, I publicly called upon the parties to enter good faith negotiations in order to resolve their dispute so thatconsumers do not lose further programming. Regrettably, the dispute continues and there is no indication that the parties are making progress on reaching a resolution, thus increasing the risk that my constituents will not be able to watch the World Series either. I believe that binding arbitration is the fairest and fastest way to return programming to consumers. I hope you agree and therefore strongly encourage you to assert your authority as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission with oversight of the retransmission consent process to ensure that broadcasters act in the public interest. It is imperative that your office compel the parties to negotiate mediate the dispute, and return the programming immediately for constituents and millions of Americans affected by this dispute. I look forward to assisting in any way I can to help resolve this impasse and return programming to my constituents. Thank you for your attention and consideration of this important request. Sincerely,
Tim Bishop MEMBER OF CONGRESS
ALBIO SIRES
1 3m DISTRICT, NEW JERSEY
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

SLIECOMMITTEES: WESTERN HEMISPHERE EUROPE
I
uf fije ntb$tate
uiwz
1024
L0NOw0RTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515
4202) 225-7919
35 JOURNAL SQUARE, SUITE 906 JERSEY CITY, NJ 07308
(201) 222-2828
5500 PALISADE AVENUE, SUITE WEST NEW YORK, NJ 07093
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

SUBCOMMITTEES: HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT RAILROADS. PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WERSITE: HTTP://WWW.HOUSE.GOV/SIRES
(201) 558-0800
BAYONNE CITY HALL
uf
rwrtatibz
uzliintmt, J 2fl515-3013
November 17, 2010
630 AVENUE C, ROOM 9 BAYONNE, NJ 07002 4201) 823-2900

100 COOKE AVENUE, 2ND FLOOR CARTERET, NJ 07008
17321 969-9160 250

PERTH AMBOY CITY HALL HIGH STREET, 1ST FLOOR P!RTH AMBDY, NJ 08861
Chairman Julius Genachowski Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW Washington, DC 20554
(732) 442-0610
re:
Renewal of Station License f WWOR-TV File No. BRCT-20070201AJT and MB Docket No. 07-260
/0
Dear Chairman Genachowski: More than three years ago, a New Jersey citizens group (Voice for New Jersey) petitioned the Commission to deny the renewal of WWOR-TVs broadcast license based on the stations ongoing failure to properly fulfill its public interest obligations. While the Commission acted promptly to hold a public hearing on this matter in November, 2007, there has been no subsequent Commission activity and the status of the license renewal remains in limbo. Over the past two years, it has become evident that WWOR-TV has not displayed that it is working to improve its public affairs programming. To this extent, I urge the Commission to either deny renewal of the station license or to establish clear performance standards which will compel the station to meet its public interest obligations. As a result of the past inquiries three years ago, I believe the Commission should be adequately familiar to the facts surrounding the stations performance at the time of its application for license renewal. The primary concern at the time was the lack of news and public affairs programming appearing on WWOR, To compare, each of WWORs peers in the New York market offered from three to seven times more news programming than WWORs one hour per day. At just one hour per week, the stations public affairs programming was similarly lacking, Unfortunately, in the years following the 2007 hearing, the stations licensee, Fox Television Stations, Inc., further downgraded public affairs programming. In July, 2009, WWOR reduced
its weekday news programming to a half-hour per day and moved the weekday news show from prime time to late night. It also eliminated weekend news coverage altogether, and has cut its public affairs programming in half. In conjunction with these programming cuts, Fox effectively made WWOR a satellite of its New York network affiliate, WNYW-TV. Based on Foxs own filings with the Commission, WWORs staffing has been reduced by more than two thirds since the stations 2007 application for license renewal. The stations management is shared with WNYW, and its on-air talent appears regularly on WNYW. On a typical business day, WWORs Secaucus headquarters resembles a ghost town; reportedly only one of the facilitys four studios is being utilized, and only three hours of programming is produced each week. A large number of New Jersey jobs have been lost to WWORs downsizing. Additionally, in its recent exparte filings with the Commission, Fox portrays misrepresentations regarding the 2009 programming cuts and staffing reductions at WWOR. I will not go into full detail regarding this matter, as recent filings by Voice for New Jersey and others clearly illustrate Foxs distortion of the 2009 incidents. Furthermore, in recent years, the Commission has granted waivers to Fox and its parent company News Corp of its cross-ownership rules allowing News Corp. entities to simultaneously own WWOR-TV, WNYW-TV, and the New York Post. To date, News Corp. has failed to comply with the Commissions requirement that it relinquish ownership of WWOR-TV or the New York Post by December 29, 2008, and no further extension of the cross-ownership waiver has been granted. Applications for the renewal of both the WWOR and WNYW broadcast licenses are similarly pending. In light of the factors Ijust listed, I urge the CommissiOn to take prompt action so that the people of New Jersey may finally receive the high-quality television programming that they deserve.
Sincery,
of Congress
cc:
Senator Frank R. Lautenberg Senator Robert Menendez Voice for New Jersey
FKOF flAt.
C0MMI INk .4110MG WASHINGTON
COMMISSION
OrsaCt($
7)tV CHAINMAN
December 14, 2010
the I lonorable Albia Sires I 1.8. I louse of Representatives 1024 Longworth I louse t)thice Building Washington. 1)A. 20515 Dear Congressman Sires:
Thank you tbr your letter reganling the application to renew the broadcast license of VWOR-l V. Sceaucus. New Jersey. I appreciate your taking the time to share with inc your perspective about this important proceeding. the (omniissions Media Bureau sill make your correspondence part of the proceeding record.
Ihte Commission has long reeognieed the unique circumstances relziug to the pros isbn of broadcast television service to residents of New Jersey. with WVO1t as the oat> full-power conunercial television station currently licensed to a community within the state. As a result. proceedings to renew the WWOR license have involved evaluating the service piovided by the station to all of Northern Ness Jersey. mther than examining only the service that WWt )R otThis to its community of license. In its petition to deny the pending renewal application, the Voice thr New Jersey jVNJ) raised questions concerning sstether WWOR has met Its service obligations to the residents of New Jersey. NJ also submitted the intirmation that you cite regarding WWOR panpraniming and stall changes. Additional tilings base been made in this proceeding as recent)> as November of this year. discussing concerns about the operations of WW( JR. 1 he Media Bureau is esaluating the record compiled in the WWOR license renewal proceeding carefully, and will prepare recommendations on fg,js. to proceed 55 soon as the evaluation is completed.
of titrther assistance.
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Ilease do not hesitate to contact me if I may be Sioarel>.
Julius Cieiuiclnfls ski

Responsive Document - CREW: FCC: Regarding Influence Over FCC Regulation of News Corp: 8/15/2011 - FCC Docs 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Responsive Document - CREW: FCC: Regarding Influence Over FCC Regulation of News Corp: 8/15/2011 - FCC Docs 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

tInitcd tat cS1latC

1YN DORGAN United Stales Senate

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS WASHINGTON

OFF(CE OF THE CHAIRMAN

Kevin JMartin Chairman

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS WASHING TO N

OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN

Kevin IMartin Chairman

i1ntted Statcs dllarc

Comm. For Broad,, 436 U.S. 775. 750 (1 75t.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON

OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN

Kevin J. Martin Chairman

CHRISTOPI-IER J. DODD CON NECllCUT

US RUSSU. SNS OIIC Bu.oNS

bANKING, i-lOUSING, AND

LtIt fuie wxI

AND PENSIONS AULES AND ADMINISTRATiON

7Db (560) b20746

E.MAIU sp1ii6od .sena5e.goviwemii

CIRISTOPHER 3. DODD United States Senator

PRINT TIME AUG. 2.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON

OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN

Kevin J. Martin Chairman

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

504 CANNON HOUSE OFFIcE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

QIonrc of tije nIteb tate

(478) 2962023 FAx: (478) 2962802

SPECIALTY CROPS AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS

(229) 5567418 F,,x: (229) 5567419

Kevin Martin Chairman

(onre of tjc Initcb tate

November 13, 2007

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS WASHINnTON

OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN

Kevin J4viartin Chairman

FEDERAL COMMUNCATONS WAS H N G TO N

OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN

FEDERAL COMMUNCATONS WA S H I N GTO N

OFFICE CF THE CHAIRMAN

Kevin fMartin Chairman

12/04/2007 1728 FAX 202 228 0428

REP JOHN TAI(NER

WAYS AND MEANS cOMMflTEE

FORE(CN A1FAJ9S COMMrrTEE

CONGRESS OF THE UNITE]) STATES

HOUSE NATO PA9LIAMENTAFiY ASSEMB(.Y DELEGATiON

CC: Deborah Taylor Tate, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission

LONGWORTh BLJILDINe W*SHIN6TON D.C. 20515

FOST OFI9c 8ox 629 203 WE5T CKWICII SmEEr

ROOM t7, FSOAL UILDNG

(202) 225-4714 FAX (202) 2251755

FAX (731) 4271537

MILLINGTON, TN 38453 (901) 8735690 FAX (901) 8736692

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS WASHINGTON

OFFICE OF TIlE CHAIRMAN

Kevin J. Martin Chairman

COMM ITT& ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

House OrFIcO BUILDING WASIIINQION, DC 20515 (202) 225-2311

onres of the !lnitei1 tatez

2515 FOOTHILL SOIJLEVARD