Export Compliance Daily is a service of Warren Communications News.

The FCC wants comments on how many channels a cable operator shou...

The FCC wants comments on how many channels a cable operator should be able to carry if they are corporate affiliates, the agency said in a further rulemaking notice on vertical ownership limits Monday. It was released with the…

Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article

Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.

text of an order that commissioners approved 3-2 in December limiting to 30 percent the proportion of pay-TV subscribers a cable operator can serve (CD Dec 20 p1). The notice “tentatively” found that a 75 channel cap should be excluded. It seeks comments on the possible benefits and harms of vertical integration between cable systems and channels. “We also seek further comment on the extent to which vertically integrated cable operators have an incentive to engage in strategic, anticompetitive behavior, leading to foreclosure of entry by unaffiliated programmers,” the commission said. Cable operators have criticized the 30 percent limit. Comcast said Monday that the agency has no evidence to support it. “The case for a 30 percent cap is even weaker than when the courts rejected it six years ago, and we plan to challenge this commission decision in the courts at the earliest opportunity,” Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen said in a news release. NCTA also cited a 2001 appeals court rejection of the FCC’s previous horizontal cable cap of 30 percent. “In the intervening years, competition among satellite, telephone and cable companies and the variety and amount of independent programming has only increased,” an NCTA spokesman said late Monday. “We are confident that a court will again reject conclusions that are completely at odds with the realities of a dynamic and competitive marketplace that is providing greater consumer choice and value.”