FCC Judge Supports Four Cable Defendants Against WealthTV
An FCC administrative law judge said an independent HD video programmer hadn’t made a case that four major cable operators had favored their own programming over the complainant’s. Richard Sippel, the FCC’s chief ALJ, said executives of the cable companies had maintained convincingly at April hearings and in documents that the operators’ decision to carry HD programming from a company that the operators controlled instead of from complainant WealthTV wasn’t related to ownership. Sippel’s recommended decision was released Thursday with confidential information blacked out. Some participants in the case received the full document last week (CD Oct 9 p17).
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.
“WealthTV has had uneven success in obtaining carriage” throughout the pay-TV industry and lacks deals with 18 of the 25 largest providers, Sippel wrote. He noted the channel is carried by the three Bells. “It is particularly noteworthy that WealthTV was not yet launched when the defendants decided to carry INHD and INHD2,” run by the cable consortium iN DEMAND, Sippel added. “Therefore, WealthTV was not -- and could not have been -- a factor in any of the defendants’ decision to provide carriage on their affiliated networks, INHD and INHD2.” The defendants are Bright House Networks, Comcast, Cox and Time Warner Cable.
Sippel described how executives from each of the four operators offered convincing arguments that their ownership of Mojo, successor channel to INHD and INHD2, had nothing to do with their refusal to carry WealthTV. Sippel wrote that Time Warner Cable executives’ “testimony is consistent, competent and credible.” WealthTV’s claim that a Comcast executive said the cable operator didn’t want to carry a network it didn’t own “lacks credibility,” Sippel wrote. “There is no record evidence suggesting that Comcast had any interest in obtaining any ownership interest in WealthTV.”
There’s no reason for commissioners to find the defendants violated sections 616 of the Communications Act and 76.1301(c) of agency rules, Sippel wrote. “Contrary to the defendants’ argument, WealthTV’s ability to secure carriage from other” pay-TV providers “by itself does not establish that the actions of the defendants in this case could not have unreasonably restrained WealthTV’s ability to compete fairly.” But the plaintiff didn’t meet its burden of showing that the cable operators “unreasonably restrained WealthTV’s ability to compete fairly,” he concluded. Executives of the company didn’t reply to messages seeking comment. CEO Robert Herring has said he thinks he may have a better chance of making his case to the commissioners (CD Oct 14 p17).
“Time Warner Cable is very pleased with the recommended decision,” a company spokeswoman said. “As we've said all along, we do not discriminate against any content provider on the basis of affiliation.” A spokeswoman for Bright House declined to comment. A Comcast representative didn’t reply to a message seeking comment. Cox “is confident that any further review by the FCC will reach similar conclusions” to Sippel’s, a company spokesman said. “Cox’s decision not to carry WealthTV was based purely on legitimate business concerns and was not discriminatory in any way.”