U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

50–109 PDF 2008

COMPETITION IN THE SPORTS PROGRAMMING 

MARKETPLACE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND 

THE INTERNET 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

March 5, 2008 

Serial No. 110–98 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,Chairman 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

DENNIS B. FITZGIBBONS,Chief of Staff 

GREGG A. ROTHSCHILD,Chief Counsel 

SHARON E. DAVIS,Chief Clerk 

DAVID L. CAVICKE,Minority Staff Director 

(II)

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts,Chairman 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

Vice Chairman 

JANE HARMAN, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Ranking Member 

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

VITO FOSELLA, New York 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement .................................................... 1 

Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 2 

Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 4 

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, prepared statement ...................................................................................... 108 

Hon. Bart Stupak, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 108 

Hon. Edolphus Towns, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

York, prepared statement .................................................................................... 109 

Hon. Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

York, prepared statement .................................................................................... 109 

WITNESSES

W. Kenneth Ferree, president, The Progress & Freedom Foundation ................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Glenn A. Britt, president and CEO, Time Warner Cable .................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Roger Goodell, commissioner, National Football League ..................................... 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

George Bodenheimer, president, ESPN, Inc. ......................................................... 46 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

Mark Cooper, Ph.D., director of research, Consumer Federation of American .. 49 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

Derek Chang, executive vice president, Content Strategy and Development, 

DIRECTV, Inc. ..................................................................................................... 79 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 80 

(1) 

COMPETITION IN THE SPORTS 

PROGRAMMING MARKETPLACE 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS

AND THE INTERNET, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:37 a.m., in Room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Markey, Eshoo, Stupak, 

Stearns, Deal, Cubin, Shimkus, Radanovich, Terry and Barton (ex 

officio). 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. MARKEY. Good morning. Welcome to the Subcommittee on 

Telecommunications and the Internet. The subject of today’s hearing is competition in the sports programming market. 

Competition in sports is the essence of the game. In sports there 

are great teams and dynasties. There are compelling stories of underdogs and come-from-behind victories. There are perennial favorites to win championships, and there are the Chicago Cubs. Yet 

sporting events are premised upon great feats of athletic prowess 

and competition being performed upon a level playing field. That 

level playing field ensures that athletes engage in sporting activities in a manner where their God-given talents and a compelling 

work ethic and practice can result in success. Competition in the 

marketplace, on the other hand, is what makes the consumer king. 

In our national video marketplace, many programming competitors assert that the playing field is not quite level at present. They 

argue that compelling content and a solid business game plan do 

not even the odds against them. The field is unfairly tilted towards 

cable operators or broadcast networks, competitors claim, by a couple of key factors. One, an inefficient number of cable providers 

within a market, although there are barriers which as a result 

competitors can reach consumers, and two, by laws or regulations 

that either fail to achieve fairness as intended or serve to reinforce 

the position of incumbent market leaders or risk unduly raising 

prices. The consumer fan, they say, is the resulting loser in this environment. 

2 

We have seen several episodes over the last year in the sports 

programming marketplace that highlight policy issues for this subcommittee to explore. Early last year there was the issue of Major 

League Baseball’s package of Extra Innings, or out-of-market 

games slated to be carried on DIRECTV on an exclusive basis, and 

complaints by Comcast and other cable operators that this was unfair. There was the effort by the Big Ten conference to successfully 

launch its cable channel through carriage on the most broadly 

watched tier of major cable systems. 

We saw the FCC intervene to declare that the America Channel, 

which has rights to various sports content, was a regional sports 

network for purposes of conditions imposed as part of acquisitions 

of the Adelphia Cable properties by Comcast and Time Warner. 

These conditions permit unaffiliated sports networks to seek commercial arbitration when a carriage agreement with Comcast or 

Time Warner cannot be reached. The Commission is now considering proposals to adopt an expedited dispute resolution process for 

all such unaffiliated programmers, including regional sports networks. And the NFL Channel, in a manner similar to those issues 

raised by the Big Ten conference, sought carriage on the most 

broadly watched tier unsuccessfully with several major cable operators. 

Cable operators, for their part, have objected to such carriage, arguing that the price that the NFL seeks is too high, or point to the 

NFL’s excusive deal with DIRECTV over the so-called Sunday 

Ticket, where consumer fans can see all the Sunday football contests, or deals with broadcast networks or ESPN as examples demonstrating that the NFL has other choices in the marketplace to 

distribute games. 

Policymakers have sought to remedy the lack of competition over 

the years. The program access provisions that I championed as part 

of the 1992 Cable Act have created competitive alternatives to incumbent cable operators, most notably from satellite providers, but 

also from cable overbuilders, telephone companies and others. 

Today’s hearing will provide the subcommittee with an opportunity to examine the effectiveness of these provisions in the law. 

It will also allow us to analyze the current marketplace for sports 

programming and assess the continued migration of sports programming from broadcast television to pay TV services, exclusive 

programming packages, the nature of cable carriage for sports programming, the emergence of conference or league channels and 

program carriage issues generally. 

In the absence of sufficient competition, the role of this subcommittee historically and the role generally of the FCC has often 

become that of referee. Most refs simply prefer that the athletes 

just play the game and don’t like to intercede, but the refs are here 

to step in when unfair play is perceived and to make tough calls 

at times to safeguard the integrity of the game and in this case to 

ensure fairness in the marketplace and consumer welfare. 

I wish to thank all of our witnesses for their willingness to testify today. I look forward to their testimony. 

Mr. MARKEY. And now I turn to recognize the ranking member 

of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns. 

3 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. STEARNS. And I thank my distinguished chairman, and I 

thank him for holding this hearing, this very interesting hearing, 

and I want to welcome all our witnesses again. Some of them were 

here I think last week, so it is nice to welcome you back. 

My colleagues, the market for sports programming has never 

been more competitive. I remember when we had the game of the 

week on network television over the weekend. In my house, ABC’s 

Wide World of Sports was a big deal. But if you didn’t like what 

sport or game they showed, well, you were just simply out of luck 

in this case. Fans like me did not have many options back then, 

but that has all changed. Today fans can watch a game almost any 

night of the week. In fact, my wife says there is too much basketball, football and baseball on television. Many viewers can choose 

from their cable company, two satellite providers are out there, and 

now their local telephone company for subscription TV services. So 

the burden of proof should be on anyone that wants the government to intervene in private negotiation between operators and 

programmers. It is up to them. 

I am interested to hear, of course, why at this point the government would choose to intervene in private negotiations between 

cable operators and programmers who carry these sports. The rationale for such regulation is rooted in statutory provisions that go 

back to 1992, where they were adopted when cable operators had 

96 percent of the pay television market, and now, my colleagues, 

satellite providers have 29 percent of the market. Each have more 

subscribers than all but one of the cable operators today and have 

much content that cable operators don’t carry. Sports programming 

is also available from phone companies, and of course, we know it 

is over the Internet, too. The number of nationwide channels has 

grown from 145 to 565 today, while the percent owned by cable has 

dropped from 50 to 15. 

Now, what this means is that providers have no shortage of content, and programmers have no shortage of outlets, suggesting that 

requesting government intervention may just be attempts by parties, companies and individuals to get what they want, which they 

could not obtain through a free market and simple negotiations. If 

this is just about shifting dollars between companies, I am not sure 

why the government would get involved also. Distributors and programmers are generally in a better position than the United States 

Government to make carriage decisions. If a programmer or distributor is dissatisfied, it has plenty of other partners to choose 

from, and if either misjudges the value of its assets or those on the 

other side of the table, viewers have other options to go to. In the 

end, today’s market creates the right incentives for distributors and 

programmers to find the approximate mix of content, carriage and 

cost, and more importantly, it encourages them to assemble the 

best packages, or simply create innovative new ones, to win those 

viewers over. 

Now, certain parties argue that a market failure exists and the 

government should get involved, and that is what the hearing is all 

about. You know, there is an old story, be careful what you wish 

for. When it looked like the final regular-season game between the 

4 

Giants and the Patriots would only be available to the one-third of 

the country that has access to NFL Network, the NFL put the 

game on NBC and CBS as well. Some may advocate that if the government were to get involved, we should always require sports programming to be available free on broadcast networks. 

I think one of the questions I have, when the program access 

rules were adopted in 1992, cable had 96 percent, as I mentioned 

earlier, of the pay television market and satellite had none at that 

time, in 1992. In the 16 years since then, satellite operators have 

captured almost 30 percent of the market and are the second- and 

third-largest providers. Is this the kind of market where the government needs to be getting involved when you see that simple increase in competition? Increasingly viewers also get television content from the Internet, and so this perhaps is going to be another 

avenue that people who get the new fiber optics into their home 

can simply get it through the Internet. 

So Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very good hearing. I think, 

as many members, I am here to learn and see what should be involved, and I appreciate the witnesses here this morning. Thank 

you. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Eshoo. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, everyone. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for again addressing the 

issue of competition. Today, obviously, we are discussing competition in sports programming. 

The Sports Broadcasting Act was passed in response to a court 

decision which ruled that the NFL’s method of negotiating television broadcasting rights violated antitrust laws. The court ruled 

that the pooling of rights by all the teams to conclude an exclusive 

contract between the league and CBS was illegal. The Act overruled that decision and permits certain joint broadcasting agreements among the major professional sports. It permits the sale of 

a television package to the networks, a procedure which is common 

today. This package system has worked for several decades and allowed the public to watch these games on free over-the-air television. 

No longer satisfied with simply selling the rights to games for 

millions of dollars, the National Football League, Major League 

Baseball and other leagues are setting up their own cable networks 

that can bring them millions more in cable subscriber fees, even 

during the off season. The leagues are building up entities that 

could eventually be worth billions. These new vertically integrated 

networks leverage their exclusive content to gain access on cable 

networks. They often demand access to the basic tier, even though 

their channels offer very limited new content throughout the year. 

A policy that relies on pay television may alienate the fans who 

have made the NFL so successful. For an industry that is so heavily subsidized by the public, I am concerned that it is the public 

that may ultimately pay the price again. 

5 

So I am interested obviously and look forward to the testimony 

that we are going to hear today, and I thank the chairman for holding this important hearing. I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired, and all time for 

opening statements has expired. 

We will now turn to our very distinguished panel, and we will 

hear from our first witness, Mr. Ken Ferree, who is the president 

of the Progress and Freedom Foundation. Welcome, Mr. Ferree. 

STATEMENT OF W. KENNETH FERREE, PRESIDENT, THE 

PROGRESS & FREEDOM FOUNDATION 

Mr. FERREE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Ken Ferree, and 

I am president of the Progress & Freedom Foundation, and I am 

here today to tell a cautionary tale about what can go wrong when 

the government intervenes in the sports programming markets. 

Prior to becoming president of PFF, I was chief of the FCC’s 

Media Bureau from 2001 until 2005. In that capacity, I was at 

least in part responsible for a set of merger conditions that represent the only systematic government intervention into sports programming negotiations. I am now left to wince every time some 

new disgruntled programmer attempts to stretch that precedent 

into unrecognizable forms in an effort to strengthen its own bargaining hand. 

I said it was a cautionary tale, and caution is what is needed. 

I sit here stunned that an organization like the NFL, which is one 

of the greatest marketing machines the world has ever seen, is not 

above squeezing its imposing presence into a hearing room like this 

to plead with Congress for assistance in its marketing negotiations. 

It would make it a farce if it were not so pathetic. In reality, sophisticated entities sit on both sides of the negotiating table when 

sports programming services and program distributors bargain 

over carriage. It is unsurprising, therefore, that market negotiations between the two can be intense, confrontational and that they 

sometimes involve a degree of brinksmanship. That is not saying, 

however, that the market has failed or that government intervention would be necessary or appropriate, which brings me to my 

story of a proposed merger, some well-meaning though perhaps 

naive regulators and the Frankenstein’s monster we unwittingly 

created. 

The story begins in the spring of 2003, when News Corporation 

filed an application with the FCC to acquire DIRECTV from 

Hughes Electronics. As chief of the Media Bureau, I was asked to 

oversee the staff work on the application. Over the next several 

months, our staff, in close collaboration with the Department of 

Justice, analyzed, among other things, potential foreclosure strategies. Although we found the programming market to be greatly efficient and the proposed combination untroubling in most respects, 

one narrow aspect of the case did give us cause for concern. Because regional sports networks are comprised of assets for which 

there are no readily available substitutes, temporary withholding of 

News Corporation’s RSNs from rivals might have been a profitable 

strategy for the merged entity, allowing it to drive subscribers to 

DIRECTV. To address this one potential market failure, we crafted 

what we thought were very narrow conditions that required manVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:41 Jul 07, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-98 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
6 

datory arbitration in the event of a bargaining impasse involving 

News Corporation’s RSNs. 

Whatever the merits of the News-Hughes decision, it at least 

cannot be said that the merged entity would have ultimate control 

both of extremely high value sports programming and the distribution platform. Recent efforts to extend the remedy adopted in that 

order cannot be sustained on that ground. For example, last year 

the FCC imposed mandatory arbitration to resolve an impasse between cable operators and the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, a nonvertically integrated RSN. Although the News-Hughes order was 

cited as precedent, there was almost no similarity between the potential harm sought to be averted in the first case and the actual 

breakdown of market negotiations in the second. Most obviously, 

the MASN case involved no foreclosure by a programmer. Instead, 

it was alleged the distributors in the MASN case were engaged in 

what effectively became a lockout, yet we knows from the NewsHughes decision that the failure to carry a regional sports network 

will lead to subscriber defections, and quickly. The only conclusion 

to be drawn is not that there was a market failure but that one 

party to the negotiations, the programmer in this case, simply was 

overreaching. 

The FCC recognized that the rationale for imposing the arbitration condition in News-Hughes was inapposite and stretched in 

MASN to articulate a new rationale, turning the old one on its 

head. The theory posited was that although the distributors would 

suffer considerable harm in the short term by locking out an unaffiliated RSN, they might do so in the hope that they some day 

could force the RSN out of the market, acquire the rights to carry 

the teams involved and then recoup earlier losses with rents from 

the new vertically integrated services. 

More recently, even this dubious rationale seems to have been 

cast aside, as others have asked for arbitration simply on the basis 

that a cable operator has not agreed to a programmer’s demands. 

For example, as the NFL season neared its final weeks this year, 

there was concern that a subset of games would not be readily accessible for some because the NFL Network had not reached distribution agreements with several cable operators. Whatever the 

nature of the disagreement between the cable operators and the 

NFL Network, it is clear that the dispute did not involve facts 

analogous to those either in the seminal News-Hughes case or in 

the mutated stepchild MASN case. The NFL Network, to be sure, 

owns the rights to some extremely valuable content. The cost then 

to distributors who do not carry the network must be thought to 

be substantial, but because the NFL Network lacks vertical integration, the circumstances are not like those in News-Hughes. 

Moreover, unlike MASN, it cannot plausibly argue that the cable 

operators are trying to lock the NFL Network out in an effort to 

drive it from the market and obtain access to the carriage rights 

for their own networks. 

So once again the natural conclusion is not that there is a market failure requiring government intervention but rather that the 

NFL Network simply was insisting upon rates and terms that the 

market would not accommodate. It is fair to be sympathetic to fans 

who subscribe to cable systems that have not acceded to the NFL’s 

7 

demands, but that sympathy is not a basis for regulatory intrusion 

into negotiations between large commercially sophisticated enterprises. 

Mr. MARKEY. Could you please wrap up? 

Mr. FERREE. OK. I am sorry. In conclusion, I recognize the disputes involving sports programming often generate emotional consumer responses. The fact is, though, that the sports programming 

market generally is competitive and fully functioning. Negotiations 

surrounding sports programming carriage involve hard bargaining 

by sophisticated parties over complex sets of interests, but the 

terms of any such carriage are best decided at the bargaining table, 

not by regulators or arbitrators. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ferree follows:] 

STATEMENT OF W. KENNETH FERREE

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your invitation to testify here today on these important issues. My name is Ken Ferree, and I currently am President of The 

Progress & Freedom Foundation, a think tank here in Washington that studies the 

digital revolution and its implications for media, communications, and technology 

policy. Prior to joining PFF, I was a private practice communications attorney, briefly served as the chief operating officer and interim President of the Corporation for 

Public Broadcasting, and, most pertinently, was the Chief of the FCC’s Media Bureau under Chairman Powell. In that role, I lead the staff review of the acquisition 

of DIRECTV by News Corporation and was therefore at least in part responsible 

for the imposition of the mandatory arbitration provisions in the Order authorizing 

that transaction that have since been invoked in several other sports programming 

disputes. 

MARKET FAILURE, OR FAILING THE MARKET? 

Indeed, the mandatory arbitration provisions in the FCC’s conditional grant of authority for the News-Hughes merger have proven to be so popular with disgruntled 

programmers that it is a natural place to begin my testimony. Contrary to what 

sometimes is suggested, the FCC did not find in the News-Hughes proceeding that 

the sports programming market generally is failing. Rather, in most cases, the 

sports programming market functions quite efficiently, ensuring wide-spread carriage of sports programming services, on multiple platforms, to consumers at reasonable rates. The specific set of circumstances surrounding the proposed acquisition of DIRECTV, a program distributor, by News Corporation, which had interests 

in a number of regional sports networks (‘‘RSNs’’), defined an exception that, we felt, 

warranted government intervention in the form of mandatory arbitration provisions. 

Allow me to emphasize that this was very much of a departure for the FCC. Although the Commission has long enforced a set of statutorily-defined program access 

rules, which forbid exclusive agreements and certain other discriminatory practices 

involving satellite-delivered, vertically-integrated programming, the government 

generally has not otherwise injected itself into contract negotiations between programming suppliers and cable or DBS service providers. 

The discretion the government has shown has been a proven success. In the past 

ten years, the number of cable programming networks has grown from 145 to 565, 

while vertical integration has decreased (in 1996, nearly 50% of networks were 

vertically integrated, today less than 15% are). Simultaneously, competition in programming distribution has become a reality (DIRECTV and EchoStar are now the 

second and third largest distributors of video programming), and large communications companies like AT&T and Verizon have recently entered the video market in 

earnest. 

Having said that, the programming market, like any other, can fail under certain 

circumstances. In the News-Hughes decision, the Commission found, following an 

exhaustive examination of the effects of foreclosure by programmers (the withholding of programming from one or more distribution platforms), that although permanent foreclosure was not likely to be a profitable strategy for a vertically integrated News Corporation, temporary foreclosure of access to its RSNs could be profitable, allowing it to drive subscribers from rival distributors to DIRECTV. That is, 

8 

losses that News Corporation might suffer during the withholding period could be 

more than offset by gains in DIRECTV subscriber fees. 

There were important analytical bases for that conclusion. First, the FCC found 

that the temporary foreclosure strategy would work only for programming services 

with the most high-value content. Based on data from prior cases, the Commission 

concluded that, for the vast majority of program services, subscribers simply will not 

suffer the transactions costs associated with changing distribution platforms when 

faced with the loss of a single programming service. Thus, losses incurred by a programmer that withholds its content from a distributor are normally unlikely to be 

recouped in any economic time frame (and of course, if the content is withheld permanently, losses will never be recouped). 

RSNs, on the other hand, are (in the words of the FCC) ‘‘comprised of assets of 

fixed or finite supply—exclusive rights to local...sports teams and events—for which 

there are no acceptable readily available substitutes.’’ Sports programming also may 

be differentiated from general entertainment programming in that it is extremely 

time-sensitive. There is no substitute for a playoff game on the day it is contested. 

As a result, owners of that content wield a significant amount of market power. 

When regional sports programming is withheld from a particular distributor, substantial subscriber defections to competing platforms may be expected. 

Second, and importantly, for a temporary foreclosure strategy to be effective, the 

programmer must be able to reap the benefit of any subscriber defections that it 

can motivate. That is, the programmer must be vertically integrated with the competing distribution platform to which disaffected subscribers will flee. 

It is fair to argue whether these conditions were met satisfactory to warrant imposition of a mandatory arbitration provision in the News-Hughes case. Whatever the 

merits of that initial decision, however, it at least cannot be gainsaid that the 

merged entity would have ultimate control both of extremely high-value sports programming and a distribution platform in the markets in which the programming 

was most highly prized. Recent efforts to extend the remedy adopted in that order 

cannot be sustained on that ground. 

For example, last year, in an order approving asset transfers to Comcast and 

Time Warner as a result of the Adelphia bankruptcy, the FCC imposed mandatory 

arbitration to resolve an impasse between the cable operators and the Mid-Atlantic 

Sports Network (‘‘MASN’’), a non-vertically integrated RSN that owned the rights 

to, among other things, the Washington Nationals and Baltimore Orioles baseball 

games. Oddly, although the News-DIRECTV merger order was cited by the Commission as precedent for its decision, there was almost no similarity between the potential harms sought to be averted in the first case and the actual breakdown of market negotiations in the second. 

Most obviously, the MASN case involved no foreclosure by a programmer—the potential harm sought to be remedied in the News-Hughes case. Instead, it was alleged, the distributors in the MASN case were engaging in what effectively became 

a lock-out. Indeed, because MASN owns no distribution facilities in the relevant region, there is no chance that it could have used temporary foreclosure to affect the 

downstream distribution market in its favor. Yet, we know from the FCC’s findings 

in the News-Hughes case that RSN programming is highly valued by subscribers 

and that the failure to carry the programming will lead to subscriber defections. The 

only conclusion that can be drawn is not that there was a market failure or that 

there were anticompetitive forces at work but that one party to the negotiations (the 

programmer in this case) simply was overreaching and demanding more than the 

programming was worth in the market. 

The FCC, to its credit, recognized that the rationale for imposing the arbitration 

condition in News-Hughes was inapposite in the MASN case and stretched to articulate a new rationale by turning the old one on its head. The theory posited in the 

MASN Order was that, although the distributors would suffer considerable harm in 

the short term by locking out an unaffiliated RSN, they might do so in the hope 

that they someday could force the RSN out of the market, acquire the rights to carry 

the teams involved for their own vertically-integrated services, and then recoup earlier losses with rents from the new vertically-integrated services. 

Without belaboring the point, there are reasons to question the plausibility of this 

potential scenario, not the least of which is that it is completely lacking in any analytical foundation. Yet even this dubious rationale seems now to have been cast 

aside, as the NFL Network and others have asked for arbitration simply on the 

basis that a cable operator has not agreed to a programmer’s demands. For example, 

as the NFL season neared its climactic final weeks this year, there was concern 

among policy-makers and fans alike that a subset of the games would not be readily 

accessible for some because the NFL Network had exclusive rights to those games, 

and it had not reached agreement with several large cable operators for widespread 

9 

distribution. Whatever the nature of the disagreement between the cable operators 

and the NFL Network, it was clear that the dispute did not involve facts analogous 

to those either in the seminal News-Hughes case or the mutated step-child MASN 

case. The NFL Network is not vertically integrated with any multichannel distribution 

platform, and its programming is not of such regional interest as to render it vulnerable to a lock-out scenario such as that posited in the MASN Order. The NFL 

Network, to be sure, owns the rights to extremely valuable content. The cost, then, 

to distributors who do not carry the network must be thought to be substantial. Indeed, because the network is carried on at least one national distribution platform 

(i.e., DIRECTV), disgruntled consumers have the option of changing service providers rather than miss their favorite teams or important games. But because the 

NFL Network lacks vertical integration, the circumstances are not like those in 

News-Hughes, where one might fear that the NFL Network was engaged in temporary foreclosure in order to benefit its downstream properties. 

Moreover, unlike the MASN case, it cannot plausibly be argued that cable operators which do not come to terms with the NFL Network are trying to lock them out 

in an effort to drive the NFL Network from the market and obtain access to the 

carriage rights for their own networks. There is no evidence to suggest that the network’s lack of carriage on the cable systems in question poses any threat to its existence or, if it did fail, that the cable operators would have any realistic chance of 

obtaining the rights to the underlying content. 

That is, once again, the natural and logical conclusion from the facts presented 

is not that there is a market failure requiring government intervention, but rather 

that the NFL Network simply was insisting upon rates and terms that the market 

would not accommodate. It is fair to be sympathetic to the fans who subscribe to 

cable systems that have not acceded to the NFL Network’s demands, but that sympathy is not a basis for regulatory intrusion into negotiations between large, commercially sophisticated enterprises. 

To the contrary, the cable operators’ refusal to accept the demands of the NFL 

Network suggests that the market is working efficiently, not that it has failed. The 

cable industry in particular has been struggling to control consumer prices in the 

face of increasing costs for programming and expanded services. By holding the line 

on new programming costs—particularly programming such as that on the NFL 

Network which appeals to a defined subset of consumers—the cable operators may 

be able to help control against cable rate increases for all subscribers. 

In short, there are powerful forces acting on both sides of the bargaining equation. 

On the one hand, sports programming networks own extremely valuable content, 

which, generally speaking, distributors wish to carry. On the other hand, program 

distributors are under tremendous pressure to control consumer rates; limiting programming costs is perhaps the most direct means of achieving that end. The market, not regulatory authorities or appointed arbitrators, is best positioned to balance 

those interests. 

This analysis also helps inform the debate surrounding two other issues that arise 

in disputes over the carriage of sports programming: whether distributors should be 

prohibited from carrying sports programming on a special tier, and whether the government should require programmers and/or distributors to offer services on an ‘‘a 

la carte’’ basis. Both queries should be answered in the negative. 

TEARS FOR SPORTS PROGRAMMERS, OR TIERS FOR SPORTS PROGRAMMERS? 

Sophisticated entities sit on both sides of the negotiating table when sports programming services and program distributors bargain over carriage. Large program 

distributors obviously have a measure of leverage by virtue of their access to the 

end-user viewers. On the other hand, sports programming services control uniquely 

popular programming assets for which there are no close substitutes. It is 

unsurprising, therefore, that market negotiations between the two can be intense, 

confrontational, and that they sometimes involve a degree of brinksmanship. That 

is not saying, however, that the market has failed or that government intervention 

in these negotiations would be necessary or appropriate. 

As noted above, program distributors are under intense pressure to contain subscriber rates. One means of controlling base rates that all subscribers pay is to segregate niche programming services to special tiers, which allows the distributor to 

pass the costs of carrying the programming on to only those who most value it. 

Niche sports programming services, such as the NFL Network, are particularly amenable to special tier placement because their most popular content is seasonal, it 

appeals to a well-defined subset of the entire subscriber base, and it is expensive 

to produce and, therefore, distribute. In those circumstances, it may well be more 

10 

economical to require those fans that highly value the content to bear the cost of 

its creation and distribution rather than requiring all subscribers to shoulder that 

burden. 

Naturally, that conclusion does not sit well with content owners, which would prefer that their services be carried on the basic tier. Basic tier carriage provides a 

much larger potential base of viewers, and it allows the cost of producing and distributing the content to be subsidized by subscribers who would otherwise not be 

willing to pay separately for the programming. One can well understand bareknuckled bargaining by sports programming services in an effort to force basic tier 

carriage. Too often now, though, when such bargaining fails and they cannot achieve 

their sought-after ends in private negotiations, programmers raise importunate 

pleas to Congress and the FCC for help. Those pleas should find no sympathetic ear. 

Government intervention in programming disputes may be appropriate where one 

party or another will benefit from a breakdown of market negotiations. In those 

cases, a plausible argument can be made that the market is prone to fail and that 

consumers will suffer as a result. In the disputes over tier placement that we have 

seen to date, however, there is little evidence that any of the parties involved will 

reap any kind of advantage from a bargaining impasse. 

To the contrary, the negotiations in these cases involve the balancing of competing 

interests in providing compelling programming to subscribers, controlling basic tier 

costs, managing system capacity, and remaining profitable going-concerns. And because so much is at stake both for the content owners and the distributors, there 

is tremendous pressure on both parties to complete negotiations. Although neither 

party may be entirely satisfied with the result, that is the nature of free market 

negotiations. Government intervention to prohibit or limit the use of special sports 

programming tiers can only serve to mute market signals and drive the process to 

a less efficient outcome. 

PRIX FIXE OR A LA CARTE? 

Similarly, just as government intervention into the sports programming markets 

to prohibit or limit the use of sports tiers would be unnecessary and potentially 

counter-productive, mandated ‘‘a la carte’’ pricing at the wholesale or retail level 

would likely decrease programming diversity, increase vertical integration in the 

programming and distribution markets, and increase consumer costs. 

For the majority of programming services, the incremental cost of programming 

and/or the widespread, year-round appeal of the programming content make retail 

bundling an attractive, efficient, economical, and consumer-friendly means of distribution. Bundling can lower transactions costs, allow programmers to achieve 

economies of scale, enhance consumer convenience and, perhaps most importantly, 

allow for appropriate pricing differentiation. In effect, bundling allows each of us to 

enjoy our favorite programming whether or not it can alone attract large audiences. 

This model breaks down, however, when a niche programming service is both of 

limited appeal and expensive to produce and distribute. This, of course, describes 

many RSNs and other specialized sports programming services. In those cases, as 

explained above, it likely will benefit consumers to allow distributors to carry the 

programming service on a special tier. For other types of programming, though, including general entertainment programming, consumers likely benefit from bundled 

offerings. 

Similarly, bundling at the wholesale level can facilitate the realization of scale 

economies and lower transactions costs, both of which, at least potentially, can redound to the benefit of consumers. Further, as the FCC found when it studied this 

issue in 2004, some wholesale bundling is a function of the statutory retransmission 

consent process, which appears to be working as Congress intended to facilitate the 

introduction of new programming services and allow for non-cash compensation for 

the carriage of broadcast outlets. Of course, to the extent other forms of wholesale 

bundling or tying arrangements are being used for anticompetitive purposes, antitrust remedies remain available. 

CONCLUSION

Although disputes involving sports programming often generate emotional consumer responses, the fact is that the sports programming markets generally are 

competitive and fully-functioning. Negotiations surrounding sports programming 

carriage involve hard bargaining by sophisticated parties over complex sets of interests. The terms of any such carriage are better decided at the bargaining table; government intervention rarely should be necessary. 

Thank you. 

11 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Ferree, very much. 

Our next witness is Mr. Glenn Britt. He is the president and the 

CEO of Time Warner Cable. Welcome, Mr. Britt. 

STATEMENT OF GLENN A. BRITT, PRESIDENT AND CEO, TIME 

WARNER CABLE 

Mr. BRITT. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Stearns and members of the subcommittee. My name is Glenn 

Britt, and I am president and CEO of Time Warner Cable, the Nation’s second-largest cable operator, and I want to thank you for inviting me here today to share our perspective on the evolving 

sports programming market. 

Americans’ love of sports is well documented, and the development of cable and satellite television has provided new outlets for 

sports teams and their fans. These new outlets have generally been 

positive, offering viewers opportunities to watch sporting events 

that previously might not have been available on broadcast TV. 

However, the past few years have been marked by a new trend, the 

movement of live sporting events from broadcast and broadly 

themed cable channels to league and team-specific channels. The 

leagues and teams have developed a strategy in order to maximize 

their financial returns, and this is perfectly appropriate. And of 

course, this is the goal of all businesses, to do well for their shareholders. That is my goal as well. Although negotiations between 

distributors and programmers may seem a little messy at times, 

Congress has wisely recognized that the marketplace, not regulation, produces the best results for consumers over the long run. 

Lately, however, some parties have been calling for new legislative and regulatory involvement in how distributors package and 

price services. These regulatory proposals include conflicting demands for mandatory a la carte on one hand and forced carriage 

of services on broadly distributed tiers on the other hand. In reality, deciding what services to carry and how to price and market 

them is a very complex process that involves lots of editorial and 

business judgments, and we think these judgments are best made 

in the marketplace. Thus, we believe that the NFL in particular is 

being disingenuous when it calls on the government to compel distributors to carry the NFL Network on a broadly distributed tier 

while at the same time they limit the distribution of NFL Sunday 

Ticket to one carrier, DIRECTV. 

Our goal at Time Warner Cable is to balance the needs and interests of our entire subscriber base to sports fans and non-sports 

fans alike, and one way we sought to do that is by creating separate sports-themed packages. These packages include networks 

such as NBA TV, the Tennis Channel and other high-cost or limited-appeal sports channels. By congregating these channels on a 

separate tier, we are able to hold down the cost of the service for 

most of our subscribers, and more than ever we have been talking 

about competition, and our business is driven by competitive necessity to offer consumers the best programming options in terms of 

carriage and packaging. The programmers, as well as customers, 

have a range of options. These include over-the-air television, two 

national satellite providers, the two largest phone companies, and 

of course, there is always the Internet, so there is a lot of choice. 

12 

We have got to give our customers the services they want at a 

fair price or they can take their business elsewhere, and they do 

take their business elsewhere. One way we make our service appealing to customers is that we invest considerable resources in the 

creation of local channels that provide community-oriented news 

and information not found elsewhere. Some of these channels feature high school, collegiate and minor league professional sports 

which are highly valued by the local customer base, and these 

channels wouldn’t exist without our commitment, and much of this 

programming simply would not be available to anyone. I think this 

is a good example of a marketplace at work as intended by the 

Congress. 

In conclusion, although many television viewers are passionate 

about sports and sports programming, Congress has made the right 

choice in relying on the marketplace to make the best decisions for 

these viewers. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Britt follows:] 

13 


Insert offset folio 1 here 50109.001
14 


Insert offset folio 2 here 50109.002
15 


Insert offset folio 3 here 50109.003
16 


Insert offset folio 4 here 50109.004
17 


Insert offset folio 5 here 50109.005
18 


Insert offset folio 6 here 50109.006
19 


Insert offset folio 7 here 50109.007
20 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Britt, very much. 

Our next witness is the commissioner of the National Football 

League, Mr. Roger Goodell. We welcome you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF ROGER GOODELL, COMMISSIONER, NATIONAL 

FOOTBALL LEAGUE 

Mr. GOODELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Stearns and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting 

me to testify here today. I am Roger Goodell, and I am commissioner of the National Football League. I have filed written testimony that I ask be made part of the record. I want to highlight 

a few key points before taking your questions, though. 

First, Comcast and Time Warner, the two largest cable companies, use their bottleneck power to control access and discriminate 

against independent programmers. The NFL Network and consumers who want to view NFL programming have been victims of 

this discrimination. NFL Network has been treated in a manner 

that is sharply different and clearly less favorable than the treatment given competing sports networks that Comcast and Time 

Warner own, channels such as Versus, the Golf Channel, Sports 

New York. Those networks are carried on basic tiers, while the 

NFL Network has no carriage on Time Warner and has been relegated to a premium sports tier by Comcast. 

Second, beyond the damage this discrimination causes independent programmers, it seriously hurts consumers and our fans 

as well. This is true for two reasons: first, because these anti-competitive practices stifle the development of independent programming like the NFL Network, it could and should be made available 

to the public, and second, because these practices drive up the 

prices that the public has to pay for independent cable programming. 

Third, let me be clear on what we are and what we are not seeking. The NFL does not seek new legislative remedies for these 

abuses. In 1992, Congress held that this discriminatory conduct 

was illegal and directed the FCC to adopt and administer fair, expeditious and effective complaint procedures to prevent cable carriage discrimination, but the FCC’s procedures have turned out to 

be far too slow and ineffective. Only three complaints have been 

filed, and none has made its way to final resolution. The FCC itself 

has recognized the need for reform. We ask the committee to exercise its oversight authority to encourage the FCC to adjust its procedures so that independent programmers have a meaningful remedy for cases of discrimination. 

In similar fashion, we are not asking Congress or the FCC to 

mandate that NFL Network or any other independent programmer 

be carried on a specific tier of cable service or at a specific rate or 

on specific terms. We believe that those decisions should be made 

in negotiations unaffected by discriminatory conduct that protects 

cable companies’ own networks. We are confident that in an environment free of unlawful discrimination, NFL Network and other 

independent programmers will secure fair carriage at a fair price. 

The dominant cable companies will offer a long list of excuses. 

They will call NFL football, the most popular sports programming 

in the country, niche programming. They will say the NFL NetVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:41 Jul 07, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-98 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
21 

work is too expensive. They will say they are protecting consumers 

against increasing costs they don’t want, and they may talk about 

NFL programming such as NFL Sunday Ticket. Each of these excuses should be seen for what it is: an effort to divert attention 

from the real issue, which is unlawful discrimination by cable companies in favor of their own networks and the resulting harm to 

consumers and independent programmers. Each of these excuses 

should be evaluated in light of how the cable companies treat their 

own networks. If NFL football is niche programming deserving only 

of placement on a premium sports tier, why do Comcast and Time 

Warner carry their own sports channels on basic tiers? Comcast 

and Time Warner treat sports programming as niche programming 

except where they own the sports channel, in which case sports 

programming becomes core programming that must be carried on 

the basic tier and available to all cable subscribers. 

This is not a hypothetical problem or one limited to the NFL Network. In a recent arbitration decision, Time Warner was found to 

have discriminated against an independent sports programmer, 

MASN. In the case of NFL Network, the situation is almost identical. The NFL should also receive a fair process. Comcast and 

Time Warner either refuse to discuss carriage or have insisted on 

relegating the NFL Network to expensive premium tiers in order 

to protect their own competing services. If the NFL Network’s highly rated programming can’t crack cable’s bottleneck leverage, other 

independent programmers like the Black Television News Channel, 

which contributes importantly to program diversity, will not be 

able to do so. Congress and the FCC understand this, and the FCC 

needs to apply its procedures in a manner consistent with 

Congress’s objectives. NFL Network is only part of our television 

business. The core of that business is and will continue to be free, 

over-the-air television. As a result, as long as there is reasonable 

remedy action available, we can persevere and challenge such unlawful conduct where other independent programmers cannot. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goodell follows:] 

22 


Insert offset folio 8 here 50109.008
23 


Insert offset folio 9 here 50109.009
24 


Insert offset folio 10 here 50109.010
25 


Insert offset folio 11 here 50109.011
26 


Insert offset folio 12 here 50109.012
27 


Insert offset folio 13 here 50109.013
28 


Insert offset folio 14 here 50109.014
29 


Insert offset folio 15 here 50109.015
30 


Insert offset folio 16 here 50109.016
31 


Insert offset folio 17 here 50109.017
32 


Insert offset folio 18 here 50109.018
33 


Insert offset folio 19 here 50109.019
34 


Insert offset folio 20 here 50109.020
35 


Insert offset folio 21 here 50109.021
36 


Insert offset folio 22 here 50109.022
37 


Insert offset folio 23 here 50109.023
38 


Insert offset folio 24 here 50109.024
39 


Insert offset folio 25 here 50109.025
40 


Insert offset folio 26 here 50109.026
41 


Insert offset folio 27 here 50109.027
42 


Insert offset folio 28 here 50109.028
43 


Insert offset folio 29 here 50109.029
44 


Insert offset folio 30 here 50109.030
45 


Insert offset folio 31 here 50109.031
46 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Goodell, very much. 

Our next witness is Mr. George Bodenheimer. He is the president of ESPN Incorporated. We welcome you back. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE BODENHEIMER, PRESIDENT, ESPN, 

INC. 

Mr. BODENHEIMER. Thank you, Mr. Markey and other members 

of the subcommittee. My name is George Bodenheimer. I am cochair, Disney Media Networks and president, ESPN and ABC 

Sports. 

It is really a pleasure to be here today to testify before an avid 

Red Sox fan, although if you believe Hank Steinbrenner, all I have 

to do is walk through our own studios to find those. I appreciate 

the invitation very much to speak with you today about sports programming. I have spent my entire professional career in the business of providing quality sports programming to American viewers. 

I know the passion that fans of all kinds feel about their favorite 

teams and players, and I also know that this passion carries over 

into issues about how and when they are able to watch those 

teams. 

I believe that the most significant point I can make to you today 

is to affirm that the markets for cable and satellite programming 

and distribution are more competitive than ever before. Take a look 

at the competitive environment for distribution of subscription television. There was a time when American consumers had few, if 

any, alternatives to the local cable system. Successful public policy 

initiatives by Congress have changed the competitive landscape for 

the vast majority of consumers. 

Today most Americans may choose between multiple subscription 

TV providers, including cable systems, two national satellite systems and, increasingly, phone companies. As a result of this competition, subscription television today is absolutely one of the best 

entertainment values available to American consumers. Likewise, 

the competition among channels offering sports programming is 

more vibrant than ever. When ESPN launched in 1979, there were 

many skeptics who questioned the demand for a broad-based sports 

channel. Today there are dozens of national and regional channels, 

including those launched by major professional sports leagues, college conferences and several major cable operators. It is truly a 

great time to be a sports fan. 

In a tough business climate, it is tempting for parties who do not 

get the deal they want to ask the government to intervene. I wish 

I could say that ESPN has been able to get every deal we have 

sought over the years, but that is simply not the case. There are 

lots of other parties out there competing for the right to carry 

games, and there are lots of other channels seeking carriage on 

cable and satellite systems, but that is how markets work. Given 

the fierce competition in both programming and distribution, I 

strongly urge you to refrain from intervening in these markets. 

Several of the issues that you are examining today have again 

raised questions about the need for government involvement. Our 

overarching view is that these should be resolved through direct 

negotiation and not government intervention. 

47 

I also want to note that none of these issues directly involves 

ESPN. ESPN is America’s most popular national broad-based 

sports channel. ESPN is the only channel that includes national 

telecasts from all of the following: the National Football League, 

Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, men’s 

and women’s NCAA college sports, NASCAR, plus America’s favorite sports news program, SportsCenter. ESPN is not a niche channel. We are currently distributed to more than 96 million American 

households, and in the fourth quarter of 2007, 87 percent of subscription TV households watched ESPN. Eighty-seven percent of 

subscription cable TV and satellite households watched ESPN in 

fourth quarter of 2007. The wide appeal of our programming is undeniable. Through arm’s-length negotiations with its distributors, 

ESPN’s value as part of the expanded basic tier has been well established for over 28 years. Just last week, cable operators responding to an industry survey ranked ESPN as having the highest 

valuation ever for any cable channel. 

We have entered into long-term carriage agreements with almost 

all cable and satellite distributors. We voluntarily negotiate for carriage by the country’s smallest cable operators through the National Cable Television Cooperative. This agreement gives small operators the buying power of our largest distributors. ESPN does not 

have exclusive distribution agreements with any cable or satellite 

distributors. 

To be clear, we believe that carriage issues are best resolved 

through free market negotiations, but should the committee disagree and believe some action is necessary, we urge you to recognize that the remedies proposed to address these issues are a particularly poor fit and should not apply to ESPN. For example, some 

have suggested that sports programming be relegated to sports 

tiers. We don’t believe that tier placement should be mandated for 

anyone. The market should determine these issues, and we think 

your constituents would be particularly concerned about forcing 

very popular sports programming like ESPN on a separate tier. 

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions the 

members of the committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bodenheimer follows:] 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE BODENHEIMER

Thank you, Mr. Markey and other members of the Subcommittee. It is a pleasure 

to be with you today. My name is George Bodenheimer. I am Co-Chair, Disney 

Media Networks and President, ESPN and ABC Sports. 

I appreciate the invitation to talk with you today about sports programming. I 

have spent my entire professional career in the business of providing quality sports 

programming to American viewers. I know the passion that fans of all kinds feel 

about their favorite teams and players. And I also know that this passion carries 

over into issues about how and when they are able to watch those teams. 

While we are here to discuss sports on television, it is important to recognize that 

technology is having an enormous impact on how fans enjoy sports—while television 

is still critically important, we also reach our consumers on the Internet, through 

mobile devices, on the radio, and in print. ESPN’s mission statement makes this objective very clear: ‘‘To serve sports fans wherever sports are watched, listened to, 

discussed, debated, read about or played.’’ 

ESPN’s efforts are one example of how The Walt Disney Company has been a pioneer in finding new ways to get content to consumers how, where, and when they 

want it: not just on television, but also on computers, mobile phones, and iPods. 

Technology and robust competition for the attention of consumers are changing the 

48 

ways that content is made available. For example, about 18 months ago, ABC television launched an online broadband player on ABC.com. Viewers can watch fulllength episodes of primetime television shows for free whenever they want to view 

them. In the short time since its launch, the player has served over 240 MILLION 

episode requests. 

I believe that the most significant point I can make to you today is to affirm that 

the markets for cable and satellite programming and distribution are more competitive than ever before. 

Take a look at the competitive environment for distribution of subscription television. There was a time when American consumers had few, if any, alternatives 

to their local cable system. Successful public policy initiatives by Congress have 

changed the competitive landscape for the vast majority of consumers. Today most 

Americans may choose between multiple subscription TV providers including cable 

systems, 2 national satellite systems and, increasingly, phone companies. And these 

providers offer a variety of rate plans from basic tiers and low cost satellite packages offering 40 channels for $19.99 a month, to larger and more expensive packages with hundreds of channels. As a result of this competition, subscription television today is one of the best entertainment values available to American consumers. For sports fans, in particular, a typical expanded basic level of service offers 

hundreds of games and thousands of hours of commentary and analysis each year 

at a monthly price that is less that the cost of single ticket to many professional 

sports events 

Likewise, the competition among channels offering sports programming is more 

vibrant than ever before. When ESPN launched in 1979, there were many skeptics 

who questioned the demand for a dedicated sports channel. Today, there are dozens 

of national and regional channels with a vast array of sports programming. Rights 

holders—including the major professional sports leagues and college conferences— 

and several major cable operators have launched their own sports channels. Add to 

this the astounding amount of live game, highlight and news coverage on the Internet, on radio and in print and it is beyond question to say that it is truly a great 

time to be a sports fan. 

In a tough business climate, it is tempting for parties who do not get the deal 

they want to ask the government to intervene. I wish I could say that ESPN has 

been able to get every deal we have sought over the years, but that is simply not 

the case. There are lots of other parties out there competing for the right to carry 

games. And there are lots of other channels seeking carriage on cable and satellite 

systems. But that is how markets work. Given the fierce competition in both programming and distribution, I strongly urge you to refrain from intervening in these 

markets. 

Several of the issues that you are examining today have again raised questions 

about the need for government involvment, including: the carriage of channels covering single sports, teams or conferences; the carriage of regional sports channels; 

and various exclusive agreements between programmers and distributors. Our overarching view is that all these should be resolved through direct negotiation and not 

government intervention. I also want to note that none of these issues directly involves ESPN. 

ESPN is America’s most popular (and for cable companies—most valuable), national, broad-based sports channel. ESPN is the ONLY channel that includes national telecasts from all of the following: the NFL, Major League Baseball, the NBA, 

men’s and women’s NCAA college sports, NASCAR plus America’s favorite sports 

news program ‘‘SportsCenter.’’ An increasing amount of this programming is produced in high definition, which we believe has had a profound impact on consumers’ 

decisions to purchase high definition televisions. 

ESPN is NOT a ‘‘niche’’ channel. In the 4th quarter of 2007, 87% of subscription 

TV households watched ESPN. The wide appeal of our programming is undeniable. 

Through arm’s length negotiations with its distributors, ESPN’s value as part of the 

expanded basic tier has been well established for over 28 years. 

ESPN is not just the most popular sports television network. It is among the most 

popular of all television networks—broadcast or cable. Just last week, cable operators responding to an industry survey ranked ESPN as having the highest valuation 

ever for any cable channel. Operators rated ESPN first in nearly every category, including: ‘‘Importance for Subscriber Acquisition and Retention,’’ ‘‘Perceived Value,’’ 

and ‘‘Programming that Generates Local Ad Sales Revenue,’’ among others. 

We have entered into long term carriage agreements with almost all cable and 

satellite distributors. We voluntarily negotiate for carriage by the country’s smallest 

cable operators through the National Cable Television Cooperative. This agreement 

gives small operators the buying power of our largest distributors. ESPN does NOT 

49 

have exclusive distribution agreements with any cable or satellite distributors and 

is offered to ALL of these companies. 

To be clear, we believe that the issues raised for discussion by the Committee are 

best resolved through free market negotiations. But should the Committee disagree 

and believe some action is necessary, we urge you to recognize that the ‘‘remedies’’ 

proposed to address these issues are a particularly poor fit for—and should not 

apply to—ESPN. For example, some have suggested that all sports programming be 

relegated to sports tiers. We don’t believe that tier placement should be mandated 

for anyone. The market should determine these issues, and we think your constituents would be particularly concerned about forcing very popular sports programming, like ESPN, onto a separate tier. 

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions the members of the 

Committee may have. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Bodenheimer, very much. 

Our next witness is Mark Cooper. He is the director of research 

for the Consumer Federation of America, a frequent visitor to this 

committee, and we welcome you back. When you are ready, please 

begin. 

STATEMENT OF MARK COOPER, PH.D., DIRECTOR OF 

RESEARCH, CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA 

Mr. COOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 

today to express yet again the consumers’ frustration with the 

cable industry. The focal point of today’s hearing epitomizes the 

broader problem. The cost of the monthly cable bill for the most 

popular basic bundle has more than doubled since the passage of 

the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Embedded in those monthly 

bills are the dramatically increasing costs of sports programming, 

which consumers are forced to buy in the big bundle. The incredible escalation of sports salaries is funded by the viewing public, 

the vast majority of whom, if given the opportunity, would not in 

fact choose to purchase those channels. 

Competition is the consumer’s best friend, but the sports video 

programming market is a rat’s nest of anti-competitive, anti-consumer structures and practices. On one side we find dominant programmers like network broadcasters with carriage rights or sports 

entertainment companies who hold exclusive rights to home team 

broadcasts which are must-have marquee programming for local 

cable operators. On the other side, we have gatekeeper cable companies with market power over access to local video customers who 

themselves are increasingly going into the regional sports network 

business. On a third side, we find the leagues, who are seeking to 

monetize their own market power in exclusive sports networks. 

The programmers and the cable operators combine to restrict 

consumer choice and increase prices. The programmers ask for 

more and more, and the cable operators give because they know 

they can just pass those costs through to the consumer in the price 

of the bundle, and while consumers suffer pain in the pocketbook, 

independent programmers also suffer at the hands of the 

gatekeeping network operators. Getting into the bundle and onto 

the systems owned by the two dominant cable operators is a necessary condition for national programming success. Not one national network has achieved an audience reach of sufficient size to 

sustain quality programming without being carried on both 

50 

Comcast and Time Warner. In short, cable operators can make or 

break programming by deciding whether programming is carried 

and where it is placed. 

The best solution to the problem is simple: give consumers real 

choice. Unleash consumer sovereignty in a big way by requiring 

cable operators to allow consumers to buy on a stand-alone basis 

any program that the cable operators have chosen to put in a bundle. This is called mixed bundling: give me a choice for one if they 

are trying to force me to buy all. Let consumers choose the programming they want to pay for, and it will become immediately 

clear that the vast majority of subscribers would not pay the current price of the most popular sports programming channels that 

they are forced to buy in the big bundle. 

If programmers face the true elasticity of consumer demand, 

prices would decline and choices would expand. As video revenues 

decline, so too would the grossly inflated packages that the leagues 

and the players get, especially the highest paid players. The same 

set of teams and players who take the field today would take the 

field if consumer choice had cut the packages in half, because the 

current packages include a substantial excess profit that is extracted from consumers. Shaquille O’Neal and Alex Rodriguez 

would play just as hard for 1 million as they do for 20 million. In 

point of fact, there is a good theory in labor economics which suggests they would play harder if they were only paid $1 million instead of the $20 million. 

If Congress and the FCC are unwilling to free consumers from 

the broad tyranny of the cable bundle, they could more narrowly 

require sports programming to be pulled out into a separate tier. 

This would at least allow those who have no interest in sports programming to avoid paying for it, thereby giving the leagues and the 

programmers a smaller pie to fight for. It would also reinvigorate 

the option of free, over-the-air programming, because then you 

would have a real choice between selling it to the people who are 

willing to pay for it and making it broadly available. 

If Congress and the FCC are unwilling to empower the consumer 

to choose, thereby unleashing the power of the demand side, the 

least they can do is ensure that there is supply-side competition. 

Broadcasters and cable operators should not be allowed to restrict 

supply-side competition by putting their programming in the big 

bundle and forcing competing programming into more expensive 

tiers. If they offer any sports programming, they should offer all of 

it in the same place so that we can have a level playing field for 

competition. We believe that this would enable new programming 

to reduce the market power of programmers with preferred access 

to carriage. Spreading the sports viewing audience across programming that is targeted geographically and by sport will erode the 

viewership of the handful of programmers who have been favored 

by access. That would lower prices and expand real choice to consumers. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cooper follows:] 

51 


Insert offset folio 32 here 50109.032
52 


Insert offset folio 33 here 50109.033
53 


Insert offset folio 34 here 50109.034
54 


Insert offset folio 35 here 50109.035
55 


Insert offset folio 36 here 50109.036
56 


Insert offset folio 37 here 50109.037
57 


Insert offset folio 38 here 50109.038
58 


Insert offset folio 39 here 50109.039
59 


Insert offset folio 40 here 50109.040
60 


Insert offset folio 41 here 50109.041
61 


Insert offset folio 42 here 50109.042
62 


Insert offset folio 43 here 50109.043
63 


Insert offset folio 44 here 50109.044
64 


Insert offset folio 45 here 50109.045
65 


Insert offset folio 46 here 50109.046
66 


Insert offset folio 47 here 50109.047
67 


Insert offset folio 48 here 50109.048
68 


Insert offset folio 49 here 50109.049
69 


Insert offset folio 50 here 50109.050
70 


Insert offset folio 51 here 50109.051
71 


Insert offset folio 52 here 50109.052
72 


Insert offset folio 53 here 50109.053
73 


Insert offset folio 54 here 50109.054
74 


Insert offset folio 55 here 50109.055
75 


Insert offset folio 56 here 50109.056
76 


Insert offset folio 57 here 50109.057
77 


Insert offset folio 58 here 50109.058
78 


Insert offset folio 59 here 50109.059
79 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Dr. Cooper, very much. 

And our final witness, Mr. Derek Chang, is the executive vice 

president for content strategy and development for DIRECTV Incorporated. We welcome you, Mr. Chang. 

STATEMENT OF DEREK CHANG, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, 

CONTENT STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT, DIRECTV, INC. 

Mr. CHANG. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Stearns and members of the committee, my name is Derek Chang, and I am the executive vice president of content strategy and development at 

DIRECTV. Thank you for inviting me to the hearing today on consumers’ access to sports programming. 

DIRECTV strives to compete in the marketplace by providing the 

best television experience in the country. A critical component of 

this strategy is offering more sports programming and cutting-edge 

innovation for subscribers. We carry 29 regional sports networks on 

widely distributed tiers. DIRECTV offers more live HD sporting 

events than any other provider. We bid on and carry virtually 

every sports package of additional out-of-market games, including 

those of the NFL, the NHL, college football and basketball, and 

even international soccer. 

In addition to providing more sports content to our subscribers, 

we also strive to add value to much of the sports programming that 

we carry. The introduction of award-winning innovations and features has been critical to our ability to compete and grow in this 

increasingly competitive video marketplace. For example, nearly all 

video programming distributors carry the YES Network, but only 

DIRECTV has partnered with the channel to add bonus camera angles and interactive statistics. Similarly, DIRECTV outbid the 

cable consortium iN DEMAND for exclusive supplemental 

NASCAR coverage last year. For years, the cable industry has carried this unique programming but did little with it. DIRECTV immediately added multiple camera angles, real-time stats, team 

audio and dedicated announcers. In only its first year, NASCAR 

Hotpass had more than three times the subscribers than when the 

cable industry had rights to this programming. And new this year, 

DIRECTV, working in conjunction with CBS and ESPN, will offer 

an unprecedented level of coverage during the Masters Golf Tournament. This new service will combine CBS and ESPN coverage of 

the tournament with additional views of the legendary Augusta 

National Golf Course, hole-by-hole player stats, scores, a course 

tour, and on-demand Masters video clips. All of this is a critical 

component of DIRECTV’s success. Obtaining the widest range of 

sports programming made available to DIRECTV in the marketplace and adding value and consumer-friendly features to that programming is precisely how DIRECTV has been able to compete and 

grow. This unique and innovative programming enhances competition in the entire video marketplace. 

Today, our cable and phone company competitors have responded 

to our leadership in sports programming with unique product offerings of their own. This includes on-demand sports highlights and 

footage, but it also includes the highly successful bundle of voice, 

video, and broadband. Dish Network has responded by focusing on 

80 

lower priced offerings and providing numerous exclusive international channels. 

These types of battles among multiple distributors offering differentiated products and services are exactly what Congress envisioned. Increased competition translates into more consumer 

choice, better customer service and greater technological innovation. DIRECTV’s leadership in sports programming and the technical enhancements it has added to that programming would not 

have happened without fair access to the underlying content, access that would not exist but for the program access provisions of 

the 1992 Cable Act. In fact, without those provisions, satellite television and competition to cable would never have gotten off the 

ground. 

I would not be sitting here today talking about DIRECTV’s success if Mr. Markey and members of this committee had not led the 

charge to provide consumers with greater access to cable-controlled 

programming. Congress recognized that new entrants needed programming to survive and also recognized the value of exclusives, 

especially when obtained fairly in the marketplace. The 1992 Cable 

Act jump-started competition in the video marketplace. In large 

part because of the program access provisions, DIRECTV was able 

to provide the first real competitive choice to the incumbent cable 

operators. The statute gave DIRECTV and other emerging competitors access to must-have programming that cable competitors 

might have withheld but also permitted DIRECTV to differentiate 

itself through exclusive deals negotiated at arm’s length with independent programmers such as the NFL Sunday Ticket and more 

recently the NASCAR HotPass. The end result is precisely what 

Congress envisioned: a vibrant, competitive marketplace with more 

choice and better service for consumers. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chang follows:] 

STATEMENT OF DEREK CHANG

Mr. Chairman, ranking member Stearns and members of the Committee, my 

name is Derek Chang, and I am the Executive Vice President, Content Strategy and 

Development, at DIRECTV, Inc. Thank you for inviting me to testify today on consumers’ access to sports programming. 

DIRECTV continually strives to offer more sports programming and programming-related innovations to our subscribers. This improves competition in the entire 

multi-channel video marketplace. We carry nearly every regional sports network 

(RSN) made available to us, and we carry all but one of these RSNs on our most 

widely distributed programming tier. DIRECTV offers subscribers more live HD 

sporting events than any other provider. We bid on, and carry, virtually every sports 

package of additional, out-of-market professional games from the NHL and NBA to 

international soccer. 

In addition to providing more sports content to our subscribers, we also strive to 

add value to much of the sports programming that we carry. The introduction of 

cutting-edge innovations and features has been critical to our ability to grow and 

survive in the increasingly competitive multi-channel video marketplace. For example, nearly all multi-channel video programming distributors (‘‘MVPDs’’) carry the 

YES Network. But only DIRECTV has partnered with the channel to add bonus 

camera angles and interactive statistics for our subscribers. Similarly, DIRECTV 

outbid the cable consortium iN DEMAND for exclusive supplemental NASCAR coverage last year. For years the cable industry had carried this unique programming 

but did little with it. DIRECTV immediately added multiple camera angles, realtime stats, team audio and dedicated announcers. In only its first year, NASCAR 

HotPass has more than six times the subscribers than when the cable industry had 

81 

the rights to this programming. All of this is a critical component of DIRECTV’s success. Obtaining the widest range of sports programming made available to 

DIRECTV in the marketplace, and adding value and consumer friendly features to 

that programming, is precisely how DIRECTV has been able to compete and grow. 

Today, our cable and phone company competitors have responded to our leadership and innovations in sports programming with unique product offerings of their 

own. This includes on-demand sports highlights and footage, but it also includes the 

highly successful package of bundled video, phone and broadband access, among 

others. Dish Network has responded by focusing on lower price offerings and providing numerous exclusive 2nd language channels. 

These types of battles between multiple competitors offering differentiated products and alternatives are exactly what Congress envisioned. Accordingly, we think 

the marketplace is working on behalf of consumers to ensure fair and equal access 

to critical sports content. 

This success is in large part due to the actions of Congress and the ongoing vigilance of the Federal Communications Commission (‘‘FCC’’) to guarantee such access. 

In 1992, Mr. Markey and members of this Committee led the charge to provide consumers with greater access to cable-controlled programming by enacting narrowly 

crafted program access provisions of the Cable Act. Congress recognized that new 

entrants need programming to survive and that incumbent cable operators had sufficient market power to ‘‘kill competition’’ by withholding key vertically integrated 

programming. At the same time, Congress also recognized the value of exclusives— 

especially when obtained fairly in the marketplace by those seeking to compete 

against vertically integrated cable companies with dominant market share. Congress thus restricted only incumbent cable operators’ exclusive arrangements with 

programmers they owned. It allowed other exclusives that would promote competition and serve the public interest. 

The 1992 Cable Act kick-started competition in the video marketplace. In large 

part because of the program access provisions, DIRECTV was able to provide the 

first real competitive choice to the incumbent cable operators. The statute gave 

DIRECTV and other emerging competitors access to must-have programming that 

cable competitors would otherwise have withheld but also permitted DIRECTV to 

differentiate itself through exclusive deals negotiated at arm’s length with independent programmers, such as The NFL Sunday Ticket and, more recently, the 

NASCAR HotPass. The end result: precisely what Congress envisioned—a vibrant 

competitive marketplace with more choice and better service for consumers. 

* * * 

I.DIRECTV provides more sports, more HD, and more innovative award 

winning sport programming and features than any cable or satellite provider. 

DIRECTV has invested billions of dollars over the past three years to vault the 

company and our subscribers to the front of the high definition content line. That 

investment and vision has allowed us to broadcast more HD sports programming 

than any other cable or satellite provider. From fly fishing to fencing, our HD sports 

offerings are unrivaled. 

DIRECTV carries 29 RSNs with the 30th, the Mountain Channel (college sports 

programming from the Mountain West Athletic Conference), set to launch before the 

fall sports season. All but one of these are available on our most widely distributed 

tier of programming reaching the largest number of our subscribers, and 28 are offered in HD. 

In addition to RSNs, we have successfully secured the rights to more out-of- market sport subscription packages than any of our competitors, including: NFL Sunday 

Ticket, NBA League Pass, MLB Extra Innings, NHL Center Ice, NCAA Mega March 

Madness, ESPN Full Court, ESPN GamePlan, MLS Direct Kick, and CricketTicket. 

Six of these are offered in HD. We also carry national sports channels like the Golf 

Channel, a suite of 6 ESPN channels, NHL Channel, NBA Channel, NFL Channel, 

Setanta Sports, Speed Channel, The Outdoor Channel, and Versus. 14 of these are 

offered in HD. And, of course, we offer the local and national feeds of the networks, 

including Spanish language networks, to the vast majority of our subscribers. 

But our leadership in sports is not just about carrying more sports than our competitors. It is also about innovating and creating new sports content through our investment and ingenuity. DIRECTV offers a dynamic sports mix channel that features 8 different live sports channels that can be viewed at once and that allow a 

subscriber to tune directly to the primary channel by clicking on the small picture. 

The NASCAR HotPass offers multiple camera angles, constant coverage of four drivers in HD each week at every NASCAR race, and the audio and telemetry of 13 

82 

different drivers, all while the race is going on over the primary network broadcast. 

Working in conjunction with the Masters and CBS, DIRECTV will for the first time 

offer HD bonus coverage of particular holes at Augusta National Golf Course and 

up-to-the-minute statistics and leader boards. Countless other award winning innovations that bring the passionate sports fan closer to his or her game and maximize 

their viewing experience abound, from ‘‘pitcher cams’’ to ‘‘bracket trackers’’ to ‘‘red 

zone channels’’ and ‘‘strike zone channels’’ that take the viewer to live cut-ins of 

games throughout the country as they happen. 

This is not simply good news for DIRECTV’s subscribers. This programming, and 

these innovations, forces our competitors to respond in the marketplace. Some do 

so through their own innovations. Others do so through bundled offerings. Others 

do so by cutting prices. Increased competition translates into more consumer 

choices, better customer service, more responsive pricing and the technological innovation described above. Because of the competitive video marketplace, all Americans—not just DIRECTV subscribers—are enjoying a better television experience. 

II. The Program Access Provisions of the 1992 Cable Act are largely responsible for competition in the MVPD marketplace. 

DIRECTV’s leadership in sports programming, and the technical enhancements it 

has added to that programming, would not have happened without fair access to the 

underlying content—access that would not exist but for the program access provisions of the 1992 Cable Act. In fact, without those provisions, satellite television and 

competition to cable would never have gotten off the ground. 

The point of these provisions was to ensure that new entrants challenging the 

cable monopoly had access to the programming they needed to do so. More specifically, Congress sought to: 

increas[e] competition and diversity in the multichannel video programming market, 

to increase the availability of satellite cable programming and satellite broadcast 

programming to persons in rural and other areas not currently able to receive such 

programming, and to spur the development of communications technologies. 

Indeed, ‘‘the conferees expect[ed] the Commission to address and resolve the problems of unreasonable cable industry practices, including restricting the availability 

of programming and charging discriminatory prices to non-cable technologies.’’ Congress hoped that competitors like DIRECTV, who sought to compete with the incumbent cable operators, could do so on the merits of their offerings, and consumers 

would benefit from their efforts to win customers from each other. 

Congress thus required certain programmers owned by cable operators to make 

their programming available to all at nondiscriminatory rates and terms. By doing 

so, Congress specifically ‘‘placed a higher value on new competitive entry than on 

the continuation of exclusive distribution practices that impede this entry.’’ 

Yet, Congress treaded carefully when adopting the program access provisions— 

and rightfully so. It did not prohibit all exclusive arrangements. It instead sought 

to encourage the development of unique product offerings, such as local news. And, 

because it was principally concerned about the abuse of market power, it only prohibited exclusive contracts by dominant cable operators for vertically integrated programming. 

In carefully tailoring its program access rules, Congress recognized that exclusive 

contracts could be a valuable tool to enhance the competitive viability of new entrants. As Representative Tauzin noted during debate on the House floor, ‘‘exclusive 

programming that is not designed to kill the competition is still permitted . . .’’ 

Thus, where a new entrant seeks to obtain exclusive programming to increase competition, the program access rules permit it to do so. And even a cable operator is 

free to bargain for exclusivity to differentiate its service—so long as it does so on 

a level playing field with a non-cable-affiliated programmer. 

The program access rules thus work exactly the way Congress intended them to. 

They enable satellite operators and other new entrants to provide viewers with 

‘‘must-have’’ programming that cable would otherwise keep for itself. Yet, they allow 

all video distributors to provide a differentiated product that spurs competition. 

III. The NFL Sunday Ticket was precisely the type of exclusive deal envisioned by the program access provisions to spur competition. 

Perhaps the best example of an exclusive arrangement helping—not harming— 

competition is The NFL Sunday Ticket. DIRECTV, as a new entrant, was able to 

get a foot in the door of the highly concentrated multi-channel video market in part 

by offering unique content such as The NFL Sunday Ticket. This and other unique 

offerings helped DIRECTV to differentiate itself and gain market share. The cable 

industry, in turn, found itself forced to innovate and become more responsive to customer concerns. As a result, today cable offers a competitive, attractive package that 

includes its own differentiated video-on-demand and bundled Internet offerings. 

83 

This is exactly what Congress had in mind when it enacted the program access provisions. 

The NFL Sunday Ticket has helped DIRECTV emerge as a competitor to cable. 

It is critical to note that DIRECTV’s offering of the NFL Sunday Ticket does not 

prevent NFL fans from seeing their home teams. Local fans still get to see their 

teams through their local broadcast network, a right that DIRECTV believes is a 

fundamental part of America’s sports culture. Unfortunately, the same cannot be 

said of some cable operators who are withholding vertically integrated sports. The 

most well-known example is Philadelphia, where the incumbent cable provider, 

Comcast, denies access to Comcast SportsNet to DBS competitors. As a result, fans 

who wish to see the home teams play, including the Philadelphia Flyers, Phillies 

and 76ers, have no choice but to subscribe to Comcast. That sort of denial of access 

to ‘‘must-have’’ local content—as opposed to the out-of-market premium content offered by DIRECTV—is precisely the sort of threat to competition that Congress 

sought to prevent. Indeed, Comcast’s anti-competitive practice is having its intended 

effect: the FCC recently found that ‘‘the percentage of television households that 

subscribe to DBS service in Philadelphia is 40% below what would otherwise be expected given the characteristics of the market.’’ Likewise, DIRECTV’s market share 

in the San Diego DMA is practically half the national average due to the local incumbent cable providers’ denial of access to the home teams’ games. 

* * * 

A key development in the American economy over the past twenty years has been 

the rise of a competitive video marketplace. Today, competition means: consumers 

have more choices than ever before; customer service and pricing are becoming more 

responsive; technological innovation is flourishing; and tens of thousands of jobs 

have been created. 

This is no accident. Rather, it is the direct result of policies that Congress and 

this Committee have enacted to promote competition. In the MVPD marketplace 

today, consumers are courted by multiple providers offering different and unique 

services surrounding a core package of video programming. 

Our cable competitors still possess an overwhelming market share, which can distort competition to this day. But the fact remains that today there is competition 

where before there was none. This is the success story Congress—and this Committee, in particular—helped write. Thank you once again for allowing me to testify. 

I would be happy to take any of your questions. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chang, and that completes all testimony in opening statement form from our distinguished panel. We will now turn to questions from the subcommittee, and the Chair will recognize himself for a round of 

questions. 

We will begin with you, Mr. Britt. Now, what are the criteria in 

your view that ought to be employed to determine whether a sports 

channel goes on the most watched tier or a special sports tier? Is 

it price, and if so, what is that price point? Is it the nature and 

popularity of that sport? Is it whether the cable operator owns a 

portion of that sports programming? Could you give us your kind 

of definition of what it is that qualifies to be carried on different 

tiers? 

Mr. BRITT. Certainly. I think it is a very complex set of decisions. 

It certainly involves an assessment of the attractiveness of the 

product in a given market, and there has been some testimony 

about regional sports in a local market versus national sports. 

There is certainly consideration of which tier of service the programmer is asking it to be carried on, and certainly price and conditions are a big part of it, so there is all of those things. And quite 

frankly, there is also the activities of our competitors and how they 

are packaging and carrying things. 

84 

Mr. MARKEY. So could you take the Golf Channel, for an example, and give us an analysis of what are the factors that determine 

whether it is placed on expanded basic or in another part of the 

network and contrast that with the Big Ten or the NFL channel 

and why that might be placed on a sports tier? 

Mr. BRITT. Sure. Again, it is those factors that I talked about, so 

it is a combination of our assessment of appeal, and by the way, 

the way the market works, we can be wrong about that, and maybe 

Mr. Chang is right and customers move. That is part of what happens. So it is appeal, it is price and our sense of where it fits. So 

one point I would make about the NFL channel, in Mr. Goodell’s 

testimony he says that the NFL channel is not the centerpiece of 

the NFL programming, and in fact, most of their programming is 

on over-the-air broadcast TV or the channels like ESPN. So he is 

basically saying it is a niche channel, and we would like to carry 

that channel, and we would like to carry it on terms that were appropriate for the content. 

Mr. MARKEY. Let me go to Mr. Goodell then. When Disney 

doesn’t reach a retransmission consent deal for carriage of ABC, its 

remedy is to deny the programming to cable operators, and that is 

often a very powerful remedy, given the popularity of network television, but to a fledgling network or a new channel entrant, what 

is the effective remedy, Mr. Goodell, that is available if a carriage 

deal is not struck? What remedy would you recommend? 

Mr. GOODELL. Well, the remedy that we recommend is what the 

1992 Cable Act discussed, which was that if a cable operator that 

owns its own channels that are distributing their channels more 

broadly than an independent programmer, that is discrimination 

against that independent programmer, and that should not be allowed, that the free market requires that all channels be treated 

equally, not preferenced to the ones that are owned by the cable 

operators. From our standpoint, we are not focused entirely on the 

NFL Network. We have eight games of our 256 games that are on 

the NFL Network. We do not consider ourselves niche programming. I have never heard that from anyone other than the cable 

operators who have a great interest in our programming also. We 

have tremendous high-quality programs in great demand year 

round for our consumers, and we have gotten great reaction from 

them and from other programmers about the quality of our programming. So from my standpoint, I would hope that the FCC 

would look at the procedures that were put in place in 1992 and 

apply that in this circumstance. 

Mr. MARKEY. Dr. Cooper, your quick comment, please. 

Mr. COOPER. As I said, I think we need to treat these programs 

in an equal fashion. Our preference would be to treat them all 

equally and let consumers choose the ones they want to pay for. If 

the Congress is not willing to go that far, then we have to either 

get them all into a sports tier and let consumers then decide 

whether they want the sports tier, but if we are not going to have 

a sports tier, the worst possible outcome here is to allow cable operators to continue protecting the incumbents who basically have carriage rights, and so if a cable operator is going to carry its own programming, its own sports programming, it should not be allowed 

to exclude competitors for that sports programming. 

85 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Dr. Cooper. 

The Chair recognizes now the gentleman from Florida, the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Stearns. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Goodell, the man on your left and the man on your right and 

Mr. Ferree seem to disagree with you. Dr. Cooper doesn’t necessarily agree with you, but he is advocating for a la carte, and Mr. 

Chang seems to be a mix. So Mr. Goodell, you are the one that is 

going to have to carry your argument alone here, it appears to me. 

And I always like to think when people ask for certain things from 

the Federal Government, I always say to myself, now, if I grant 

that to him, would it make sense to grant it to other people, too, 

in a sort of philosophical statement. If it is good enough for you, 

is it good enough for everybody? So what you are advocating for 

football, baseball, should have the same opportunity, basketball, 

tennis, billiards, NASCAR, soccer, golf, fishing. We could go on and 

on. So what you think is good for the NFL, you also would advocate 

is good for all these other sports that I mentioned. Is that true? 

Mr. GOODELL. Well, Congressman, I think what we are trying to 

be clear about here is, we are not arguing for government legislation, we are not looking for intervention. 

Mr. STEARNS. No, but you are asking that pressure be put on the 

FCC to set up an arbitration board. 

Mr. GOODELL. Well, I think that the 1992 Act actually—— 

Mr. STEARNS. So you are extending that? 

Mr. GOODELL [continuing]. Established procedures for this type 

of dispute when discrimination occurs. 

Mr. STEARNS. You say discrimination, and then you go a little 

further to talk about sharp differences in the programming and the 

carriage and everything, but if you made the argument for arbitration, couldn’t these other sports also make the same argument once 

they decide, Gee, we are getting pretty profitable, we want to have 

our own broadcast network ourselves. Couldn’t they go ahead and 

make the same argument? The thing I worry about is, if all these 

sports go ahead and do it, then we are going to see a basic cable 

rate that is going to be so expensive, no one could afford it. 

Mr. GOODELL. Well, I understand. We are advocating for all independent networks here. We do agree with that in some cases here, 

and we are also advocating, and I agree with everybody at this 

front table, we are arguing for a free market system. That is what 

we want. We do not want government regulation. The reality of it 

is though—— 

Mr. STEARNS. But you want arbitration? 

Mr. GOODELL. Sir, if I can finish? 

Mr. STEARNS. Yes. 

Mr. GOODELL. What we would like is a free market system which 

allows a market system to work without discrimination and preference for their own channels. 

Mr. STEARNS. How are you going to get that without government 

intervening? 

Mr. GOODELL. Again, in the 1992 Act, there were provisions to 

avoid discrimination that Congress recognized at that time—— 

Mr. STEARNS. If there is discrimination, why don’t you sue under 

the 1992 Act and take it to court? 

86 

Mr. GOODELL. Well, the reality—and I am not a lawyer so let me 

make that point up front. The reality of it is, Congress established 

a procedure with the FCC to avoid discrimination and a process for 

us to follow that. Our option, as I understand it, is to file a complaint with the FCC. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. 

Mr. GOODELL. If we go to the court—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Have you filed that complaint? 

Mr. GOODELL. We have not. We are strongly considering that at 

this point. 

Mr. STEARNS. Let me—I don’t have a lot of time. 

Mr. GOODELL. With respect to, if we file a complaint, if the FCC 

system doesn’t produce a remedy within a certain period of 

time—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Then you want the government to step in. You 

want the FCC to step in and force arbitration? 

Mr. GOODELL. We want the FCC to come in and make sure that 

it is an open and free market as the Congress asked for. 

Mr. STEARNS. Now, Mr. Ferree, I understand you were the chief 

at the Media Bureau at the FCC. Is that correct? 

Mr. FERREE. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Mr. STEARNS. Dr. Cooper has made a very strong argument for 

a la carte, and I understand—maybe you could comment quickly on 

Mr. Goodell’s argument about saying this discrimination exists just 

quick, and I don’t have much time, and then you might want to 

talk about Dr. Cooper. I understand you wrote a report to indicate 

that a la carte would in fact hurt the consumer, so just quickly. 

Mr. FERREE. Yes, sir, I do have some history with a la carte. I 

will just comment briefly on Mr. Goodell’s statement. Discrimination is—there is nothing with discrimination. It is unreasonable 

discrimination that causes problems, and the difficulty here is determining what is unreasonable. As he said, they have a handful 

of games on the network. You know, is that the same as an entire 

golf season on the Golf Channel? Making those kinds of determinations is quite difficult, and as Mr. Britt said, there are complex sets 

of factors that go into decisions about where programming is going 

to—I can’t sit here and tell you I know the right answer to that. 

That is why we have markets. In this case, we have intensely competitive markets. 

Briefly on a la carte, in my view, it is a disaster for consumers. 

He said it will increase choice and reduce price. I don’t know how 

he came up with that. In fact, it probably would increase consumer 

prices to get anywhere near the kinds of programming you get—— 

Mr. STEARNS. I have got one more question. You are basically—— 

Mr. FERREE. But more importantly, it would destroy diversity, 

which we all purport to cherish. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chang, I just have one quick question for you. 

DIRECTV is now the second largest pay TV provider, and Dish is 

the third. Each of you have more subscribers than Time Warner 

and are available nationwide rather than just regionally. Doesn’t 

that mean if Time Warner decides not to carry the NFL Network, 

the NFL still has more than adequate distribution options with you 

and Dish? 

87 

Mr. CHANG. They obviously have distribution options with us, because we carry it, and so does Dish. In terms of what is adequate 

distribution, I guess I don’t know what the economics are of the 

channel and what they require in order to have a successful channel or what they would deem to be success. From our standpoint, 

from DIRECTV’s standpoint, we see the NFL Network as a channel 

that makes sense for our customers, which is why we have chosen 

to carry it. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Eshoo. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I listened carefully to all the testimony, and I want to thank you 

all for your varying views. It seems to me that the consumer can 

get the squeeze at either end of this thing. I think that there are 

complications at both sides of it, and of course in all of this really 

is money. I mean, that is really what drives all of this, and that 

is what I think is causing—I mean, it is great that people make 

money, I am not opposed to that, but it drives the respective parts 

of this to do what they do. 

I have a question for Commissioner Goodell. I think your argument is that the cable operators are discriminating against the 

NFL because you are an independent programmer. I mean, that is 

what I am hearing. It seems to me that that is a little hard to 

swallow based on fairness and competition because, coming from 

an organization that has an antitrust exemption when it comes to 

pooling, I think that antitrust exemption was granted for that. You 

are an independent programmer with some of the most valuable 

content on television, and so what I want to ask you is, could a 

plausible answer to the lack of carriage of your programming be 

that you are not offering a competitive price? Is that what is—— 

Mr. GOODELL. It is a very fair question. 

Ms. ESHOO. Is that what you are telling us? 

Mr. GOODELL. Let me try to—we have reached an agreement 

with nearly 250 cable operators around the country, all the satellite 

carriers and the telephone carriers. We recognize that this is a 

market issue, and price needs to be determined along with distribution. I don’t believe this is simply about money. I believe this 

is about the law, and the law says in 1992 that you cannot discriminate against independent programmers in preference of your 

own channels that you own, and we believe that is what the fact 

is. The fact is, they are distributing the channels that they own, 

their sports channels, more broadly on basic services than the NFL 

Network, and obviously they have their choice of doing that, but we 

believe there is tremendous market demand. We believe we have 

been reasonable in our pricing, and that is reflected in the fact that 

250 cable operators and satellite carriers and telephone carriers 

have picked us up. 

Ms. ESHOO. Let me just ask you the following. You are the most 

successful sports league in our country. Your contracts with broadcast, satellite and cable networks obviously amount to billions of 

dollars. This past season you, the NFL, made a decision to remove 

televised games from over-the-air broadcasts and place them on 

your own network. Why did you make that decision before you 

signed the carriage agreements with the major cable operators? I 

88 

mean, it seems to me that there is leveraging, and I understand 

the leveraging because there is a ton of money in it, but it also, 

I think, drove NFL fans to clamor that their cable operators carry 

this. They are really essentially left in the lurch, I think. Can you 

comment on that? 

Mr. GOODELL. Yes. I think we made this decision 2 years ago. 

This is the second season that we had the eight games on the NFL 

Network, and we think because of the great demand for NFL programming year round, that our fans want to see more NFL programming on a year-round basis. That is a very smart marketing 

decision for us, and it actually created a new national platform to 

allow more people to see more football. The fact is, you can question our business judgment about whether that is a right decision 

or not, but the reality of it is, it was a decision that we made, and 

we should have the ability to compete in a fair market where the 

laws are being followed and we have the opportunity just as any 

other independent programmer has and be able to compete in a 

world where we are not at a disadvantage to sports services that 

are owned by the cable operators. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. 

To Mister, is it Ferrer? 

Mr. FERREE. Ferree. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. While—— 

Mr. FERREE. Ferree, like referee. 

Ms. ESHOO. I don’t know whether I would want you to be the referee. 

Mr. FERREE. All right. 

Ms. ESHOO. My comment is outside of the scope of this hearing. 

I just want you to know that I have read what I consider—well, 

I guess I shouldn’t say ‘‘rants,’’ but I still will—your local broadcasting in extremis and the other one that you wrote. I think that 

we have a real problem with these postcard licenses at the FCC. 

As a matter of fact, I think they are an outrage, and I think that 

people in our country that own the airwaves deserve better, but I 

want you to know—— 

Mr. FERREE. Fair enough. 

Ms. ESHOO [continuing]. That I have read them and obviously I 

don’t agree. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Barton. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, when I ask 

myself why I run for Congress, I need to think of a day like today. 

As I look down at this panel and we have got these intellectual 

deep thinkers, we have these business moguls, we have these 

sports czars, these media masters. None of those guys would pay 

any attention to us if we weren’t Members of Congress, you know. 

So I want to thank you for this hearing and getting these gentlemen to at least for an hour-and-a-half to act like they care what 

we think. 

Mr. MARKEY. And we wouldn’t pay any attention to them if they 

didn’t control sports programming, so it is a two-way street. 

Mr. BARTON. That brings us to the purpose of the hearing. Now, 

in the old days, before radio and TV, when professional sports or 

sports generally got started, if somebody wanted to watch that parVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:41 Jul 07, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-98 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
89 

ticular sporting event, they went to the stadium or the ballpark 

and they charged them a buck or two bucks, and they went in and 

watched it, and if they didn’t want to go, they didn’t go. And then 

some bright fellow decided, you know, people would listen to baseball. Probably the New York Yankees were the first, maybe the 

Boston Red Sox, I don’t know. But lo and behold, people would listen. And then when TV came along, somebody said, well, if they 

can’t go to the game, maybe they would watch it on TV, and they 

licensed that. Then it has just grown and grown, and so now there 

is value. As the gentlelady from California pointed out, we have all 

these negotiations or discussions about who gets that value and 

how much it is worth and things like that. But we have to remind 

ourselves, we are talking about sports. It is not a constitutional 

right that these people force America to watch their activity. You 

know, if the commissioner of the NFL said Mr. Chairman, I think 

that you ought to force everybody in America, whether they watch 

it or listen to it or go to the game, they have to pay so much for 

each game no matter what, we would be outraged. Now, the reverse is also true. We don’t have a right that they have to show 

us the game, you know. What if I said I have a right to all the 

sports events in this country and I don’t have to pay anything for 

it? Well, then they would say well, you are crazy. So we get to the 

purpose of this hearing, which is, where do you set the balance 

point? And the gentleman at the end, Mr. Ferree, has pointed out 

that the market generally is working, and I think that is what Mr. 

Bodenheimer says too, that the market is generally working, and 

I think that is what Mr. Chang says. In a way, Mr. Goodell says 

it is working except they won’t carry our program on the basic tier 

so that everybody in America has to pay 10 cents a month or 70 

cents a month whether they watch the NFL Network or not. Now, 

I speak with some trepidation here because Jerry Jones is building 

his $1 billion stadium in my congressional district, and in fact, I 

see it every day when I take my son to daycare, this pavilion for 

all that is positive about America and the extravagance in sports. 

But my question, I guess I would ask Mr. Ferree and then Mr. 

Bodenheimer and Mr. Cooper—who is one of the intellectuals who 

has expertise on lots of things and we love to have him come see 

us—you know, what is broken here? I mean, why shouldn’t we just 

let the Mr. Goodells and the Mr. Bodenheimers and the Mr. 

Changs and the Mr. Britts fight it out and whoever is the best negotiator, that is what is available in the market? What is wrong 

with that? 

Mr. FERREE. Mr. Barton, I won’t take up much of your time. I 

would say nothing is broken here. I would agree with you that I 

am sure there are important and pressing problems that demand 

Congress’s attention. The NFL’s failure to negotiate carriage deals 

for the NFL Network is not one of them. 

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Bodenheimer? 

Mr. BODENHEIMER. Congressman, by and large, the American 

public loves our products, and I say our products collectively. I 

mean, this industry didn’t exist 30 years ago. Now we have nearly 

100 million households who are subscribing to subscription television, and over the last 5 years, despite the Internet, despite video 

games, despite all the new technology offerings, television viewing 

90 

in this country is increasing. So from my perspective, just from the 

sports perspective, it has never been a better time to be a sports 

fan. You can access more product and more distribution manners 

in more packages for more businesses and distributors than ever 

before in the history of our country. 

Mr. BARTON. My time is expired, but where the NFL Network 

was available on a sports tier that was discretionary, what percent 

of the viewers in those markets chose the NFL Network? 

Mr. GOODELL. Let me try to answer that. Comcast relegated us 

to a sports tier just this past year. I believe that they had roughly 

750,000 subscribers when they did that. The only information that 

they report publicly that we have, in November that more than 

doubled to probably 1.7 or 1.8, so it is clear that they used the NFL 

programming to drive their digital sports tier, which costs the consumers, depending on the market you are in, $7 to $9 a month. So 

the consumers are actually paying a larger expense, a larger cost 

by carrying the NFL Network. 

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Barton, let me get the answer. What is broken 

here is in your sentence, why should we make everybody in America pay 10 cents? It is the everybody part that we are concerned 

about, and in the case of ESPN it is about 2 bucks, or he can correct me, but I think that is about where it is these days. It is the 

everybody part. We shouldn’t make everybody pay the 10 cents. We 

should go back to the system that you talked about where everybody had the choice, and we are at a situation with the distribution 

network in this country where you can in fact give people those 

choices. 

Mr. BARTON. My last question, what does the E in ESPN stand 

for? 

Mr. BODENHEIMER. Entertainment. 

Mr. BARTON. Entertainment. I couldn’t—— 

Mr. BODENHEIMER. Man does not live by bread alone or politics 

alone, Mr. Barton, so in point of fact, the Communications Act, the 

antitrust laws, they regulate all forms of economic activity, so as 

a capitalist society we have decided that we want to meet our 

needs, whether they are for entertainment or food, in a competitive 

system, and where there are market failures, the Congress has 

stepped in to say wait, we care enough about it even though it is 

only entertainment to try and make sure it is a fair market. 

Mr. BARTON. Maybe a compromise would be just to have the 

Cowboys carried by everybody. Maybe that is the compromise. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I missed 

part of this hearing, as I was upstairs in a business meeting 

issuing subpoenas. Let me use a little different approach from Mr. 

Barton there. He has the Dallas Cowboys, and I have the Green 

Bay Packers. The Green Bay Packers are owned by a community 

of 100,000 people. We have a great following. We are a very storied 

franchise. Even with the loss of Brett Favre yesterday, we will still 

be there, but how would Green Bay ever be able to keep a team 

if we had to pay at the stadium, because we would never be able 

to afford to with the salaries and things like this and salary caps 

91 

and other things that have helped us to keep our team available? 

But how would Green Bay ever get seen outside of Green Bay if 

we don’t have them on, let us say, basic cable? And we had a real 

problem, Joe, this year when Green Bay did play Dallas on the 

Thursday night game, just trying to allow us who have grown up 

with the Packers to be able to watch it. 

So I find it troubling that even the Government Accountability 

Office, GAO, report, found that cable networks affiliated with cable 

operators were 31 percent more likely to be carried than a network 

without majority ownership, which is in essence the nature of the 

problem of discrimination against independently owned networks. 

So it seems to me that cable should be placing networks on the 

basic tier based on consumer demand. Green Bay certainly would 

do well no matter where it is, because of such a rich history in football, not whether they own a stake in that network. So how does 

consumer demand for the NFL Network, Mr. Goodell, compare to 

that for cable-owned sports networks on the basic tier? 

Mr. GOODELL. I think you have hit right at the heart of what our 

issue here is. We want to operate in a free market system. We 

want to operate because we believe there is tremendous consumer 

demand for our product. The reality of it is, despite that demand, 

there is preference for the cable-owned channels, the sports tiers, 

and they are more broadly distributed. We believe that is the core 

of the issue here, because we believe that is discrimination in not 

allowing broader distribution for the NFL Network, that we know 

there is great demand for that programming, so I think you hit exactly on the point. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, let me ask you this then, because there has 

been a lot of discussion about price. In your view, would basic cable 

go up for consumers if you had the NFL Network on the basic tier, 

and if so, how much? 

Mr. GOODELL. I am not sure I understand the question. I am 

sorry, Congressman. 

Mr. STUPAK. If the NFL Network is carried on basic cable, there 

has been a lot of discussion that cable rates would go up. What 

would be the estimate? 

Mr. GOODELL. That is actually not true, according to the facts we 

have. As I mentioned earlier, we have negotiated with over 250 

cable operators, satellite carriers and telephone carriers. None of 

them has had a price increase. And in fact, with the earlier comment about Comcast relegating us to a sports tier, Comcast didn’t 

give a refund to the consumers when they took it off of basic television. They in fact had a price increase when they did that. So the 

reality is, they saw a motivation here where they could increase 

their financial return by putting us on a sports tier, forcing the 

customer who wants NFL product to increase the price and to create greater profits for Comcast. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, let me ask you this. You said you have agreements with 250 cable operators. What is the percentage of the total 

cable operators? That 250, what percentage is that of the total? 

Mr. GOODELL. I don’t know the answer to that. We are roughly 

in 37 million homes, so—— 

92 

Mr. STUPAK. Thirty-seven million. Can anyone give me—how 

many cable operators there are, Mr. Cooper, or how many homes 

have cable? So if they are in 37 million—— 

Mr. COOPER. If he is in 37 million cable and that is about 

half—— 

Mr. STUPAK. About half? 

Mr. COOPER. A little bit less than half probably than all the—— 

Mr. STUPAK. So then the other half is—— 

Mr. GOODELL. I think the reality of it is—— 

Mr. COOPER. That is a third then. 

Mr. STUPAK. But it seems like the NFL Network is not carried 

on basic cable by the bigger companies like Comcast, Time Warner. 

Comcast moved it to a tier. How about Time Warner? Do you carry 

it? 

Mr. BRITT. No. 

Mr. STUPAK. No? Charter doesn’t carry it either, do they? 

Mr. GOODELL. Charter, we had an agreement with. There was a 

breach of that agreement. We are in discussions. That is clearly a 

market issue that I believe will get resolved. They don’t have the 

sports channel. The reality we have to get back to here is, it is with 

Comcast and Time Warner who own sports channels, who distribute them more broadly, and we do not have a fair opportunity 

in that case, and that is the discrimination we believe is occurring 

which is against what Congress asked for in 1992. 

Mr. STUPAK. Now, the NFL is advocating for arbitration. 

Mr. GOODELL. We are looking for dispute resolution. It doesn’t 

have to be in arbitration. We believe that if we are treated with 

the same open, free market, then our channel will not be discriminated against because it is not owned by cable operators. We only 

have two operators really that we need agreement here, and it was 

pointed out by Dr. Cooper, the reality is, you can’t start the channel successfully without getting Comcast or Time Warner to give 

you distribution. They control 40 million homes between the two of 

them. 

Mr. STUPAK. My time is up. Would the Celtics still be going if 

they didn’t make that trade in the off season? Because they are 

having a very successful year this year. Do you have your own 

sports carriage up there, Celtics in Boston? 

Mr. MARKEY. Oh, the Celtics. I am subscribing to the Celtics. 

Mr. STUPAK. See, Green Bay can’t do that. We are just too small 

a market, so that is why we need something on basic cable. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Deal. 

Mr. DEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The FCC recently completed a comment period on their notice of 

proposed rulemaking regarding the practice of programmers tying 

popular programming with undesired programming. Mr. 

Bodenheimer, does ESPN offer to cable operators a stand-alone 

price for ESPN as opposed to a bundle of programming? 

Mr. BODENHEIMER. Yes, we do. 

Mr. DEAL. I understand that there are non-disclosure agreements 

that prohibit you from providing exact price quotes on the standalone versus the bundle, but can you give us some idea as to what 

the comparisons might be? 

93 

Mr. BODENHEIMER. Well, like a lot of businesses, our job is to distribute as much of our product as we possibly can, as widely as we 

can, so we are owned by the Walt Disney Company. So between 

Disney and ESPN, we have over 20 networks that we can package 

together and offer to Mr. Britt, Mr. Chang, other distributors, and 

we do that frequently. When someone requests a stand-alone price, 

we give that to them, and it is certainly within our view a reasonable range, certainly with the law and good business practice. It is 

within a reasonable range between the package price. 

Mr. DEAL. And everybody is bound by non-disclosure as to that. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. BODENHEIMER. That is correct. 

Mr. DEAL. Can you tell me if anybody takes the option of the 

stand-alone versus the bundle? 

Mr. BODENHEIMER. Yes, they do. We have about 60 affiliates that 

take ESPN solo. 

Mr. DEAL. About 60? 

Mr. BODENHEIMER. Correct. 

Mr. DEAL. I understand from the ACA that none of their members apparently take that, so these would be larger cable providers 

then? 

Mr. BODENHEIMER. No, I would suspect they are smaller. I don’t 

have the detail on that, Congressman. I mean, the good news from 

our perspective is, over almost 30 years we produced very popular 

programming. So we are very infrequently asked for a price or a 

negotiation for just one of our services. I have been in the business 

almost 30 years. I can’t recall being in a meeting, and I grew up 

on that side of the business, where someone said I only want to buy 

ESPN. They want ESPN–2, they want Classic, they want News, 

they want the Disney Channel. So that is why it is such an infrequent discussion. 

Mr. DEAL. Well, of course, one of those might be that it is just 

as cheap to buy the bundle as it is to take your price on the separate channels. That is one of the concerns. 

Let me ask you this or any others who wish to comment. Are 

there requirements that cable operators sell the bundled channels 

to a certain percentage of their customers, or are they required to 

be on the expanded basic tier? 

Mr. BODENHEIMER. It varies by network, Congressman. For 

ESPN and ESPN–2, we seek to be on expanded basic. For all of our 

other services, and we have carriage in a variety of packages within Mr. Britt’s distribution system and Mr. Chang’s for ESPN News 

and Classic, we are in different package schemes throughout the 

country. 

Mr. DEAL. If a cable operator wants to offer ESPN or the NFL 

Network or other sports networks as a part of a sports tier or a 

sports package, why should they not be allowed to do that? If they 

want to use that type of business model, why should they not be 

able to offer it without being forced economically to put it on the 

expanded basic tier along with other bundled programs, Mr. Goodell? 

Mr. GOODELL. Let me respond to that. We believe that sports 

tiers—we don’t believe that the cable operators are actually committed to the sports tiers. In fact, it is clear, because they put their 

94 

sports channels on more broadly distributed services. That is the 

point here. They are not taking their sports services that they own 

and putting them on the sports tiers. They are broadly distributing 

in basic cable and forcing their customers to buy it. What they do 

do, and they have made comments publicly regarding this, is that 

because of the high quality of NFL programming and the demand 

for that, putting it in a sports tier is like an anchor tenant. What 

it does is, there is so much demand for that that it drives the 

sports tiers. They make a significant amount of money because 

they charge the consumer $7 to $10 a month to get that, and they 

pay us the 60 or 70 cents that they owe us on our distribution, but 

the reality is, the consumer loses, and that is what is lost here. The 

consumer is losing by not having the opportunity to get access to 

that high-quality programming. 

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Britt? 

Mr. BRITT. Thank you. I would to like to make a couple of points 

that relate to what Mr. Goodell just said. First of all, it would create the impression that cable operators control a huge number of 

networks. The reality is, going back to what Mr. Stearns said, 

there are over 500 networks that exist today, and the cable operators control just a handful of those. In the case of Time Warner, 

those are things like CNN and TBS and TNT. It is pretty hard to 

suggest those compete with the NFL Network. We have a minority 

interest in the Mets Network in New York. That is pretty much the 

limit of what we own in the sports networks. I can’t talk for other 

cable operators. So I think this picture that is being painted which 

maybe in 1992 was correct but this picture that somehow cable operators control all this programming and they are discriminating 

against poor NFL, it just is the wrong picture. 

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, could I ask Dr. Cooper to respond 

quickly to that? 

Mr. COOPER. Yes. The simple fact of the matter is that the Congress created a quasi-property right for the broadcasters by giving 

them must-carry and retransmission consent. They have become 

the dominant programmers. If you look at the number of eyeballs, 

particularly in the expanded basic tier, which is the most popular 

package, six entities, five entities dominate the viewing and programming in that space. So the other 540 national networks don’t 

get many eyeballs, they don’t get carriage. We did a study of minority-owned programming, and we find that there are 192 networks which is about 40 percent of that total number, and they get 

about 4 percent of the carriage because they get relegated to higher 

tiers, they don’t get carriage in the basic tier. So that domination 

still persists, even though you have the 1992 Act which opened up 

and made, as you have heard, some competition possible. The key 

here is to get a level playing field someplace on that dial, so there 

are two possibilities. One, let them compete fairly in a sports tier; 

two, let them compete fairly in the basic tier. The fundamental 

problem of discrimination is that the network operators, the cable 

owners, have dominated the basic tier, which is carried to millions 

and millions and millions of households, and they will not let independent programming get carriage in that tier. That is the distortion in the competition we have in the market. 

95 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Terry. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. 

Commissioner Goodell, it is good to see you again this week. 

What hearing are you going to participate in next week? I hope you 

just have a home here that you can stay. 

Mr. GOODELL. I appreciate the invitation. 

Mr. TERRY. There is a truism on Capitol Hill that while everything has already been said, not everyone has said it yet, so it is 

my turn. The NFL Network Web site says it is the most widely distributed sports network in the history of cable and satellite television. That is a quote off the site. It says that more than 240 pay 

television providers carry the network, including DIRECTV, Dish, 

Comcast, Cox, Verizon, AT&T. It says that you are available to 70 

million homes and have 41 million subscribers. It says in 2 years 

you have had subscriber totals that other successful networks took 

5 years to reach. According to the Washington Post, the NFL had 

$3.74 billion in television revenue in 2006 alone, with numbers 

climbing. If that is the case, why do you think there needs to be 

government intervention? It seems like everything is working well 

for you without any intervention. 

Mr. GOODELL. Well, let me go back a couple points. One is, there 

is a little deception there with available to 70 million homes. The 

fact is, it is not in 70 million homes. The consumer would have to 

pay an additional fee to be able to get that. I think what is being 

lost here is the consumer. We believe, and I think the record is 

clear about the quality and the demand for NFL programming on 

a national basis, absolutely, but according to Mr. Britt here, we are 

looking for sympathy. What we are looking for is an open, free 

market. The Congress recognized that discrimination could occur in 

1992. They set up procedures with the FCC to make sure that it 

was an open and free market. That is all we want is an open and 

free market. The fact that we have arrangements with 240 cable 

operators and satellite carriers and telephone carriers is a reality 

that there is great demand and that we have been correct in our 

negotiations and that true market factors are leaning to distribution. But with the two large cable operators, they own their own 

sports networks. They are preferencing those sports networks, distributing them more broadly at the expense of the NFL Network. 

That is the issue that we are trying to get at here, sir. It is a matter of law. It is a matter of principle. We are not looking for sympathy. We are looking for an open and free market. 

Mr. TERRY. So the open and free market would be on a non-pay 

tier, kind of a basic tier then? 

Mr. GOODELL. We are not asking that the government establish 

what tier it has to be on. What we are asking for is that we are 

able to negotiate competitively against their own sports networks 

that they own and are distributing more broadly. 

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Britt, reply? 

Mr. BRITT. Yes. Mr. Goodell keeps alluding to this vast number 

of sports networks we own. I am only here representing Time Warner Cable, by the way. I am not sure what those are. We do have 

a minor interest in this Mets Network in New York, which by the 

way is carried by all the multi-channel video providers in New 

96 

York City, and they carry it on their basic tier, and we have some 

other minor things in local sports that I talked about before that 

wouldn’t be on TV if we didn’t create them. We are not a big owner 

of regional sports networks or national sports networks, so I am 

not sure what this—— 

Mr. GOODELL. Let me try to give some clarity to it. You don’t 

own this, but Comcast does. They own Versus. It is on basic. I do 

believe you have an ownership interest in TBS and Turner. 

Mr. BRITT. Yes, and those are general entertainment channels, 

not sports networks. 

Mr. GOODELL. They do carry sports. 

Mr. TERRY. Well, I like this Lincoln-Douglas debate format that 

you have. It helps us. It really does, so I do appreciate that. I had 

a great question, but I got drawn into your discussions there. So 

with that, I only have 37 seconds. There is a worry here that with 

the NFL channel that there is a slippery slope that we are already 

going down that will take football off of Fox or CBS or whoever has 

it this year, and it is going to go all to you have to pay for it. What 

is your thought on that, and do you think that is good for the NFL? 

Mr. GOODELL. It is not good for the National Football League, 

and I am glad you asked that. It is very important to us, and the 

basis of our broadcast policy is to stay on broad, free television. We 

are the one league that continues to be able to do that. All of our 

games are on free television in the two competing markets, and we 

continue to honor that. It is important for our growth, and it is important for our fans, so we anticipate and we expect to do that for 

as long as I can foresee. The NFL Network is to complement that. 

It is to bring NFL football 365 days a year to an audience that is 

seeking additional programming which our networks can’t carry. 

They have other obligations. They have news, they have other 

sports, they have entertainment. The NFL Network is devoted exclusively to NFL football, and we are looking more at college football and high school football, football as an industry. 

Mr. TERRY. My time is up, but Mr. Chairman, there are others 

that—that seemed to have wanted to pique further discussions. 

Shall I yield back to you and let others—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Please. 

Mr. COOPER. I mean, let me follow up on that. As I said in my 

testimony—— 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. COOPER. I am sorry. 

Mr. MARKEY. The Chair will recognize—Mr. Cooper is a veteran 

of this committee and knows how to squeeze out—there is no one 

who plays the 2-minute clock better than Mr. Cooper does in testimony before Congress. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

California, Mr. Radanovich. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Chairman Markey. I appreciate the 

fact that this hearing is being held. On the issue of arbitration, Mr. 

Ferree, you were chief of the FCC Media Bureau when the Commission imposed arbitration obligations on DIRECTV in their 

merger with News Corp. Are these situations analogous? Can you 

explain how this might be different than—— 

Mr. FERREE. No, they are not analogous. As I said in my opening 

statement, in that case you had a rare combination of control of 

97 

very valuable programming and some regional sports networks, 

RSNs, with vertical ownership of a distribution platform that had 

nationwide distribution, and the concern was, even though we 

spent months going through econometric analysis of what would 

happen with different periods of foreclosure, and we found that 

there was no business reason to do long-term foreclosure even 

under those circumstances, but there might have been a business 

reason to do a short-term foreclosure because sports fans are very 

emotionally attached to their teams, and all you have to do is take 

the programming away for a short period of time and you will see 

marked defections to other carriers that have the programming. So 

the theory was, the merged entity could withhold the regional 

sports networks from the cable company in a region, it is a narrow 

region so the losses are not spread over the entire country, and the 

defections would take place over the matter of a few weeks to 

DIRECTV, and then lo and behold they do a deal with the cable 

guy, and they are made whole. In this case, there is no vertical integration. I am sorry. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Bodenheimer, this will be a question for you but also anybody else who wishes to address it. If this access and special privilege, the way I look at it, that we are giving to ESPN or anybody 

else, what is to prevent Disney or Nickelodeon or anybody else that 

wants to have that access into the top tier? 

Mr. BODENHEIMER. I am sorry. If the question is, are rules enacted that enable any programmer to move into the top tier—— 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right, by an act of Congress. I mean, what is 

to say that other interests can’t come in and ask for the same privilege? 

Mr. BODENHEIMER. I suppose there is nothing preventing anybody from coming in and asking. You know, we have made a living 

out of producing the best possible product we can and working as 

hard as we can to package it, bundle it, promote it and sell it, and 

it is a—you know, as I said in my opening comments, is the most 

vibrant marketplace we have ever seen, and we have been at it almost 30 years now. I think for a consumer now, you have more 

choice than you have ever seen, and I only see that increasing. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. So the market works? 

Mr. BODENHEIMER. We believe the market is working absolutely 

very well. As I said, there is product everywhere, on the Internet, 

the 250 million mobile phones in the United States. I mean, video 

is coming to your phone. You know, every month inroads are made 

there in technology. On ESPN.com, today you can have 800 videos 

you can see for free. On the ABC Player, which Disney launched 

18 months ago, we put our big shows, Lost, Housewives, Grey’s 

Anatomy up there, 240 million starts off of that player for free for 

anybody accessing the ABC.com Player, so for us, the marketplace 

is absolutely working at lightning speed. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Any other comments on that? 

Mr. COOPER. You know, if he has got this incredibly wonderful 

product, why is he afraid to sell it directly to the public? He has 

packaged it, bundled it, sold it to the cable operators, all six of 

them or eight of them, which dominate the top 80 percent. Why is 

he afraid to be told OK, sell it directly to the public? It can be bunVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:41 Jul 07, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\110-98 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
98 

dled too, but give the consumer a choice to either get the bundle 

or buy it or not have it. So the simple fact of the matter, why is 

he afraid to actually sell it to the public? He has 96 million homes. 

Do you think he will stay in 96 million homes if he has to sell it 

to the public? I guarantee you he knows he is not going to get that 

many people to actually open their pocket and pay him the $2.50 

or whatever it costs to get it. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thanks, Mr. Cooper. 

Mr. Goodell, did you want to respond to that as well? 

Mr. GOODELL. Yes, I do. I just wanted to make the point that you 

made to George, which is, we do believe that markets work. Free 

markets work though. We think that there is a flaw in the market 

here with respect to the preferences being given by cable operators 

that own their own channels, which is something that Congress anticipated in 1992 and put in rules with the FCC in 1992. We believe that those rules need to be reevaluated, because they are not 

efficient. They are not leading to the outcome that I think the Congress wanted, and all we are saying is, we would like to see those 

rules put in place not to force arbitration and not to force us on 

a particular tier. Allow that free market to work. In a free market, 

we believe and we are confident that the NFL product is in great 

demand by everyone, and in that market, we will succeed. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. I see my time has expired, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I got snowed in yesterday, Mr. Global Warming. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch had—Mr. 

Markey likes to talk about the hottest days of the world in July 

and says, you know, this is my proof. Well, the headline in the St. 

Louis Post-Dispatch today was, ‘‘Largest snowfall since ’93,’’ and I 

know that is climate change, and that might affect that, I understand that, but that is why I am late. I just flew in because we 

were snowed in. But it is great to have you all here. 

I, too, am skeptical about having government get involved in this 

private market, should be able to negotiate contracts based upon 

goods and services and supply and demand works, so my line of 

questioning will be quick. Mr. Ferree, when the program access 

rules were adopted in 1992, there were less than 150 national networks, and cable owned half of them. Now there are 564 national 

networks, and cable owns only 15 percent. With all this additional 

independent content, isn’t vertical integration—I thought I heard 

someone talking about that when I walked in—less of a concern? 

Mr. FERREE. Yes, it is. Yes, it is. The markets are intensely competitive now. In 2002, when I was at the FCC and we looked at 

extending the program access non-exclusivity provisions, it was a 

very close call on whether it should have been extended or not. 

There are now a lot of places to go, and again, it’s hard for me to 

believe that the NFL Network, which as Mr. Goodell said has some 

of the most popular programming, sports programming in America, 

is having trouble at the negotiating table getting what they want 

or getting what the market will bear. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Bodenheimer, would you agree that in today’s 

market, no matter what kind of programming a consumer enjoys, 

99 

there is a way for a consumer to find it and get access to it at an 

affordable price? 

Mr. BODENHEIMER. Absolutely. That goes to the comment I was 

just making. If you want to watch entertainment programming, 

sports programming, movie programming, news programming, the 

consumer has never had more choice in the history of the United 

States than they do today. I mean, it continues to explode. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I am older now, and I remember just the major 

networks and, you know, the highlight films that we wanted to 

watch, we were only able to access those on Monday Night Football. At halftime, Howard Cosell would do the highlights from the 

games. Now, you stumble all over the highlights. I mean, it is impossible not to see somewhere, not only on over-the-air broadcast 

sports network, but you are just bouncing around even on the 

Internet. 

Mr. BODENHEIMER. And the consumer appears to love it. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I bought my wife a laptop for Christmas, a very 

nice thing to do. She asked for it. And we have the ability for her 

to carry it around the house now. We hooked it up so she can get 

it, and my son has been—some archaic 1992 episode Japanese cartoon that he has been streaming on broadband on this laptop 

watching whatever this weird Japanese cartoon show is. So I think 

where there is a will, there is a way, and you can find almost anything you want to see. Do you want to chime in, Mr. Goodell? 

Mr. GOODELL. Congressman, if I could just make a couple of 

quick points. First off, we agree with your statement that highlights are in great demand, other programming. No one ever 

thought 20 years ago that the NFL draft would outdraw games on 

other sports leagues, but they do, and I think that is an indication 

here that we are not niche programming, we are actually in tremendous demand because people want to get more football. They 

want to get more inside of the NFL, and we respect that, and that 

is why we created the NFL Network. The second point I want to 

raise is, you mentioned the point that, you know, many markets, 

competition should override, and we agree with that. The reality 

though, there are many markets, particularly where Comcast and 

Time Warner have, I come from New York, in New York I can’t get 

satellite in New York City. I can’t get telephone service yet. There 

is not great enough competition and great enough alternatives for 

the consumer to be able to get that. That is why Dr. Cooper testified earlier for an independent channel to make it in today’s world, 

they need clearance still from Comcast and Time Warner. Competition in that market is not great enough, although it is much better 

and it is certainly improved by all the policies that this Congress 

has taken—— 

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Shimkus. 

Mr. GOODELL [continuing]. But there is still not great enough 

competition in those markets. 

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Shimkus, brands are made—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. All right. I am not asking you a question, OK, and 

I know you have been butting in, even in my short time here. Mr. 

Goodell had a chance to respond on the consumer end. I will yield 

back my time, Mr. Chairman. 

100 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired, and I am very 

sorry about the snowstorm that you had in Illinois. I just want you 

to know that the winters in Boston are now 4 degrees warmer than 

they were in 1970, so we now have Philadelphia’s weather in Boston in the winter, which is kind of nice, but thank God we don’t 

have Philadelphia’s football or baseball or basketball teams. So it 

is kind of working out in the short run, but over time we might 

prefer the Philadelphia sports teams to the weather that is perhaps 

heading our way. 

We are going to go to a quick second round. We will recognize 

the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, for a second round. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Markey. 

Mr. Britt, if I may, since you are the cable guy here, how many 

of the channels that Time Warner carries on your basic tier does 

Time Warner have a majority interest in? 

Mr. BRITT. You know, I don’t know the exact number, but it is 

just a handful. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. How about—— 

Mr. BRITT. Time Warner owns things like TBS and CNN. Those 

are, by the way, among the very original cable channels from the 

1970s and 1980s. They have been carried for many, many years. 

Mr. STUPAK. Let me ask it this way, then. Is it fair to say that 

most of them you carry on your basic cable is network programs 

that you have an interest in—— 

Mr. BRITT. No, the—— 

Mr. STUPAK [continuing]. Whether majority or 13 percent or 17 

percent interest? 

Mr. BRITT. I am sorry to interrupt. No, that is absolutely not the 

case. 

Mr. STUPAK. How about independent—— 

Mr. BRITT. We actually own interest in a very small percentage 

of the networks we carry. That is why we were saying before this 

500 networks, Time Warner owns a handful. Actually Dr. Cooper 

talks about this. Time Warner owns a very few number of channels 

relative to number of channels we carry. In fact, if we didn’t carry 

the independent—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Let me ask you this—— 

Mr. BRITT [continuing]. Networks, we would go out of business. 

Mr. STUPAK. Comcast owns quite a bit, and I wish they would 

have been here, but I understand they couldn’t be here today, but 

is it fair to say that the channels you carry on your basic tier are 

either owned in part by you or by other cable companies? 

Mr. BRITT. No, that is not correct. Most of—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Give me a percentage. What is truly independent on 

your basic and owned by another cable—— 

Mr. BRITT. Well, I guess I have to ask you the definition of independent, because most of the cable networks today, the big ones, 

are actually owned by the broadcast networks, and that is in Dr. 

Cooper’s appendix. I don’t know the percentages. 

Mr. COOPER. And they have a property right you create with 

must-carry for sure. 

Mr. STUPAK. Right, they have a property right. OK. Let me ask 

you this. You know, if we are worried about—it seems to me if we 

want to clarify whether Big Cable, if you will, are discriminating, 

101 

if we increase the transparency, so what if we required cable to disclose what it charges for its own networks and what it would 

charge for independent network, and then if we had that disclosure, wouldn’t that see if there is discrimination then going on, Mr. 

Britt? 

Mr. BRITT. I think you would see that the programming we carry 

is the result of 30 years of dealmaking and the price is all over the 

place. You would not see a pattern of discrimination. 

Mr. STUPAK. Don’t you think the consumer who is actually paying the bill, they should have a right to know that? 

Mr. BRITT. You actually should ask Mr. Bodenheimer that because every programmer requires us to keep it confidential, so we 

actually—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Bodenheimer, can you comment on it? I guess 

I am trying to get to—there is a charge of discrimination, not discrimination, we are just doing this. I think Mr. Ferree actually said 

what the market will bear. Shouldn’t the consumer know what the 

market is having to bear? 

Mr. BRITT. I guess I would—let me answer. You know, we are 

a retailer, so when you go into Macy’s and look at shirts, you can 

go to a different store and look at shirts. You don’t ask them to tell 

you what the wholesale price is and whether they—— 

Mr. STUPAK. No, but we see the bottom line for that shirt, don’t 

we? When I get my cable bill, I don’t see the price for Golf Channel, 

I don’t see what it is for ESPN, I don’t see what it is for ABC, CBS. 

Mr. BRITT. That is true, because we don’t—we sell in lots of different packages. We sell some things a la carte. HBO is a la carte. 

Mr. STUPAK. So why shouldn’t I know what it is going to cost to 

buy a package in Northern Michigan? 

Mr. BRITT. So we are marketing the way consumers tell us they 

want things, that Derek Chang’s company competes with us. If 

they thought it was better to package things in a different way, 

they would do that, and their packaging is different than—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, I think that is why the a la carte movement 

is picking up steam, because people do want to have the right to 

pick and choose. I mean, I don’t want to watch the Food Channel 

but I certainly want to watch the NFL Network, but I can’t get the 

NFL Network, but I can get the Food Channel, or home shopping, 

I couldn’t care less. Now, maybe my wife would think otherwise. 

But shouldn’t the consumer really be the arbitrator of what they 

receive and not receive? It is almost like Mr. Cooper said—— 

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Stupak, I suggest you do a little exercise about 

a la carte choice in a digital age. When this hearing is over, go 

back to your computer and go to the Crayola website. There was 

a paper done in Mr. Ferree’s proceeding called ‘‘Why are crayons 

sold in packages?’’ If you go to the supermarket, yes, you will see 

a box of eight or 12 with different selects that it covers. You go to 

the Crayola website and you can buy on an a la carte basis a combination of crayons from two to 5,000 in a box in colors from one 

to about 150. It is your choice, every possible selection in between, 

and that is Crayola crayons in a digital age. It is a physical commodity. 

Mr. FERREE. Can I—— 

Mr. COOPER. That is the real choice. 

102 

Mr. FERREE. Because I actually—I mean, I agree with you, and 

the Internet is the great disruptor here, and it will no doubt drive 

all of this toward more consumer choice. The question is whether 

the government steps in now and starts messing with the current 

packages that again I think are evolving in a fairly competitive 

market between the DIRECTVs, the EchoStars and all of—— 

Mr. COOPER. The choice doesn’t look anything like what I can get 

on the Crayola website. 

Mr. FERREE. I am completely sympathetic to you, and people forget that I started out saying publicly I am a big fan of a la carte. 

I would love to have absolute choice. The reality is, when we studied it, what the effect in the market would be to reduce choice, reduce the diversity that I assume we all love—I am an opera fan. 

I know I am not going to get opera. 

Mr. COOPER. Sure, but the FCC changed its mind about that as 

well in a subsequent study. 

Mr. STUPAK. But if you were a cable company and you are carrying your basic sports network, why can’t I have all the sports 

networks there, and I can choose? You carry yours on basic, but 

then you put it up on tiers where I can’t reach it. OK. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Wyoming, Ms. Cubin. 

Ms. CUBIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I know that the bulk of this hearing has been about access to 

sports programming, and I don’t want to spend any more time on 

that, as I truly believe that Congress should simply get out of the 

way and let the free market work in these negotiations. However, 

I do want to focus for a minute on a different topic that greatly affects consumers’ access to local sports, as well as news and public 

television. The current designated market area system of copyright 

protection locks out the consumer from making decisions about 

what programming they would like to watch. In Wyoming, there 

are some counties that are part of a local, and I put quotations 

around local, market, that originates nearly 400 miles away and in 

a different State. That would be like the Washington, D.C., market 

originating in Boston, and I am sure that the Red Sox nation would 

think that was OK, but the Nationals’ fans might have a different 

position on that, as do the people in Wyoming when it comes to 

watching the television that I cited before. The bottom line is this: 

Just like program access fights, Congress needs to get out of the 

way of market forces on DMA rules as well. We ought to let consumers decide what is local, rather than Congress deciding what is 

local for them. 

Mr. Chang, in light of this, I would like to ask you about the 

prospect of DMA reform. As you know, Congressman Ross and I 

have introduced a bill to help open up DMAs to more market 

forces, and in the case of satellite television, would opening up the 

DMA system allow for greater consumer choice in programming 

available? Moreover, what effect would opening the DMA system 

have on your business and your subscribers? In other words, I 

guess I have asked a lot of questions all at once. Can you help explain for this committee why opening up the DMA system is important policy for us to deal with, if you think it is? 

103 

Mr. CHANG. Yes. I think you have done a good job explaining 

what the issue is in terms of people. There are designated market 

areas by Nielsen, and that is generally how local channels are distributed to those market areas, and if you live in one market area, 

you can’t generally see the programming from another market 

area, and I think that from our standpoint we clearly abide by 

those rules and sell our programming that way to the extent that 

it was available to us to sell programming in a different fashion 

that would allow more customers to see it from other market areas. 

You know, within the constraints of our technology, we would probably support that. 

Ms. CUBIN. If the DMA system were open to allow for adjacent 

markets like the Television Freedom Act does, Mr. Ross’s and my 

bill, would that allow DIRECTV to offer more local stations to your 

consumers than you currently offer? 

Mr. CHANG. Not necessarily in every case, but in a large number 

of cases it probably would, yes. 

Ms. CUBIN. Mr. Britt, my intent for the Television Freedom Act 

was to allow both satellite and cable to offer in-State television programming to consumers who live in Wyoming but are within the 

DMA boundaries of another State. Can you offer suggestions from 

a cable standpoint on how to realize that goal? Could I count on 

Time Warner to work with me and Congressman Ross to help develop a solution to this problem? 

Mr. BRITT. Yes, and these are—cable of course is a local business, because cables are local by definition, and the interplay of the 

definition of DMAs and the copyright laws, all of that is very complex, and I have some familiarity with this issue but not complete, 

and we would be more than welcome to—eager to work with you 

on this. 

Ms. CUBIN. I think when you learn more of the intricacies of this 

issue, that you will really want to be on board as well. 

Does anyone else have anything else they would like to say about 

this? 

Mr. COOPER. Yes. Your dilemma goes back to the property right 

that Congress created, and so Congress should not feel hesitant 

about redefining that property right. The problem is the following, 

is that you took a commercial definition, DMA, you linked it to the 

copyright, to the property right, and said a broadcaster could request carriage only in the DMA in which they were located, which 

is your problem. And fixing that to say a broadcaster can request 

carriage in any DMA they want would solve your problem, and of 

course, broadcasters are not going to ask for carriage in markets 

where they don’t have an audience, so it would free up that market 

decision from what is this misfit between the commercial definition 

and the property right. 

Ms. CUBIN. One statement. Mr. Ross’s and my bill simply allows 

to work with adjacent DMAs, not any DMA that they choose. 

Mr. COOPER. But no broadcaster is going to jump a DMA because 

it just doesn’t have an audience that far away. 

Ms. CUBIN. Right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

104 

Dr. Cooper, just a comment. I remember when we first got our 

TV, and it was black and white, and we had three or four channels 

and then after that it got to be 13 and then eventually 30 and now 

it is 75, and if you are on DIRECTV I guess it is many, many more 

channels. So I think the market is moving towards that, and if the 

consumer demands an a la carte and the cable bill keeps getting 

higher, I think there is going to be a blowback here, and the consumers are going to ask for some change, or they are going to go 

to DIRECTV, or they are going to go to the Internet. So something 

is going to happen here. There comes a tipping point. But when 

Crayola came up with all these things, they didn’t have the government step in and claim discrimination for mango color or chartreuse so—— 

Mr. COOPER. They face real market competition. 

Mr. STEARNS. Yes. Well, I think based upon what I told you that 

there is some market competition out there. For example, this is 

for Mr. Britt and Mr. Chang. I guess DIRECTV now has about 17 

million subscribers, second only to Comcast. Dish is third with 14 

million. Do the satellite companies still need the protection of the 

program access rules which were created when cable had 96 percent of the market and satellite had none? Mr. Britt, I will let you 

start. 

Mr. BRITT. I think that is a good question, and as you know, we 

are essentially in favor of less government interference, not more, 

and we are in favor of whatever rules exist being imposed on everybody. So to the extent that there was a decision quite a few years 

ago now, that that was appropriate, it would seem to us the market 

has developed in a way that it is no longer appropriate. But—— 

Mr. STEARNS. So you don’t think the satellite companies need the 

protection of the program access rules. Is that correct? 

Mr. BRITT. I am sorry? 

Mr. STEARNS. So you no longer think the satellite companies 

need the protection of the program access rules? 

Mr. BRITT. That is correct, because they are bigger than everybody except Comcast. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chang? 

Mr. CHANG. I think that the satellite companies do still need the 

protection of the program access rules in that the program access 

rules are set up to prevent vertically integrated companies from 

discriminating against others in terms of taking their product and 

using it to their competitive advantage, and I don’t think the size 

of a company necessarily matters in terms of what the principle 

there is. 

Mr. FERREE. Mr. Stearns, could I just add one thought to that? 

Mr. STEARNS. Sure. 

Mr. FERREE. You know, the program access rules of 1992, you 

know, it was genius. It was absolute genius at that time because 

of the way the market was structured. The vision that came—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Markey was the originator of that so genius—— 

Mr. FERREE. I realized that. That is why I said it. But the vision 

behind it was that the pipes would all compete based on price but 

all carry essentially the same kind of programming. That is not the 

105 

way the world has to work. The different access mechanisms, the 

different distribution platforms could compete on content as well as 

price, and we may be at a place in the market where it is time to 

start thinking about allowing them to do that. 

Mr. STEARNS. Here are just two general comments. If, for example, everybody is passionate about their sports back in my district 

as I am sure everybody else is, and I think these fans would get 

quite upset, and they would call me or call somebody if a highly 

popular channel like ESPN was moved to a sports tier where they 

would have to pay more for what they are already enjoying today. 

There would be a hell of an uproar. So Mr. Bodenheimer, do you 

agree with that? 

Mr. BODENHEIMER. Wholeheartedly. 

Mr. STEARNS. But just my last point. As I told the chairman, we 

were just talking informally, there seems to be another revolution 

here. I think all of us are tired of flipping through the channels 

and getting tired with so many channels. It must be extremely 

frustrating, because now you have high-definition channels, you 

flip through 13 or 14, then you go back to your analog channels. 

So once you get all these high-definition channels and you are flipping through those, you get tired of it, so then you go to the Internet and pull up the programming for that day, and then you scroll 

through all that programming, and it is a lot of scrolling, too, and 

so you have to say, you know, what am I looking for. I think the 

next revolution is somehow that you could go to either DIRECTV 

or to cable or to your Internet and give your preference in a program way, so that instead of flipping through, you would be down 

to maybe 10, 15, no more than 20 channels through this artificial 

intelligence, which would decide based upon your past experience. 

Instead of an a la carte, you could offer the consumer, we will give 

you a preference price of X dollars based upon your preferences and 

it will tell you every day what is something that you would enjoy, 

and I would like to see that. Obviously I would put sports in it, I 

would put the History Channel, I would put the politics, and so 

that is—I am just touching on the base of this because it seems to 

me it is so time consuming to either scroll through looking for the 

program, looking at the TV Guide or possibly looking at the television itself. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired, and all time for 

questions has expired. I am going to ask each one of the witnesses 

to give us a 1-minute summation. We will do it in the same order 

as the opening statements to tell us what it is that you want us 

to know as we are completing this hearing. And on the issues 

raised by Ms. Cubin, I think when Congress revisits the Satellite 

Home Viewer Act, that her issues are definitely appropriate for 

that discussion. So we will ask each of the witnesses for their final 

1-minute summation to us, and as well if you would give us your 

prediction as to who will win the NCAA tournament. We will begin 

with you, Mr. Ferree. 

Mr. FERREE. I feel like Hillary Clinton. Why do I always get the 

first question here? My summation will be quite brief. The market 

generally works here. That is not to say there can’t be market failures, but the market generally works here. I would be hesitant for 

106 

the government to step in, because God knows where it goes once 

it starts to create something as we did with the arbitration provisions and the DIRECTV-News Corporation merger. They start to 

take on a life of their own. I actually am sympathetic to the concerns of Mr. Cooper, and I think a la carte would be a great thing 

in theory. In practice right now, I don’t think it is workable, and 

it would reduce consumer choice. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Ferree, very much. I know Hillary 

Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a friend of mine, Mr. Ferree. You are no 

Hillary Clinton. 

Mr. Britt. 

Mr. BRITT. Thank you. I think we have a vibrant market that is 

at work here. There is a ton of programming, a ton of sports programming, more every year. There are lots of distributors that are 

competing with each other with varying degrees of success. As in 

any marketplace, not everybody is always happy with every outcome, and there is sometimes a tendency for those who are unhappy to seek government intervention, but my view is that it is 

certainly not necessary at this point, and let the market work. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Britt. 

Mr. Goodell. 

Mr. GOODELL. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity today. I think we all agree that competition is beneficial 

to consumers. I think we all agree that a free market is beneficial 

to consumers and to all of us as businessmen. I think the reality 

here that we have got to keep focused on here is that while there 

is greater competition and there are greater opportunities for consumers, the reality is, in the 1992 Act there was specific consideration to discrimination, and you know this better than anybody 

with respect to channels that are owned by cable operators. The 

facts are clear here that the cable operators’ channels, sports channels in particular, are getting greater distribution than those of 

independent channels. We will survive this, and we are going to 

succeed long term with greater distribution of the NFL Network, 

but independent programmers can’t survive without distribution on 

the two largest cable operators, who own their own channels, and 

we think this is good for consumers. We are not looking for new 

legislation. We are looking for the FCC to enforce the procedures 

and the rules that you established back in 1992. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Goodell. 

Mr. Bodenheimer. 

Mr. BODENHEIMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

also for the invitation to be here with you today. I think the American consumer is served as well as any consumers in any country 

in the world with the vibrancy of the video marketplace we have 

going in this country, and that comment is intended to be beyond 

just the sports business that we are focusing on here today. There 

has never been more choice advanced by the competition we have 

and the technology advancements, and I only see that continuing, 

and I see more choice for consumers down the road, and I think 

this industry will continue to serve this country very well. Now, on 

the more important question that you posed, I believe the Connecticut women Huskies are going to win the NCAA championship 

107 

this year. We televised all 63 or 64 games on ESPN as part of this 

beautiful, broad, high-value expanded basic package, so enjoy. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Bodenheimer. 

Dr. Cooper. 

Mr. COOPER. More competition is not necessarily enough competition. There is clearly more, but is it enough? If cable bills hadn’t 

tripled since the passage of the 1996 Act and the size of the basic 

bundle hadn’t grown to four times the number of programs actually 

watched, channels watched by typical households, you might have 

a better case that there is enough competition out there. There is 

not enough competition to protect the consumer from abuse. The 

simple solution in today’s age, where cable operators cover the 

fixed costs from three different services, can sell hundreds of channels on-demand, the simple solution is to give consumers choice, 

make ESPN sell their product directly to the consumer, not indirectly through the cable operators. If you can’t bring yourselves to 

do that, then give me a balanced, level playing field. Let all the 

program channels compete either in a tier or in basic, and at least 

we will get supply-side competition. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Dr. Cooper. 

And you have the final word, Mr. Chang. 

Mr. CHANG. Thank you. On behalf of DIRECTV, again I would 

just like to thank the committee for the 1992 Cable Act, because 

I think without that, DIRECTV would not be as competitive as it 

is, and it might not even exist, and you know, on two fronts, clearly 

our access to programming owned by the cable companies, and on 

the second, that our ability to compete by creating differentiated 

product and content, whether it is through exclusive deals with 

third parties through independent negotiations or enhancements 

that we do through our technology that enabled us to compete in 

a very competitive environment. We at DIRECTV, given the nature 

of our technology, are not, unfortunately, able to provide certain 

other services like voice and broadband to the extent that the cable 

companies and phone companies are, so we pride ourselves on our 

ability to be able to differentiate our content and really drive that 

competition across the board. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chang. 

Ms. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady? 

Ms. CUBIN. I just thought that I should give you some information that you might need. I am pretty sure that the Wyoming Cowgirls are going to beat the Huskies, because we won the NIT last 

year, and so I am pretty sure we will win the NCAA this year. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady. 

Ms. CUBIN. You are very welcome. 

Mr. MARKEY. And actually the gentlelady’s comment is a good indication of—you know, there is an old saying that a congressional 

expert is an oxymoron, that Congressmen and Congresswomen are 

only experts compared to other Congressmen or -women, not compared to real experts, with the notable exception of television and 

sports, where each of us, like every American, has a clicker on average in their home on an average of 5 or 6 hours a day, which 

is why the 1992 Cable Act is the only bill which overrode a veto 

of the first President Bush. He vetoed 35 bills. One was overridden, 

108 

and it was because members of this committee of the House and 

Senate and the American people understood that there had been a 

denial of programming to a satellite industry that was now an 8- 

foot dish that required a zoning variance in some backyard in Iowa 

but was really not quite appropriate for Boston or New York on a 

triple-decker home. So this had a broad-based appeal, and we were 

able to override the President’s veto and create this satellite revolution and many other things that were part of that cable bill, and 

it all goes to access to content, access to programming, making the 

consumer king. 

I think it is telling that the NFL is testifying here today and that 

they are having difficulty in the marketplace. We are not talking 

here about the proverbial kid in a garage or even the Big Ten network. We are talking about the NFL, and it doesn’t appear to me 

that Mr. Goodell particularly enjoys coming back before the Commerce Committee for the second week in a row. So this is a subject 

obviously that has had a lot of attention from this committee over 

the years, and it will continue to have our attention because we 

want to make the consumer king and we want the marketplace to 

work, and that is ultimately our goal and the only thing that we 

can really be expected to try to achieve. 

We thank each of you for your testimony here today. It has 

helped us enormously. We will be following up on this hearing in 

the weeks and months ahead. With the thanks of the committee, 

this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL

From the 1947 World Series between the Brooklyn Dodgers and the Cincinnati 

Reds, to Billie Jean King beating Bobby Riggs, to the USA Olympic Hockey team 

beating the USSR, right up to the New York Giants recently beating Chairman 

Markey’s beloved New England Patriots in the latest Super Bowl, many of this 

country’s greatest sporting events have been broadcast free on over-the-air television 

for all consumers to enjoy. 

My constituents in Michigan have reveled in the broadcast of Michigan/Ohio State 

football clashes, the historic interstate basketball rivalries between the Wolverines 

and the Spartans, and the triumphs and travails of our professional teams, the Tigers, Red Wings, Pistons, and most recently, our women’s basketball team, the Detroit Shock. Our high hopes for our Detroit Lions remain, well, perpetual. 

My constituents are no different from those in other districts that are home to 

collegiate or professional teams: we all want to watch our teams compete. 

Today’s hearing asks whether these events will continue to be removed from free, 

over-the-air broadcast television to the detriment of our local communities. Monday 

Night Football has moved from network television to ESPN. While new conference 

networks like the Big Ten Network are airing more college sporting events like lacrosse and field hockey, they are also shifting college football games away from 

broadcast television. 

Taxpayers have a vested interest in this question. Taxpayers finance public universities and approve public financing for professional sport venues. Cities, counties, 

and States have provided support in other ways, including financial incentives and 

the use of public resources. It is therefore logical and fair that taxpayers should be 

able to enjoy the fruits of their investments and continue to see local teams in free, 

over-the-air broadcasts. 

I am concerned by the ever increasing migration of sports programming to pay 

TV. I hope to hear assurances from today’s witnesses that marquee sporting events 

will remain available on free, over-the-air broadcast television. I urge my colleagues 

to keep a close eye on this disturbing trend. 

109 

STATEMENT OF HON. BART STUPAK

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on competition in the sports 

programming market. 

While it has never been a question that Northern Michigan residents like their 

football, last November’s Green Bay Packers vs. Dallas Cowboys game proved how 

much. The game, which was carried by the NFL Network, was almost completely 

missed by Northern Michigan fans despite a broadcasting agreement the local station had made. 

The situation was resolved by last minute cooperation between the local broadcaster and the NFL Network. However it does show how important this issue is to 

people, and it also shows that with cooperation these types of disputes can be resolved. 

In 2006, the NFL Network channel was carried by several cable companies on the 

basic tier of cable service. However, in 2007, cable companies decided that NFL Network would no longer be viewable on the basic tier by being moved to a new digital 

sports tier. 

As a result, consumers are now required to pay additional monthly fees to enjoy 

a service that originally was given to them at the most basic tier. 

The current disagreement between cable companies and the NFL Network limits 

the availability of several NFL games. This prolonged dispute has frustrated fans 

all across the country, and they want it to end. Because these two sides cannot come 

to an agreement, the consumer is forced to pay the price. 

To help resolve this issue, I have written the FCC to request that they appoint 

an arbitrator to serve as an independent 3rd party. No side is guaranteed an outcome through this process, but it will hopefully bring about an agreement which I 

think is long overdue. 

The NFL Network is not the only independently owned channel to face difficulties 

in securing carriage agreements. 

The FCC has opened a rulemaking proceeding to consider program carriage of 

independently owned channels. Chairman Martin stated that the current process 

does not work, and I think we should consider changes that facilitate carriage negotiations to find a common ground. 

Under the current process, many independently owned channels feel compelled to 

consider selling themselves to larger companies in order to increase their leverage. 

This will lead to further concentration of ownership and will reduce diversity in 

media and negatively affect consumer choice. 

While Congress cannot and should not force a cable or satellite station to carry 

a certain network, it is my hope that the cable companies and independently owned 

channels like the NFL Network can negotiate carriage deals that allow consumers 

more access to programming and sporting events. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ED TOWNS

Thank you Chairman Markey and Ranking Member Stearns. I am very pleased 

that the Subcommittee is holding this hearing. I look forward to learning how our 

sports programming marketplace is working. Our constituents want to know that 

they will have access to the games of their choice at a reasonable price. 

I also want to welcome the witnesses and thank them for their assistance. Sports 

programming is some of the most popular on TV. I know I love it. There are many 

more options of how we can receive it now, too, which reflects the innovation that 

has happened in the video market in such a short time. Because it is so popular 

and high quality nowadays, it is also expensive. 

Sports fans are an incredibly passionate group, so I look forward to hearing from 

the witnesses on what role, if any, they think government should play. We must 

maintain a balance that keeps access to the programming as widespread as possible 

but maintains the innovation and high quality we have become accustomed to. 

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ELIOT ENGEL

Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Stearns— 

Thank you for holding this hearing today. 

With the increase in televised sporting events coinciding with the increase in 

sports networks in recent years, this is an issue well worth examining. 

110 

Flipping through my television listings, it seems like there’s a new sports channel 

popping up every day. There are a wide variety of sports channels to choose. From 

the old standby ESPN, to the Golf Channel, to the relatively new NFL Network, 

to the ever more popular regional New England Sports Network, which, Chairman 

Markey, I’m sure you’re familiar with, it is no wonder that consumers are confused 

or have trouble finding the broadcast of the games of their favorite teams. 

Today, I hope we can sort through some of the confusion that broadcast, cable, 

satellite, and now FIOS customers are feeling. Some games are only broadcast on 

cable, and some are only on satellite. 

It should be our goal to make it as easy as possible for sports fans to find the 

games they want to watch. I’m gratified to see such an excellent panel of experts 

here today. I am eager to hear their testimony. 

Early this year, the Patriots’ final game of the season was to be broadcast only 

on the NFL Network, which many people across the country cannot access. NFL 

Commissioner Roger Goodell wisely decided to share the broadcast with CBS and 

FOX, in addition to the NFL Network. This was an historic game that millions of 

people wanted to watch, and your cooperation and agreement to share the broadcast 

no doubt won you the goodwill of many fans across the country. It is my hope that 

networks and cable and satellite providers can work together to ensure that everybody, especially the consumer, wins. 

As a diehard sports fan myself, I want to make sure that the millions of other 

fans across the country are able to watch their favorite team play. If we can do that, 

then a nation of sports fans will thank us. 

Æ