Task: sc_certreason

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the reason, if any, given by the court for granting the petition for certiorari.

Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to a portion of Part II-A-1.
Sections 4 and 5 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 require cable television systems to dedicate some of their channels to local broadcast television stations. Earlier in this case, we held the so-called “must-carry” provisions to be content-neutral restrictions on speech, subject to intermediate First Amendment scrutiny under United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 377 (1968). A plurality of the Court considered the record as then developed insufficient to determine whether the provisions were narrowly tailored to further important governmental interests, and we remanded the case to the District Court for the District of Columbia for additional factfinding.
On appeal from the District Court’s grant of summary judgment for appellees, the case now presents the two questions left open during the first appeal: First, whether the record as it now stands supports Congress’ predictive judgment that the must-carry provisions further important governmental interests; and second, whether the provisions do not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further those interests. We answer both questions in the affirmative, and conclude the must-carry provisions are consistent with the First Amendment.
I
An outline of the Cable Act, Congress’ purposes in adopting it, and the facts of the case are set out in detail in our first opinion, see Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622 (1994) (Turner), and a more abbreviated summary will suffice here. Soon after Congress enacted the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (Cable Act), Pub. L. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460, appellants brought suit against the United States and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (both referred to here as the Government) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the constitutionality of the must-carry provisions under the First Amendment. The three-judge District Court, in a divided opinion, granted summary judgment for the Government and intervenor-defendants. A majority of the court sustained the must-carry provisions under the intermediate standard of scrutiny set forth in United States v. O’Brien, supra, concluding the must-carry provisions were content-neutral “industry-specific antitrust and fair trade” legislation narrowly tailored to preserve local broadcasting beset by monopoly power in most cable systems, growing concentration in the cable industry, and concomitant risks of programming decisions driven by anticompetitive policies. 819 F. Supp. 32, 40, 45-47 (1993).
On appeal, we agreed with the District Court that must-carry does not “distinguish favored speech from disfavored speech on the basis of the ideas or views expressed,” 512 U. S., at 643, but is a content-neutral regulation designed “to prevent cable operators from exploiting their economic power to the detriment of broadcasters,” and “to ensure that all Americans, especially those unable to subscribe to cable, have access to free television programming — whatever its content.” Id., at 649. We held that, under the intermediate level of scrutiny applicable to content-neutral regulations, must-carry would be sustained if it were shown to further an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of free speech, provided the incidental restrictions did not “ ‘burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further’ ” those interests. Id., at 662 (quoting Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 799 (1989)). Although we “ha[d] no difficulty concluding” the interests must-carry was designed to serve were important in the abstract, 512 U. S., at 663, a four-justice plurality concluded genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether “the economic health of local broadcasting is in genuine jeopardy and in need of the protections afforded by must-carry,” and whether must-carry “‘burden[s] substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests.’ ” Id., at 665 (quoting Ward, supra, at 799). Justice Stevens would have found the statute valid on the record then before us; he agreed to remand the case to ensure a judgment of the Court, and the case was returned to the District Court for further proceedings. 512 U. S., at 673-674 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment); id., at 667-668.
The District Court oversaw another 18 months of factual development on remand “yielding a record of tens of thousands of pages” of evidence, Turner Broadcasting v. FCC, 910 F. Supp. 734, 755 (1995), comprised of materials acquired during Congress’ three years of pre-enactment hearings, see Turner, supra, at 632-634, as well as additional expert submissions, sworn declarations and testimony, and industry documents obtained on remand. Upon consideration of the expanded record, a divided panel of the District Court again granted summary judgment to appellees. 910 F. Supp., at 751. The majority determined “Congress drew reasonable inferences” from substantial evidence before it to conclude that “in the absence of must-carry rules, ‘significant’ numbers of broadcast stations would be refused carriage.” Id., at 742. The court found Congress drew on studies and anecdotal evidence indicating “cable operators had already dropped, refused to carry, or adversely repositioned significant numbers of local broadcasters,” and suggesting that in the vast majority of cases the broadcasters were not restored to carriage in their prior position. Ibid. Noting evidence in the record before Congress and the testimony of experts on remand, id., at 743, the court decided the noncarriage problem would grow worse without must-carry because cable operators had refrained from dropping broadcast stations during Congress’ investigation and the pend-ency of this litigation, id., at 742-743, and possessed increasing incentives to use their growing economic power to capture broadcasters’ advertising revenues and promote affiliated cable programmers, ibid. The court concluded “substantial evidence before Congress” supported the predictive judgment that a local broadcaster denied carriage “would suffer financial harm and possible ruin.” Id., at 743-744. It cited evidence that adverse carriage actions decrease broadcasters’ revenues by reducing audience levels, id., at 744-745, and evidence that the invalidation of the FCC’s prior must-carry regulations had contributed to declining growth in the broadcast industry, id., at 744, and n. 34.
The court held must-carry to be narrowly tailored to promote the Government’s legitimate interests. It found the effects of must-carry on cable operators to be minimal, noting evidence that: most cable systems had not been required to add any broadcast stations since the rules were adopted; only 1.2 percent of all cable channels had been devoted to broadcast stations added because of must-carry; and the burden was likely to diminish as channel capacity expanded in the future. Id., at 746-747. The court proceeded to consider a number of alternatives to must-carry that appellants had proposed, including: a leased-access regime, under which cable operators would be required to set aside channels for both broadcasters and cable programmers to use at a regulated price; use of so-called A/B switches, giving consumers a choice of both cable and broadcast signals; a more limited set of must-carry obligations modeled on those earlier used by the FCC; and subsidies for broadcasters. The court rejected each in turn, concluding that “even assuming that [the alternatives] would be less burdensome” on cable operators’ First Amendment interests, they “are not in any respect as effective in achieving the government’s [interests].” Id., at 747. Judge Jackson would have preferred a trial to summary judgment, but concurred in the judgment of the court. Id., at 751-754.
Judge Williams dissented. His review of the record, and particularly evidence concerning growth in the number of broadcasters, industry advertising revenues, and per-station profits during the period without must-carry, led him to conclude the broadcast industry as a whole would not be “ ‘seriously jeopardized’” in the absence of must-carry. Id., at 759-767. Judge Williams acknowledged the Government had a legitimate interest in preventing anticompetitive behavior, and accepted that cable operators have incentives to discriminate against broadcasters in favor of their own vertically integrated cable programming. Id., at 772, 775, 779. He would have granted summary judgment for appellants nonetheless on the ground must-carry is not narrowly tailored. In his view, must-carry constitutes a significant (though “diminish[ing],” id., at 782) burden on cable operators’ and programmers’ rights, ibid., and the Cable Act’s must-carry provisions suppress more speech than necessary because “less-restrictive” alternatives exist to accomplish the Government’s legitimate objectives, id., at 782-789.
This direct appeal followed. See 47 U. S. C. § 555(c)(1); 28 U. S. C. § 1253. We noted probable jurisdiction, 516 U. S. 1110 (1996), and we now affirm.
II
We begin where the plurality ended in Turner, applying the standards for intermediate scrutiny enunciated in O’Brien. A content-neutral regulation will be sustained under the First Amendment if it advances important governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of free speech and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further those interests. O’Brien, 391 U. S., at 377. As noted in Turner, must-carry was designed to serve “three interrelated interests: (1) preserving the benefits of free, over-the-air local broadcast television, (2) promoting the widespread dissemination of information from a multiplicity of sources, and (3) promoting fair competition in the market for television programming.” 512 U. S., at 662. We decided then, and now reaffirm, that each of those is an important governmental interest. We have been most explicit in holding that “ ‘protecting noncable households from loss of regular television broadcasting service due to competition from cable systems’ is an important federal interest.” Id., at 663 (quoting Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U. S. 691, 714 (1984)). Forty percent of American households continue to rely on over-the-air signals for television programming. Despite the growing importance of cable television and alternative technologies, “ ‘broadcasting is demonstrably a principal source of information and entertainment for a great part of the Nation’s population.’ ” Turner, supra, at 663 (quoting United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U. S. 157, 177 (1968)). We have identified a corresponding “governmental purpose of the highest order” in ensuring public access to “a multiplicity of information sources,” 512 U. S., at 663. And it is undisputed the Government has an interest in “eliminating restraints on fair competition..., even when the individuals or entities subject to particular regulations are engaged in expressive activity protected by the First Amendment.” Id., at 664.
On remand, and again before this Court, both sides have advanced new interpretations of these interests in an attempt to recast them in forms “more readily proven.” 910 F. Supp., at 759 (Williams, J., dissenting). The Government downplays the importance of showing a risk to the broadcast industry as a whole and suggests the loss of even a few broadcast stations “is a matter of critical importance.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 23. Taking the opposite approach, appellants argue Congress’ interest in preserving broadcasting is not implicated unless it is shown the industry as a whole would fail without must-carry, Brief for Appellant National Cable Television Association, Inc. 18-23 (NCTA Brief); Brief for Appellant Time Warner Entertainment Co., L. P. 8-10 (Time Warner Brief), and suggest Congress’ legitimate interest in “assuring that the public has access to a multiplicity of information sources,” Turner, supra, at 663, extends only as far as preserving “a minimum amount of television broadcast service,” Time Warner Brief 28; NCTA Brief 40; Reply Brief for Appellant NCTA 12.
These alternative formulations are inconsistent with Congress’ stated interests in enacting must-carry. The congressional findings do not reflect concern that, absent must-carry, “a few voices,” Tr. of Oral Arg. 23, would be lost from the television marketplace. In explicit factual findings, Congress expressed clear concern that the “marked shift in market share from broadcast television to cable television services,” Cable Act §2(a)(13), note following 47 U. S. C. §521, resulting from increasing market penetration by cable services, as well as the expanding horizontal concentration and vertical integration of cable operators, combined to give cable systems the incentive and ability to delete, reposition, or decline carriage to local broadcasters in an attempt to favor affiliated cable programmers. §§2a(2)-(5), (15). Congress predicted that “absent the reimposition of [must-carry], additional local broadcast signals will be deleted, repositioned, or not carried,” §2(a)(15); see also § 2(a)(8)(D), with the end result that “the economic viability of free local broadcast television and its ability to originate quality local programming will be seriously jeopardized,” §2(a)(16).
At the same time, Congress was under no illusion that there would be a complete disappearance of broadcast television nationwide in the absence of must-carry. Congress recognized broadcast programming (and network programming in particular) “remains the most popular programming on cable systems,” §2(a)(19). Indeed, reflecting the popularity and strength of some broadcasters, Congress included in the Cable Act a provision permitting broadcasters to charge cable systems for carriage of the broadcasters’ signals. See § 6, codified at 47 U. S. C. § 325. Congress was concerned not that broadcast television would disappear in its entirety without must-carry, but that without it, “significant numbers of broadcast stations will be refused carriage on cable sys-terns,” and those “broadcast stations denied carriage will either deteriorate to a substantial degree or fail altogether.” 512 U. S., at 666. See, e. g., H. R. Rep. No. 102-628, p. 51 (1992) (House Report) (the absence of must-carry “will result in a weakening of the over-the-air television industry and a reduction in competition”); id,., at 64 (“The Committee wishes to make clear that its concerns are not limited to a situation where stations are dropped wholesale by large numbers of cable systems”); S. Rep. No. 102-92, p. 62 (1991) (Senate Report) (“Without congressional action,... the role of local television broadcasting in our system of communications will steadily decline...”); see also Brief for Federal Appellees in Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, No. 93-44, p. 32, n. 22 (the question is not whether “the evidence shows that broadcast television is likely to be totally eliminated” but “whether the broadcast services available to viewers [without cable] are likely to be reduced to a significant extent, because of either loss of some stations altogether or curtailment of services by others”).
Nor do the congressional findings support appellants’ suggestion that legitimate legislative goals would be satisfied by the preservation of a rump broadcasting industry providing a minimum of broadcast service to Americans without cable. We have noted that “ fit has long been a basic tenet of national communications policy that “the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public.” ’ ” Turner, 512 U. S., at 663-664 (quoting United States v. Midwest Video Corp., 406 U. S. 649, 668, n. 27 (1972) (plurality opinion), in turn quoting Associated Press v. United States, 326 U. S. 1, 20 (1945)); see also FCC v. WNCN Listeners Guild, 450 U. S. 582, 594 (1981). “ ‘[increasing the number of outlets for community self-expression’” represents a “‘long-established regulatory goa[l] in the field of television broadcasting.’ ” United States v. Midwest Video Corp., supra, at 667-668 (plurality opinion). Consistent with this objective, the Cable Act's findings reflect a concern that congressional action was necessary to prevent “a reduction in the number of media voices available to consumers.” §2(a)(4). Congress identified a specific interest in “ensuring [the] continuation” of “the local origination of [broadcast] programming,” §2(a)(10), an interest consistent with its larger purpose of promoting multiple types of media, § 2(a)(6), and found must-carry necessary “to serve the goals” of the original Communications Act of 1934 of “providing a fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of broadcast services,” § 2(a)(9). In short, Congress enacted must-carry to “preserve the existing structure of the Nation’s broadcast television medium while permitting the concomitant expansion and development of cable television.” 512 U. S., at 652.
Although Congress set no definite number of broadcast stations sufficient for these purposes, the Cable Act’s requirement that all cable operators with more than 12 channels set aside one-third of their channel capacity for local broadcasters, §4,47 U. S. C. § 534(b)(1)(B), refutes the notion that Congress contemplated preserving only a bare minimum of stations. Congress’ evident interest in “preserving] the existing structure,” 512 U. S., at 652, of the broadcast industry discloses a purpose to prevent any significant reduction in the multiplicity of broadcast programming sources available to noncable households. To the extent the appellants question the substantiality of the Government’s interest in preserving something more than a minimum number of stations in each community, their position is meritless. It is for Congress to decide how much local broadcast television should be preserved for noncable households, and the validity of its determination “ ‘does not turn on a judge’s agreement with the responsible decisionmaker concerning’... the degree to which [the Government’s] interests should be promoted.” Ward, 491 U. S., at 800 (quoting United States v. Albertini, 472 U. S. 675, 689 (1985)); accord, Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U. S. 288, 299 (1984) (“We do not believe... [that] United States v. O’Brien... endow[s] the judiciary with the competence to judge how much protection of park lands is wise”).
The dissent proceeds on the assumption that must-carry is designed solely to be (and can only be justified as) a measure to protect broadcasters from cable operators’ anticompetitive behavior. See post, at 251, 253, 258. Federal policy, however, has long favored preserving a multiplicity of broadcast outlets regardless of whether the conduct that threatens it is motivated by anticompetitive animus or rises to the level of an antitrust violation. See Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U. S., at 714; United States v. Midwest Video Corp., supra, at 665 (plurality opinion) (FCC regulations “were... avowedly designed to guard broadcast services from being undermined by unregulated [cable] growth”); National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U. S. 190, 223-224 (1943) (“ ‘While many of the network practices raise serious questions under the antitrust laws,... [i]t is not [the FCC’s] function to apply the antitrust laws as such’ ” (quoting FCC Report on Chain Broadcasting Regulations (1941))). Broadcast television is an important source of information to many Americans. Though it is but one of many means for communication, by tradition and use for decades now it has been an essential part of the national discourse on subjects across the whole broad spectrum of speech, thought, and expression. See Turner, supra, at 663; FCC v. National Citizens Comm. for Broadcasting, 436 U. S. 775, 783 (1978) (referring to studies “showing the dominant role of television stations... as sources of local news and other information”). Congress has an independent interest in preserving a multiplicity of broadcasters to ensure that all households have access to information and entertainment on an equal footing with those who subscribe to cable.
A
On our earlier review, we were constrained by the state of the record to assessing the importance of the Government’s asserted interests when “viewed in the abstract,” Turner, 512 U. S., at 663. The expanded record now permits us to consider whether the must-carry provisions were designed to address a real harm, and whether those provisions will alleviate it in a material way. Id., at 663-664. We turn first to the harm or risk which prompted Congress to act. The Government’s assertion that “the economic health of local broadcasting is in genuine jeopardy and in need of the protections afforded by must-carry,” id., at 664-665, rests on two component propositions: First, “significant numbers of broadcast stations will be refused carriage on cable systems” absent must-carry, id., at 666. Second, “the broadcast stations denied carriage will either deteriorate to a substantial degree or fail altogether.” Ibid.
In reviewing the constitutionality of a statute, “courts must accord substantial deference to the predictive judgments of Congress.” Id., at 665. Our sole obligation is “to assure that, in formulating its judgments, Congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence.” Id., at 666. As noted in the first appeal, substantiality is to be measured in this context by a standard more deferential than we accord to judgments of an administrative agency. See id., at 666-667; id., at 670, n. 1 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). We owe Congress’ findings deference in part because the institution “is far better equipped than the judiciary to ‘amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data’ bearing upon” legislative questions. Turner, supra, at 665-666 (plurality opinion) (quoting Walters v. National Assn, of Radiation Survivors, 473 U. S. 305, 331, n. 12 (1985)); Ward, supra, at 800; Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U. S. 57, 83 (1981) (courts must perform “appropriately deferential examination of Congress’ evaluation of th[e] evidence”); Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U. S. 94, 103 (1973). This principle has special significance in cases, like this one, involving congressional judgments concerning regulatory schemes of inherent complexity and assessments about the likely interaction of industries undergoing rapid economic and technological change. Though different in degree, the deference to Congress is in one respect akin to deference owed to administrative agencies because of their expertise. See FCC v. National Citizens Comm. for Broadcasting, supra, at 814 (“[CJomplete factual support in the record for the [FCC’s] judgment or prediction is not possible or required; 'a forecast of the direction in which future public interest lies necessarily involves deductions based on the expert knowledge of the agency’ ”); United States v. Midwest Video Corp., 406 U. S., at 674 (it was “beyond the competence of the Court of Appeals itself to assess the relative risks and benefits” of FCC policy, so long as that policy was based on findings supported by evidence). This is not the sum of the matter, however. We owe Congress’ findings an additional measure of deference out of respect for its authority to exercise the legislative power. Even in the realm of First Amendment questions where Congress must base its conclusions upon substantial evidence, deference must be accorded to its findings as to the harm to be avoided and to the remedial measures adopted for that end, lest we infringe on traditional legislative authority to make predictive judgments when enacting nationwide regulatory policy.
1
We have no difficulty in finding a substantial basis to support Congress’ conclusion that a real threat justified enactment of the must-carry provisions. We examine first the evidence before Congress and then the further evidence presented to the District Court on remand to supplement the congressional determination.
As to the evidence before Congress, there was specific support for its conclusion that cable operators had considerable and growing market power over local video programming markets. Cable served at least 60 percent of American households in 1992, see Cable Act § 2(a)(3), and evidence indicated cable market penetration was projected to grow beyond 70 percent. See Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1991: Hearing on S. 12 before the Subcommittee on Communications of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 102d Cong., 1st Sess., 259 (1991) (statement of Edward O. Fritts) (App. 1253); see also Defendants’ Joint Statement of Evidence Before Congress ¶ ¶ 9, 10 (JSCR) (App. 1252-1253). As Congress noted, § 2(a)(2), cable operators possess a local monopoly over cable households. Only one percent of communities are served by more than one cable system, JSCR ¶¶ 31-40 (App. 1262-1266). Even in communities with two or more cable systems, in the typical case each system has a local monopoly over its subscribers. See Comments of NAB before the FCC on MM Docket No. 85-349, ¶47 (Apr. 25, 1986) (App. 26). Cable operators thus exercise “control over most (if not all) of the television programming that is channeled into the subscriber’s home [and] can thus silence the voice of competing speakers with a mere flick of the switch.” Turner, 512 U. S., at 656.
Evidence indicated the structure of the cable industry would give cable operators increasing ability and incentive to drop local broadcast stations from their systems, or reposition them to a less-viewed channel. Horizontal concentration was increasing as a small number of multiple system operators (MSO’s) acquired large numbers of cable systems nationwide. § 2(a)(4). The trend was accelerating, giving the MSO’s increasing market power. In 1985, the 10 largest MSO’s controlled cable systems serving slightly less than 42 percent of all cable subscribers; by 1989, the figure was nearly 54 percent. JSCR ¶77 (App. 1282); Competitive Problems in the Cable Television Industry, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Monopolies and Business Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 101st Cong., 1st Sess., 74 (1990) (Hearing on Competitive Problems in the Cable Television Industry) (statement of Gene Kim-melman and Dr. Mark N. Cooper).
Vertical integration in the industry also was increasing. As Congress was aware, many MSO’s owned or had affiliation agreements with cable programmers. § 2(a)(5); Senate Report, at 24-29. Evidence indicated that before 1984 cable operators had equity interests in 38 percent of cable programming networks. In the late 1980’s, 64 percent of new cable programmers were held in vertical ownership. JSCR ¶ 197 (App. 1332-1333). Congress concluded that “vertical integration gives cable operators the incentive and ability to favor their affiliated programming services,” § 2(a)(5); Senate Report, at 25, a conclusion that even Judge Williams’ dissent conceded to be reasonable. See 910 F. Supp., at 775. Extensive testimony indicated that cable operators would have an incentive to drop local broadcasters and to favor affiliated programmers. See, e. g., Competitive Issues in the Cable Television Industry: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Monopolies and Business Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 100th Cong., 2d Sess., 546 (1988) (Hearing on Competitive Issues) (statement of Milton Maltz); Cable Television Regulation: Hearings on H. R. 1303 and H. R. 2546 before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 102d Cong., 1st Sess., 869-870, 878-879 (1992) (Hearings on Cable Television Regulation) (statement of James B. Hedlund); id., at 752 (statement of Edward O. Fritts); id., at 699 (statement of Gene Kimmelman); Cable Television Regulation (Part 2): Hearings before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 101st Cong., 2d Sess., 261 (1990) (Hearings on Cable Television Regulation (Part 2)) (statement of Robert G. Picard) (App. 1339-1341); see also JSCR ¶¶ 168-170, 278-280 (App. 1320-1321, 1370-1371).
Though the dissent criticizes our reliance on evidence provided to Congress by parties that are private appellees here, post, at 237-238, that argument displays a lack of regard for Congress’ factfinding function. It is the nature of the legislative process to consider the submissions of the parties most affected by legislation. Appellants, too, sent representatives before Congress to try to persuade them of their side of the debate. See, e. g., Hearing on Competitive Problems in the Cable Television Industry, at 228-241 (statement of James P. Mooney, president and CEO of appellant NCTA); Hearings on Cable Television Regulation, at 575-582 (statement of Decker S. Anstrom, executive vice president of appellant NCTA); Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1991: Hearing on S. 12 before the Subcommittee on Communications of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 102d Cong., 1st Sess., 173-180 (1991) (statement of Ted Turner, president of appellant Turner Broadcasting System). After hearing years of testimony, and reviewing volumes of documentary evidence and studies offered by both sides, Congress concluded that the cable industry posed a threat to broadcast television. The Constitution gives to Congress the role of weighing conflicting evidence in the legislative process. Even when the resulting regulation touches on First Amendment concerns, we must give considerable deference, in examining the evidence, to Congress’ findings and conclusions, including its findings and conclusions with respect to conflicting economic predictions. See supra, at 195-196. Furthermore, much of the testimony, though offered by interested parties, was supported by verifiable information and citation to independent sources. See, e. g., Hearings on Cable Television Regulation, at 869-870, 878-879 (statement of James B. Hedlund); id., at 705, 707-708, 712 (statement of Gene Kimmelman).
The reasonableness of Congress’ conclusion was borne out by the evidence on remand, which also reflected cable industry favoritism for integrated programmers. See, e. g., Record, Defendants’ Additional Evidence, Vol. VII.H, Exh. 170, p. 1749 (DAE) (cable industry memo stating: “All [of an MSO’s] systems must launch Starz [an integrated programmer] 2/94. Word from corporate: if you don’t have free channels... make one free”); Third Declaration of Tom Meek ¶ 44 (Third Meek Declaration) (App. 2071-2072); see also Declaration of Roger G. Noll ¶¶ 18-22 (Noll Declaration) (App. 1009-1013); Declaration of James Dertouzos ¶ 6a (Dertouzos Declaration) (App. 959).
In addition, evidence before Congress, supplemented on remand, indicated that cable systems would have incentives to drop local broadcasters in favor of other programmers less likely to compete with them for audience and advertisers. Independent local broadcasters tend to be the closest substitutes for cable programs, because their programming tends to be similar, see JSCR ¶¶269, 274, 276 (App. 1367, 1368-1370), and because both primarily target the same type of advertiser: those interested in cheaper (and more frequent) ad spots than are typically available on network affiliates. Second Declaration of Tom Meek ¶ 32 (Second Meek Declaration) (App. 1866); Reply Declaration of James N. Dertouzos ¶ 26 (App. 2023); Carriage of Television Broadcast Signals by Cable Television Systems, Reply Comment of the Staff of the Bureau of Economics and the San Francisco Regional Office of the Federal Trade Commission, p. 19 (Nov. 26, 1991) (Reply Comment of FTC) (App. 176). The ability of broadcast stations to compete for advertising is greatly increased by cable carriage, which increases viewership substantially. See Second Meek Declaration ¶ 34 (App. 1866-1867). With expanded viewership, broadcast presents a more competitive medium for television advertising. Empirical studies indicate that cable-carried broadcasters so enhance competition for advertising that even modest increases in the numbers of broadcast stations carried on cable are correlated with sig-. nificant decreases in advertising revenue to cable systems. Dertouzos Declaration ¶¶20, 25-28 (App. 966, 969-971); see also Reply Comment of FTC, at 18 (App. 175). Empirical evidence also indicates that demand for premium cable services (such as pay-per-view) is reduced when a cable system carries more independent broadcasters. Hearing on Competitive Problems in the Cable Television Industry, at 323 (statement of Michael 0. Wirth). Thus, operators stand to benefit by dropping broadcast stations. Dertouzos Declaration ¶ 6b (App. 959).
Cable systems also have more systemic reasons for seeking to disadvantage broadcast stations: Simply stated, cable has little interest in assisting, through carriage, a competing medium of communication. As one cable-industry executive put it, “ ‘our job is to promote cable television, not broadcast television.”’ Hearing on Competitive Issues, at 658 (quoting Multichannel News, Channel Realignments: United Cable Eyes Plan to Bump Network Affils to Upper Channels, Nov. 3, 1986, p. 39); see also Hearing on Competitive Issues, at 661 (“ ‘Shouldn’t we give more... shelf space to cable? Why have people trained to view UHF?’ ”) (vice president of operations at Comcast, an MSO, quoted in Multichannel News, Cable Operators begin to Shuffle Channel Lineups, Sept. 8, 1986, p. 38). The incentive to subscribe to cable is lower in markets with many over-the-air viewing options. See JSCR ¶275 (App. 1369); Dertouzos Declaration ¶¶27, 32 (App. 970, 972). Evidence adduced on remand indicated cable systems have little incentive to carry, and a significant incentive to drop, broadcast stations that will only be strengthened by access to the 60 percent of the television market that cable typically controls. Dertouzos Declaration ¶¶29, 35 (App. 971, 973); Noll Declaration ¶43 (App. 1029). Congress could therefore reasonably conclude that cable systems would drop broadcasters in favor of programmers— even unaffiliated ones — less likely to compete with them for audience and advertisers. The cap on carriage of affiliates included in the Cable Act, 47 U. S. C. § 533(f)(1)(B); 47 CPR § 76.504 (1995), and relied on by the dissent, post, at 238, 252, is of limited utility in protecting broadcasters.
The dissent contends Congress could not reasonably conclude cable systems would engage in such predation because cable operators, whose primary source of revenue is subscriptions, would not risk dropping a widely viewed broadcast station in order to capture advertising revenues. Post, at 239. However, if viewers are faced with the choice of sacrificing a handful of broadcast stations to gain access to dozens of cable channels (plus network affiliates), it is likely they would still subscribe to cable even if they would prefer the dropped television stations to the cable programming that replaced them. Substantial evidence introduced on remand bears this out: With the exception of a handful of very popular broadcast stations (typically network affiliates), a cable system’s choice between carrying a cable programmer or broadcast station has little or no effect on cable subscriptions, and subscribership thus typically does not bear on carriage decisions. Noll Declaration ¶ 29 (App. 1018-1019); Rebuttal Declaration of Roger G. Noll ¶ 20 (App. 1798); Reply Declaration of Roger G. Noll ¶¶3-4, and n. 3 (App. 2003-2004); see also Declaration of John R. Haring ¶ 37 (Haring Declaration) (App. 1106).
It was more than a theoretical possibility in 1992 that cable operators would take actions adverse to local broadcasters; indeed, significant numbers of broadcasters had already been dropped. The record before Congress contained extensive anecdotal evidence about scores of adverse carriage decisions against broadcast stations. See JSCR ¶¶ 291-467, 664 (App. 1376-1489, 1579). Congress considered an FCC-sponsored study detailing cable system carriage practices in the wake of decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit striking down prior must-carry regulations. See Quincy Cable TV,

Question: What reason, if any, does the court give for granting the petition for certiorari?
A. case did not arise on cert or cert not granted
B. federal court conflict
C. federal court conflict and to resolve important or significant question
D. putative conflict
E. conflict between federal court and state court
F. state court conflict
G. federal court confusion or uncertainty
H. state court confusion or uncertainty
I. federal court and state court confusion or uncertainty
J. to resolve important or significant question
K. to resolve question presented
L. no reason given
M. other reason
Answer:

Answer: A