Opinion ID: 2506
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The FCC's Consideration of the Purposes of the Must-Carry Statute

Text: The market modification provision of the must-carry statute provides that the FCC may add or remove communities from a local broadcast station's market to better effectuate the purposes of this section. 47 U.S.C. § 534(h)(1)(C)(i). Cablevision argues that the FCC's inclusion of the Long Island communities in WRNN's market contravened the purposes of must-carry in two ways. First, expanding WRNN's market in fact frustrates the goal of localism by necessarily decreasing programming relevant to the community WRNN has traditionally served (the Kingston community). And second, rewarding WRNN's actions with broader must-carry rights encourages gamesmanship which frustrates the purpose of must-carry, which is to preserve, but not expand, a broadcast station's market. We reject the first argument because it incorrectly presumes that WRNN cannot increase Long Island-targeted programming without decreasing Kingston-targeted programming. We reject the second because it rests on a conception of the statute's purpose that is overly narrow, unsupported by precedent, and contrary to the language of the statute. According to Cablevision, the FCC's decision defeats the purposes of the must-carry statute because [a]ny targeting of other spokes [i.e., communities that are remote from `a DMA's metropolitan center'] necessarily comes at the expense of the station's community of license. Cablevision Br. at 43. This argument rests on the false premise that WRNN's programming consists entirely of either Kingston-specific programming or Long Island-specific programming. As Cablevision reminds us elsewhere, however, a great deal of WRNN's content is home-shopping programming that targets neither Kingston nor Long Island specifically. See Cablevision Br. at 33 (claiming that 78% of WRNN programming in a representative week consisted of home shopping and infomercials). It is entirely possible, and Cablevision does not suggest otherwise, that WRNN could increase its Long Island-targeted programming by decreasing its home-shopping programming, leaving its Kingston-targeted programming unaffected. And to the extent that a Kingston viewer might prefer certain home-shopping programming to programming concerning Long Island, we do not see how frustrating that preference undermines localism. Essentially, Cablevision's claim is that, as a matter of law, a cable company in a community that is outside a DMA's metropolitan center, such as Long Island, should not be required to carry a station based in a different community that is also remote from the center, such as Kingston: in Cablevision's parlance, a spoke cable company should not be required to carry a station based in a different spoke. Congress, however, did not share that view, and, as the FCC points out, the default rule is that WRNN must be carried by cable operators throughout the New York City DMA. See 47 U.S.C. § 534(a)-(b), (h)(1)(C). Cablevision also contends that the FCC's decision rewards gamesmanship because WRNN moved its transmitter and changed its programming simply to obtain must-carry privileges in other communities. Cablevision Br. at 46. In other words, they suggest that the FCC cannot award WRNN a regulatory benefit if WRNN has changed its conduct in an attempt to receive that benefit. This rule, applied universally, would run counter to a central premise of the regulatory scheme that a regulated entity will change its conduct in socially desirable ways to achieve a regulatory benefit. Accordingly, we reject it. Cablevision also argues that any decision that increases a station's market is contrary to the purpose of the statute, because the purpose is to return broadcasters to their `natural market,' Cablevision Br. at 47; thus, any FCC action which augments a broadcaster's market contravenes this purpose. The purpose of the statute, however, is not to preserve a group of broadcast stations, or a particular conception of a station's market, but, inter alia, to preserv[e] the benefits of free, over-the-air television, and promot[e] the widespread dissemination of information from a multiplicity of sources. Turner I, 512 U.S. at 662, 114 S.Ct. 2445. We do not think that these purposes are served only by granting broadcasters the minimum must-carry coverage necessary for survival; or that these purposes are frustrated by actions which result in a station's greater prosperity. Accordingly, we conclude that the FCC did not violate the statutory admonition that market modifications should be made to better effectuate the purposes of this section. 47 U.S.C. § 534(h)(1)(C)(i). The remainder of Cablevision's arguments on this point fail to persuade us otherwise.