Opinion ID: 760117
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Statute and Congressional Intent

Text: 24 In this case, an examination of the language and purpose of the statute reveals a clear congressional intent. Cable systems must carry local commercial television stations in their markets. See 47 U.S.C. § 534(a) and (h)(1)(A). A broadcasting station's market is the ADI in which it is located, but the FCC may modify markets on a case-by-case basis, paying particular attention to the value of localism, to better effectuate the purposes of this section through application of factors such as the four listed in subsection (h)(1)(C)(ii). See 47 U.S.C. § 534(h)(1)(C). These provisions of the statute, which are reproduced in full above, are relatively straight-forward. However, we must examine the statute as a whole to determine what Congress meant by the value of localism and the purposes of this section. 25 When Congress passed the 1992 Cable Act, lawmakers included a series of findings and policies that resulted from their three years of studying the television and cable industry. These unusually detailed statutory findings, Turner, 512 U.S. at 646, 114 S.Ct. 2445 (analyzing the 1992 Cable Act), provide unique insight into what Congress hoped to achieve when it afforded statutory must-carry cable rights to broadcast stations like petitioners. See Dole v. United Steelworkers of America, 494 U.S. 26, 36, 110 S.Ct. 929, 108 L.Ed.2d 23 (1990) (Particularly useful [in determining Congressional intent] is the provision detailing Congress' purposes in enacting the statute.). Key among these findings are the following: 26 (1) as the cable industry has become concentrated, new programmers experience a barrier to entry and consumers have access to fewer media voices, see 1992 Cable Act § 2(a)(4); 27 (2) since cable companies favor their affiliated programmers, non-affiliated programmers have greater difficulty seeking carriage on cable systems, see id. § 2(a)(5); 28 (3) a substantial governmental and First Amendment interest exists in promoting a diversity of views, see id. § 2(a)(6); 29 (4) broadcast stations are an important source of local news and public affairs programming, which are critical to an informed electorate, see id. § 2(a)(11); 30 (5) a substantial government interest exists in protecting access to free broadcast television programming, see id. § 2(a)(12); and 31 (6) cable companies have no economic incentive to carry the signal of a broadcast station since doing so would result in greater competition for advertising dollars, and without the imposition of must-carry rights a substantial likelihood exists that broadcast signals will be deleted, repositioned, or never carried, see id. § 2(a)(15). 32 These ideas are adequately summarized, for purposes of this appeal, in the finding where Congress states that [a] primary objective and benefit of our Nation's system of regulation of television broadcasting is the local origination of programming. There is a substantial governmental interest in ensuring its continuation. Id. § 2(a)(10). When combined with the emphasis on the value of localism immediately preceding the statutory factors in § 534(h)(1)(C)(ii), what quite plainly emerges is that for the FCC to better effectuate the purposes of the 1992 Cable Act, it must ensure the continuation of the local origination of programming. 33 With respect to what is meant by localism--in other words, exactly how far can a broadcast station's signal reach and still be considered local to its market--the statutory factors are designed to assist the FCC in answering this question, while avoiding the imposition of overly broad carriage requirements on cable companies. That they are not meant to be exclusive is evidenced by Congress' immediately preceding use of the phrase such factors as. When an analysis of those four factors weighs against cable carriage, the FCC may choose others to add to the list, so long as they help ensure the continuation of the local origination of programming, i.e., afford attention to the value of localism. 34 In so stating however, it must be remembered that the entire series of findings set forth by Congress remains relevant despite our consolidation of them into one thought. For example, Congress states that [t]here is a substantial governmental and First Amendment interest in promoting a diversity of views provided through multiple technology media. Id. at § 2(a)(6). Helping local programming to continue is the means by which the FCC protects this interest. 35 Legislative history, sometimes used by courts in the first step of a Chevron analysis to determine Congress' intent, 3 see, e.g., Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. LTV Corp., 496 U.S. 633, 649, 110 S.Ct. 2668, 110 L.Ed.2d 579 (1990), generally reinforces Congress' expressed purpose in this case. The report of the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives (House Committee), submitted in support of the bill that became the 1992 Cable Act, is a good indicator of Congress' intent. See Pierpoint v. Barnes, 94 F.3d 813, 817 (2d Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1209, 117 S.Ct. 1691, 137 L.Ed.2d 818 (1997) (A committee report, representing a collective statement by the drafters about the intended purpose of proposed legislation, is considered a particularly good indicator of congressional intent when it is otherwise difficult to ascertain.). We look to the House Committee report because the language defining the market for a commercial broadcast station originated in the House. The House Committee believe[d] that ADI lines are the most widely accepted definition of a television market and more accurately delineate the area in which a station provides local service than any arbitrary mileage-based definition. H.R.Rep. No. 102-628, at 97 (1992). 36 However, the Committee recognize[d] that since ADIs are drawn along county lines, they may, in some instances, inaccurately reflect the stations which are local to a particular community. Id. While in most instances a station's ADI is consistent with the area where such station provides local service, the Committee concluded that a station's ADI may be so far removed from the station that it cannot be deemed part of the station's market. Id. To prevent abuse of the exclusion rules, the Committee specified that [u]nless a cable system can point to particularized evidence that its community is not part of one station's market, it should not be permitted to single out individual stations serving the same area and request that the cable system's community be deleted from the station's television market. Id. Moreover, the legislators emphasized [i]t is not the Committee's intention that these provisions be used by cable systems to manipulate their carriage obligations to avoid compliance with the objectives of this section. Id. at 97-98. The legislative history thus reinforces the clear terms of the statute in stating that there is a presumption that local commercial broadcast stations will be carried throughout the ADIs in which they are located but that the FCC may modify a station's market when presented with particularized evidence that the ADI does not accurately describe that station's market.