Opinion ID: 77316
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Use of Two Vendors

Text: 41 EchoStar claims that it was error to hold that the Act prohibits the use of multiple ILLR vendors in assessing subscriber eligibility. The district court concluded that EchoStar could have chosen either of these two competent vendors to check the ILLR status of its subscribers, CBS Broad., Inc., 276 F.Supp.2d at 1250, but because EchoStar used both vendors to exploit inconsistencies between the two, it acted unlawfully. We find nothing in the Act to support this conclusion. The statute provides that [i]n determining presumptively whether a person resides in an unserved household . . ., a court shall rely on the [ILLR] model set forth by the [FCC]. 17 U.S.C. § 119(a)(2)(B)(ii)(I). So long as a satellite carrier uses vendors whose models comply with the FCC's ILLR guidelines, the carrier may utilize as many different vendors as it would like. We note, however, that the ILLR model is only a presumptive determination of eligibility, and the satellite carrier bears the ultimate burden of proving that a household is unserved. Unless there is evidence that one model is more accurate than another—which, in this case, EchoStar's witnesses did not suggest—when the models produce conflicting results, it would be difficult to conclude that a satellite carrier has satisfied its burden of proof. In such circumstances it would likely be necessary to obtain an accurate measurement pursuant to section 119(a)(2)(B)(ii)(II) to demonstrate subscriber eligibility. 28 Thus, while EchoStar's use of two ILLR vendors may negatively affect its ability to satisfy its burden, it is not necessarily unlawful to do so. 42