SBCA Responds on Must-Carry Issues

[Steve Mehs]

On a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association (SBCA) filed comments in reply to the respondents (FCC, NAB, etc.) concerning "the carry-one, carry-all provision of SHVIA" or otherwise known as must-carry.

In its filing, the SBCA said "there is no evidence whatever supporting the proposition that carry-one, carry-all will preserve even a single broadcast station that otherwise would go dark."

Earlier this month, in its petition to deny satellite TV's challenge of must-carry rules, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) told the Supreme Court that the carry-one, carry-all requirements contained within the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act don't "implicate the First Amendment and therefore is not subject to heightened scrutiny."

The SBCA, however, believes that the respondents (FCC, NAB, et al.) attempted "to dissuade the Court from reviewing these important questions of First Amendment law (and thus permanently insulate SHVIA from review by this Court) primarily by contending that the conditional nature of the restriction makes it no restriction at all."

According to the SBCA's filing, "SHVIA quite unambiguously provides satellite carriers with a right to retransmit the signal of 'a television broadcast station,' not a market. Respondents concede that SHVIA's forced-carriage regime was motivated by a desire 'to protect less watched, more vulnerable stations.'

"Nevertheless, they argue that this purpose is not content-based because there is no difference between the content of the programming offered on network affiliates and that offered on less watched stations," the filing said.

For a copy of these comments, visit www.sbca.com. (Find them under the public/government affairs section.)

From SkyReport (http://www.skyreport.com) (Used with Permission)

[jrjcd]

looks like a nother nice lunch for the fcc guys on behalf of the NAB...

[woodman]

I just came upon this thread, and after picking myself up off the floor, I was compelled to comment on the outrageous statements of the NAB. The whole subject of "must-carry" is absolutely ludicrous in my view, as I think it should to any thinking person. The proposition that since cable systems are subject to must-carry rules (as well they should be) the same should apply to their chief competitor - DBS satellite completely ignores the fact that cable is a LOCAL operation where the mandatory carriage of a handful of stations is no big deal. With DBS being NATIONAL in scope, the imposition of "must-carry" presents both a monetary and a technological hurdle that boggles the mind. It's a humongous stretch to classify this as a "level playing field" IMO.

Just a few comments from excerpts:

Originally posted by Steve Mehs

In its filing, the SBCA said "there is no evidence whatever supporting the proposition that carry-one, carry-all will preserve even a single broadcast station that otherwise would go dark."

I agree wholeheartedly with this. "Must carry" does nothing beyond imposing a very difficult hurdle for the DBS industry, that's all it does. Whether or not any existing TV stations go belly-up in the future due to technology, is not the responsibility of DBS, or Cable, or the FCC, or anyone else. Their survival will depend on their ability to attract an audience for their "product" ... period.


"Nevertheless, they argue that this purpose is not content-based because there is no difference between the content of the programming offered on network affiliates and that offered on less watched stations," the filing said.


Oh really? What an absolutely absurd statement that one is. It insults the intelligence of anyone reading it, I should think. If there were no difference in program content, the network television would not command a majority of the viewing audience, as they have year in and year out since TV began.


[/B]local local local

[jrjcd]

well, must carry IS stupid(along with most of the other whining actions of local affiliates)-there is a better, more cost effective and SIMPLER way to satisfy these crackers....