NEWSReport No. DC-2694 ACTION IN DOCKET CASE December 15, 1994 COMMISSION AFFIRMS PROGRAM ACCESS RULE ON EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS FOR SATELLITE PROGRAMMING (MM DOCKET 92-265) The Commission has affirmed its program access rule on exclusive contracts between direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") distributors and satellite cable programming vendors. The National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative ("NRTC") filed a petition for reconsideration of the First Report and Order in this Docket which, in part, implemented Section 628(c)(2)(C) of the program access provisions of the 1992 Cable Act. That Section of the Act prohibits exclusive contracts between cable operators and satellite cable programming vendors affiliated with cable operators in areas not served by a cable operator. To implement Section 628(c)(2)(C), the Commission in its First Report and Order adopted Section 76.1002(c)(1) of its rules. The Commission denied NRTC's petition. NRTC asked the Commission to amend Section 76.1002(c)(1) to create a per se prohibition on exclusive contracts for the distribution of programming between DBS distributors and vertically integrated satellite cable programming vendors for areas unserved by cable. United States Satellite Broadcasting, Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P., Viacom International, Inc., Discovery Communications, Inc., and Liberty Media Corporation opposed this petition. NRTC and DirectTV, Inc. filed replies. In today's action, the Commission denied NRTC's petition for reconsideration and declined to amend Section 76.1002(c)(1). The Commission concluded that its current interpretation of Section 628(c)(2)(C) is the most reasonable one, is supported by the findings and policies set forth in the 1992 Cable Act, and best fulfills one of the underlying purposes of the Act -- to foster competition to traditional cable systems. The Commission found that Congress was concerned with the market power abuses exercised by cable operators that denied non-cable technologies access to programming and stifled competition. Congress did not specifically express any similar concerns with respect to non- cable technologies, such as DBS. (over) -2- The Commission concluded that an outright ban on non-cable distributors' exclusive contracts in areas not served by cable, without any determination of the effect of such exclusivity on competition, could defeat one of the purposes of the 1992 Cable Act, which was to foster competition from other technologies. There is no evidence at this time that exclusive contracts are harmful to the development of competition in the DBS market or the market for multichannel video programming generally, or have negative effects on consumers. To the contrary, the evidence presented suggests that a DBS distributor's exclusive contract for programming covering one orbital location may foster DBS as a significant competitor to cable and eventually lead to more diversity in programming for the consumer. Moreover, the evidence presented suggests that all DBS subscribers will have access to the programming that is the subject of the exclusive contracts. Additionally, the Commission concluded that the complaint process under Section 628(b) of the Cable Act and Section 76.1001 of the Commission's rules regarding unfair practices is adequate to redress any legitimate grievance caused as a result of exclusive contracts between DBS distributors and vertically integrated satellite cable programming vendors. Any such complaint must include a showing that a programming vendor's practice caused harm to the complainant. Action by the Commission December 15, 1994, by Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the First Report and Order (FCC 94-326). Commissioners Quello, Barrett, Ness and Chong, with Chairman Hundt not participating. - FCC - News Media contact: Morgan Broman (202) 416-0852; Cable Service Bureau contacts: Maura Cantrill and Nancy Markowitz at (202) 416-0800.