Initial Decision of Chief ALJ Sippel
REDACTED VERSION
Before the
Federal Communications CommissionWashington D.C. 20554
FCC 11D-01
In the Matter of
)
)
)
MB Docket No. 10-204
Tennis Channel, Inc.,
)
Complainant,
)
File No. CSR-8258-P
)
v.
)
)
Comcast Cable Communications, L.L.C.,
)
Defendant.
)
Issued: December 16, 2011 Released: December 20, 2011
INITIAL DECISION OF
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RICHARD L. SIPPEL
Appearances
Stephen A. Weiswasser, Esq., C. William Phillips, Esq., Paul W. Schmidt, Esq., Robert M.
Sherman, Esq., Leah E. Pogoriler, Esq., and Neema D. Trivedi, Esq., on behalf of Tennis
Channel, Inc.; Michael P. Carroll, Esq., David B. Toscano, Esq., Edward N. Moss, Esq., Joanna
Cohn Weiss, Esq., Michael Scheinkman, Esq., James L. Casserly, Esq., David P. Murray, Esq.,
Michael D. Hurwitz, Esq., David H. Solomon, Esq., and J. Wade Lindsay, Esq., on behalf
of Comcast Cable Communications, LLC; William Knowles-Kellett, Esq., Gary Oshinsky, Esq.,
and Gary Schonman, Esq. on behalf of the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications
Commission.
PRELIMINARY
STATEMENT
1. On July 5, 2010, Tennis Channel Inc. (“Tennis Channel”), a video programming
vendor,1 filed a carriage complaint against Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, (“Comcast
Cable”).2 Tennis Channel alleges that Comcast Cable, a multichannel video programming
1 A “video programming vendor” is “a person engaged in the production, creation, or wholesale
distribution of video programming for sale.” 47 U.S.C. § 536(6)(b).
2 See Carriage Agreement Complaint filed by Tennis Channel Against Comcast, File No. CSR-8258-P
(July 5, 2010) (“Complaint”).
Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.
