Author: Melissa Rachel Heller, J.D Candidate, Class of 2014, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Tennis Channel and Comcast have been engaged in a bitter dispute over the provider’s refusal to carry Tennis Channel since July 2010. Tennis Channel claimed that Comcast discriminated against the channel and gave preferential treatment to other sports networks, such as The Golf Channel and Versus. Tennis Channel argued that this impeded its ability to compete fairly in the video programming marketplace. In December 2011, an administrative judge ruled in favor of Tennis Channel and fined Comcast $375,000. Additionally, the judge ordered Comcast to give equal treatment to the channel. Comcast appealed the decision, which was subsequently affirmed by the Federal Communications Commission, Appellate Division. The order issued by the FCC held that “Comcast had discriminated with regard to carriage against Tennis Channel and in favor of Golf Channel and Versus on the basis of affiliation in violation of Section 616 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 536, and Section 76.1301(c) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 76.1301(c).” That decision gave Comcast 45 days to comply with the order.
On August 1, 2012, Comcast filed suit against the FCC in Washington D.C., asking the U.S. Court of Appeals to throw out the FCC ruling. Comcast argued that the ruling was “arbitrary and unconstitutional.” Kyle McSlarrow, the Washington president of Comcast/NBC Universal commented, “[t]he decision will accomplish nothing other than to drive up programming costs and enrich a group of wealthy investors in the Tennis Channel.” (Investors include tennis greats Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras, among others.)
The FCC handed down an order on August 9th (read the full decision here), which denied Comcast’s petition for a stay of the implementation of the order pending the completion of judicial review. The FCC concluded that the July 24th order was correct and grounded in evidence supporting the finding that Comcast discriminated against Tennis Channel. Moreover, the Commission rejected Comcast’s contention that the harms to Tennis Channel are “highly generalized and speculative.”
(Click here to read the rest.)
The views expressed here are exclusively of the author and do not represent agreement or endorsement by the Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, or Yeshiva University.
