• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
United States Court of Appeals
 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
 Argued April 24, 2009 Decided August 28, 2009No. 08-1114C
OMCAST
C
ORPORATION
,P
ETITIONER
 N
ATIONAL
C
ABLE
&
 
T
ELECOMMUNICATIONS
A
SSOCIATION ETAL
.,I
NTERVENORS
 v.F
EDERAL
C
OMMUNICATIONS
C
OMMISSION AND
U
NITED
S
TATES OF
A
MERICA
,R
ESPONDENTS
 CCTV
 
C
ENTER FOR
M
EDIA
&
 
D
EMOCRACY ET AL
.,I
NTERVENORS
 On Petition for Review of an Orderof the Federal Communications Commission
 Miguel A. Estrada
argued the cause for petitioner. Withhim on the briefs were
Theodore B. Olson
,
 David Debold 
,
Tyler R. Green
,
 Helgi C. Walker 
,
 Eve Klindera Reed 
,
 Arthur  J. Burke
, and
 David P. Murray
.
Case: 08-1114 Document: 1203454 Filed: 08/28/2009 Page: 1
 
2
 Mark D. Schneider 
argued the cause for intervenorsNational Cable & Telecommunications Association et al. insupport of petitioner. With him on the briefs were
 Michelle A. Groman
,
 Bruce Douglas Sokler 
,
 Robert G. Kidwell
,
 Howard J. Symons
,
 Daniel L. Brenner 
,
 Neal M. Goldberg
,
 Michael S. Schooler 
,
 Henk J. Brands
,
Wesley R. Heppler 
, and
 Robert G. Scott, Jr. Michael E. Glover 
,
 Edward Shakin
,
William H. Johnson
,
Patrick F. Philbin
, and
Gregory L. Skidmore
were on thebrief for
amicus curiae
Verizon Communications, Inc. insupport of petitioner.
W. Kenneth Ferree
was on the brief for
amicus curiae
theProgress & Freedom Foundation
 
in support of petitioner.
  James M. Carr 
, Counsel, Federal CommunicationsCommission, argued the cause for respondent. With him onthe brief were
 Deborah A. Garza
, Acting Assistant AttorneyGeneral,
Catherine G. O’Sullivan
and
 Robert J. Wiggers
,Attorneys,
 Matthew B. Berry
, General Counsel, FederalCommunications Commission,
 Joseph R. Palmore
, DeputyGeneral Counsel,
 Richard K. Welch
, Deputy AssociateGeneral Counsel, and
 Joel Marcus
, Counsel.
 Daniel M. Armstrong
, Associate General Counsel, entered anappearance.
 Andrew J. Schwartzman
argued the cause for intervenorsCCTV Center for Media & Democracy et al. in support of respondent. With him on the brief was
 Harold Feld 
.Before: G
INSBURG
and K
AVANAUGH
,
Circuit Judges
, andR
ANDOLPH
,
Senior Circuit Judge
.
Case: 08-1114 Document: 1203454 Filed: 08/28/2009 Page: 2
 
3Opinion for the Court filed by
Circuit Judge
G
INSBURG
.Separate opinion concurring except as to Part II.C filedby
Senior Circuit Judge
R
ANDOLPH
.G
INSBURG
,
Circuit Judge
: Comcast Corporation andseveral intervenors involved in the cable television industrypetition for review of a rule in which the FederalCommunications Commission capped at 30% of allsubscribers the market share any single cable televisionoperator may serve. We agree with Comcast that the 30%subscriber limit is arbitrary and capricious. We thereforegrant the petition and vacate the Rule.I. BackgroundThe Cable Television Consumer Protection andCompetition Act of 1992 directed the FCC, “[i]n order toenhance effective competition,” 47 U.S.C. § 533(f)(1), toprescrib[e] rules and regulations ... [to] ensurethat no cable operator or group of cableoperators can unfairly impede, either becauseof the size of any individual operator orbecause of joint actions by a group of operators of sufficient size, the flow of videoprogramming from the video programmer tothe consumer.
 Id.
§ 533(f)(2)(A). The Commission is to “make such rulesand regulations reflect the dynamic nature of thecommunications marketplace.”
 Id.
§ 533(f)(2)(E).Several cable operators immediately challenged certainprovisions of the Act, in particular arguing the subscriber
Case: 08-1114 Document: 1203454 Filed: 08/28/2009 Page: 3
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...