Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword or section
Like this
2Activity
×
P. 1
Comcast Answer To Bloomberg FCC Complaint

Comcast Answer To Bloomberg FCC Complaint

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,889|Likes:
Published by joemullin
filed 7/27/11
filed 7/27/11

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: joemullin on Jul 28, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

07/28/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 
Before theFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONWashington, DC
In the Matter of Bloomberg L.P.,Complainant,v.Comcast Cable Communications, LLC,Defendant.))))))))))))MB Docket No. 11-104To: Chief, Media Bureau
ANSWER OF COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLCDAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
450 Lexington AvenueNew York, NY 10017(212) 450-4000
WILKINSON BARKER KNAUER, LLP
2300 N Street, N.W., Suite 700Washington, DC 20037(202) 783-4141July 27, 2011
 Attorneys for Comcast Cable Communications, LLC 
 
FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
P
AGE
 EXHIBITS.......................................................................................................................................iINTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY............................................................................................1FACTUAL BACKGROUND..........................................................................................................6A. Carriage of BTV on Comcast Systems....................................................................6B. BTV’s Channel Placement on Comcast Systems....................................................7C. Channel Groupings on Comcast Systems..............................................................10D. Chronology of Comcast-Bloomberg Channel Relocation Discussions andBloomberg’s Advocacy Before the Commission..................................................131. Pre-Comcast-NBCUniversal
 
Order...........................................................132. Post-Comcast-NBCUniversal
 
Order..........................................................16LEGAL STANDARDS.................................................................................................................17ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................21I. BLOOMBERG’S PROPOSED DEFINITION OF A NEIGHBORHOOD ISINCONSISTENT WITH THE CONDITION’S PLAIN LANGUAGE,INDUSTRY PRACTICE, THE RECORD BEFORE THE COMMISSION,AND THE COMMISSION’S INTENT.................................................................21A. Four News Channels Constitute a Small Minority of the NewsChannels Available to Comcast Subscribers and Are Not a“Neighborhood” Based on Industry Practice.............................................21B. Bloomberg Relies Upon Inapposite Definitions of “Significant”..............26C. The Record Before the Commission Confirms that Four NewsChannels Does Not Constitute a “Neighborhood”.....................................29D. Bloomberg’s Position Leads to Two or More Neighborhoods on ManyComcast Systems, an Absurd Result Not Contemplated by theCommission...............................................................................................31
FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION
 
 iiII. BLOOMBERG’S INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDER ISINCONSISTENT WITH THE COMMISSION’S INTENT TO MINIMIZEDISRUPTIONS TO CONSUMERS AND OTHER PROGRAMMING NETWORKS.........................................................................................................36A. Bloomberg’s Proposed Condition Would Magnify the Costs, Burdensand Disruption Otherwise Associated with Channel Relocation...............36B. Impact on Networks, Customers, and Comcast.........................................391. Impact on Networks.......................................................................392. Impact on Customers.....................................................................403. Impact on Comcast........................................................................42III. THE CONDITION IS INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE IT MUST BEINTERPRETED AS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE.............................................44A. The Language of the Comcast-NBCUniversal
 
Order Indicates that theCondition Is Prospective in Nature............................................................45B. Retrospective Application Would Be Inconsistent with Long-StandingCommission Policy that Conditions Address Transaction-SpecificHarms.........................................................................................................47C. The Record Before the Commission Supports the Purely ProspectiveApplication of the Condition.....................................................................49IV. TO THE EXTENT THE COMPLAINT IS NOT DENIED, IT SHOULD BEDESIGNATED FOR HEARING..........................................................................51V. THE BUREAU WILL HAVE TO CONSIDER A LARGE NUMBER OFOTHER QUESTIONS...........................................................................................51RESPONSES TO NUMBERED PARAGRAPHS........................................................................53CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................67
FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->