High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULEDCase No. 08-1114______________________________________________
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
______________________________________________COMCAST CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONand the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondents.
______________________________________________On Petition for Review of an Order of theFederal Communications Commission______________________________________________
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
Supporting Petitioner and Vacatur of the FCC’s Order
______________________________________________W. Kenneth FerreeBerin M. SzokaT
HE
P
ROGRESS
&
F
REEDOM
F
OUNDATION
1444 Eye Street N.W., Suite 500Washington, D.C. 20005TEL: 202.989.8928FAX: 202.289.6079
CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES
All parties, intervenors, and
amici
appearing in this court are listed in the Brief forPetitioner Comcast Corporation, as are references to the rulings and related cases.
IDENTITY OF THE
AMICUS CURIAE
The parties have consented to the filing of this brief.
Amicus curiae
The Progress &Freedom Foundation (PFF) is a non-profit research and educational institution, as defined bySection 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Founded in 1993, PFF’s principal mission is tostudy the impact of the digital and electronic revolution and its implications for public policy.PFF has no parent companies, subsidiaries, or affiliates. No publicly held corporation has anownership stake of 10% or more in PFF. Petitioner Comcast Corporation and
Amicus
Verizonare among over two dozen companies, trade associations and foundations that provide generalsupport for PFF’s research and educational work.
But no counsel or party to this case has madea monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief, nor has anycounsel or party to this case authored this brief in whole or in part.PFF filed comments in the FCC proceeding underlying this case
and has producedextensive scholarship on the legal, technological and economic issues involved, including
Media Metrics:
The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace
, an exhaustive study of mediacompetition showing that consumers have more media choices, more media competition, andmore media diversity today than ever before.
i
See
ii
Comments of The Progress & Freedom Foundation,
The Commission’s Cable Horizontal and Vertical Ownership Limits
, MM Docket No. 92-264 (September 8, 2005).
iii
Adam Thierer & Grant Eskelsen,
Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tables of Authorities......................................................................................................................iiiStatutes and Regulations................................................................................................................ivGlossary.........................................................................................................................................ivStatement of Issues Presented..........................................................................................................4Summary of Argument....................................................................................................................1Argument.........................................................................................................................................1I. The statute is facially unconstitutional....................................................................1A. The Court should reconsider whether cable possessesbottleneck/gatekeeper power.......................................................................3B. The FCC’s open-field model does not show that cable operatorshave bottleneck/gatekeeper power...............................................................4C. The evidence suggests that Congress’s fears about cable’sbottleneck/gatekeeper power are outdated...................................................61. The number of programmers has exploded.....................................62. Vertical integration between cable operators andprogrammers has plummeted...........................................................63. Consumers have more MVPD choices today than ever before.......74. New digital distribution channels offer programmersalternative means to reach viewers..................................................7D. The statute cannot survive strict scrutiny.....................................................9II. The statute as applied violates the First Amendment............................................10A. The rule cannot survive strict scrutiny.......................................................10B. The rule cannot even survive intermediate scrutiny..................................11C. The Court should require the FCC to develop a newmodel capable of assessing cable’s purported bottleneck power and the need for a new cap..............................................................12Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................13Certificate of Compliance with Rule 32(a)....................................................................................13Addendum......................................................................................................................................14Certificate of Service.....................................................................................................................15ii
Add a Comment