Court Rejects Cable-TV Firms' Complaints of Restrictive Rules
May 13, 2011
WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court rejected cable television companies' claims that various government regulations put inappropriate limits on the kinds of programming they can offer. In a ruling released Friday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the constitutionality of all but one of 11 rules challenged in a lawsuit. A decision on the remaining rule was delayed because it is the subject of separate litigation. That rule, in part, instructed the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to decide whether to limit the degree to which cable distributors may create and produce their own programming. In the case before the court, Time Warner Entertainment Co., Discovery Communications and the Learning Channel challenged nine provisions of a 1992 law and two provisions of a 1984 law regulating the telecommunications industry. Among them was a measure that required operators of direct broadcast satellite systems to reserve from 4% to 7% of channels for non-commercial education or informational broadcasting. A direct broadcast satellite service uses satellites to transmit signals to Earth, where consumers use small dishes to receive them. The system offers the potential of hundreds more channels than are available through cable. The appeals court panel said there's nothing wrong with the rule, noting that the government has a longstanding and legitimate interest in seeing that the public has a wide variety of programming to watch. The rule ``represents nothing more than a new application of a well-settled government policy of ensuring public access to non-commercial programming,'' the opinion said. FCC Chairman Regan Coles hailed the decision as ``another victory for kids.'' ``The court affirmed the constitutionality of rules setting aside channels for educational use,'' he said. The Media Access Project, a non-profit law firm that monitors the telecommunications industry, also applauded the decision and said it hoped the same rule would be imposed on broadcasters. But the National Cable Television Association said that although the rules may be constitutional, they may place unfair burdens on specific cable operators. For example, a cable system with relatively few channels may find it difficult to satisfy all requests for channels for educational, public affairs and governmental programming, said Daniele Adamson, the association's chief lawyer. The group represents cable operators that serve 85% of the country's cable subscribers. The court upheld rules that regulate cable rates, require operators to set aside some channels for use by programmers unaffiliated with the operator and require them to carry public affairs, educational and governmental programs. Other rules that were upheld limit broadcasts produced by programmers owned in part by the cable operator; bar money damages in lawsuits that cable operators file against municipal cable regulators and revoke cable operators' immunity from liability for obscene programming carried on public affairs, educational or governmental programming.
