April 3, 2010
Second Circuit Upholds FCC In Cablevision "Must Carry" Case
The Second Circuit has denied a cable systems operator's challenge to an FCC order that it carry a station pursuant to the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act. The cable systems operator alleged that the order violated the operator's free speech rights and involved a regulatory takings in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments.
An administrative agency has a duty to explain its ultimate action. ...However, it need not explain each and every step leading to this decision; it is enough "if the agency's path may reasonably be discerned." ...Here, the reason for the FCC's decision to affirm the Media Bureau's order is perfectly clear: it agreed with the reasoning of the Bureau in most respects and disagreed in certain others, but only in ways that strengthened the validity of the Bureau's decision. In such circumstances, we will not require the FCC to sift through each piece of evidence offered by a party and explain why it is more or less compelling than the counter-evidence put forth by an opponent.
The fact that we review agency fact-finding for "substantial evidence" supports our conclusion that the FCC's explanation was adequate. To determine whether substantial evidence supports a finding, we need ask only whether "a reasonable mind might accept [it] as adequate" support. ...Here, the agency found WRNN's evidence that it had significant Long Island-targeted programming to be more persuasive than Cablevision's evidence to the contrary. We need not know the agency's precise rationale in order to conclude that it was reasonable for the agency to so find. While such an explanation might have aided our reasonableness inquiry, it is not indispensable.
Both sides offered evidence regarding WRNN's programming content. According to Cablevision, its evidence showed that WRNN broadcast less than an hour of programming covering "Long Island issues" in a "representative week." Cablevision Br. at 33. WRNN pointed to evidence that it had aired over 4000 Long Island-related items between June and November 2005. It would be reasonable for the agency to resolve this conflicting evidence in favor of WRNN and to conclude (as it obviously did) that Cablevision failed to include some programming that should properly be considered as local to Long Island, or that its sample week was not actually representative. Thus, substantial evidence supports the FCC's finding on this factor.
We note that the Bureau, on its initial consideration of this petition, made a contrary finding as to this factor. This fact, however, does not alter our assessment of the FCC's ultimate determination. "An agency conclusion may be supported by substantial evidence even though a plausible alternative interpretation of the evidence would support a contrary view." ...questions of fact, our task on review is not to "displace [the agency's final] choice between two fairly conflicting views." ...
After the Bureau issued its 2006 Order, but before the FCC affirmed it, Verizon began carrying WRNN on its FiOS system to areas of Nassau and Suffolk Counties. ... FCC concluded that this "overlapping carriage provides support for WRNN-DT with respect to the historic carriage factor."... In a single paragraph in its brief, Cablevision argues that this analysis is "contrary to clear statutory language" because "[c]arriage initiated in the past few months does not constitute historical carriage." Cablevision Br. at 36-37.
Cablevision, however, fails to supply a contrary, "correct" definition of "historically carried," and does not discuss whether we should defer to the Bureau's interpretation of the term, in accordance with Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S. Ct. 2778, 81 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1984), as we did with the must-carry statute generally in WLNY-TV, Inc. v. FCC, 163 F.3d at 142. Even if Cablevision could demonstrate error in the sense that the Verizon carriage was not "historical," they have failed to show why such error would warrant vacatur given that (1) Cablevision does not contest the propriety of considering Verizon's carriage as an unenumerated, non-statutory factor, and (2) the Bureau decided to order carriage despite its belief that WRNN had not been "historically carried" in the relevant communities. Accordingly, we decline to vacate the FCC's order based on this asserted error in the FCC's analysis of the historical carriage factor.
Cablevision also alleges error in the FCC's treatment of the two remaining statutory factors. In the instant order, the FCC stated that Congress did not intend "the 'coverage by other qualified stations' factor to bar a request for extending a station's market when other stations could be shown to serve the communities at issue." ... In essence, then, the FCC decided to give the factor significant weight when a lack of coverage by other stations favored including a community in a station's market, but to discount its importance when the existence of coverage arguably cut against inclusion. Cablevision argues that this decision "is directly contrary to . . . the statutory text." Cablevision Br. at 40. This argument is unavailing. The text of the statute directs the agency to consider a number of factors, and it is clear from the opinion that both the FCC and the Bureau did consider this factor. Upon doing so, the FCC saw no reason to depart from its normal policy, which is to discount the "other stations' coverage" factor when it tends to cut against inclusion. Unsurprisingly, Cablevision cites no decision of this court vacating a decision because we disagree with an agency's weighing of a statutory factor. The law is to the contrary.
The market modification provision of the must-carry statute provides that the FCC may add or remove communities from a local broadcast station's market "to better effectuate the purposes of this section." Cablevision argues that the FCC's inclusion of the Long Island communities in WRNN's market contravened the purposes of must-carry in two ways. First, expanding WRNN's market in fact frustrates the goal of "localism" by necessarily decreasing programming relevant to the community WRNN has traditionally served (the Kingston community). And second, rewarding WRNN's actions with broader must-carry rights encourages gamesmanship which frustrates the purpose of must-carry, which is to preserve, but not expand, a broadcast station's market. We reject the first argument because it incorrectly presumes that WRNN cannot increase Long Island-targeted programming without decreasing Kingston-targeted programming. We reject the second because it rests on a conception of the statute's purpose that is overly narrow, unsupported by precedent, and contrary to the language of the statute.
According to Cablevision, the FCC's decision defeats the purposes of the must-carry statute because "[a]ny targeting of other spokes [i.e., communities that are remote from 'a DMA's metropolitan center'] necessarily comes at the expense of the station's community of license." Cablevision Br. at 43. This argument rests on the false premise that WRNN's programming consists entirely of either Kingston-specific programming or Long Island-specific programming. As Cablevision reminds us elsewhere, however, a great deal of WRNN's content is "home-shopping" programming that targets neither Kingston nor Long Island specifically. See Cablevision Br. at 33 (claiming that 78% of WRNN programming in a representative week "consisted of home shopping and infomercials"). It is entirely possible, and Cablevision does not suggest otherwise, that WRNN could increase its Long Island-targeted programming by decreasing its home-shopping programming, leaving its Kingston-targeted programming unaffected. And to the extent that a Kingston viewer might prefer certain home-shopping programming to programming concerning Long Island, we do not see how frustrating that preference undermines localism.
Essentially, Cablevision's claim is that, as a matter of law, a cable company in a community that is outside a "DMA's metropolitan center," such as Long Island, should not be required to carry a station based in a different community that is also remote from the center, such as Kingston: in Cablevision's parlance, a "spoke" cable company should not be required to carry a station based in a different spoke. Congress, however, did not share that view, and, as the FCC points out, the default rule is that WRNN must be carried by cable operators throughout the New York City DMA.
Cablevision also contends that the FCC's decision rewards "gamesmanship" because WRNN moved its transmitter and changed its programming simply to obtain must-carry privileges in other communities. Cablevision Br. at 46. In other words, they suggest that the FCC cannot award WRNN a regulatory benefit if WRNN has changed its conduct in an attempt to receive that benefit. This rule, applied universally, would run counter to a central premise of the regulatory scheme that a regulated entity will change its conduct in socially desirable ways to achieve a regulatory benefit. Accordingly, we reject it.
Cablevision also argues that any decision that increases a station's market is contrary to the purpose of the statute, because the purpose is "to return broadcasters to their 'natural market,'" Cablevision Br. at 47; thus, any FCC action which augments a broadcaster's market contravenes this purpose. The purpose of the statute, however, is not to "preserve" a group of broadcast stations, or a particular conception of a station's market, but, inter alia, to "preserv[e] the benefits of free, over-the-air television," and "promot[e] the widespread dissemination of information from a multiplicity of sources." ...We do not think that these purposes are served only by granting broadcasters the minimum must-carry coverage necessary for survival; or that these purposes are frustrated by actions which result in a station's greater prosperity. Accordingly, we conclude that the FCC did not violate the statutory admonition that market modifications should be made "to better effectuate the purposes of this section." ...The remainder of Cablevision's arguments on this point fail to persuade us otherwise.
As a threshold matter, a party alleging violation of its First Amendment rights must show that the challenged government action actually regulates protected speech. Thus, in Turner I, the Court found it necessary to establish, as an "initial premise," that "[c]able programmers and cable operators engage in and transmit speech," and that "the must-carry rules," in general, "regulate cable speech." Similarly, Cablevision here must articulate how the FCC's order "interferes with [its] speech rights."...
This threshold requirement serves two interrelated functions. Identifying the "burden" imposed by government action enables a court to undertake heightened scrutiny analysis: without understanding how a regulation burdens speech, a court cannot decide whether that burden is "no greater than is essential" to further the goals of the regulation in question. ...And the failure to identify the burden has an even more fundamental consequence: without a plausible allegation that the offensive conduct interferes with First Amendment rights or, put differently, that the interaction between government and citizen "bring[s] into play the First Amendment," ...a reviewing court has neither a reason nor the ability to subject the conduct of the governmental actor to heightened scrutiny.
Cablevision raises a similar, but not identical, First Amendment challenge to that raised in Turner I and Turner II. Cablevision presents an as-applied First Amendment challenge to the FCC's order modifying the market of WRNN, pursuant to the provision of the must-carry statute on market determinations, 47 U.S.C. § 534(h)(1)(C)(ii). The challenged order threatens the First Amendment interest of Cablevision in a similar manner to that described in Turner I and Turner II. The order reduces the number of channels over which Cablevision exercises editorial control by forcing it to carry WRNN, see Turner II, 520 U.S. at 213, and it also makes it more difficult for the cable programming arm of Cablevision to compete for carriage on the remaining channels, id.
In order to apply the appropriate level of scrutiny, we must first determine whether the order is content based or content neutral. ...
The Turner I Court explicitly rejected the argument that "the must-carry regulations are content based because Congress' purpose in enacting them was to promote speech of a favored content." ...
However, we think the order before us now is content neutral. WRNN's presumptive DMA would have included Nassau and Suffolk counties. It was Cablevision that first invoked the market modification provision to exclude these counties from WRNN's market. It succeeded based on the FCC's concern, in part, that WRNN lacked a Grade B contour reaching Long Island. When WRNN, after expanding its Grade B contour, returned to the FCC seeking restoration of its presumptive DMA, Cablevision argued that the station had failed to demonstrate that the various factors outlined in the market modification provision, including the local programming factor, weighed in WRNN's favor. The Bureau and the FCC reached different conclusions on this factor, yet both agreed that the totality of circumstances no longer justified excluding Long Island communities from WRNN's presumptive DMA. The FCC considered the amount of local programming provided by WRNN only in this context, i.e., in assessing the continued need to restrict a presumptive market defined solely by geography. Moreover, WRNN's local programming was an inconsequential factor in the FCC's ultimate decision. Additionally, Cablevision has not alleged, much less proven, that the restoration of the Long Island communities to WRNN's market under these circumstances was based on some illicit content-based motive. We conclude, therefore, that the order is content neutral and deserving of intermediate scrutiny.
We have no trouble in concluding that the order "advances important governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of free speech and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further these interests." The burden imposed by the order - the loss of control over one channel - is no greater than necessary to further the government's interest in preserving a single broadcast channel it found serves the local community.
April 3, 2010 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Second Circuit Upholds FCC In Cablevision "Must Carry" Case: