The FCC denied an application for review by...
The FCC denied an application for review by DirecTV Sports Net Pittsburgh (DSNP) of an arbitrator’s finding in favor of a cable operator and against the regional sports network. The Media Bureau properly found that the rates and rate renewal…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
increase in the Armstrong Utilities final offer most closely approximate fair market value, the commission said in an order in Thursday’s Daily Digest (http://fcc.us/1n1L9B7). The bureau reached the decision on the final offer for carriage on DSNP in 2011. DSNP failed to explain in its application for review why the challenged provisions “would tip the scales in favor of the DSNP final offer in light of the unchallenged finding that many of the other provisions favor the Armstrong final offer,” said the full commission. It included a dissent from Commissioner Ajit Pai and a partial dissent from Commissioner Mike O'Rielly. The FCC, the Media Bureau and the arbitrator haven’t made a reasonable effort to figure out which offer was closer to the fair market value, Pai said (http://bit.ly/1qOUQ5C). Pai said he’s troubled by the “flawed methodology” used to resolve the case, “particularly because it will set a precedent for resolving future disputes between RSNs” and pay-TV companies. Pai would have preferred the FCC to remand the case to the bureau and request an estimate of the fair market value of Armstrong’s carriage of Fox Sports Net Pittsburgh, he said. O'Rielly backed Pai’s concerns over the methodology, but said he’s willing to let the bureau’s decision stand for a few reasons. O'Rielly said those reasons included because DirecTV “failed to challenge the other portions of the arbitrator’s decision” and didn’t provide an explanation as to why the two provisions it challenged would ultimately tip the scales in the company’s favor (http://bit.ly/1nk5vaD).