PETER J. VISCLOSKY 1ST DISTRiCT. INDIANA COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEES, DEFENSE ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT MILITARY CONSTRUCTION/VA CONGRESSIONAL STEEL CAUCUS CHAIRMAN U.S. HOUSE LAW ENFORCEMENT CAUCUS Qtnngress nf t4e Initeb~tntes l;ouse of iepresentatiues DlIasl1ington, !lor 20515-1401 2256 RAY6URN BUILDING WASHINGTON. DC 20515·1401 1202) 226-2461 7896 BROADWAY. SUITE A MERRILLVILLE. IN 48410 12191795-1844 C.II Toll Free 1 888423 PETE 11888423-7383) INTERNET, http.//www.house·llov/viscloskyl April 20, 2011 The Honorable Julius Oenachowski Chairman Federal Communications Comll1ission 445 12th StreetSauthwest Washington, D.C. 20554 Dear Julius; I write to express my support for a recently published Notice ofProposed Rulemaking on proposals to streamline and clarify the FCCs rules regarding retransmission consent agreements. When retransmission consent provisions were first introduced in 1992, Congress's intent was to ensure that the public would retain access to local broadcast programming as cable television gained in power and influence. Today, it is clear that our original intent has been adapted by broadcasters, who now use these provisions to claim that they may pull their signals from video providers unless these providers agree to pay rapidly escalating fees. I am confident that you will ensure that the all proposals to improve the retransmission consent agreement system will promote its original intent. However, I would ask that in your examination, you consider how the current retransmission consent market affects smaller operators. It concerns me that smaller cable providers often pay significantly higher retransmission consent fees than larger providers for the same broadcast signals. I urge you to take the concerns of smaller providers into account as you develop new rules to promote a more equitable market that will discourage undue price discrimination. Specifically, it has been brought to my attention that broadcasters are increasingly agreeing to jointly negotiate retransmission consent for multiple affiliates in the same market when the stations are not commonly owned..·Additionally,,bfoadcastnetwol'ks and local broadcast stations are increasingly interfering in the negotiations ot'ruralcable operators who seek retransmission consent from adjacent market stations that historically have been available to their customer base. These practices increase carriage fees and disruption for consumers during negotiation impasses. THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE OF RECYCLED FIBERS