€ongrt~~ of tf.Je tlnfttb &tate' IIIUJJfngton, a . .:. 20515 The Honorable Julius Genachowski Chairman Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S. W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Dear Chairman Genachowski: July 23, 2012 We are concerned about the FCC's recent expansive interpretation of the "program carriage" rules. Expanding video regulation in the current environment ignores the realities of today's competitive marketplace. In today's video market, cable operators compete with satellite operators, telecommunications providers offering video, over-the-air broadcasters, online streaming video and online video distributors such as Netflix, Hulu and Roku. Cable operators must make reasonable business decisions about which programming services offer the right price and value for their subscribers. Like any business operating in a competitive market, they need flexibility to select programming that is of interest to their consumers and to package that programming in a way that enhances consumer choice and reduces cost. This is a much different market from 1992 when Congress first enacted the program carriage provisions. Those provisions restrict the ability of cable operators to freely negotiate with unaffiliated cable programmers. That may have made sense in 1992 when cable dominated the pay-TV market with regard to both distribution and programming. Today's market is much more competitive in both respects. The FCC's rules should reflect those changes rather than expand the reach of regulations that have outlived their purpose. The FCC's recent interpretation of the program carriage rules, however, could be read to enable programmers effectively to force their way on to a cable operator's system by merely alleging that their programming is similar enough to the operator's affiliated programming, rather than showing that there has been anticompetitive discrimination. This is a broad expansion of the FCC's program carriage rules and procedures. But more important, it is consumers who will ultimately bear the brunt of these expanded regulations through higher costs. In a difficult economy, consumers are looking for ways to trim their budgets. 0908 Letter to the Honorable Julius Genachowski Page 2 Cable operators need the flexibility to respond, or risk losing their consumers. They also should not be forced to spend millions ofdollars defending against groundless allegations. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, ~pro:.~~- Chairman Chairman Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Committee 0 ergy and Commerce fJ. M.7 · I v Letter to the Honorable Julius Genachowski Page 3 -~ l/..,u.. / ~;:n'I/ti .,&..,,--,~ cc: ~!nor~ A. Waxman,RankingMember~--- The Honorable Anna Eshoo, Ranking Member Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Letter to the Honorable Julius Genachowski Page 4 Signatories Page 2 Fred Upton Leonard Lance Mary Bono Mack Cynthia Lummis Michael Pompeo Brett Guthrie Mike Rogers (MI) Steve Scalise Michael Grimm Ed Whitfield Brian Bilbray Cathy McMorris Rodgers Denny Rehlberg Charles Bass Cliff Stearns Adam Kinzinger Joseph Pitts Greg Walden Cory Gardner Marsha Blackburn David McKinley Pete Olson Gregg Harper John Sullivan Phil Gingrey Tim Murphy Michael C. Burgess Page 3 Jim Matheson Mike Ross John Shimkus Christopher Smith Lee Terry Robert E. Latta Sue Myrick Committee on Energy and Commerce Republican Office U.S. House of Representatives 2125 Rayburn Bouse Office Building f Washington, D.C. 20515 fY!' Phone: (202) 225-2927 F= (202) 225-1919 fJf~ To: Mr. Greg Guice, Director of legislative Affalrs, Federal Communications Commission for Chairman Julius Genachowski, Federal Communications Commission FI'QIN Rep. Fred Upton, Chairman, Committee on Energy and COITImerce Rep. Greg Walden;. Chairman, Subeommlttee on Communications and Technology Othel5 Fma (202) 418-2806 D8IeI July 23. 2012 Phone: ...ea: 5 (Including cover)