47 C.F.R. § 76.1301

Prohibited practices

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Financial interest. No cable operator or other multichannel video programming distributor shall require a financial interest in any program service as a condition for carriage on one or more of such operator's/provider's systems.

(b) Exclusive rights. No cable operator or other multichannel video programming distributor shall coerce any video programming vendor to provide, or retaliate against such a vendor for failing to provide, exclusive rights against any other multichannel video programming distributor as a condition for carriage on a system.

(c) Discrimination. No multichannel video programming distributor shall engage in conduct the effect of which is to unreasonably restrain the ability of an unaffiliated video programming vendor to compete fairly by discriminating in video programming distribution on the basis of affiliation or non-affiliation of vendors in the selection, terms, or conditions for carriage of video programming provided by such vendors.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2002–2016 · leading case: Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 717 F.3d 982 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 717 F.3d 982 (D.C. Cir. 2013). · cites it 4× “” 47 C.F.R. § 76.1301 (c); see also 47 U.S.”

TCR Sports Broad. Holding, L.L.P. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 679 F.3d 269 (4th Cir. 2012). · cites it 3× “2642, 2643, ¶ 1, 1993 WL 433631 (1993) (“Program Carriage Order”); see also 47 C.F.R. § 76.1301 . In developing these regulations, the FCC recognized “the congressional intent to prohibit unfair or anticompetitive actions without restraining the amount of multichannel…”

Yankees Ent. & Sports Network, LLC v. Cablevision Sys. Corp., 224 F. Supp. 2d 657 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). “YES has no right to enforce in this Court the FCC regulations regarding programming carriage, 47 C.F.R. § 76.1301 , that it alleges Ca-blevision has violated.”

Tennis Channel, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 827 F.3d 137 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “” 47 C.F.R. § 76.1301 (c). The administrative law judge ruling on Tennis Channel’s complaint found that Comcast had violated Section 616, and the Commission affirmed.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.