U.S. Code » Title 47 » Chapter CHAPTER 5— WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER V–A— CABLE COMMUNICATIONS › Part Part II— Use of Cable Channels and Cable Ownership Restrictions

47 U.S.C. § 536

Regulation of carriage agreements

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 47 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) RegulationsWithin one year after October 5, 1992, the Commission shall establish regulations governing program carriage agreements and related practices between cable operators or other multichannel video programming distributors and video programming vendors. Such regulations shall—(1) include provisions designed to prevent a cable operator or other multichannel video programming distributor from requiring a financial interest in a program service as a condition for carriage on one or more of such operator’s systems;(2) include provisions designed to prohibit a cable operator or other multichannel video programming distributor from coercing a video programming vendor to provide, and from retaliating against such a vendor for failing to provide, exclusive rights against other multichannel video programming distributors as a condition of carriage on a system;(3) contain provisions designed to prevent a multichannel video programming distributor from engaging 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 nonaffiliation of vendors in the selection, terms, or conditions for carriage of video programming provided by such vendors;(4) provide for expedited review of any complaints made by a video programming vendor pursuant to this section;(5) provide for appropriate penalties and remedies for violations of this subsection, including carriage; and(6) provide penalties to be assessed against any person filing a frivolous complaint pursuant to this section.(b) “Video programming vendor” defined

As used in this section, the term “video programming vendor” means a person engaged in the production, creation, or wholesale distribution of video programming for sale.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title VI, § 616, as added Pub. L. 102–385, § 12, Oct. 5, 1992, 106 Stat. 1488.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective 60 days after Oct. 5, 1992, see section 28 of Pub. L. 102–385, set out as an Effective Date of 1992 Amendment note under section 325 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 2000–2016 · 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 10× “1301 (c); see also 47 U.S.C. § 536 (a)(3). Tennis Channel, a sports programming network and intervenor in this suit, filed a complaint against petitioner Comcast Cable, an MVPD, alleging that Comcast violated § 616 and the Commission’s regulations by refusing to broadcast Tennis…”
United States Telecom Ass'n v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “Compare § 616(a)(3) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 536 (a)(3).) In his dissent to the Order, Commissioner Pai, using terms perhaps feistier than would suit a court, summarized it as follows: The evidence of these continuing threats? There is none; it’s all anecdote,…”
Time Warner Cable Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 729 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2013). · cites it 5× “1460 (1992) (“Cable Act”) (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 536 (a)(3), (5)). Section 616(a)(3) and (5) and that part of the 2011 FCC Order establishing the standard for demonstrating a prima facie violation of these statutory provisions (collectively, the “program carriage regime”) are…”
Time Warner Ent. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 240 F.3d 1126 (D.C. Cir. 2001). “, less than the fraction that would allow it unilaterally to lock out a new cable programmer) despite the existence of antitrust laws and specific behavioral prohibitions enacted as part of the 1992 Cable Act, see 47 U.S.C. § 536 , and the risk might justify a prophylactic limit…”
TCR Sports Broad. Holding, L.L.P. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 679 F.3d 269 (4th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “See 47 U.S.C. § 536 (a). To that end, the 1992 Cable Act directed the FCC to promulgate regulations that “govern[] program carriage agreements and related practices between cable operators or other multichannel video programming distributors and video programming vendors.”
Time Warner Ent. Co. v. United States, 211 F.3d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 2000). “Nor, we are told, are subscriber limits necessary in order to promote competition; the antitrust laws, as well as the antidiscrimination provision of the 1992 Cable Act, see 47 U.S.C. § 536 (a)(3), provide a sufficient check upon any potentially anticompetitive conduct by cable…”
Herring Broad., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 515 F. App'x 655 (9th Cir. 2013). “, and Comcast Corporation (collectively Intervenors) did not violate 47 U.S.C. § 536 (a)(3) in denying carriage to WealthTV.”
Tennis Channel, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 827 F.3d 137 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “, alleging that Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, violated Section 616 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 536 , by giving preferential treatment to its affiliated networks in programming tier placement.”
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.