Sports Blackout Rules, 4138-4149 [2014-01338]
Download as PDF
4138
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 16 / Friday, January 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: December 17, 2013.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2014–01181 Filed 1–23–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[MB Docket No. 12–3; FCC 13–162]
Sports Blackout Rules
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission seeks comment on its
proposal to eliminate the sports
blackout rules. Elimination of the sports
blackout rules alone likely would not
end sports blackouts, but it would leave
sports carriage issues to private
solutions negotiated by the interested
parties in light of current market
conditions and eliminate unnecessary
regulation.
SUMMARY:
Comments for this proceeding
are due on or before February 24, 2014;
reply comments are due on or before
March 25, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by MB Docket No. 12–3, by
any of the following methods:
D Federal Communications
Commission’s Web site: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
D Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail
(although the Commission continues to
experience delays in receiving U.S.
Postal Service mail). All filings must be
addressed to the Commission’s
Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
D People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202)
418–0432.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
additional information, contact Kathy
Berthot, Kathy.Berthot@fcc.gov, of the
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
DATES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jan 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202)
418–7454.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 13–162,
adopted on December 17, 2013 and
released on December 18, 2013. The full
text is available for public inspection
and copying during regular business
hours in the FCC Reference Center,
Federal Communications Commission,
445 12th Street SW., CY–A257,
Washington, DC 20554. This document
will also be available via ECFS (https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). Documents will
be available electronically in ASCII,
Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat. The
complete text may be purchased from
the Commission’s copy contractor, 445
12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554. To request this
document in accessible formats
(computer diskettes, large print, audio
recording, and Braille), send an email to
fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission’s
Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202)
418–0432 (TTY).
This document contains no proposed
information collection requirements.
Summary of the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
I. Introduction
1. In this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, we propose to eliminate
the Commission’s sports blackout rules,
which prohibit certain multichannel
video programming distributors
(MVPDs) from retransmitting, within a
protected local blackout zone, the signal
of a distant broadcast station carrying a
live sporting event if the event is not
available live on a local television
broadcast station.1 The sports blackout
rules were originally adopted nearly 40
years ago when game ticket sales were
the main source of revenue for sports
leagues. These rules were intended to
address concerns that MVPDs’
importation of a distant signal carrying
a blacked-out sports event could result
in lost revenue from ticket sales, which
might cause sports leagues to expand
the reach of blackouts by refusing to sell
their rights to sports events to all distant
stations. The rationale underpinning the
rules was to ensure to the greatest extent
possible the continued availability of
sports telecasts to the public. Changes in
the sports industry in the last four
decades have called into question
whether the sports blackout rules
remain necessary to ensure the overall
availability of sports programming to
1 See 47 CFR 76.111 (cable operators), 76.127
(satellite providers), 76.128 (application of sports
blackout rules), 76.1506(m) (open video systems).
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the general public. In this proceeding,
we will determine whether the sports
blackout rules have become outdated
due to marketplace changes since their
adoption, and whether modification or
elimination of those rules is
appropriate. We recognize that
elimination of our sports blackout rules
alone might not end sports blackouts,
but it would leave sports carriage issues
to private solutions negotiated by the
interested parties in light of current
market conditions and eliminate
unnecessary regulation.
II. Background
A. History of the Sports Blackout Rules
2. Prior to 1953, National Football
League (NFL) bylaws prohibited
member teams from, among other
things, (i) telecasting their games into
the home territory of another team that
was playing at home, and (ii) telecasting
their games into the home territory of
another team that was playing away
from home and was telecasting its game
into its home territory. In 1953, a federal
court held that the NFL’s prohibition on
the telecast of outside games into the
home territory of a team that was
playing at home was a reasonable
method of protecting the home team’s
gate receipts and was not illegal under
the antitrust laws. The court found,
however, that restricting the telecast of
outside games into the home territory of
a team not playing at home was an
unreasonable restraint on trade because,
when the home team was playing away,
there was no gate to protect.
3. In 1961, the NFL entered into an
agreement with the CBS television
network under which the NFL’s member
teams pooled the television rights to
their games and authorized the league to
sell the rights to the network as a
package, with the revenue from the
league sales to be distributed equally
among the member teams. Under this
agreement, CBS was permitted to
determine which games would be
televised and where the games would be
televised. The NFL then petitioned the
court for a ruling on whether the terms
of its contract with CBS violated the
court’s 1953 final judgment. The court
concluded that the provision giving CBS
the power to determine which games
would be televised and where was
contrary to the final judgment and that
execution and performance of the
contract was therefore prohibited. This
ruling did not, however, apply to a
similar contract between the newly
formed American Football League (AFL)
and the ABC television network,
because the AFL was not a party to the
court’s 1953 final judgment. Concerned
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 16 / Friday, January 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
that the court’s ruling placed it at a
disadvantage to the AFL, the NFL
petitioned Congress for relief, arguing
that packaged network contracts were
desirable because they allowed the
member teams to negotiate for the sale
of television rights with a single voice
and equalized revenue among the
member teams.
4. Congress responded to the NFL’s
plea for relief with its passage of the
Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961. The
Sports Broadcasting Act exempts from
the antitrust laws joint agreements
among individual teams engaged in
professional football, baseball,
basketball, or hockey that permit the
leagues to pool the individual teams’
television rights and sell those rights as
a package. This statute also expressly
permits these four professional sports
leagues to black out television
broadcasts of home games within the
home territory of a member team. At the
time the Sports Broadcasting Act was
enacted, television blackouts were
believed to be necessary to protect gate
receipts, and the packaging of
individual teams’ television rights was
thought to be necessary to enhance the
financial stability of the leagues by
assuring equal distribution of revenues
among all teams. The NFL subsequently
instituted a practice of blacking out the
television broadcast of all home games
of its member teams in their home
territory, irrespective of whether the
games were sold out.
5. In August 1971, the Commission
sent a letter to Congress seeking
guidance on the Commission’s proposed
regulatory scheme for the then-nascent
cable television industry, which
included several proposals relating to
sports programming. The Commission
noted the exemptions from the anti-trust
laws granted to professional sports
leagues under the Sports Broadcasting
Act and stated that ‘‘cable systems
should not be permitted to circumvent
the purpose of th[is] law by importing
the signal of a station carrying the home
game of a professional team if that team
has elected to black out the game in its
home territory.’’ The Commission
indicated that it would follow the
‘‘spirit and letter’’ of the Sports
Broadcasting Act ‘‘since it represents
Congressional policy in this important
area’’ and stated that it intended to
initiate a rulemaking proceeding on this
issue in the near future. The
Commission commenced a rulemaking
proceeding proposing a sports blackout
rule for cable television systems in
February 1972.
6. In 1973, during the pendency of the
Commission’s rulemaking proceeding,
Congress enacted Public Law 93–107 in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jan 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
response to complaints from dissatisfied
football fans who were unable to view
the sold out home games of their local
teams on the public airwaves due to the
NFL’s blackout policy. Public Law 93–
107 added new section 331 to the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (Communications Act), which
prohibited professional sports leagues
from blacking out the television
broadcast of a home game in a team’s
home territory if the game was televised
elsewhere pursuant to a league
television contract and the game sold
out 72 hours in advance of game time.
Public Law 93–107 was intended as a
limited experiment to allow all affected
parties to assess the impact of the
statute and expired by its own terms
effective December 31, 1975. Although
the statute was not renewed, the NFL
subsequently continued to follow the
practice of blacking out the television
broadcast of home games in a team’s
home territory only if the game was not
sold out 72 hours in advance of game
time.
7. In the meantime, the Commission
adopted the cable sports blackout rule
in 1975 to address concerns that cable
systems could frustrate sports leagues’
blackout policies by importing the
distant signal of a television station
carrying the home game of a sports team
that has elected to black out the game
in its home territory. Specifically, the
Commission found that
[g]ate receipts are the primary source of
revenue for sports clubs, and teams have a
reasonable interest in protecting their home
gate receipts from the potentially harmful
financial effects of invading telecasts of their
games from distant television stations. If
cable television carriage of the same game
that is being played locally is allowed to take
place, the local team’s need to protect its gate
receipts might require that it prohibit the
telecasting of its games on [distant] television
stations which might be carried on local
cable systems. If this were to result, the
overall availability of sports telecasts would
be significantly reduced.
The Commission emphasized that its
concern was not in ensuring the
profitability of organized sports, but
rather in ensuring the overall
availability of sports telecasts to the
general public, which it found was ‘‘of
vital importance to the larger and more
effective use of the airwaves.’’ The cable
sports blackout rule adopted by the
Commission, which was originally
codified in § 76.67 and later renamed,
slightly revised, and renumbered as
§ 76.111, is designed to allow the holder
of the exclusive distribution rights to
the sports event (i.e., a sports team,
league, promoter, or other agent, rather
than a broadcaster) to control, through
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4139
contractual agreements, the display of
that event on local cable systems. Under
this rule, the rights holder may demand
that a cable system located within the
specified zone of protection of a
television broadcast station licensed to
a community in which a sports event is
taking place black out the distant
importation of the sports event if the
event is not being carried live by a
television broadcast station in that
community. The zone of protection
afforded by the cable sports blackout
rule is generally 35 miles surrounding
the reference point of the broadcast
station’s community of license in which
the live sporting event is taking place.
The cable sports blackout rule applies to
all sports telecasts in which the event is
not exhibited on a local television
station, including telecasts of high
school, college, and professional sports,
and individual as well as team sports.
8. The Telecommunications Act of
1996 (1996 Act) added a new section
653 to the Communications Act, which
established a new framework for entry
into the video programming distribution
market, the open video system.
Congress’s intent in establishing the
open video system framework was ‘‘to
encourage telephone companies to enter
the video programming distribution
market and to deploy open video
systems in order to ‘introduce vigorous
competition in entertainment and
information markets’ by providing a
competitive alternative to the
incumbent cable operator.’’ As an
incentive for telephone company entry
into the video programming distribution
market, section 653 provides for
reduced regulatory burdens for open
video systems subject to the systems’
compliance with certain nondiscrimination and other requirements
set forth in Section 653(b)(1). Section
653(b)(1)(D) directed the Commission to
extend to the distribution of video
programming over open video systems
the Commission’s rules on sports
blackouts, network nonduplication, and
syndicated exclusivity. The Commission
amended its rules in 1996 to directly
apply the existing cable sports blackout
rule to open video systems.2
9. In November 1999, Congress
enacted the Satellite Home Viewer
Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA),
which provides statutory copyright
licenses for satellite carriers to provide
additional local and national broadcast
programming to subscribers. In enacting
2 We note that the sports blackout rule for OVS,
which is codified at 47 CFR 76.1506(m), references
47 CFR 76.67, which has been renumbered as 47
CFR 76.111. If the sports blackout rule for OVS is
retained, we propose to update 47 CFR 76.1506(m)
to cite the appropriate rule section, 47 CFR 76.111.
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
4140
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 16 / Friday, January 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
SHVIA, Congress sought to place
satellite carriers on an equal footing
with cable operators with respect to the
availability of broadcast programming.
Section 1008 of SHVIA added a new
Section 339 to the Communications Act.
Section 339(b) directed the Commission
to apply the cable network
nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity,
and sports blackout rules to satellite
carriers’ retransmission of nationally
distributed superstations and, to the
extent technically feasible and not
economically prohibitive, to extend the
cable sports blackout rule to satellite
carriers’ retransmission of network
stations to subscribers.
10. The Commission adopted a sports
blackout rule for satellite carriers in
November 2000. This rule provides that,
on the request of the holder of the rights
to a sports event, a satellite carrier may
not retransmit a nationally distributed
superstation or a network station
carrying the live television broadcast of
the sports event to subscribers if the
event is not being carried live by a local
television broadcast station. This rule
applies within the same 35-mile zone of
protection that applies to cable systems
applies to satellite carriers; that is, 35
miles surrounding the reference point of
the broadcast station’s community of
license in which the live sporting event
is taking place.
11. The Commission last examined
the sports blackout rules more than
seven years ago, in a 2005 report to
Congress required by the Satellite Home
Viewer Extension and Reauthorization
Act of 2004 (SHVERA). SHVERA
directed the Commission to complete an
inquiry and submit a report to Congress
‘‘regarding the impact on competition in
the multichannel video programming
distribution market of the current
retransmission consent, network nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity, and
sports blackout rules, including the
impact of those rules on the ability of
rural cable operators to compete with
direct broadcast satellite (‘DBS’)
industry in the provision of digital
broadcast television signals to
consumers.’’ SHVERA also directed the
Commission to ‘‘include such
recommendations for changes in any
statutory provisions relating to such
rules as the Commission deems
appropriate.’’ The Commission
concluded in its report that the sports
blackout rules do not affect competition
among MVPDs, that commenters failed
to advance any link between the
blackout rules and competition among
MVPDs, and that no commenter pressed
the case for repeal or modification of the
sports blackout rules. The Commission
therefore declined to recommend any
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jan 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
regulatory or statutory revisions to
modify the protections afforded to the
holders of sports programming rights.
12. Today, sports leagues’ blackout
policies determine which games are
blacked out locally. These policies are
given effect primarily through
contractual arrangements negotiated
between the leagues or individual teams
that hold the rights to the games and the
entities to which they grant distribution
rights, including television networks,
local television broadcast stations,
Regional Sports Networks (RSNs), and
MVPDs. The Commission’s rules,
described above, supplement these
contractual relationships by requiring
MVPDs to black out games that are
required by the sports leagues or
individual teams to be blacked out on
local television stations.
B. Petition for Rulemaking
13. In November 2011, the Sports Fan
Coalition, Inc., National Consumers
League, Public Knowledge, League of
Fans, and Media Access Project
(collectively, Petitioners or SFC) filed a
joint Petition for Rulemaking urging the
Commission to eliminate the sports
blackout rules. The Petitioners assert
that, at a time when ticket prices for
sports events are at historic highs and
high unemployment rates persist,
making it difficult for many consumers
to afford attending local sports events,
the Commission should not support the
‘‘anti-consumer’’ blackout policies of
professional sports leagues. The
Petitioners also argue that the sports
leagues’ blackout policies are no longer
needed to protect gate receipts and
therefore should not be facilitated by the
Commission’s sports blackout rules. The
Petitioners maintain that, ‘‘without a
regulatory subsidy from the federal
government in the form of the [sports
blackout rules], sports leagues would be
forced to confront the obsolescence of
their blackout policies and could
voluntarily curtail blackouts.’’ On
January 12, 2012, the Media Bureau
issued a Public Notice seeking comment
on the Petition. Comments in support of
the petition were filed by SFC, a group
of nine sports economists, several
members of Congress, and thousands of
individual consumers. The NFL, the
Office of the Commissioner of Baseball
(Baseball Commissioner), the National
Association of Broadcasters, and a group
of network television affiliates filed
comments opposing the Petition.
III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
14. We propose to eliminate the sports
blackout rules. The sports blackout rules
were first adopted nearly four decades
ago to ensure that the potential loss of
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
gate receipts resulting from cable system
importation of distant stations did not
lead sports clubs to refuse to sell their
rights to sports events to distant
stations, which would reduce the
overall availability of sports
programming to the public. The rules
were extended to open video systems
and then to satellite carriers to provide
parity between cable and newer video
distributors. The sports industry has
changed dramatically in the last 40
years, however, and the Petitioners
argue that the economic rationale
underlying the sports blackout rules
may no longer be valid. Below we seek
comment on whether we have authority
to repeal the sports blackout rules. Next,
we examine whether the economic
considerations that led to adoption of
the sports blackout rules continue to
justify our intervention in this area.
Finally, we propose to eliminate the
sports blackout rules and seek comment
on the potential benefits and harms of
that proposed action on interested
parties, including sports leagues,
broadcasters, and consumers.
A. Legal Authority
15. We seek comment on whether we
have the authority to repeal the sports
blackout rules. As discussed above,
Congress did not explicitly mandate that
the Commission adopt the cable sports
blackout rule. Rather, the Commission
adopted the cable sports blackout rule
as a regulatory measure premised on the
policy established by Congress in the
Sports Broadcasting Act, which exempts
from the antitrust laws joint agreements
among individual teams engaged in
professional football, baseball,
basketball, or hockey that permit the
leagues to pool the individual teams’
television rights and sell those rights as
a package and expressly permits these
four professional sports leagues to black
out television broadcasts of home games
within the home territory of a member
team. Section 653(b)(1)(D) of the Act, as
added by the 1996 Act, directed the
Commission to extend to open video
systems ‘‘the Commission’s regulations
concerning sports exclusivity (47 CFR
76.67).’’ Similarly, Section 339(b) of the
Communications Act, as added by
SHVIA in 1999, directed the
Commission to ‘‘apply . . . sports
blackout protection (47 CFR 76.67) to
the retransmission of the signals of
nationally distributed superstations by
satellite carriers’’ and, ‘‘to the extent
technically feasible and not
economically prohibitive, apply sports
blackout protection (47 CFR 76.67) to
the retransmission of the signals of
network stations by satellite carriers.’’
Reflecting the language used in these
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 16 / Friday, January 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
statutory provisions, the legislative
history of Section 339(b) states that
Congress’s intent was to place satellite
carriers on an equal footing with cable
operators with respect to the availability
of television programming. Petitioners
argue that the Commission has the
authority to repeal the sports blackout
rules for both cable and DBS because
Congress never directed the
Commission to issue the sports blackout
rules in the first instance and only
directed the Commission to establish
parity between the cable and DBS
regimes. Senators Blumenthal and
McCain likewise assert that ‘‘[i]t is
important to note that Congress never
instructed the Commission to
promulgate the Sports Blackout Rule in
the first place. The Commission
therefore possesses ample authority to
amend the Sports Blackout Rule sua
sponte, without any action by
Congress.’’ Several commenters
opposing elimination of the sports
blackout rules assert that Congress
mandated the sports blackout rule for
DBS. These commenters do not,
however, expressly argue that the
Commission does not have authority to
eliminate the sports blackout rules,
either for cable or for DBS and OVS. We
tentatively conclude that repeal of the
cable sports blackout rule is authorized
by the Communications Act, which
grants the Commission general
rulemaking power, including the
authority to revisit its rules and modify
or repeal them where it concludes such
action is appropriate. We seek comment
on this tentative conclusion. We also
seek comment on whether we have the
authority to repeal the sports blackout
rules for DBS and OVS. We observe that
when Congress enacted the sports
blackout provisions in Sections 339(b)
and 653(b)(1)(D) of the Act, Congress
directed the Commission to apply to
DBS and OVS the sports blackout
protection applied to cable, set forth in
47 CFR 76.67, rather than simply
directing the adoption of sports blackout
rules for those services. The statute does
not withdraw the Commission’s
authority to modify its cable rule at
some point in the future, nor is there
any indication in the legislative history
that Congress intended to withdraw this
authority. Given that the DBS and OVS
provisions are expressly tied to the
cable sports blackout rule, does this
evince an intent on the part of Congress
that the Commission should accord the
same regulatory treatment to DBS and
OVS as cable, i.e., if the Commission
modifies or repeals the cable rule it
should also modify or repeal the DBS
and OVS rules? Would Congress’s intent
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jan 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
to subject open video systems to
reduced regulatory burdens as an
incentive for their entry into the video
market support an assertion of authority
to eliminate the sports blackout rule for
OVS if we determine that the cable
sports blackout rule is no longer
needed? Alternatively, are Congress’s
directives to the Commission regarding
application of sports blackout protection
to open video systems and to satellite
carriers more appropriately interpreted
to mean that the Commission does not
have the authority to repeal the sports
blackout rules for these types of entities,
even if it does so for cable? If we
determine that we do not have the
authority to repeal the satellite sports
blackout rule and/or the OVS sports
blackout rule, would it nevertheless be
appropriate to repeal the cable sports
blackout rule? Would eliminating the
sports blackout rule for cable but not for
DBS and/or OVS create undue
disparities or unintended consequences
for any of these entities?
B. Assessing the Continued Need for
Sports Blackout Rules
16. We request comment on whether
the economic rationale underlying the
sports blackout rules remains valid in
today’s marketplace. Specifically, we
invite commenters to submit
information, and to comment on
information currently in the record,
regarding (i) the extent to which sports
events continue to be blacked out
locally as a result of the failure of the
events to sell out, (ii) the relative
`
importance of gate receipts vis-a-vis
other revenues in organized sports
today, and (iii) whether local blackouts
of sports events significantly affect gate
receipts. We invite commenters also to
submit any other information that may
be relevant in assessing whether the
sports blackout rules are still needed to
ensure the overall availability of sports
telecasts to the public. We ask
commenters to assess whether this
information, as updated and
supplemented, supports retaining or
eliminating the sports blackout rules.
1. Blackouts of Sports Events
17. We seek comment on the extent to
which sports events are blacked out
locally today due to the failure of the
events to sell out. The record indicates
that professional football continues to
be the sport most affected by blackouts.
Under the NFL’s longstanding blackout
policy, the television broadcast of home
games in a team’s home territory has
been blacked out if the game was not
sold out 72 hours in advance of game
time. In 1974, just prior to the
Commission’s adoption of the cable
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4141
sports blackout rule, 59 percent of
regular season NFL games were blacked
out due to failure of the games to sell
out. During the 2011 NFL season, only
16 out of 256 regular season games, or
six percent of games, were blacked out.
These 16 blackouts occurred in just four
cities: Buffalo, Cincinnati, San Diego,
and Tampa Bay. Thus, the percentage of
NFL games that are blacked out today
has dropped substantially since the
sports blackout rules were adopted, and
blackouts of NFL games are relatively
rare. Does this substantial reduction in
the number of blacked out NFL games
suggest that the sports blackout rules are
no longer needed? Conversely, does the
relatively small number of blackouts of
NFL games argue against the need to
eliminate the sports blackout rules? To
what extent are blackouts of NFL games
averted when teams and local
businesses work together to ‘‘sell’’
outstanding tickets, thereby allowing
local coverage of games? Has the cable
sports blackout rule had any impact on
the number of NFL blackouts? How
should this affect our analysis?
18. We note that in 2012, after the
petition for rulemaking in this
proceeding was put out for comment,
the NFL modified its blackout policy to
allow its member teams the option of
avoiding a blackout in their local
television market if the team sold at
least 85 percent of game tickets at least
72 hours prior to the game. Specifically,
under this new policy, individual teams
are required to determine their own
blackout threshold—anywhere from 85
percent to 100 percent—at the beginning
of the season and adhere to that number
throughout that season. If ticket sales
exceed the threshold set by the team,
the team must share a higher percentage
of the revenue from those ticket sales
than usual with the visiting team. We
seek comment on the extent to which
this new policy has impacted blackouts
of NFL games. According to SFC, there
were 15 NFL games blacked out
affecting five NFL franchises during the
2012 season. Which teams opted to take
advantage of the NFL’s new blackout
policy and what effect, if any, did the
NFL’s relaxation of its blackout policy
have on ticket sales for the home games
of these teams? Does the NFL’s recent
relaxation of its sports blackout policy
weigh in favor of or against elimination
of the Commission’s sports blackout
rules?
19. We note that the record is largely
silent on the prevalence of blackouts
affecting sports other than the NFL; thus
we invite comment on the extent to
which these sports events are blacked
out locally today. As noted above, the
sports blackout rules apply to all sports
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
4142
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 16 / Friday, January 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
telecasts in which the event is not
available live on a local television
station, including telecasts of high
school, college, and professional sports,
and individual as well as team sports.
The Sports Economists assert, however,
that ‘‘major professional sports leagues
in the U.S. [other than the NFL]
generally do not use blackout rules to
prevent a game from being televised in
the locality in which it is being played’’
because they ‘‘sell television rights to
only some games through national
broadcast agreements.’’ The Sports
Economists explain that
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
[t]he FCC’s rules currently have little
relevance with respect to television rights
that are sold by a team rather than the league.
The FCC’s rules apply only to games in the
local area where they are being played. Thus,
the FCC’s blackout rules bear no relation to
league policies that prevent telecasts in a
team’s home market of a game being played
elsewhere. For games that are played locally,
the vast majority of teams choose to sell
television rights to all or most of their games.
* * *
To what extent are the sports blackout
rules still relevant for sports other than
professional football, where individual
teams, rather than the league, hold and
sell the distribution rights for all or most
of the games? In this regard, we seek
comment on the importance of retaining
the sports blackout rules to protect the
viability of any nascent sports leagues
that may emerge in the future.
20. Professional baseball is the only
other sport for which commenters
provided any information on blackouts.
Commenters indicate that the number of
MLB games blacked out is relatively
small because individual MLB teams,
rather than the league, negotiate with
local broadcast television flagship
stations or RSNs for exclusive rights to
televise most of the teams’ games, both
home and away games, in the teams’
home territories. According to the
Baseball Commissioner, in 2011, 151 of
162 regular season games of each MLB
team, on average, were televised on the
team’s local broadcast television station
or RSN. Therefore, the Baseball
Commissioner asserts, at most eleven of
162 regular season games of each MLB
team were affected by the sports
blackout rules. To the extent that more
specific data are available regarding the
number of home games of MLB teams
blacked out pursuant to the
Commission’s sports blackout rules, as
opposed to MLB’s blackout policies, we
request that commenters provide those
data. Specifically, for each MLB team,
we seek current data on whether
exclusive rights to televise most of the
teams’ games have been granted to local
broadcast flagship stations or RSNs and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jan 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
the number of home games that are
blacked out pursuant to the
Commission’s rules. Does the number of
games blacked out argue in favor of or
weigh against repeal of the sports
blackout rules? In addition, for home
games that are blacked out under our
rules, we seek information as to why
they are blacked out. In this regard, the
Baseball Commissioner states that ‘‘[t]he
vast majority of MLB games are not sold
out. While there are specific instances
in which MLB clubs do take account of
gate attendance in making decisions
about telecasting patterns (and invoking
the [Commission’s sports blackout
rules]), MLB clubs do not routinely
black out games that are not sold out.’’
Accordingly, what factors other than
attendance are taken into account in
determining which MLB games are
blacked out locally? How many MLB
games were blacked out due to failure
to sell out and how many were blacked
out for other reasons? If, as reported,
few MLB games are blacked out due to
failure to sell out, does this support the
conclusion that the sports blackout rules
are not needed to promote attendance at
sports events?
21. We likewise request specific data
detailing the extent to which any other
sports events, including games of other
major professional sports leagues (e.g.,
the NBA and NHL), and any other
professional, collegiate, or high school
sports events, are blacked out locally.
To the extent that these other sports
events are blacked out, are they blacked
out due to failure of the event to sell out
or for some other reason?
2. Gate Receipts and Other Revenues
22. We seek comment on the relative
`
importance of gate receipts vis-a-vis
other revenues in sports today. As
discussed above, when the Commission
adopted the cable sports blackout rule
in 1975, it found that ‘‘gate receipts
were the primary source of revenue for
sports clubs.’’ The record before us
indicates, however, that the importance
of gate receipts has diminished
dramatically for NFL clubs in the past
four decades, particularly in relation to
television revenues. The Sports
Economists state that in 1970 the
estimated average revenue of an NFL
team was approximately $5 million and
the estimated average operating income
was less than $1 million, whereas in
2009 the estimated average revenue of
an NFL team was about $250 million
and the estimated average operating
income was $33 million. The Sports
Economists further state that ticket sales
today account for around 20 percent of
NFL revenues, while television
revenues account for around 60 percent.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
According to SFC, television revenues,
which are shared equally among teams,
are 80 times what they were in 1970 and
now account for 50 percent of the NFL’s
total revenues. SFC asserts that gate
receipts, which are split 60/40 between
the home team and visiting team,
account for only 21.6 percent of the
NFL’s total revenues. These figures
indicate that television revenues have
replaced gate receipts as the most
significant source of revenue for NFL
clubs. Does this shift in the source of
revenue for NFL clubs undermine the
economic rationale for the sports
blackout rules? We invite commenters
to supplement the record with more
current data on NFL revenues, including
total revenues, gate receipts, and
television revenues, to the extent that
such data are available. If gate receipts
are no longer the primary or most
significant source of revenue for NFL
clubs, are the sports blackout rules still
necessary to promote attendance at
games and to ensure the overall
availability of telecasts of these sports to
the public? If so, why?
23. There is scant information in the
record regarding the significance of gate
receipts in relation to other sources of
revenue for sports other than
professional football. The Baseball
Commissioner states only that, ‘‘in any
given year, ticket sales and television
revenues account for roughly the same
portion of [MLB’s] revenues and both
are critically important to an MLB club’s
economic health.’’ To the extent that
commenters assert that the sports
blackout rules remain necessary to
ensure the overall availability of
telecasts of particular sports to the
public, we request that they provide
current revenue data for such sports,
including total revenues, television
revenues, and gate receipts. We note
that, during recent years, MLB has
entered into other revenue-generating
ventures, such as the MLB Channel, a
baseball-related programming channel
available to MVPD subscribers, and
Extra Innings, which offers regular
season game premium (pay) packages
through MVPDs to their subscribers.
MLB also offers regular season game
packages directly to customers through
MLB.tv. Such programming is streamed
over the Internet and can be viewed on
computers and mobile devices, as well
as on televisions using devices such as
Apple TV. Moreover, many teams either
own the RSNs that carry their game
telecasts or have obtained ownership
interests in RSNs. Does the emergence
of these additional revenue sources
impact the relative importance of gate
receipts and, accordingly, the continued
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 16 / Friday, January 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
need for the sports blackout rules? If
gate receipts are not the primary or most
significant source of revenue for these
sports, why are the sports blackout rules
necessary to ensure the overall
availability of telecasts of these sports to
the public?
3. Effect of Blackouts on Gate Receipts
24. We seek comment on the extent to
which local blackouts of sports events
affect attendance and gate receipts at
those events and the extent to which the
cable sports blackout rule itself affects
attendance and gate receipts at sports
events. As discussed above, the sports
blackout rules are intended to address
concerns that MVPDs’ importation of a
distant signal carrying a blacked-out
sports event could lead to lost revenue
from ticket sales, which might cause
sports leagues to expand the reach of
blackouts by refusing to sell their rights
to sports events to all distant stations.
The objective of the sports blackout
rules is not to ensure the profitability or
financial viability of sports leagues, but
rather to ensure the overall availability
of sports programming to the general
public. Thus, we are interested in gate
receipts and other revenues of sports
leagues only to the extent that such
revenues are relevant to this objective.
Based on their review of several
econometric studies of attendance at
NFL games as well as other team sports
in the U.S. and Europe, the Sports
Economists conclude that there is no
evidence that local blackouts of NFL
games significantly affect either ticket
sales or no-shows at those games. We
seek comment on the Sports
Economists’ conclusion and the
underlying studies on which it relies.
Do these studies support the conclusion
that our sports blackout rules are no
longer needed? For example, if local
blackouts of NFL games do not
significantly affect either ticket sales or
no-shows at those games, does it follow
that the cable sports blackout rule has
no significant effect on attendance?
Additionally, we invite commenters to
submit any additional studies or
evidence showing the extent to which
local blackouts of NFL games impact
gate receipts at those games and the
extent to which the cable sports
blackout rule itself impacts gate
receipts. In particular, we note that the
NFL asserts that its blackout policy, as
supported by the Commission’s sports
blackout rules, is designed to promote
high attendance at games. We invite the
NFL and other interested commenters to
submit any available data or evidence
indicating that the NFL’s blackout
policy in fact has the intended effect of
promoting attendance at games. As
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jan 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
noted above, only four cities were
affected by local blackouts of NFL
games in 2011: Buffalo, Cincinnati, San
Diego, and Tampa Bay; in 2012, local
blackouts of NFL games were limited to
Buffalo, Cincinnati, Oakland, San Diego,
and Tampa Bay. We seek comment on
whether certain teams or cities are
routinely disproportionately affected by
local blackouts of NFL games and, if so,
why. For example, some commenters
suggest that certain cities are more
severely impacted by blackouts because
of conditions in the local economy (e.g.,
locally high unemployment) or a large
stadium capacity in a city with a
relatively small population. If these are
the factors that lead to failure to sell out
games, does blacking out a game
promote attendance at future games in
those cities? Are any cities affected by
these factors able to sellout games on a
regular basis? If so, why? To what extent
does a team’s performance lead to poor
attendance and blackouts? For example,
are blackouts more common when a
team is not in playoff contention?
Should this affect our analysis? If so,
how?
25. Are the sports blackout rules
necessary to sustain gate receipts and
other revenues for NFL clubs?
Commenters who assert that eliminating
the sports blackout rules would result in
a significant reduction in gate receipts
or other revenues for NFL clubs should
quantify or estimate the anticipated
reduction and explain the basis for their
estimates. We also seek comment on the
connection between any such lost
revenues and the willingness of teams to
enter into agreements allowing
broadcast coverage of their games,
maximizing the availability of such
broadcasts to the public.
26. There is no specific information in
the record regarding the effect of
blackouts on gate receipts for any other
sports events. We seek comment on
whether blackouts have any significant
effect on gate receipts for any sports
events other than NFL games.
Commenters should provide any
available data or evidence to support
their positions. What impact, if any,
would elimination of the sports
blackout rules be expected to have on
gate receipts and other revenues for
these sports? To the extent that
commenters argue that eliminating the
sports blackout rules would result in a
significant reduction in gate receipts or
other revenues for these sports, we
request that they quantify or estimate
the anticipated reduction and explain
the basis for their estimates.
27. Some commenters suggest that
blacking out games may actually harm,
rather than support, ticket sales. We
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4143
seek comment on whether blacking out
sports events may have the unintended
effect of alienating sports fans and
discouraging their attendance at home
games. According to the Petitioners,
recent empirical studies suggest that
televising professional sports may
actually have a positive effect on
attendance at home games. Does
televising sports events serve to generate
interest among sports fans and thereby
promote higher attendance at home
games in the long run? If this is the case,
then why would a professional sports
league, such as the NFL, ever seek to
black out games? For example, do
commenters believe that the NFL is
operating pursuant to a mistaken
understanding of the relationship
between blackouts and attendance? Or
do commenters believe that the NFL has
reason for maintaining its blackout
policy other than attendance?
Commenters are invited to submit any
studies or evidence supporting the view
that televising sports events encourages
attendance at home games.
4. Other Relevant Data
28. We invite commenters to submit
any other information or data that they
believe is relevant to our assessment of
whether the sports blackout rules
remain necessary to ensure the overall
availability of sports telecasts to the
public. For example, are changes in the
video distribution market in the 40
years since the sports blackout rules
were originally adopted, such as those
described above, relevant to our
assessment? To what extent do sports
leagues distribute games via such
premium services today and what
impact do such premium services have
on the leagues’ revenues and blackout
policies? Commenters should explain
how any such information supports or
undercuts the economic basis for the
sports blackout rules.
C. Elimination of the Sports Blackout
Rules
29. We propose to eliminate the sports
blackout rules. With respect to
professional football, the sport most
affected by the sports blackout rules, it
appears from the existing record that
television revenues have replaced gate
receipts as the most significant source of
revenue for NFL clubs in the 40 years
since the rules were first adopted.
Moreover, the record received thus far
indicates no direct link between
blackouts and increased attendance at
NFL games. The record also suggests
that the sports blackout rules have little
relevance for sports other than
professional football, because the
distribution rights for most of the games
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
4144
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 16 / Friday, January 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
in these sports are sold by individual
teams, rather than the leagues. Finally,
it appears that the sports blackout rules
are unnecessary because sports leagues
can pursue local blackout protection
through private contractual
negotiations. Thus, it appears that the
sports blackout rules have become
obsolete. Accordingly, if the record in
this proceeding, as updated and
supplemented by commenters, confirms
that the sports blackout rules are no
longer necessary to ensure the overall
availability to the public of sports
telecasts, we propose to repeal these
rules. We seek comment on this
proposal.
30. We seek comment on how
elimination of the sports blackout rules
would affect sports leagues and teams
and their ability, as holders of the
exclusive distribution rights to their
games, to control the distribution of
home games in the teams’ home
territories. As discussed above, the
sports leagues, not the Commission, are
the source of sports blackouts. And the
Commission’s rules supplement the
contractual relationships between the
leagues or individual teams that hold
the rights to the games and the entities
to which they grant distribution rights
by requiring MVPDs to black out games
that are required by the sports leagues
or individual teams to be blacked out on
local television stations. To the extent
that the Commission’s rules are no
longer needed to assure the continued
availability of sports programming to
the public, does the Commission have
any continued interest in
supplementing these contractual
relationships? Should it instead be left
to the sports leagues and individual
teams to negotiate in the private
marketplace whatever local blackout
protection they believe they need?
31. Several commenters argue that the
compulsory copyright licenses granted
to MVPDs under Sections 111 and 119
of the Copyright Act would make it
difficult or impossible for sports leagues
or teams to negotiate the protection
provided by the sports blackout rules
through private contracts. The
compulsory licenses permit cable
systems and, to a more limited extent,
satellite carriers to retransmit the signals
of distant broadcast stations without
obtaining the consent of the sports
leagues whose games are carried on
those stations, when the carriage of such
stations is permitted under FCC rules.
Absent the sports blackout rules, these
commenters argue, an MVPD would be
able to take advantage of the
compulsory license to retransmit the
signal of a distant station carrying a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jan 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
game that has been blacked out locally
by a sports league or team.
32. We seek comment on how the
compulsory licenses would affect the
ability of sports leagues and sports
teams to obtain through market-based
negotiations the same protection that is
currently provided by the sports
blackout rules. The NFL contends that,
since it contracts with the CBS, NBC,
and FOX networks for broadcast
distribution of its games, it lacks privity
with the local network affiliates that
carry the games and with the MVPDs
that retransmit the broadcast signals.
Thus, it claims that ensuring that all of
the other parties involved in the
distribution of its games are
contractually bound to honor the NFL’s
sports blackout policy would require
rewriting hundreds of contracts,
including contracts between the NFL
and the CBS, NBC, and FOX networks,
contracts between the networks and
their affiliates, and contracts between
the network affiliates and the MVPDs.
The Petitioners assert that this argument
ignores the direct privity of contract the
sports leagues have with the MVPDs
themselves, noting that virtually all
MVPDs carry networks or game
packages owned directly by the sports
leagues, such as the NFL Network, MLB
Network, NBA TV, NHL Network, and
NFL Sunday Ticket (DIRECTV). We seek
comment on the extent to which the
sports leagues contract directly with
MVPDs for carriage of networks or game
packages owned directly by the sports
leagues. Do such contracts already
include some form of blackout
protection and, if so, what protection do
these contracts provide? In this
connection, the Commission has
previously found that sports leagues
routinely negotiate with MVPDs greater
blackout protection than that afforded
by the sports blackout rules, and the
comments in the record support this
finding. For example, sports leagues and
teams contractually negotiate with
MVPDs blackouts of games throughout
the teams’ home territories, which
generally extend well beyond the
limited 35-mile zone of protection
afforded by our sports blackout rules. In
addition, the sports blackout rules
afford blackout protection only to the
home teams, whereas sports leagues or
teams often negotiate blackout
protection for both the home and away
teams. Accordingly, if sports leagues
and teams are able to obtain greater
protection than that afforded under the
sports blackout rules in arm’s length
marketplace negotiations, why do they
need the sports blackout rules to avoid
the impact of the compulsory licenses?
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33. Moreover, the Commission has
found that ‘‘[s]ports leagues control both
broadcast carriage and MVPD
retransmission of their programming.’’ It
observed that a broadcaster cannot carry
a sports event without the permission of
the sports leagues or clubs that hold the
rights to the event and, under the
retransmission consent rules, MVPDs,
with limited exceptions, cannot carry a
broadcaster’s signal without the
permission of the broadcaster. Thus, the
Commission reasoned that a sports
league could prevent unwanted MVPD
retransmission through its contracts
with broadcasters by requiring, as a term
of carriage, the deletion of specific
sports events. Because the sports
leagues could obtain local blackout
protection through their contracts with
broadcast stations, the Commission
suggested that the sports leagues may
not need the sports blackout rules to
prevent MVPDs from using the
compulsory licenses to carry blackedout games. Instead, it stated that the
sports blackout rules may serve
primarily as an enforcement mechanism
for existing contracts between
broadcasters and sports leagues. We
seek comment on this analysis. Could
sports leagues or teams prevent MVPDs
from retransmitting certain sports events
through their contracts with
broadcasters? If so, especially given the
popularity of certain sports
programming, would leagues such as
the NFL be well positioned to secure
blackout protection through private
contractual negotiations? Would leagues
need to renegotiate existing contracts
with broadcasters to secure such
protection? If so, should that affect our
analysis? What effect, if any, would the
NFL’s lack of direct privity with the
local network affiliates that carry the
games have on its ability to control
MVPD retransmission? What are the
costs and benefits to sports leagues and
teams of our elimination of the sports
blackout rules? To the extent possible,
we encourage commenters to quantify
any costs and benefits and to submit
supporting data.
34. We seek comment also on whether
and how repeal of the sports blackout
rules would affect consumers. We
received more than 7,500 comments on
the Petition from individual consumers
who support elimination of the sports
blackout rules. These comments
indicate that sports blackouts, while less
frequent now than when the sport
blackout rules were first adopted, are
still a significant source of frustration
for consumers. Some of these consumers
are disabled or elderly sports fans who
are physically unable to attend games in
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 16 / Friday, January 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
person and rely on television (either
broadcast or pay TV) to watch their
favorite teams. Others complain that
they can no longer afford to attend
games due to high ticket prices, the
economy, or reduced income following
retirement; that they already subsidize
professional sports through publicly
funded stadiums and should be able to
watch the games at home; or that they
pay a substantial premium to watch
their favorite NFL team on DIRECTV’s
NFL Sunday Ticket but are sometimes
unable to watch due to a blackout, even
though they may live 150 miles or more
from the team’s stadium. We seek
comment on what impact, if any, repeal
of the Commission’s sports blackout
rules would have on these and other
consumers.
35. The Petitioners acknowledge that
eliminating the Commission’s sports
blackout rules alone likely would not
end local sports blackouts as sports fans
may wish. We note that the leagues’
underlying blackout policies would
remain, and, as discussed above, the
leagues may be able to obtain the same
blackout protection provided under our
rules through free market negotiations.
The leagues could still require local
television stations to black out games;
thus, consumers that rely on over-the-air
television would still be unable to view
blacked-out games. Moreover, repeal of
our sports blackout rules alone would
not provide relief to consumers that are
subject to blackouts resulting from the
leagues’ use of expansive home
territories. Nevertheless, the Petitioners
assert that, ‘‘unless and until the
Commission eliminates the [sports
blackout rules], the sports leagues will
be under no pressure to contractually
negotiate for the protection that they
claim is necessary.’’ The Petitioners
suggest that, if the leagues find that such
negotiations would be too daunting,
eliminating the sports blackout rules
may compel the leagues to lower ticket
prices until all seats are sold out or
perhaps to end blackouts altogether. We
seek comment on whether there is any
benefit to consumers of repealing the
sports blackout rules if the sports
leagues’ underlying blackout policies
remain. Is removing unnecessary or
obsolete regulations in itself a sufficient
justification for eliminating the sports
blackout rules, even if there is no direct
or immediate benefit to consumers? If
the evidence in this proceeding,
including any data or studies submitted
by commenters, suggests that there are
no tangible benefits to retaining the
sports blackout rules but that these rules
also do not cause any tangible harms,
should the Commission repeal the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jan 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
sports blackout rules? Would removing
the Commission’s tacit endorsement of
the leagues’ blackout policies serve the
public interest? Are the leagues more
likely to relax or reconsider their
blackout policies if the Commission’s
sports blackout rules are repealed? How
does our analysis of the issues differ
between professional sports leagues
which have been granted exemptions
from the antitrust laws and sports
leagues which have not been granted
antitrust protections?
36. Further, we invite comment on
any potential harm to consumers of
eliminating the sports blackout rules.
Some commenters express concern that
eliminating the sports blackout rules
could accelerate the migration of sports
from free over-the-air television to pay
TV, which would be harmful to
consumers who cannot afford pay TV.
As noted above, the compulsory
copyright licenses granted to MVPDs
apply to the retransmission of broadcast
signals, not to pay TV content.
According to NAB, if the sports blackout
rules are eliminated, ‘‘sports leagues
wishing to retain control over
distribution of their content would have
an incentive to move to pay platforms
where the compulsory license would
not undermine their private
agreements.’’ Similarly, the NFL asserts
that eliminating the sports blackout
rules ‘‘would make broadcast television
distribution more difficult, expensive
and uncertain and accordingly would
make cable network distribution a more
appealing prospect.’’ What percentage of
consumers watch the sports
programming they view on broadcast
television channels rather than pay TV
or via the Internet using premium
services such as MLB.tv? Would repeal
of the sports blackout rules hasten the
migration of NFL games from broadcast
television channels to pay TV? If so, is
it appropriate for the Commission to
have the objective of preventing such a
migration? We note that the NFL
recently extended its contracts with the
CBS, FOX, and NBC television
networks, ensuring that many NFL
games will remain on broadcast
television channels at least through the
2022 season. In view of these contract
extensions, it appears unlikely that NFL
games would migrate further from
broadcast television channels to pay TV
in the near future. We nevertheless seek
comment on whether repeal of the
sports blackout rules would likely
encourage migration of NFL games to
pay TV in the immediate future or in the
longer term. What effect, if any, would
repeal of the sports blackout rules have
on migration to pay TV of sports other
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4145
than professional football? In this
regard, the record suggests that other
professional sports teams already
distribute a majority of their regular
season games via RSNs and other cable
networks. Is elimination of the sports
blackout rules likely to result in any
further migration of these sports from
broadcast television channels to pay
TV? Are there any other potential harms
to consumers from repealing the sports
blackout rules? We encourage
commenters to quantify, to the extent
possible, any benefits and costs to
consumers of eliminating the sports
blackout rules and to submit supporting
data.
37. Some commenters argue that
eliminating the sports blackout rules
would undermine broadcasters’ local
program exclusivity and harm localism.
These commenters assert that the sports
blackout rules, together with the
network non-duplication and
syndicated exclusivity rules, support
local broadcasters’ investments in high
quality, diverse informational and
entertainment programming. By
hindering the ability of local broadcast
stations to obtain and enforce exclusive
local program rights, they assert,
elimination of the sports blackout rules
would make it more difficult for the
stations to attract advertising, which in
turn would reduce their ability to invest
in local information programming and
popular programming. Would
elimination of the sports blackout rules
have a negative impact on localism?
What, if any, costs and benefits would
repeal of the sports blackout rules have
on broadcasters? To the extent possible,
we encourage commenters to quantify
any costs and benefits and to submit
data supporting their positions.
38. We seek comment also on whether
and how elimination of the sports
blackout rules would affect any other
entities. Some commenters assert that
under the Copyright Act any change in
the sports blackout rules will trigger a
proceeding before the Copyright Royalty
Tribunal to adjust the compulsory
licensing rates that cable systems pay.
Would such a rate adjustment
proceeding be mandatory or
discretionary on the part of the
Copyright Royalty Tribunal? In this
regard, we note that the Copyright Act
provides that, if the sports blackout
rules are changed, the compulsory
licensing rates ‘‘may be adjusted to
assure that such rates are reasonable in
light of the changes.’’ What burdens and
costs would a rate adjustment
proceeding impose on the Copyright
Royalty Tribunal and any other entities?
Are there any other entities that would
be impacted by elimination of the sports
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
4146
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 16 / Friday, January 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
blackout rules? If so, what are the
benefits and costs of elimination for
those entities? We request that
commenters quantify any benefits and
costs to the extent possible and submit
supporting data.
39. Finally, we seek comment on
whether, as an alternative to outright
repeal of the sports blackout rules, we
should make modifications to these
rules. If so, what modifications should
we make, and why would such
modifications be preferable to repeal of
the sports blackout rules? Commenters
that propose any such modifications
should quantify the benefits and costs of
their proposals and provide supporting
data.
IV. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis
40. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, as amended (RFA), the
Commission has prepared this Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
of the possible significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities by the policies and rules
considered in the attached Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Written
public comments are requested on this
IRFA. Comments must be identified as
responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments on the
NPRM as indicated on the first page of
the NPRM. The Commission will send a
copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (SBA).
In addition, the NPRM and the IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in
the Federal Register.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
41. The NPRM proposes to eliminate
the sports blackout rules, which
prohibit certain multichannel video
programming distributors (MVPDs)
(cable, satellite, and open video systems
(OVS)) from retransmitting, within a
protected local blackout zone, the signal
of a distant broadcast station carrying a
live sports event if the event is not
available live on a local television
broadcast station. The sports blackout
rules were originally adopted nearly 40
years ago, when the primary source of
revenue for sports leagues was game
ticket sales. The sports blackout rules
were intended to ensure that the
potential loss of ticket sales resulting
from MVPD retransmission of distant
stations did not cause sports leagues to
refuse to sell their rights to sports events
to the distant stations, thereby reducing
the overall availability of sports
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jan 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
telecasts to the public. The sports
industry has changed dramatically in
the past four decades, however, and it
appears that the sports blackout rules
may no longer be necessary to assure the
overall availability of sports
programming.
42. The NPRM tentatively concludes
that the Commission has the authority
to eliminate the cable sports blackout
rule under its general rulemaking
power, given that Congress did not
explicitly mandate that the Commission
adopt the cable sports blackout rule.
Because Congress directed the
Commission to extend the sports
blackout protection applied to cable to
satellite and OVS, the NPRM seeks
comment on whether the Commission
also has the authority to repeal the
sports blackout rules for satellite and
OVS. In addition, the NPRM seeks
comment on whether there is a
continued need for the sports blackout
rules. In particular, the NPRM seeks
comment on whether the economic
rationale underlying the sports blackout
rules is still valid. Finally, the NPRM
proposes to repeal the sports blackout
rules and seeks comment on the benefits
and costs of such repeal on interested
parties, including the sports leagues,
broadcasters, and consumers.
Legal Basis
43. This NPRM is adopted pursuant to
the authority found in Sections 1, 4(i),
4(j), 303(r), 339(b), 653(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j),
303(r), 339(b), and 573(b).
Description and Estimate of the Number
of Small Entities to Which the Proposed
Rules Will Apply
44. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of, and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that may be affected by
the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA
generally defines the term ‘‘small
entity’’ as having the same meaning as
the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small
organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term
‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning
as the term ‘‘small business concern’’
under the Small Business Act. A ‘‘small
business concern’’ is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2)
is not dominant in its field of operation;
and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the SBA.
45. Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. The 2007 North American
Industry Classification System
(‘‘NAICS’’) defines ‘‘Wired
Telecommunications Carriers’’ as
follows: ‘‘This industry comprises
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to
transmission facilities and infrastructure
that they own and/or lease for the
transmission of voice, data, text, sound,
and video using wired
telecommunications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on
a single technology or a combination of
technologies. Establishments in this
industry use the wired
telecommunications network facilities
that they operate to provide a variety of
services, such as wired telephony
services, including VoIP services; wired
(cable) audio and video programming
distribution; and wired broadband
Internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite
television distribution services using
facilities and infrastructure that they
operate are included in this industry.’’
All establishments listed above are
included in the SBA’s broad economic
census category, Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, which
was developed for small wireline
businesses. Under this category, the
SBA deems a wireline business to be
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
Census data for 2007 shows that there
were 31,996 establishments that
operated that year. Of this total, 30,178
establishments had fewer than 100
employees, and 1,818 establishments
had 100 or more employees. Therefore,
under this size standard, the majority of
such businesses can be considered small
entities.
46. Cable Television Distribution
Services. Since 2007, these services
have been defined within the broad
economic census category of Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, which
was developed for small wireline
businesses. This category is defined as
follows: ‘‘This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to
transmission facilities and infrastructure
that they own and/or lease for the
transmission of voice, data, text, sound,
and video using wired
telecommunications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on
a single technology or a combination of
technologies. Establishments in this
industry use the wired
telecommunications network facilities
that they operate to provide a variety of
services, such as wired telephony
services, including VoIP services; wired
(cable) audio and video programming
distribution; and wired broadband
Internet services.’’ The SBA has
developed a small business size
standard for this category, which is: All
such businesses having 1,500 or fewer
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 16 / Friday, January 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
employees. Census data for 2007 shows
that there were 31,996 establishments
that operated that year. Of this total,
30,178 establishments had fewer than
100 employees, and 1,818
establishments had 100 or more
employees. Therefore, under this size
standard, we estimate that the majority
of such businesses can be considered
small entities.
47. Cable Companies and Systems.
The Commission has also developed its
own small business size standards, for
the purpose of cable rate regulation.
Under the Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small
cable company’’ is one serving 400,000
or fewer subscribers nationwide.
Industry data shows that there were
1,141 cable companies at the end of
June 2012. Of this total, all but ten cable
operators nationwide are small under
this size standard. In addition, under
the Commission’s rate regulation rules,
a ‘‘small system’’ is a cable system
serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.
Current Commission records show 4,945
cable systems nationwide. Of this total,
4,380 cable systems have less than
20,000 subscribers, and 565 systems
have 20,000 or more subscribers, based
on the same records. Thus, under this
standard, we estimate that most cable
systems are small entities.
48. Cable System Operators (Telecom
Act Standard). The Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, also contains
a size standard for small cable system
operators, which is ‘‘a cable operator
that, directly or through an affiliate,
serves in the aggregate fewer than 1
percent of all subscribers in the United
States and is not affiliated with any
entity or entities whose gross annual
revenues in the aggregate exceed
$250,000,000.’’ There are approximately
56.4 million incumbent cable video
subscribers in the United States today.
Accordingly, an operator serving fewer
than 564,000 subscribers shall be
deemed a small operator if its annual
revenues, when combined with the total
annual revenues of all its affiliates, do
not exceed $250 million in the
aggregate. Based on available data, we
find that all but ten incumbent cable
operators are small entities under this
size standard. We note that the
Commission neither requests nor
collects information on whether cable
system operators are affiliated with
entities whose gross annual revenues
exceed $250 million. Although it seems
certain that some of these cable system
operators are affiliated with entities
whose gross annual revenues exceed
$250,000,000, we are unable at this time
to estimate with greater precision the
number of cable system operators that
would qualify as small cable operators
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jan 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
under the definition in the
Communications Act.
49. Television Broadcasting. This
Economic Census category ‘‘comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
broadcasting images together with
sound. These establishments operate
television broadcasting studios and
facilities for the programming and
transmission of programs to the public.’’
The SBA has created the following
small business size standard for such
businesses: Those having $14 million or
less in annual receipts. The Commission
has estimated the number of licensed
commercial television stations to be
1,386. In addition, according to
Commission staff review of the BIA
Advisory Services, LLC’s Media Access
Pro Television Database on March 28,
2012, about 950 of an estimated 1,300
commercial television stations (or
approximately 73 percent) had revenues
of $14 million or less. We therefore
estimate that the majority of commercial
television broadcasters are small
entities.
50. We note, however, that in
assessing whether a business concern
qualifies as small under the above
definition, business (control) affiliations
must be included. Our estimate,
therefore, likely overstates the number
of small entities that might be affected
by our action because the revenue figure
on which it is based does not include or
aggregate revenues from affiliated
companies. In addition, an element of
the definition of ‘‘small business’’ is that
the entity not be dominant in its field
of operation. We are unable at this time
to define or quantify the criteria that
would establish whether a specific
television station is dominant in its field
of operation. Accordingly, the estimate
of small businesses to which rules may
apply does not exclude any television
station from the definition of a small
business on this basis and is therefore
possibly over-inclusive to that extent.
51. In addition, the Commission has
estimated the number of licensed
noncommercial educational (NCE)
television stations to be 396. These
stations are non-profit, and therefore
considered to be small entities.
52. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS)
Service. DBS service is a nationally
distributed subscription service that
delivers video and audio programming
via satellite to a small parabolic ‘‘dish’’
antenna at the subscriber’s location.
DBS, by exception, is now included in
the SBA’s broad economic census
category, Wired Telecommunications
Carriers, which was developed for small
wireline businesses. Under this
category, the SBA deems a wireline
business to be small if it has 1,500 or
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4147
fewer employees. Census data for 2007
shows that there were 31,996
establishments that operated that year.
Of this total, 30,178 establishments had
fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818
establishments had 100 or more
employees. Therefore, under this size
standard, the majority of such
businesses can be considered small
entities. However, the data we have
available as a basis for estimating the
number of such small entities were
gathered under a superseded SBA small
business size standard formerly titled
‘‘Cable and Other Program
Distribution.’’ The definition of Cable
and Other Program Distribution
provided that a small entity is one with
$12.5 million or less in annual receipts.
Currently, only two entities provide
DBS service, which requires a great
investment of capital for operation:
DIRECTV and DISH Network. Each
currently offer subscription services.
DIRECTV and DISH Network each
report annual revenues that are in
excess of the threshold for a small
business. Because DBS service requires
significant capital, we believe it is
unlikely that a small entity as defined
under the superseded SBA size standard
would have the financial wherewithal to
become a DBS service provider.
53. Satellite Master Antenna
Television (SMATV) Systems, also
known as Private Cable Operators
(PCOs). SMATV systems or PCOs are
video distribution facilities that use
closed transmission paths without using
any public right-of-way. They acquire
video programming and distribute it via
terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban
multiple dwelling units such as
apartments and condominiums, and
commercial multiple tenant units such
as hotels and office buildings. SMATV
systems or PCOs are now included in
the SBA’s broad economic census
category, Wired Telecommunications
Carriers, which was developed for small
wireline businesses. Under this
category, the SBA deems a wireline
business to be small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. Census data for 2007
show that there were 31,996
establishments that operated that year.
Of this total, 30,178 establishments had
fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818
establishments had 100 or more
employees. Therefore, under this size
standard, the majority of such
businesses can be considered small
entities.
54. Home Satellite Dish (HSD)
Service. HSD or the large dish segment
of the satellite industry is the original
satellite-to-home service offered to
consumers, and involves the home
reception of signals transmitted by
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
4148
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 16 / Friday, January 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
satellites operating generally in the Cband frequency. Unlike DBS, which
uses small dishes, HSD antennas are
between four and eight feet in diameter
and can receive a wide range of
unscrambled (free) programming and
scrambled programming purchased from
program packagers that are licensed to
facilitate subscribers’ receipt of video
programming. Because HSD provides
subscription services, HSD falls within
the SBA-recognized definition of Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA
has developed a small business size
standard for this category, which is: All
such businesses having 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2007 show
that there were 31,996 establishments
that operated that year. Of this total,
30,178 establishments had fewer than
100 employees, and 1,818
establishments had 100 or more
employees. Therefore, under this size
standard, the majority of such
businesses can be considered small
entities.
55. Open Video Systems. The open
video system (OVS) framework was
established in 1996, and is one of four
statutorily recognized options for the
provision of video programming
services by local exchange carriers. The
OVS framework provides opportunities
for the distribution of video
programming other than through cable
systems. Because OVS operators provide
subscription services, OVS falls within
the SBA small business size standard
covering cable services, which is
‘‘Wired Telecommunications Carriers.’’
The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for this category,
which is: All such businesses having
1,500 or fewer employees. Census data
for 2007 shows that there were 31,996
establishments that operated that year.
Of this total, 30,178 establishments had
fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818
establishments had 100 or more
employees. Therefore, under this size
standard, we estimate that the majority
of these businesses can be considered
small entities. In addition, we note that
the Commission has certified some OVS
operators, with some now providing
service. Broadband service providers
(BSPs) are currently the only significant
holders of OVS certifications or local
OVS franchises. The Commission does
not have financial or employment
information regarding the other entities
authorized to provide OVS, some of
which may not yet be operational. Thus,
again, at least some of the OVS
operators may qualify as small entities.
56. Cable and Other Subscription
Programming. The Census Bureau
defines this category as follows: ‘‘This
industry comprises establishments
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jan 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
primarily engaged in operating studios
and facilities for the broadcasting of
programs on a subscription or fee
basis. . . . These establishments
produce programming in their own
facilities or acquire programming from
external sources. The programming
material is usually delivered to a third
party, such as cable systems or directto-home satellite systems, for
transmission to viewers.’’ The SBA has
developed a small business size
standard for this category, which is: all
such businesses having $15 million
dollars or less in annual revenues.
Census data for 2007 show that there
were 659 establishments that operated
that year. Of that number, 462 operated
with annual revenues of $9,999,999
dollars or less. One hundred ninetyseven (197) operated with annual
revenues of between $10 million and
$100 million or more. Thus, under this
size standard, the majority of such
businesses can be considered small
entities.
Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
57. The proposed rule changes
discussed in the NPRM would affect
compliance requirements. The proposed
rule changes would eliminate the sports
blackout rules, which prohibit certain
MVPDs from televising the home game
of a sports team within a specified
geographic area surrounding a television
broadcast station licensed to the
community in which the game is being
played if the game is not available live
on a television broadcast station in that
community.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
58. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives that
might minimize any significant
economic impact on small entities. Such
alternatives may include the following
four alternatives (among others): (1) The
establishment of differing compliance or
reporting requirements or timetables
that take into account the resources
available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or
simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule
for small entities; (3) the use of
performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for small entities.
59. As discussed in the NPRM, repeal
of the sports blackout rules would not
eliminate the sports leagues’ underlying
blackout policies. Rather, it would
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
simply remove Commission support for
these policies. Sports leagues would
still be able to require local television
broadcast stations to black out games. In
addition, sports leagues would likely be
able to obtain the same protection
afforded under the sports blackout rules
either through market-based
negotiations with MVPDs or through
their contracts with broadcasters by
requiring, as a term of carriage, the
deletion of specific sports events.
Accordingly, we believe that repeal of
the sports blackout rules would impose
only minimal burdens on any affected
entities. For this reason, an analysis of
alternatives to the proposed rule
changes is unnecessary. We invite
comment on whether there are any
alternatives we should consider that
would minimize any adverse impact on
small entities, but which maintain the
benefits of our proposal.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
60. None.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
61. This Notice of Proposed
Ruemaking proposes no new or
modified information collection
requirements. In addition, therefore, it
does not propose any new or modified
‘‘information collection burden for
small business concerns with fewer than
25 employees,’’ pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.
C. Ex Parte Rules
62. Permit-But-Disclose. The
proceeding this NPRM initiates shall be
treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’
proceeding in accordance with the
Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons
making ex parte presentations must file
a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine
period applies). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
4149
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 16 / Friday, January 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with rule
§ 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule § 1.49(f) or for which the
Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex
parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
D. Filing Requirements
63. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of
the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415,
1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. Comments may
be filed using the Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS).
D Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/
cgb/ecfs/.
D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in
the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for
each additional docket or rulemaking
number.
Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
1. All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:17 Jan 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
12th St. SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes and boxes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
2. Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
MD 20743.
3. U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail should be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
64. People With Disabilities: To
request materials in accessible formats
for people with disabilities (braille,
large print, electronic files, audio
format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov
or call the Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice),
202–418–0432 (tty).
65. For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Kathy Berthot,
Kathy.Berthot@fcc.gov, of the Media
Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418–
2120.
V. Ordering Clauses
66. Accordingly, it is ordered that,
pursuant to the authority found in
sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), 339(b), and
653(b) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i),
154(j), 303(r), 339(b), and 573(b) this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is
adopted.
67. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in
MB Docket No. 12–3, including the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76
Cable television.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
PART 76—MULTICHANNEL VIDEO
AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE
1. The authority citation for part 76
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154,
301, 302, 302a, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312,
315, 317, 325, 339, 340, 341, 503, 521, 522,
531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a,
545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561,
571, 572 and 573.
§ 76.111
Sfmt 9990
[Removed]
2. Remove § 76.111.
3. Amend § 76.120 by removing
paragraph (e)(3) and revising the section
heading to read as follows:
■
■
§ 76.120 Network non-duplication
protection and syndicated exclusivity rules
for satellite carriers: Definitions.
*
*
*
*
§§ 76.127 and 76.128
*
[Removed]
4. Remove §§ 76.127 and 76.128.
■ 5. Amend § 76.130 by revising the first
sentence to read as follows:
■
§ 76.130
Substitutions.
Whenever, pursuant to the
requirements of the network program
non-duplication or syndicated program
exclusivity rules, a satellite carrier is
required to delete a television program
from retransmission to satellite
subscribers within a zip code area, such
satellite carrier may, consistent with
this subpart, substitute a program from
any other television broadcast station
for which the satellite carrier has
obtained the necessary legal rights and
permissions, including but not limited
to copyright and retransmission
consent. * * *
§ 76.1506
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
PO 00000
Commission proposes to amend 47 part
76 as follows:
[Amended]
6. Amend § 76.1506 by removing
paragraph (m) and redesignating
paragraphs (n) and (o) as paragraphs (m)
and (n).
■
[FR Doc. 2014–01338 Filed 1–23–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 16 (Friday, January 24, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4138-4149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01338]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[MB Docket No. 12-3; FCC 13-162]
Sports Blackout Rules
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on its proposal
to eliminate the sports blackout rules. Elimination of the sports
blackout rules alone likely would not end sports blackouts, but it
would leave sports carriage issues to private solutions negotiated by
the interested parties in light of current market conditions and
eliminate unnecessary regulation.
DATES: Comments for this proceeding are due on or before February 24,
2014; reply comments are due on or before March 25, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 12-3,
by any of the following methods:
[ssquf] Federal Communications Commission's Web site: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
[ssquf] Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
[ssquf] People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: (202) 418-
0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, contact
Kathy Berthot, Kathy.Berthot@fcc.gov, of the Media Bureau, Policy
Division, (202) 418-7454.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 13-162, adopted on December 17, 2013 and
released on December 18, 2013. The full text is available for public
inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC
Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street
SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be
available via ECFS (https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). Documents will be
available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat. The
complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. To request
this document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print,
audio recording, and Braille), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-
0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
This document contains no proposed information collection
requirements.
Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
I. Introduction
1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we propose to eliminate
the Commission's sports blackout rules, which prohibit certain
multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) from
retransmitting, within a protected local blackout zone, the signal of a
distant broadcast station carrying a live sporting event if the event
is not available live on a local television broadcast station.\1\ The
sports blackout rules were originally adopted nearly 40 years ago when
game ticket sales were the main source of revenue for sports leagues.
These rules were intended to address concerns that MVPDs' importation
of a distant signal carrying a blacked-out sports event could result in
lost revenue from ticket sales, which might cause sports leagues to
expand the reach of blackouts by refusing to sell their rights to
sports events to all distant stations. The rationale underpinning the
rules was to ensure to the greatest extent possible the continued
availability of sports telecasts to the public. Changes in the sports
industry in the last four decades have called into question whether the
sports blackout rules remain necessary to ensure the overall
availability of sports programming to the general public. In this
proceeding, we will determine whether the sports blackout rules have
become outdated due to marketplace changes since their adoption, and
whether modification or elimination of those rules is appropriate. We
recognize that elimination of our sports blackout rules alone might not
end sports blackouts, but it would leave sports carriage issues to
private solutions negotiated by the interested parties in light of
current market conditions and eliminate unnecessary regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 47 CFR 76.111 (cable operators), 76.127 (satellite
providers), 76.128 (application of sports blackout rules),
76.1506(m) (open video systems).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
A. History of the Sports Blackout Rules
2. Prior to 1953, National Football League (NFL) bylaws prohibited
member teams from, among other things, (i) telecasting their games into
the home territory of another team that was playing at home, and (ii)
telecasting their games into the home territory of another team that
was playing away from home and was telecasting its game into its home
territory. In 1953, a federal court held that the NFL's prohibition on
the telecast of outside games into the home territory of a team that
was playing at home was a reasonable method of protecting the home
team's gate receipts and was not illegal under the antitrust laws. The
court found, however, that restricting the telecast of outside games
into the home territory of a team not playing at home was an
unreasonable restraint on trade because, when the home team was playing
away, there was no gate to protect.
3. In 1961, the NFL entered into an agreement with the CBS
television network under which the NFL's member teams pooled the
television rights to their games and authorized the league to sell the
rights to the network as a package, with the revenue from the league
sales to be distributed equally among the member teams. Under this
agreement, CBS was permitted to determine which games would be
televised and where the games would be televised. The NFL then
petitioned the court for a ruling on whether the terms of its contract
with CBS violated the court's 1953 final judgment. The court concluded
that the provision giving CBS the power to determine which games would
be televised and where was contrary to the final judgment and that
execution and performance of the contract was therefore prohibited.
This ruling did not, however, apply to a similar contract between the
newly formed American Football League (AFL) and the ABC television
network, because the AFL was not a party to the court's 1953 final
judgment. Concerned
[[Page 4139]]
that the court's ruling placed it at a disadvantage to the AFL, the NFL
petitioned Congress for relief, arguing that packaged network contracts
were desirable because they allowed the member teams to negotiate for
the sale of television rights with a single voice and equalized revenue
among the member teams.
4. Congress responded to the NFL's plea for relief with its passage
of the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961. The Sports Broadcasting Act
exempts from the antitrust laws joint agreements among individual teams
engaged in professional football, baseball, basketball, or hockey that
permit the leagues to pool the individual teams' television rights and
sell those rights as a package. This statute also expressly permits
these four professional sports leagues to black out television
broadcasts of home games within the home territory of a member team. At
the time the Sports Broadcasting Act was enacted, television blackouts
were believed to be necessary to protect gate receipts, and the
packaging of individual teams' television rights was thought to be
necessary to enhance the financial stability of the leagues by assuring
equal distribution of revenues among all teams. The NFL subsequently
instituted a practice of blacking out the television broadcast of all
home games of its member teams in their home territory, irrespective of
whether the games were sold out.
5. In August 1971, the Commission sent a letter to Congress seeking
guidance on the Commission's proposed regulatory scheme for the then-
nascent cable television industry, which included several proposals
relating to sports programming. The Commission noted the exemptions
from the anti-trust laws granted to professional sports leagues under
the Sports Broadcasting Act and stated that ``cable systems should not
be permitted to circumvent the purpose of th[is] law by importing the
signal of a station carrying the home game of a professional team if
that team has elected to black out the game in its home territory.''
The Commission indicated that it would follow the ``spirit and letter''
of the Sports Broadcasting Act ``since it represents Congressional
policy in this important area'' and stated that it intended to initiate
a rulemaking proceeding on this issue in the near future. The
Commission commenced a rulemaking proceeding proposing a sports
blackout rule for cable television systems in February 1972.
6. In 1973, during the pendency of the Commission's rulemaking
proceeding, Congress enacted Public Law 93-107 in response to
complaints from dissatisfied football fans who were unable to view the
sold out home games of their local teams on the public airwaves due to
the NFL's blackout policy. Public Law 93-107 added new section 331 to
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act), which
prohibited professional sports leagues from blacking out the television
broadcast of a home game in a team's home territory if the game was
televised elsewhere pursuant to a league television contract and the
game sold out 72 hours in advance of game time. Public Law 93-107 was
intended as a limited experiment to allow all affected parties to
assess the impact of the statute and expired by its own terms effective
December 31, 1975. Although the statute was not renewed, the NFL
subsequently continued to follow the practice of blacking out the
television broadcast of home games in a team's home territory only if
the game was not sold out 72 hours in advance of game time.
7. In the meantime, the Commission adopted the cable sports
blackout rule in 1975 to address concerns that cable systems could
frustrate sports leagues' blackout policies by importing the distant
signal of a television station carrying the home game of a sports team
that has elected to black out the game in its home territory.
Specifically, the Commission found that
[g]ate receipts are the primary source of revenue for sports
clubs, and teams have a reasonable interest in protecting their home
gate receipts from the potentially harmful financial effects of
invading telecasts of their games from distant television stations.
If cable television carriage of the same game that is being played
locally is allowed to take place, the local team's need to protect
its gate receipts might require that it prohibit the telecasting of
its games on [distant] television stations which might be carried on
local cable systems. If this were to result, the overall
availability of sports telecasts would be significantly reduced.
The Commission emphasized that its concern was not in ensuring the
profitability of organized sports, but rather in ensuring the overall
availability of sports telecasts to the general public, which it found
was ``of vital importance to the larger and more effective use of the
airwaves.'' The cable sports blackout rule adopted by the Commission,
which was originally codified in Sec. 76.67 and later renamed,
slightly revised, and renumbered as Sec. 76.111, is designed to allow
the holder of the exclusive distribution rights to the sports event
(i.e., a sports team, league, promoter, or other agent, rather than a
broadcaster) to control, through contractual agreements, the display of
that event on local cable systems. Under this rule, the rights holder
may demand that a cable system located within the specified zone of
protection of a television broadcast station licensed to a community in
which a sports event is taking place black out the distant importation
of the sports event if the event is not being carried live by a
television broadcast station in that community. The zone of protection
afforded by the cable sports blackout rule is generally 35 miles
surrounding the reference point of the broadcast station's community of
license in which the live sporting event is taking place. The cable
sports blackout rule applies to all sports telecasts in which the event
is not exhibited on a local television station, including telecasts of
high school, college, and professional sports, and individual as well
as team sports.
8. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act) added a new
section 653 to the Communications Act, which established a new
framework for entry into the video programming distribution market, the
open video system. Congress's intent in establishing the open video
system framework was ``to encourage telephone companies to enter the
video programming distribution market and to deploy open video systems
in order to `introduce vigorous competition in entertainment and
information markets' by providing a competitive alternative to the
incumbent cable operator.'' As an incentive for telephone company entry
into the video programming distribution market, section 653 provides
for reduced regulatory burdens for open video systems subject to the
systems' compliance with certain non-discrimination and other
requirements set forth in Section 653(b)(1). Section 653(b)(1)(D)
directed the Commission to extend to the distribution of video
programming over open video systems the Commission's rules on sports
blackouts, network nonduplication, and syndicated exclusivity. The
Commission amended its rules in 1996 to directly apply the existing
cable sports blackout rule to open video systems.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We note that the sports blackout rule for OVS, which is
codified at 47 CFR 76.1506(m), references 47 CFR 76.67, which has
been renumbered as 47 CFR 76.111. If the sports blackout rule for
OVS is retained, we propose to update 47 CFR 76.1506(m) to cite the
appropriate rule section, 47 CFR 76.111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. In November 1999, Congress enacted the Satellite Home Viewer
Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA), which provides statutory copyright
licenses for satellite carriers to provide additional local and
national broadcast programming to subscribers. In enacting
[[Page 4140]]
SHVIA, Congress sought to place satellite carriers on an equal footing
with cable operators with respect to the availability of broadcast
programming. Section 1008 of SHVIA added a new Section 339 to the
Communications Act. Section 339(b) directed the Commission to apply the
cable network nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity, and sports
blackout rules to satellite carriers' retransmission of nationally
distributed superstations and, to the extent technically feasible and
not economically prohibitive, to extend the cable sports blackout rule
to satellite carriers' retransmission of network stations to
subscribers.
10. The Commission adopted a sports blackout rule for satellite
carriers in November 2000. This rule provides that, on the request of
the holder of the rights to a sports event, a satellite carrier may not
retransmit a nationally distributed superstation or a network station
carrying the live television broadcast of the sports event to
subscribers if the event is not being carried live by a local
television broadcast station. This rule applies within the same 35-mile
zone of protection that applies to cable systems applies to satellite
carriers; that is, 35 miles surrounding the reference point of the
broadcast station's community of license in which the live sporting
event is taking place.
11. The Commission last examined the sports blackout rules more
than seven years ago, in a 2005 report to Congress required by the
Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004
(SHVERA). SHVERA directed the Commission to complete an inquiry and
submit a report to Congress ``regarding the impact on competition in
the multichannel video programming distribution market of the current
retransmission consent, network non-duplication, syndicated
exclusivity, and sports blackout rules, including the impact of those
rules on the ability of rural cable operators to compete with direct
broadcast satellite (`DBS') industry in the provision of digital
broadcast television signals to consumers.'' SHVERA also directed the
Commission to ``include such recommendations for changes in any
statutory provisions relating to such rules as the Commission deems
appropriate.'' The Commission concluded in its report that the sports
blackout rules do not affect competition among MVPDs, that commenters
failed to advance any link between the blackout rules and competition
among MVPDs, and that no commenter pressed the case for repeal or
modification of the sports blackout rules. The Commission therefore
declined to recommend any regulatory or statutory revisions to modify
the protections afforded to the holders of sports programming rights.
12. Today, sports leagues' blackout policies determine which games
are blacked out locally. These policies are given effect primarily
through contractual arrangements negotiated between the leagues or
individual teams that hold the rights to the games and the entities to
which they grant distribution rights, including television networks,
local television broadcast stations, Regional Sports Networks (RSNs),
and MVPDs. The Commission's rules, described above, supplement these
contractual relationships by requiring MVPDs to black out games that
are required by the sports leagues or individual teams to be blacked
out on local television stations.
B. Petition for Rulemaking
13. In November 2011, the Sports Fan Coalition, Inc., National
Consumers League, Public Knowledge, League of Fans, and Media Access
Project (collectively, Petitioners or SFC) filed a joint Petition for
Rulemaking urging the Commission to eliminate the sports blackout
rules. The Petitioners assert that, at a time when ticket prices for
sports events are at historic highs and high unemployment rates
persist, making it difficult for many consumers to afford attending
local sports events, the Commission should not support the ``anti-
consumer'' blackout policies of professional sports leagues. The
Petitioners also argue that the sports leagues' blackout policies are
no longer needed to protect gate receipts and therefore should not be
facilitated by the Commission's sports blackout rules. The Petitioners
maintain that, ``without a regulatory subsidy from the federal
government in the form of the [sports blackout rules], sports leagues
would be forced to confront the obsolescence of their blackout policies
and could voluntarily curtail blackouts.'' On January 12, 2012, the
Media Bureau issued a Public Notice seeking comment on the Petition.
Comments in support of the petition were filed by SFC, a group of nine
sports economists, several members of Congress, and thousands of
individual consumers. The NFL, the Office of the Commissioner of
Baseball (Baseball Commissioner), the National Association of
Broadcasters, and a group of network television affiliates filed
comments opposing the Petition.
III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
14. We propose to eliminate the sports blackout rules. The sports
blackout rules were first adopted nearly four decades ago to ensure
that the potential loss of gate receipts resulting from cable system
importation of distant stations did not lead sports clubs to refuse to
sell their rights to sports events to distant stations, which would
reduce the overall availability of sports programming to the public.
The rules were extended to open video systems and then to satellite
carriers to provide parity between cable and newer video distributors.
The sports industry has changed dramatically in the last 40 years,
however, and the Petitioners argue that the economic rationale
underlying the sports blackout rules may no longer be valid. Below we
seek comment on whether we have authority to repeal the sports blackout
rules. Next, we examine whether the economic considerations that led to
adoption of the sports blackout rules continue to justify our
intervention in this area. Finally, we propose to eliminate the sports
blackout rules and seek comment on the potential benefits and harms of
that proposed action on interested parties, including sports leagues,
broadcasters, and consumers.
A. Legal Authority
15. We seek comment on whether we have the authority to repeal the
sports blackout rules. As discussed above, Congress did not explicitly
mandate that the Commission adopt the cable sports blackout rule.
Rather, the Commission adopted the cable sports blackout rule as a
regulatory measure premised on the policy established by Congress in
the Sports Broadcasting Act, which exempts from the antitrust laws
joint agreements among individual teams engaged in professional
football, baseball, basketball, or hockey that permit the leagues to
pool the individual teams' television rights and sell those rights as a
package and expressly permits these four professional sports leagues to
black out television broadcasts of home games within the home territory
of a member team. Section 653(b)(1)(D) of the Act, as added by the 1996
Act, directed the Commission to extend to open video systems ``the
Commission's regulations concerning sports exclusivity (47 CFR
76.67).'' Similarly, Section 339(b) of the Communications Act, as added
by SHVIA in 1999, directed the Commission to ``apply . . . sports
blackout protection (47 CFR 76.67) to the retransmission of the signals
of nationally distributed superstations by satellite carriers'' and,
``to the extent technically feasible and not economically prohibitive,
apply sports blackout protection (47 CFR 76.67) to the retransmission
of the signals of network stations by satellite carriers.'' Reflecting
the language used in these
[[Page 4141]]
statutory provisions, the legislative history of Section 339(b) states
that Congress's intent was to place satellite carriers on an equal
footing with cable operators with respect to the availability of
television programming. Petitioners argue that the Commission has the
authority to repeal the sports blackout rules for both cable and DBS
because Congress never directed the Commission to issue the sports
blackout rules in the first instance and only directed the Commission
to establish parity between the cable and DBS regimes. Senators
Blumenthal and McCain likewise assert that ``[i]t is important to note
that Congress never instructed the Commission to promulgate the Sports
Blackout Rule in the first place. The Commission therefore possesses
ample authority to amend the Sports Blackout Rule sua sponte, without
any action by Congress.'' Several commenters opposing elimination of
the sports blackout rules assert that Congress mandated the sports
blackout rule for DBS. These commenters do not, however, expressly
argue that the Commission does not have authority to eliminate the
sports blackout rules, either for cable or for DBS and OVS. We
tentatively conclude that repeal of the cable sports blackout rule is
authorized by the Communications Act, which grants the Commission
general rulemaking power, including the authority to revisit its rules
and modify or repeal them where it concludes such action is
appropriate. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. We also seek
comment on whether we have the authority to repeal the sports blackout
rules for DBS and OVS. We observe that when Congress enacted the sports
blackout provisions in Sections 339(b) and 653(b)(1)(D) of the Act,
Congress directed the Commission to apply to DBS and OVS the sports
blackout protection applied to cable, set forth in 47 CFR 76.67, rather
than simply directing the adoption of sports blackout rules for those
services. The statute does not withdraw the Commission's authority to
modify its cable rule at some point in the future, nor is there any
indication in the legislative history that Congress intended to
withdraw this authority. Given that the DBS and OVS provisions are
expressly tied to the cable sports blackout rule, does this evince an
intent on the part of Congress that the Commission should accord the
same regulatory treatment to DBS and OVS as cable, i.e., if the
Commission modifies or repeals the cable rule it should also modify or
repeal the DBS and OVS rules? Would Congress's intent to subject open
video systems to reduced regulatory burdens as an incentive for their
entry into the video market support an assertion of authority to
eliminate the sports blackout rule for OVS if we determine that the
cable sports blackout rule is no longer needed? Alternatively, are
Congress's directives to the Commission regarding application of sports
blackout protection to open video systems and to satellite carriers
more appropriately interpreted to mean that the Commission does not
have the authority to repeal the sports blackout rules for these types
of entities, even if it does so for cable? If we determine that we do
not have the authority to repeal the satellite sports blackout rule
and/or the OVS sports blackout rule, would it nevertheless be
appropriate to repeal the cable sports blackout rule? Would eliminating
the sports blackout rule for cable but not for DBS and/or OVS create
undue disparities or unintended consequences for any of these entities?
B. Assessing the Continued Need for Sports Blackout Rules
16. We request comment on whether the economic rationale underlying
the sports blackout rules remains valid in today's marketplace.
Specifically, we invite commenters to submit information, and to
comment on information currently in the record, regarding (i) the
extent to which sports events continue to be blacked out locally as a
result of the failure of the events to sell out, (ii) the relative
importance of gate receipts vis-[agrave]-vis other revenues in
organized sports today, and (iii) whether local blackouts of sports
events significantly affect gate receipts. We invite commenters also to
submit any other information that may be relevant in assessing whether
the sports blackout rules are still needed to ensure the overall
availability of sports telecasts to the public. We ask commenters to
assess whether this information, as updated and supplemented, supports
retaining or eliminating the sports blackout rules.
1. Blackouts of Sports Events
17. We seek comment on the extent to which sports events are
blacked out locally today due to the failure of the events to sell out.
The record indicates that professional football continues to be the
sport most affected by blackouts. Under the NFL's longstanding blackout
policy, the television broadcast of home games in a team's home
territory has been blacked out if the game was not sold out 72 hours in
advance of game time. In 1974, just prior to the Commission's adoption
of the cable sports blackout rule, 59 percent of regular season NFL
games were blacked out due to failure of the games to sell out. During
the 2011 NFL season, only 16 out of 256 regular season games, or six
percent of games, were blacked out. These 16 blackouts occurred in just
four cities: Buffalo, Cincinnati, San Diego, and Tampa Bay. Thus, the
percentage of NFL games that are blacked out today has dropped
substantially since the sports blackout rules were adopted, and
blackouts of NFL games are relatively rare. Does this substantial
reduction in the number of blacked out NFL games suggest that the
sports blackout rules are no longer needed? Conversely, does the
relatively small number of blackouts of NFL games argue against the
need to eliminate the sports blackout rules? To what extent are
blackouts of NFL games averted when teams and local businesses work
together to ``sell'' outstanding tickets, thereby allowing local
coverage of games? Has the cable sports blackout rule had any impact on
the number of NFL blackouts? How should this affect our analysis?
18. We note that in 2012, after the petition for rulemaking in this
proceeding was put out for comment, the NFL modified its blackout
policy to allow its member teams the option of avoiding a blackout in
their local television market if the team sold at least 85 percent of
game tickets at least 72 hours prior to the game. Specifically, under
this new policy, individual teams are required to determine their own
blackout threshold--anywhere from 85 percent to 100 percent--at the
beginning of the season and adhere to that number throughout that
season. If ticket sales exceed the threshold set by the team, the team
must share a higher percentage of the revenue from those ticket sales
than usual with the visiting team. We seek comment on the extent to
which this new policy has impacted blackouts of NFL games. According to
SFC, there were 15 NFL games blacked out affecting five NFL franchises
during the 2012 season. Which teams opted to take advantage of the
NFL's new blackout policy and what effect, if any, did the NFL's
relaxation of its blackout policy have on ticket sales for the home
games of these teams? Does the NFL's recent relaxation of its sports
blackout policy weigh in favor of or against elimination of the
Commission's sports blackout rules?
19. We note that the record is largely silent on the prevalence of
blackouts affecting sports other than the NFL; thus we invite comment
on the extent to which these sports events are blacked out locally
today. As noted above, the sports blackout rules apply to all sports
[[Page 4142]]
telecasts in which the event is not available live on a local
television station, including telecasts of high school, college, and
professional sports, and individual as well as team sports. The Sports
Economists assert, however, that ``major professional sports leagues in
the U.S. [other than the NFL] generally do not use blackout rules to
prevent a game from being televised in the locality in which it is
being played'' because they ``sell television rights to only some games
through national broadcast agreements.'' The Sports Economists explain
that
[t]he FCC's rules currently have little relevance with respect
to television rights that are sold by a team rather than the league.
The FCC's rules apply only to games in the local area where they are
being played. Thus, the FCC's blackout rules bear no relation to
league policies that prevent telecasts in a team's home market of a
game being played elsewhere. For games that are played locally, the
vast majority of teams choose to sell television rights to all or
most of their games. * * *
To what extent are the sports blackout rules still relevant for
sports other than professional football, where individual teams, rather
than the league, hold and sell the distribution rights for all or most
of the games? In this regard, we seek comment on the importance of
retaining the sports blackout rules to protect the viability of any
nascent sports leagues that may emerge in the future.
20. Professional baseball is the only other sport for which
commenters provided any information on blackouts. Commenters indicate
that the number of MLB games blacked out is relatively small because
individual MLB teams, rather than the league, negotiate with local
broadcast television flagship stations or RSNs for exclusive rights to
televise most of the teams' games, both home and away games, in the
teams' home territories. According to the Baseball Commissioner, in
2011, 151 of 162 regular season games of each MLB team, on average,
were televised on the team's local broadcast television station or RSN.
Therefore, the Baseball Commissioner asserts, at most eleven of 162
regular season games of each MLB team were affected by the sports
blackout rules. To the extent that more specific data are available
regarding the number of home games of MLB teams blacked out pursuant to
the Commission's sports blackout rules, as opposed to MLB's blackout
policies, we request that commenters provide those data. Specifically,
for each MLB team, we seek current data on whether exclusive rights to
televise most of the teams' games have been granted to local broadcast
flagship stations or RSNs and the number of home games that are blacked
out pursuant to the Commission's rules. Does the number of games
blacked out argue in favor of or weigh against repeal of the sports
blackout rules? In addition, for home games that are blacked out under
our rules, we seek information as to why they are blacked out. In this
regard, the Baseball Commissioner states that ``[t]he vast majority of
MLB games are not sold out. While there are specific instances in which
MLB clubs do take account of gate attendance in making decisions about
telecasting patterns (and invoking the [Commission's sports blackout
rules]), MLB clubs do not routinely black out games that are not sold
out.'' Accordingly, what factors other than attendance are taken into
account in determining which MLB games are blacked out locally? How
many MLB games were blacked out due to failure to sell out and how many
were blacked out for other reasons? If, as reported, few MLB games are
blacked out due to failure to sell out, does this support the
conclusion that the sports blackout rules are not needed to promote
attendance at sports events?
21. We likewise request specific data detailing the extent to which
any other sports events, including games of other major professional
sports leagues (e.g., the NBA and NHL), and any other professional,
collegiate, or high school sports events, are blacked out locally. To
the extent that these other sports events are blacked out, are they
blacked out due to failure of the event to sell out or for some other
reason?
2. Gate Receipts and Other Revenues
22. We seek comment on the relative importance of gate receipts
vis-[agrave]-vis other revenues in sports today. As discussed above,
when the Commission adopted the cable sports blackout rule in 1975, it
found that ``gate receipts were the primary source of revenue for
sports clubs.'' The record before us indicates, however, that the
importance of gate receipts has diminished dramatically for NFL clubs
in the past four decades, particularly in relation to television
revenues. The Sports Economists state that in 1970 the estimated
average revenue of an NFL team was approximately $5 million and the
estimated average operating income was less than $1 million, whereas in
2009 the estimated average revenue of an NFL team was about $250
million and the estimated average operating income was $33 million. The
Sports Economists further state that ticket sales today account for
around 20 percent of NFL revenues, while television revenues account
for around 60 percent. According to SFC, television revenues, which are
shared equally among teams, are 80 times what they were in 1970 and now
account for 50 percent of the NFL's total revenues. SFC asserts that
gate receipts, which are split 60/40 between the home team and visiting
team, account for only 21.6 percent of the NFL's total revenues. These
figures indicate that television revenues have replaced gate receipts
as the most significant source of revenue for NFL clubs. Does this
shift in the source of revenue for NFL clubs undermine the economic
rationale for the sports blackout rules? We invite commenters to
supplement the record with more current data on NFL revenues, including
total revenues, gate receipts, and television revenues, to the extent
that such data are available. If gate receipts are no longer the
primary or most significant source of revenue for NFL clubs, are the
sports blackout rules still necessary to promote attendance at games
and to ensure the overall availability of telecasts of these sports to
the public? If so, why?
23. There is scant information in the record regarding the
significance of gate receipts in relation to other sources of revenue
for sports other than professional football. The Baseball Commissioner
states only that, ``in any given year, ticket sales and television
revenues account for roughly the same portion of [MLB's] revenues and
both are critically important to an MLB club's economic health.'' To
the extent that commenters assert that the sports blackout rules remain
necessary to ensure the overall availability of telecasts of particular
sports to the public, we request that they provide current revenue data
for such sports, including total revenues, television revenues, and
gate receipts. We note that, during recent years, MLB has entered into
other revenue-generating ventures, such as the MLB Channel, a baseball-
related programming channel available to MVPD subscribers, and Extra
Innings, which offers regular season game premium (pay) packages
through MVPDs to their subscribers. MLB also offers regular season game
packages directly to customers through MLB.tv. Such programming is
streamed over the Internet and can be viewed on computers and mobile
devices, as well as on televisions using devices such as Apple TV.
Moreover, many teams either own the RSNs that carry their game
telecasts or have obtained ownership interests in RSNs. Does the
emergence of these additional revenue sources impact the relative
importance of gate receipts and, accordingly, the continued
[[Page 4143]]
need for the sports blackout rules? If gate receipts are not the
primary or most significant source of revenue for these sports, why are
the sports blackout rules necessary to ensure the overall availability
of telecasts of these sports to the public?
3. Effect of Blackouts on Gate Receipts
24. We seek comment on the extent to which local blackouts of
sports events affect attendance and gate receipts at those events and
the extent to which the cable sports blackout rule itself affects
attendance and gate receipts at sports events. As discussed above, the
sports blackout rules are intended to address concerns that MVPDs'
importation of a distant signal carrying a blacked-out sports event
could lead to lost revenue from ticket sales, which might cause sports
leagues to expand the reach of blackouts by refusing to sell their
rights to sports events to all distant stations. The objective of the
sports blackout rules is not to ensure the profitability or financial
viability of sports leagues, but rather to ensure the overall
availability of sports programming to the general public. Thus, we are
interested in gate receipts and other revenues of sports leagues only
to the extent that such revenues are relevant to this objective. Based
on their review of several econometric studies of attendance at NFL
games as well as other team sports in the U.S. and Europe, the Sports
Economists conclude that there is no evidence that local blackouts of
NFL games significantly affect either ticket sales or no-shows at those
games. We seek comment on the Sports Economists' conclusion and the
underlying studies on which it relies. Do these studies support the
conclusion that our sports blackout rules are no longer needed? For
example, if local blackouts of NFL games do not significantly affect
either ticket sales or no-shows at those games, does it follow that the
cable sports blackout rule has no significant effect on attendance?
Additionally, we invite commenters to submit any additional studies or
evidence showing the extent to which local blackouts of NFL games
impact gate receipts at those games and the extent to which the cable
sports blackout rule itself impacts gate receipts. In particular, we
note that the NFL asserts that its blackout policy, as supported by the
Commission's sports blackout rules, is designed to promote high
attendance at games. We invite the NFL and other interested commenters
to submit any available data or evidence indicating that the NFL's
blackout policy in fact has the intended effect of promoting attendance
at games. As noted above, only four cities were affected by local
blackouts of NFL games in 2011: Buffalo, Cincinnati, San Diego, and
Tampa Bay; in 2012, local blackouts of NFL games were limited to
Buffalo, Cincinnati, Oakland, San Diego, and Tampa Bay. We seek comment
on whether certain teams or cities are routinely disproportionately
affected by local blackouts of NFL games and, if so, why. For example,
some commenters suggest that certain cities are more severely impacted
by blackouts because of conditions in the local economy (e.g., locally
high unemployment) or a large stadium capacity in a city with a
relatively small population. If these are the factors that lead to
failure to sell out games, does blacking out a game promote attendance
at future games in those cities? Are any cities affected by these
factors able to sellout games on a regular basis? If so, why? To what
extent does a team's performance lead to poor attendance and blackouts?
For example, are blackouts more common when a team is not in playoff
contention? Should this affect our analysis? If so, how?
25. Are the sports blackout rules necessary to sustain gate
receipts and other revenues for NFL clubs? Commenters who assert that
eliminating the sports blackout rules would result in a significant
reduction in gate receipts or other revenues for NFL clubs should
quantify or estimate the anticipated reduction and explain the basis
for their estimates. We also seek comment on the connection between any
such lost revenues and the willingness of teams to enter into
agreements allowing broadcast coverage of their games, maximizing the
availability of such broadcasts to the public.
26. There is no specific information in the record regarding the
effect of blackouts on gate receipts for any other sports events. We
seek comment on whether blackouts have any significant effect on gate
receipts for any sports events other than NFL games. Commenters should
provide any available data or evidence to support their positions. What
impact, if any, would elimination of the sports blackout rules be
expected to have on gate receipts and other revenues for these sports?
To the extent that commenters argue that eliminating the sports
blackout rules would result in a significant reduction in gate receipts
or other revenues for these sports, we request that they quantify or
estimate the anticipated reduction and explain the basis for their
estimates.
27. Some commenters suggest that blacking out games may actually
harm, rather than support, ticket sales. We seek comment on whether
blacking out sports events may have the unintended effect of alienating
sports fans and discouraging their attendance at home games. According
to the Petitioners, recent empirical studies suggest that televising
professional sports may actually have a positive effect on attendance
at home games. Does televising sports events serve to generate interest
among sports fans and thereby promote higher attendance at home games
in the long run? If this is the case, then why would a professional
sports league, such as the NFL, ever seek to black out games? For
example, do commenters believe that the NFL is operating pursuant to a
mistaken understanding of the relationship between blackouts and
attendance? Or do commenters believe that the NFL has reason for
maintaining its blackout policy other than attendance? Commenters are
invited to submit any studies or evidence supporting the view that
televising sports events encourages attendance at home games.
4. Other Relevant Data
28. We invite commenters to submit any other information or data
that they believe is relevant to our assessment of whether the sports
blackout rules remain necessary to ensure the overall availability of
sports telecasts to the public. For example, are changes in the video
distribution market in the 40 years since the sports blackout rules
were originally adopted, such as those described above, relevant to our
assessment? To what extent do sports leagues distribute games via such
premium services today and what impact do such premium services have on
the leagues' revenues and blackout policies? Commenters should explain
how any such information supports or undercuts the economic basis for
the sports blackout rules.
C. Elimination of the Sports Blackout Rules
29. We propose to eliminate the sports blackout rules. With respect
to professional football, the sport most affected by the sports
blackout rules, it appears from the existing record that television
revenues have replaced gate receipts as the most significant source of
revenue for NFL clubs in the 40 years since the rules were first
adopted. Moreover, the record received thus far indicates no direct
link between blackouts and increased attendance at NFL games. The
record also suggests that the sports blackout rules have little
relevance for sports other than professional football, because the
distribution rights for most of the games
[[Page 4144]]
in these sports are sold by individual teams, rather than the leagues.
Finally, it appears that the sports blackout rules are unnecessary
because sports leagues can pursue local blackout protection through
private contractual negotiations. Thus, it appears that the sports
blackout rules have become obsolete. Accordingly, if the record in this
proceeding, as updated and supplemented by commenters, confirms that
the sports blackout rules are no longer necessary to ensure the overall
availability to the public of sports telecasts, we propose to repeal
these rules. We seek comment on this proposal.
30. We seek comment on how elimination of the sports blackout rules
would affect sports leagues and teams and their ability, as holders of
the exclusive distribution rights to their games, to control the
distribution of home games in the teams' home territories. As discussed
above, the sports leagues, not the Commission, are the source of sports
blackouts. And the Commission's rules supplement the contractual
relationships between the leagues or individual teams that hold the
rights to the games and the entities to which they grant distribution
rights by requiring MVPDs to black out games that are required by the
sports leagues or individual teams to be blacked out on local
television stations. To the extent that the Commission's rules are no
longer needed to assure the continued availability of sports
programming to the public, does the Commission have any continued
interest in supplementing these contractual relationships? Should it
instead be left to the sports leagues and individual teams to negotiate
in the private marketplace whatever local blackout protection they
believe they need?
31. Several commenters argue that the compulsory copyright licenses
granted to MVPDs under Sections 111 and 119 of the Copyright Act would
make it difficult or impossible for sports leagues or teams to
negotiate the protection provided by the sports blackout rules through
private contracts. The compulsory licenses permit cable systems and, to
a more limited extent, satellite carriers to retransmit the signals of
distant broadcast stations without obtaining the consent of the sports
leagues whose games are carried on those stations, when the carriage of
such stations is permitted under FCC rules. Absent the sports blackout
rules, these commenters argue, an MVPD would be able to take advantage
of the compulsory license to retransmit the signal of a distant station
carrying a game that has been blacked out locally by a sports league or
team.
32. We seek comment on how the compulsory licenses would affect the
ability of sports leagues and sports teams to obtain through market-
based negotiations the same protection that is currently provided by
the sports blackout rules. The NFL contends that, since it contracts
with the CBS, NBC, and FOX networks for broadcast distribution of its
games, it lacks privity with the local network affiliates that carry
the games and with the MVPDs that retransmit the broadcast signals.
Thus, it claims that ensuring that all of the other parties involved in
the distribution of its games are contractually bound to honor the
NFL's sports blackout policy would require rewriting hundreds of
contracts, including contracts between the NFL and the CBS, NBC, and
FOX networks, contracts between the networks and their affiliates, and
contracts between the network affiliates and the MVPDs. The Petitioners
assert that this argument ignores the direct privity of contract the
sports leagues have with the MVPDs themselves, noting that virtually
all MVPDs carry networks or game packages owned directly by the sports
leagues, such as the NFL Network, MLB Network, NBA TV, NHL Network, and
NFL Sunday Ticket (DIRECTV). We seek comment on the extent to which the
sports leagues contract directly with MVPDs for carriage of networks or
game packages owned directly by the sports leagues. Do such contracts
already include some form of blackout protection and, if so, what
protection do these contracts provide? In this connection, the
Commission has previously found that sports leagues routinely negotiate
with MVPDs greater blackout protection than that afforded by the sports
blackout rules, and the comments in the record support this finding.
For example, sports leagues and teams contractually negotiate with
MVPDs blackouts of games throughout the teams' home territories, which
generally extend well beyond the limited 35-mile zone of protection
afforded by our sports blackout rules. In addition, the sports blackout
rules afford blackout protection only to the home teams, whereas sports
leagues or teams often negotiate blackout protection for both the home
and away teams. Accordingly, if sports leagues and teams are able to
obtain greater protection than that afforded under the sports blackout
rules in arm's length marketplace negotiations, why do they need the
sports blackout rules to avoid the impact of the compulsory licenses?
33. Moreover, the Commission has found that ``[s]ports leagues
control both broadcast carriage and MVPD retransmission of their
programming.'' It observed that a broadcaster cannot carry a sports
event without the permission of the sports leagues or clubs that hold
the rights to the event and, under the retransmission consent rules,
MVPDs, with limited exceptions, cannot carry a broadcaster's signal
without the permission of the broadcaster. Thus, the Commission
reasoned that a sports league could prevent unwanted MVPD
retransmission through its contracts with broadcasters by requiring, as
a term of carriage, the deletion of specific sports events. Because the
sports leagues could obtain local blackout protection through their
contracts with broadcast stations, the Commission suggested that the
sports leagues may not need the sports blackout rules to prevent MVPDs
from using the compulsory licenses to carry blacked-out games. Instead,
it stated that the sports blackout rules may serve primarily as an
enforcement mechanism for existing contracts between broadcasters and
sports leagues. We seek comment on this analysis. Could sports leagues
or teams prevent MVPDs from retransmitting certain sports events
through their contracts with broadcasters? If so, especially given the
popularity of certain sports programming, would leagues such as the NFL
be well positioned to secure blackout protection through private
contractual negotiations? Would leagues need to renegotiate existing
contracts with broadcasters to secure such protection? If so, should
that affect our analysis? What effect, if any, would the NFL's lack of
direct privity with the local network affiliates that carry the games
have on its ability to control MVPD retransmission? What are the costs
and benefits to sports leagues and teams of our elimination of the
sports blackout rules? To the extent possible, we encourage commenters
to quantify any costs and benefits and to submit supporting data.
34. We seek comment also on whether and how repeal of the sports
blackout rules would affect consumers. We received more than 7,500
comments on the Petition from individual consumers who support
elimination of the sports blackout rules. These comments indicate that
sports blackouts, while less frequent now than when the sport blackout
rules were first adopted, are still a significant source of frustration
for consumers. Some of these consumers are disabled or elderly sports
fans who are physically unable to attend games in
[[Page 4145]]
person and rely on television (either broadcast or pay TV) to watch
their favorite teams. Others complain that they can no longer afford to
attend games due to high ticket prices, the economy, or reduced income
following retirement; that they already subsidize professional sports
through publicly funded stadiums and should be able to watch the games
at home; or that they pay a substantial premium to watch their favorite
NFL team on DIRECTV's NFL Sunday Ticket but are sometimes unable to
watch due to a blackout, even though they may live 150 miles or more
from the team's stadium. We seek comment on what impact, if any, repeal
of the Commission's sports blackout rules would have on these and other
consumers.
35. The Petitioners acknowledge that eliminating the Commission's
sports blackout rules alone likely would not end local sports blackouts
as sports fans may wish. We note that the leagues' underlying blackout
policies would remain, and, as discussed above, the leagues may be able
to obtain the same blackout protection provided under our rules through
free market negotiations. The leagues could still require local
television stations to black out games; thus, consumers that rely on
over-the-air television would still be unable to view blacked-out
games. Moreover, repeal of our sports blackout rules alone would not
provide relief to consumers that are subject to blackouts resulting
from the leagues' use of expansive home territories. Nevertheless, the
Petitioners assert that, ``unless and until the Commission eliminates
the [sports blackout rules], the sports leagues will be under no
pressure to contractually negotiate for the protection that they claim
is necessary.'' The Petitioners suggest that, if the leagues find that
such negotiations would be too daunting, eliminating the sports
blackout rules may compel the leagues to lower ticket prices until all
seats are sold out or perhaps to end blackouts altogether. We seek
comment on whether there is any benefit to consumers of repealing the
sports blackout rules if the sports leagues' underlying blackout
policies remain. Is removing unnecessary or obsolete regulations in
itself a sufficient justification for eliminating the sports blackout
rules, even if there is no direct or immediate benefit to consumers? If
the evidence in this proceeding, including any data or studies
submitted by commenters, suggests that there are no tangible benefits
to retaining the sports blackout rules but that these rules also do not
cause any tangible harms, should the Commission repeal the sports
blackout rules? Would removing the Commission's tacit endorsement of
the leagues' blackout policies serve the public interest? Are the
leagues more likely to relax or reconsider their blackout policies if
the Commission's sports blackout rules are repealed? How does our
analysis of the issues differ between professional sports leagues which
have been granted exemptions from the antitrust laws and sports leagues
which have not been granted antitrust protections?
36. Further, we invite comment on any potential harm to consumers
of eliminating the sports blackout rules. Some commenters express
concern that eliminating the sports blackout rules could accelerate the
migration of sports from free over-the-air television to pay TV, which
would be harmful to consumers who cannot afford pay TV. As noted above,
the compulsory copyright licenses granted to MVPDs apply to the
retransmission of broadcast signals, not to pay TV content. According
to NAB, if the sports blackout rules are eliminated, ``sports leagues
wishing to retain control over distribution of their content would have
an incentive to move to pay platforms where the compulsory license
would not undermine their private agreements.'' Similarly, the NFL
asserts that eliminating the sports blackout rules ``would make
broadcast television distribution more difficult, expensive and
uncertain and accordingly would make cable network distribution a more
appealing prospect.'' What percentage of consumers watch the sports
programming they view on broadcast television channels rather than pay
TV or via the Internet using premium services such as MLB.tv? Would
repeal of the sports blackout rules hasten the migration of NFL games
from broadcast television channels to pay TV? If so, is it appropriate
for the Commission to have the objective of preventing such a
migration? We note that the NFL recently extended its contracts with
the CBS, FOX, and NBC television networks, ensuring that many NFL games
will remain on broadcast television channels at least through the 2022
season. In view of these contract extensions, it appears unlikely that
NFL games would migrate further from broadcast television channels to
pay TV in the near future. We nevertheless seek comment on whether
repeal of the sports blackout rules would likely encourage migration of
NFL games to pay TV in the immediate future or in the longer term. What
effect, if any, would repeal of the sports blackout rules have on
migration to pay TV of sports other than professional football? In this
regard, the record suggests that other professional sports teams
already distribute a majority of their regular season games via RSNs
and other cable networks. Is elimination of the sports blackout rules
likely to result in any further migration of these sports from
broadcast television channels to pay TV? Are there any other potential
harms to consumers from repealing the sports blackout rules? We
encourage commenters to quantify, to the extent possible, any benefits
and costs to consumers of eliminating the sports blackout rules and to
submit supporting data.
37. Some commenters argue that eliminating the sports blackout
rules would undermine broadcasters' local program exclusivity and harm
localism. These commenters assert that the sports blackout rules,
together with the network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity
rules, support local broadcasters' investments in high quality, diverse
informational and entertainment programming. By hindering the ability
of local broadcast stations to obtain and enforce exclusive local
program rights, they assert, elimination of the sports blackout rules
would make it more difficult for the stations to attract advertising,
which in turn would reduce their ability to invest in local information
programming and popular programming. Would elimination of the sports
blackout rules have a negative impact on localism? What, if any, costs
and benefits would repeal of the sports blackout rules have on
broadcasters? To the extent possible, we encourage commenters to
quantify any costs and benefits and to submit data supporting their
positions.
38. We seek comment also on whether and how elimination of the
sports blackout rules would affect any other entities. Some commenters
assert that under the Copyright Act any change in the sports blackout
rules will trigger a proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Tribunal
to adjust the compulsory licensing rates that cable systems pay. Would
such a rate adjustment proceeding be mandatory or discretionary on the
part of the Copyright Royalty Tribunal? In this regard, we note that
the Copyright Act provides that, if the sports blackout rules are
changed, the compulsory licensing rates ``may be adjusted to assure
that such rates are reasonable in light of the changes.'' What burdens
and costs would a rate adjustment proceeding impose on the Copyright
Royalty Tribunal and any other entities? Are there any other entities
that would be impacted by elimination of the sports
[[Page 4146]]
blackout rules? If so, what are the benefits and costs of elimination
for those entities? We request that commenters quantify any benefits
and costs to the extent possible and submit supporting data.
39. Finally, we seek comment on whether, as an alternative to
outright repeal of the sports blackout rules, we should make
modifications to these rules. If so, what modifications should we make,
and why would such modifications be preferable to repeal of the sports
blackout rules? Commenters that propose any such modifications should
quantify the benefits and costs of their proposals and provide
supporting data.
IV. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
40. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended
(RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules
considered in the attached Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be
identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines
for comments on the NPRM as indicated on the first page of the NPRM.
The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA). In addition, the NPRM and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will
be published in the Federal Register.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
41. The NPRM proposes to eliminate the sports blackout rules, which
prohibit certain multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs)
(cable, satellite, and open video systems (OVS)) from retransmitting,
within a protected local blackout zone, the signal of a distant
broadcast station carrying a live sports event if the event is not
available live on a local television broadcast station. The sports
blackout rules were originally adopted nearly 40 years ago, when the
primary source of revenue for sports leagues was game ticket sales. The
sports blackout rules were intended to ensure that the potential loss
of ticket sales resulting from MVPD retransmission of distant stations
did not cause sports leagues to refuse to sell their rights to sports
events to the distant stations, thereby reducing the overall
availability of sports telecasts to the public. The sports industry has
changed dramatically in the past four decades, however, and it appears
that the sports blackout rules may no longer be necessary to assure the
overall availability of sports programming.
42. The NPRM tentatively concludes that the Commission has the
authority to eliminate the cable sports blackout rule under its general
rulemaking power, given that Congress did not explicitly mandate that
the Commission adopt the cable sports blackout rule. Because Congress
directed the Commission to extend the sports blackout protection
applied to cable to satellite and OVS, the NPRM seeks comment on
whether the Commission also has the authority to repeal the sports
blackout rules for satellite and OVS. In addition, the NPRM seeks
comment on whether there is a continued need for the sports blackout
rules. In particular, the NPRM seeks comment on whether the economic
rationale underlying the sports blackout rules is still valid. Finally,
the NPRM proposes to repeal the sports blackout rules and seeks comment
on the benefits and costs of such repeal on interested parties,
including the sports leagues, broadcasters, and consumers.
Legal Basis
43. This NPRM is adopted pursuant to the authority found in
Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), 339(b), 653(b) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), 339(b),
and 573(b).
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
44. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and,
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
45. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The 2007 North American
Industry Classification System (``NAICS'') defines ``Wired
Telecommunications Carriers'' as follows: ``This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access
to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or
lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using
wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based
on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments
in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities
that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired
telephony services, including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and
video programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet services.
By exception, establishments providing satellite television
distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they
operate are included in this industry.'' All establishments listed
above are included in the SBA's broad economic census category, Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, which was developed for small wireline
businesses. Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to
be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows
that there were 31,996 establishments that operated that year. Of this
total, 30,178 establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818
establishments had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size
standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small
entities.
46. Cable Television Distribution Services. Since 2007, these
services have been defined within the broad economic census category of
Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which was developed for small
wireline businesses. This category is defined as follows: ``This
industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or
providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that
they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound,
and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of
technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired
telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a
variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP
services; wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and
wired broadband Internet services.'' The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for this category, which is: All such businesses
having 1,500 or fewer
[[Page 4147]]
employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996
establishments that operated that year. Of this total, 30,178
establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments
had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, we
estimate that the majority of such businesses can be considered small
entities.
47. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has also developed
its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate
regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable company'' is
one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide. Industry data
shows that there were 1,141 cable companies at the end of June 2012. Of
this total, all but ten cable operators nationwide are small under this
size standard. In addition, under the Commission's rate regulation
rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer
subscribers. Current Commission records show 4,945 cable systems
nationwide. Of this total, 4,380 cable systems have less than 20,000
subscribers, and 565 systems have 20,000 or more subscribers, based on
the same records. Thus, under this standard, we estimate that most
cable systems are small entities.
48. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard
for small cable system operators, which is ``a cable operator that,
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1
percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated
with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the
aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' There are approximately 56.4 million
incumbent cable video subscribers in the United States today.
Accordingly, an operator serving fewer than 564,000 subscribers shall
be deemed a small operator if its annual revenues, when combined with
the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250
million in the aggregate. Based on available data, we find that all but
ten incumbent cable operators are small entities under this size
standard. We note that the Commission neither requests nor collects
information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with
entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Although it
seems certain that some of these cable system operators are affiliated
with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, we are
unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of
cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators
under the definition in the Communications Act.
49. Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category
``comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images
together with sound. These establishments operate television
broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and
transmission of programs to the public.'' The SBA has created the
following small business size standard for such businesses: Those
having $14 million or less in annual receipts. The Commission has
estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be
1,386. In addition, according to Commission staff review of the BIA
Advisory Services, LLC's Media Access Pro Television Database on March
28, 2012, about 950 of an estimated 1,300 commercial television
stations (or approximately 73 percent) had revenues of $14 million or
less. We therefore estimate that the majority of commercial television
broadcasters are small entities.
50. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern
qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control)
affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely
overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our
action because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include
or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, an
element of the definition of ``small business'' is that the entity not
be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to
define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific
television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly,
the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not
exclude any television station from the definition of a small business
on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive to that extent.
51. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of
licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be 396.
These stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small
entities.
52. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS service is a
nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and
audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic ``dish'' antenna
at the subscriber's location. DBS, by exception, is now included in the
SBA's broad economic census category, Wired Telecommunications
Carriers, which was developed for small wireline businesses. Under this
category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500
or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996
establishments that operated that year. Of this total, 30,178
establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments
had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, the
majority of such businesses can be considered small entities. However,
the data we have available as a basis for estimating the number of such
small entities were gathered under a superseded SBA small business size
standard formerly titled ``Cable and Other Program Distribution.'' The
definition of Cable and Other Program Distribution provided that a
small entity is one with $12.5 million or less in annual receipts.
Currently, only two entities provide DBS service, which requires a
great investment of capital for operation: DIRECTV and DISH Network.
Each currently offer subscription services. DIRECTV and DISH Network
each report annual revenues that are in excess of the threshold for a
small business. Because DBS service requires significant capital, we
believe it is unlikely that a small entity as defined under the
superseded SBA size standard would have the financial wherewithal to
become a DBS service provider.
53. Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems, also known
as Private Cable Operators (PCOs). SMATV systems or PCOs are video
distribution facilities that use closed transmission paths without
using any public right-of-way. They acquire video programming and
distribute it via terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban multiple
dwelling units such as apartments and condominiums, and commercial
multiple tenant units such as hotels and office buildings. SMATV
systems or PCOs are now included in the SBA's broad economic census
category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which was developed for
small wireline businesses. Under this category, the SBA deems a
wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
Census data for 2007 show that there were 31,996 establishments that
operated that year. Of this total, 30,178 establishments had fewer than
100 employees, and 1,818 establishments had 100 or more employees.
Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such businesses
can be considered small entities.
54. Home Satellite Dish (HSD) Service. HSD or the large dish
segment of the satellite industry is the original satellite-to-home
service offered to consumers, and involves the home reception of
signals transmitted by
[[Page 4148]]
satellites operating generally in the C-band frequency. Unlike DBS,
which uses small dishes, HSD antennas are between four and eight feet
in diameter and can receive a wide range of unscrambled (free)
programming and scrambled programming purchased from program packagers
that are licensed to facilitate subscribers' receipt of video
programming. Because HSD provides subscription services, HSD falls
within the SBA-recognized definition of Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this
category, which is: All such businesses having 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2007 show that there were 31,996
establishments that operated that year. Of this total, 30,178
establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments
had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, the
majority of such businesses can be considered small entities.
55. Open Video Systems. The open video system (OVS) framework was
established in 1996, and is one of four statutorily recognized options
for the provision of video programming services by local exchange
carriers. The OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution
of video programming other than through cable systems. Because OVS
operators provide subscription services, OVS falls within the SBA small
business size standard covering cable services, which is ``Wired
Telecommunications Carriers.'' The SBA has developed a small business
size standard for this category, which is: All such businesses having
1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were
31,996 establishments that operated that year. Of this total, 30,178
establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments
had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, we
estimate that the majority of these businesses can be considered small
entities. In addition, we note that the Commission has certified some
OVS operators, with some now providing service. Broadband service
providers (BSPs) are currently the only significant holders of OVS
certifications or local OVS franchises. The Commission does not have
financial or employment information regarding the other entities
authorized to provide OVS, some of which may not yet be operational.
Thus, again, at least some of the OVS operators may qualify as small
entities.
56. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. The Census Bureau
defines this category as follows: ``This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and facilities
for the broadcasting of programs on a subscription or fee basis. . . .
These establishments produce programming in their own facilities or
acquire programming from external sources. The programming material is
usually delivered to a third party, such as cable systems or direct-to-
home satellite systems, for transmission to viewers.'' The SBA has
developed a small business size standard for this category, which is:
all such businesses having $15 million dollars or less in annual
revenues. Census data for 2007 show that there were 659 establishments
that operated that year. Of that number, 462 operated with annual
revenues of $9,999,999 dollars or less. One hundred ninety-seven (197)
operated with annual revenues of between $10 million and $100 million
or more. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of such
businesses can be considered small entities.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
57. The proposed rule changes discussed in the NPRM would affect
compliance requirements. The proposed rule changes would eliminate the
sports blackout rules, which prohibit certain MVPDs from televising the
home game of a sports team within a specified geographic area
surrounding a television broadcast station licensed to the community in
which the game is being played if the game is not available live on a
television broadcast station in that community.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
58. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that might minimize any significant economic impact on
small entities. Such alternatives may include the following four
alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
59. As discussed in the NPRM, repeal of the sports blackout rules
would not eliminate the sports leagues' underlying blackout policies.
Rather, it would simply remove Commission support for these policies.
Sports leagues would still be able to require local television
broadcast stations to black out games. In addition, sports leagues
would likely be able to obtain the same protection afforded under the
sports blackout rules either through market-based negotiations with
MVPDs or through their contracts with broadcasters by requiring, as a
term of carriage, the deletion of specific sports events. Accordingly,
we believe that repeal of the sports blackout rules would impose only
minimal burdens on any affected entities. For this reason, an analysis
of alternatives to the proposed rule changes is unnecessary. We invite
comment on whether there are any alternatives we should consider that
would minimize any adverse impact on small entities, but which maintain
the benefits of our proposal.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
60. None.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
61. This Notice of Proposed Ruemaking proposes no new or modified
information collection requirements. In addition, therefore, it does
not propose any new or modified ``information collection burden for
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.
C. Ex Parte Rules
62. Permit-But-Disclose. The proceeding this NPRM initiates shall
be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with
the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations
must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum
summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the
presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine
period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are
reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all
persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which
the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments,
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments,
[[Page 4149]]
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule Sec.
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule Sec. 1.49(f) or for which
the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing,
written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt,
searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
D. Filing Requirements
63. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and
reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of
this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS).
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.
[ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
1. All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the
Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
2. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
3. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
64. People With Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
65. For additional information on this proceeding, contact Kathy
Berthot, Kathy.Berthot@fcc.gov, of the Media Bureau, Policy Division,
(202) 418-2120.
V. Ordering Clauses
66. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority
found in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), 339(b), and 653(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j),
303(r), 339(b), and 573(b) this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is
adopted.
67. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MB Docket No. 12-3,
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76
Cable television.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 part 76 as follows:
PART 76--MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE
0
1. The authority citation for part 76 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 302a, 303,
303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 339, 340, 341, 503, 521,
522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 549,
552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572 and 573.
Sec. 76.111 [Removed]
0
2. Remove Sec. 76.111.
0
3. Amend Sec. 76.120 by removing paragraph (e)(3) and revising the
section heading to read as follows:
Sec. 76.120 Network non-duplication protection and syndicated
exclusivity rules for satellite carriers: Definitions.
* * * * *
Sec. Sec. 76.127 and 76.128 [Removed]
0
4. Remove Sec. Sec. 76.127 and 76.128.
0
5. Amend Sec. 76.130 by revising the first sentence to read as
follows:
Sec. 76.130 Substitutions.
Whenever, pursuant to the requirements of the network program non-
duplication or syndicated program exclusivity rules, a satellite
carrier is required to delete a television program from retransmission
to satellite subscribers within a zip code area, such satellite carrier
may, consistent with this subpart, substitute a program from any other
television broadcast station for which the satellite carrier has
obtained the necessary legal rights and permissions, including but not
limited to copyright and retransmission consent. * * *
Sec. 76.1506 [Amended]
0
6. Amend Sec. 76.1506 by removing paragraph (m) and redesignating
paragraphs (n) and (o) as paragraphs (m) and (n).
[FR Doc. 2014-01338 Filed 1-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P