*Pages 1--1 from  Microsoft Word - 19239.doc*
 STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  MICHAEL  J.  COPPS 
 In  the  Matter  of:  Implementation  of  the  Cable  Television  Consumer  Protection  and  Competition  Act  of  1992  Development  of  Competition  and  Diversity  in  Video  Programming  Distribution: 
 Section  628(  c)(  5)  of  the  Communications  Act  Sunset  of  Exclusive  Contract  Prohibition 


 I  support  the  extension  of  the  statutory  prohibition  on  exclusive  contracts  between  a  vertically  integrated  programmer  and  a  cable  operator  for  another  five  years.  This  prohibition 
 has  been  effective  in  implementing  Congress’s  goal  of  fostering  competition  to  cable  from  DBS  and  other  new  video  providers.  During  the  ten  years  since  that  statute  was  adopted,  cable's  share 
 of  the  market  has  dropped  from  95%  to  78%. 
 Much  of  the  competition  to  cable  has  come  from  DBS  services,  however,  new  competitors  such  as  SMATV  systems  or  other  competitive  providers  have  provided  other 
 alternatives  for  some  consumers.  Just  as  the  rules  at  issue  here  have  made  it  possible  for  DBS  to  grow  as  a  competitor  to  cable,  the  extension  of  this  rule  makes  possible  the  growth  of  new 
 competitors,  building  and  protecting  increasing  competition  in  the  market  for  video  programming. 


 Because  the  statute  expressly  applies  to  “satellite  cable  programming,”  we  do  not  appear  to  have  the  discretion  to  extend  this  provision  to  non-  satellite  delivered  programming.  This 
 language,  however,  has  given  vertically  integrated  cable  programmers  the  ability  to  enter  into  exclusive  contracts  when  the  programming  is  terrestrially  –  rather  than  satellite  –  delivered. 
 Terrestrially  delivered  programming  is  often  local  news  and  sports  programming  –  programming  of  particular  concern  to  the  local  community.  It  is  not  clear  whether,  in  adopting  the  language  of 
 this  provision  a  decade  ago,  Congress  anticipated  the  distinction  between  satellite  delivered  programming  and  terrestrially  delivered  programming,  or  that  local  programming  would  be 
 exempt  from  this  prohibition. 
 Congress  did,  however,  anticipate  that  the  prohibition  on  exclusive  contracts  created  in  1992  would  foster  competition  in  the  market  for  the  delivery  of  video  programming,  and  also 
 anticipated  that  this  provision  might  still  be  necessary  to  “preserve  and  protect  competition  and  diversity”  ten  years  hence.  With  this  Order,  we  find  that  the  rules  we  adopted  pursuant  to  that 
 provision  continue  to  be  necessary,  and  extend  them  and  their  protections  for  another  five  years. 
1