1
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MEREDITH A. BAKER
Re: Review of the Commission’s Program Access Rules and Examination of Programming 
Tying Arrangements, MB Docket No. 07-198
I would like to thank each of my fellow Commissioners, the Media Bureau and the Office
of General Counsel for their hard work on this item.  These issues have troubled consumers and 
multichannel video programming distributors (“MVPDs”) alike for years, so I’m very pleased to 
support a well-reasoned, legally sound and narrowly tailored Order that effectively considers both 
legal precedent and policy concerns.  
At the outset, I would like to reiterate my belief that a competitive marketplace serves the 
public interest.  The issue before the Commission, framed by the purpose of section 628, stems 
from Congressional intent to “promote the public interest, convenience and necessity by 
increasing competition and diversity in the video programming market. . . .”1 That clear purpose 
guided me towards an outcome that maximizes the potential for innovation-driven competition.  
Regulation must, however, be accomplished with statutory authority, and rules of general 
applicability must be adopted via rulemaking.  
I am pleased that we are addressing this issue in a rulemaking proceeding rather than 
through the narrow lens of a specific adjudication, such as a merger.  Equally important is our 
decision to limit this rulemaking to vertically integrated video providers.  Our action today 
demonstrates the value of collaboration to create judicious, balanced, enforceable regulation.
I appreciate concerns regarding statutory construction and do not take them lightly.  
Section 628 prohibits certain conduct regarding satellite-delivered programming but does not 
specifically address terrestrially delivered programming.2 Some have argued that this disparity 
accounts for, and justifies, the so-called terrestrial exemption, but I read the statute in a different 
light.  Section 628 provides authority to promulgate rules beyond those “minimum contents of 
regulation” specified in section 628(c)(2).3  
This is consistent with the Commission’s position in the MDU Order4 and the D.C. 
Circuit Court in its decision to uphold that order. 5 The Circuit Court stated that 628(b) should be 
given “broad, sweeping application,”6 thus affirming our authority to adopt rules prohibiting 
conduct not expressly mentioned within section 628 when such regulation is consistent with the 
intention of the statute. 
Important policy considerations merit the action in this Order.  Terrestrial means have 
been increasingly relied upon to deliver programming.  Although not necessarily undertaken for 
  
1 See 47 U.S.C.  § 548(a).
2 See 47 U.S.C.  § 548.
3 See 47 U.S.C.  § 548(c)(2).
4See Exclusive Service Contracts for Provision of Video Services in Multiple Dwelling Units and Other 
Real Estate Developments, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 
20235, 20249, ¶ 27 (2007) (“MDU Order”), aff’d.  Nat’l Cable & Telecomm.  Ass’n v.  FCC, 567 F.3d 659 
(D.C.  Cir.  2009).  
5 NCTA, 567 F.3d 659.
6 Nat’l Cable & Telecomm.  Ass’n v.  FCC, 567 F.3d 659, 664 (D.C.  Cir.  2009) (quoting Consumer Elecs.  
Ass’n v.  FCC, 347 F.3d 291, 298 (D.C.  Cir.  2003)).
2
anticompetitive reasons, terrestrial distribution has in some cases limited the ability of MVPDs 
and consumers to access popular, non-replicable programming.   
It is particularly significant to me that this Order is narrowly tailored.  As the Order 
explains, “the record contains no evidence” to suggest that most terrestrially delivered 
programming has the “purpose or effect of significantly hindering or preventing MVPDs from 
providing satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast programming.”7 As the Order points 
out, terrestrial distribution of local news and similar local programming is unlikely to qualify as 
proscribed conduct under section 628.8 We have adopted specific standstill procedures that only 
apply to program access complaints.  These determinations, along with our effort to distinguish 
replicable and non-replicable programming, serve to encourage innovation, investment and 
competition generally. 
Our decision to utilize a case-by-case approach and an extended Answer period allows 
for balanced adjudications.  I am optimistic that these procedures will provide for consideration 
of nuanced, particularized scenarios that exist or may develop.  The 1992 Program Access Rules 
were designed to foster competition, a force that, in my mind, best regulates the marketplace.  It 
is my hope and expectation that this Order will complement those rules to enhance competition 
and better serve consumers.  
  
7 First Report and Order, MB Docket 07-198, in the Matter of Review of the Commission’s Program 
Access Rules and Examination of Programming Tying Arrangements, Paragraph 51.  
8 See 47 U.S.C.  § 548.