STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL
Re: Revision of the Commission’s Program Access Rules, MB Docket No. 12-68 et al.
In the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Congress 
directed the Commission to adopt rules prohibiting exclusive arrangements by vertically 
integrated cable companies with respect to satellite delivered programming.  This prohibition was 
slated to expire in 2002 unless the Commission determined that an extension was “necessary to 
preserve and protect competition and diversity in the distribution of video programming.”  The 
Commission previously extended this ban twice, in 2002 and 2007.  Today, however, the agency 
concludes that a further extension is not warranted in light of changes in the video programming 
market.
Without question, the video marketplace has evolved in the past two decades.  But 
technological change does not preclude the need to be concerned about anticompetitive behavior 
and the impact of vertical integration on consumers.  Exclusive arrangements for “must have” 
programming can still lead to less competition, denying consumers the benefits of lower prices 
and higher quality services.  This is especially true when such programming is withheld from 
unaffiliated distributors that are small, rural, or new entrants in the marketplace.  Accordingly, 
Section 628 of the Communications Act provides a number of mechanisms apart from the blanket 
prohibition to challenge anticompetitive behavior on a case-by-case basis.  To this end, the Order 
provides a shot clock to ensure timely resolution of complaints.  It also provides a presumption 
that an exclusive arrangement with respect to regional sports networks will significantly hinder a 
complaining distributor from providing satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast 
programming.  Furthermore, the Order seeks comment on whether the Commission should 
establish a number of additional presumptions, including whether an exclusive contract for a 
cable-affiliated regional sports network should be presumed to be an “unfair act” under Section 
628(b) and whether a complainant should be presumed to be entitled to a standstill for an existing 
agreement under certain circumstances.
Consequently, I support today’s decision.  However, the Commission must keep a 
watchful eye on the evolving marketplace and be ready to take action if the processes we adopt 
today do not provide consumers with the safeguards they need and deserve.