BALTIMORE, Jan. 31 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Sinclair Broadcast Group,
Inc. (Nasdaq: SBGI) today sent the attached letter to U.S. Senators, Daniel
Inouye and Ted Stevens, Chairmen of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation in response to a letter the Senators sent
yesterday to Kevin Martin, Chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications
Commission regarding the negotiations between Sinclair Broadcast Group and
Mediacom Communications Corp. (Nasdaq: MCCC) over carriage of Sinclair's
television stations.
The impacted stations are:
Des Moines/Ames (KDSM-FOX), Cedar Rapids (KGAN-CBS), Mobile-Pensacola
(WEAR-ABC/WFGX-MNT), Peoria/Bloomington (WYZZ-FOX),
Greenville/Spartanburg/Asheville (WLOS-ABC/WMYA-MNT), Lexington (WDKY-FOX),
Madison (WMSN-FOX), Nashville (WZTV-FOX/WUXP-MNT/WNAB-CW), Minneapolis
(WUCW- CW), Paducah/Cape Girardeau (KBSI-FOX/WDKA-MNT),
Springfield/Champaign/Decatur (WICS-ABC/WICD-ABC), St. Louis (KDNL-ABC),
Tallahassee (WTWC-NBC), Birmingham (WTTO-CW/WABM-MNT), Norfolk (WTVZ-MNT)
and Milwaukee (WCGV-MNT/WVTV-CW).
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., one of the largest and most diversified
television broadcasting companies, currently owns and operates, programs or
provides sales services to 58 television stations in 36 markets. Sinclair's
television group reaches approximately 22% of U.S. television households
and is affiliated with all the major networks.
The following is Sinclair's letter to the Chairmen of the U.S. Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in response to a letter
the Senators sent yesterday to Kevin Martin, Chairman of the U.S. Federal
Communications Commission regarding the negotiations between Sinclair
Broadcast Group and Mediacom Communications Corp. over carriage of
Sinclair's television stations.
January 31, 2007
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye, Chairman
The Honorable Ted Stevens, Vice Chairman
The United States Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senators Inouye and Stevens:
I have received a copy of the letter, dated yesterday, that you both
sent to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin regarding
the negotiations between Sinclair Broadcast Group and Mediacom. While I
share your frustration that these negotiations have not resulted in an
agreement, I do ask that you keep the following points in mind in your
consideration of this issue:
1. 47 USC Section 325(b)(i), the most applicable Federal law on this
subject provides that "[n]o cable system or other multichannel programming
distributor shall retransmit the signal of a broadcasting station, or any
part thereof, except with the express authority of the originating
station."
2. Allowing Mediacom the right to retransmit the signals of Sinclair's
stations without Sinclair's consent, whether through binding arbitration or
otherwise, would be tantamount to removing the need for Mediacom to obtain
Sinclair's consent, in direct contravention of the statute cited above
governing retransmission consent.
3. The only ruling that has been made by the FCC to date on this matter
is one in which the FCC concluded, after a thorough review of the record,
that Sinclair has acted in a completely lawful manner during negotiations
with Mediacom.
4. Virtually all residents in the markets where Mediacom historically
retransmitted the signals of Sinclair stations have alternative means for
watching these stations, whether through free over-the-air delivery or from
one of Mediacom's direct competitors, such as DirecTV, the Dish Network or
McLeod USA (a cable overbuilder which serves many of the same residents of
Cedar Rapids, Iowa as does Mediacom), all of which were able to negotiate
for the right to carry the Sinclair stations without any need for
government intervention.
5. A primary intent of Congress in enacting the retransmission consent
laws contained in the 1992 Cable Act was to allow broadcasters to be paid
by cable operators consistent with the manner in which owners of cable-only
channels were compensated. Fifteen years later this intent is only now
starting to be realized and only as a result of broadcasters being willing
to take the position that their signal cannot be retransmitted in the
absence of adequate compensation.
While I can appreciate your desire to make sure that the public is not
inconvenienced by this situation, I hope you can understand the danger of
suggesting the government should order private parties to enter into an
agreement when they are not able to reach agreement on their own. Although
the laws surrounding retransmission consent imposes on the parties an
obligation to negotiate in good faith (something Sinclair has been found to
have done), the laws clearly do not require an agreement to be reached.
Moreover, the laws also expressly contemplate that consistent with all
private negotiations (whether personal or business), the government cannot
order the parties to reach agreement. Requiring Sinclair to submit to
binding arbitration and to accept a result therefrom with which Sinclair
does not agree would not only be contrary to the intent of the 1992 Cable
Act but, would be the equivalent of allowing Mediacom to retransmit the
signals of Sinclair's stations without Sinclair's consent. The law does not
permit such a result.
Finally, I would like to make you aware that I believe that any
suggestion, such as the one contained in your letter, that government
intervention will be forthcoming has had a chilling effect on the ability
of the parties to reach a mutually acceptable agreement on their own.
Unfortunately it appears that Mediacom's interest in reaching agreement has
been tempered by a belief that it need not complete a deal because the
government will step in to remedy such a failure. Accordingly, I
respectfully suggest that the best way to increase the likelihood that the
free market for negotiations will yield a successful result would be for
Mediacom to understand that, consistent with the clear intent of 47 USC
Section 325(b)(i), it will only be permitted to retransmit the signals of
Sinclair's television stations if it (and not the government) obtains
Sinclair's express authority to do so.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this issue with me
in greater detail, please let me know.
Sincerely yours,
Barry M. Faber
Vice President/General Counsel
SOURCE Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.
 back to top
Related links:
http://www.sbgi.net
http://www.prnewswire.com/comp/110203.html /
CONTACT:
Barry M. Faber, V.P. & General Counsel,
Sinclair Broadcast Group, +1-410-568-1500
|
