Broadcasters, Diversity Groups Spar in Briefs Filed in 2014 QR Case
Broadcast intervenors repeated their challenges against the standing of the petitioners in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals case on the 2014 quadrennial review (see 1904300201), while the Multicultural Media Telecom and Internet Council and the National Association of…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Black Owned Broadcasters jointly chided the FCC for unreasonable delay, in final (in Pacer) and reply (in Pacer) briefs posted through Friday. “Despite this Court’s admonitions and prodding, the Commission has repeatedly avoided promulgating a concrete plan that promotes minority and female broadcast ownership,” MMTC and NABOB said. The petitioners, which also include Prometheus Radio Project and Media Mobilizing Project, “failed to identify any member of their organizations that has standing, much less describe how any member has suffered a concrete and particularized injury,” said (in Pacer) industry intervenors, including NAB, Sinclair and Connoisseur Media. MMTC and NABOB said the FCC unreasonably delayed taking action on a proposal to apply cable procurement rules to broadcasting, which is part of the 2018 QR. The diversity groups also said the agency violated the Administrative Procedure Act with its incubator program by allowing broadcasters to receive rule waivers in “comparable markets.” No party “commented on or advocated a switch to the comparable market definition during the public comment period,” MMTC and NABOB said. The argument that “established broadcasters have an incentive to game the system is entirely speculative” and based on a misunderstanding, the broadcast intervenors said. “Race- and gender- based ownership considerations cannot overwhelm Congress’s specific statutory directive to consider competition.”