Sinclair Hasn't Explained Why Information Request Shouldn't Be Granted, Say Dish, ACA, PK
Sinclair and Tribune haven’t sufficiently explained why contracts and other information requested by Dish Network, Public Knowledge and the American Cable Association aren’t relevant to a public interest analysis, said Dish, PK and ACA in a joint reply to Sinclair…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
and Tribune opposition (see 1707200048) in FCC docket 17-179. NTCA, Common Cause and networks supported the request (see 1707210050). Sinclair and Tribune’s submissions “include no documentary sources or affidavits that would allow their confirmation,” said ACA, Dish and PK. Their application “concedes that, as it stands, it violates several provisions of the Commission’s ownership rules, without offering a concrete plan for how to cure these violations,” they said. Though the combining broadcasters said the information request is procedurally out of order, Dish, ACA and PK said they're informing the FCC for what information it should request, not upending procedure. “The Commission cannot conclude that the transaction is in the public interest based on the record as it currently exists,” the joint filing said. Arguments that a 2015 court battle over confidential documents about AT&T/Direct TV and other MVPD deals shows retransmission consent contracts shouldn’t be part of the information available to third parties during deal review are incorrect, said Dish, ACA and PK. CBS v. FCC “does not say that retransmission consent agreements are off limits; it simply holds that the showing made by the Commission in that case was insufficient,” they said. The information initially requested by Dish, ACA, PK and the others is “not exhaustive,” the joint filing said.