MAP Files Reply Comments in Home Shopping Proceeding
Posted: Thursday August 2, 2007
SUMMARY
Despite the fact that the very purpose of this reopened comment period is to give parties the opportunity to refresh the record, the comments in opposition barely address the materially changed
factual circumstances which the Commission is obliged to consider in its decision in this matter.
The Commission cannot base its decision in this matter solely upon the record as it existed in 1993. For one thing, the Commission always has inherent authority to revisit past decisions based on changed circumstances. In any event, the Commission must always base public interest determinations on the best facts available to it.
Several parties claim that the extended delay in resolving this matter precludes the Commission from acting on the petition for reconsideration at this time. However, there is no statutory or case law which supports the view that a petitioner for reconsideration can be deprived of its right to obtain reconsideration. The Commission complied with Section 4(g)(2) of the 1992 Cable Act by issuing a decision within the 270 day deadline for action; the statute cannot be plausibly construed to require reconsideration to be competed within that initial deadline, or to conclude that Congress intended to deny parties the right to seek timely reconsideration.
Several of the licensees licensees recount at great length the claimed societal benefits of home shopping programming. None of them, however, discuss why, in light of changed circumstances since 1993, it is now necessary for this material to be delivered via scarce over-the-air television spectrum.
In light of clear precedent, there is no basis to claim that the Commission lacks authority to regulate excessive commercialization, or that grant of the reconsideration petition would violate Section 326 or the First Amendment.