Before the 1996 Act, there was one statutory provision that limits "horizontal" ownership concentration of cable television systems: Section 613(f) of the Communications Act (added to the Act in by the Cable Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992). That provision directed the FCC to adopt rules establishing limits on the number of cable subscirbers that can be served by one company (or by multiple companies in which there is a common, attributable ownership interest).
The FCC adopted a 30 percent ownership cap in 1993. As originally adopted, it only took into account cable television subscribers. However, with the growth of DBS, the FCC revised its methodology in 1999 to take into account all "multichannel video programming distributors". That decision was not required by and was otherwise completely unrelated to any provision in the 1996 Act (which impacted cable television ownership only by eliminating the prohibition on telephone companies owning cable systems, which is why Verizon and ATT are able to compete with incumbent cable operators today).
The 1999 decision was struck down by the courts in 2001 on the grounds the FCC had not adequately supported its choice of a 30 percent cap. So the FCC went back to work and took another stab at implementing an ownership cap, which led to its adoption of a 30 percent cap in 2008. The courts weren't terribly amused by the FCC's magical reasoning that led it to come up with the exact same cap that the courts had previously rejected, and, to absolutely no one's surprise, the "new" 30 percent cap was struck down in 2009. The FCC at this point has not made a third attempt to set a limit. If it does, the court decisions indicate it would have to be greater than 30 percent based on the evidence.
Meanwhile, Comcast, as the largest cable company, sits at 22 million subscribers, which is well below the 30 percent cap that the FCC twice tried to impose. Even if it had purchased Time Warner Cable, it would have ended up at 30 million subscribers -- still below the 30 percent cap. And the deal between Charter (4.1 million subs), Time Warner Cable (11 million) and Bright House (2 million), the combined entity will have around 17 million subscribers, less than Comcast and, obviously, well below the 30 percent cap.
So, to review, even if the cap on horizontal ownership adopted before the 1996 Act was still in place (and, as mentioned, the 1996 Act didn't repeal that provision), the proposed deal would be well within the legal limits. As for what the 1996 Act did with respect to cable television ownership -- the answer is not much. As noted, it allowed telephone companies to get into the business of providing video, which has created more competition. It got rid of the the prohibition on a broadcast television network owning cable systems, which is why Comcast can own NBC (and which I believe was a bad move). And it set the stage for the courts, a few years later, to throw out the prohibition on a cable system owning a broadcast station in the cable system's service area. But none of those changes are in any way relevant to the proposed Charter/Time Warner Cable/Bright House merger.
Finally, the 1996 Act did make a number of changes that increased the number of radio stations that one entity could own locally or nationally. It also set the stage for increases in the number of tv stations that could be owned by one entity nationally, and put the newspaper-TV cross ownership ban at risk. Those were all bad moves, but again, they have nothing to do with cable television ownership or the proposed deal.
= new reply since forum marked as read
[/img][/url]
