Tennis Channel not Shown any new Evidence in Petition To Re-Open Comcast Carriage Complaint, FCC Says

Since Tennis Channel hasn't shown what new evidence it has or explained why it didn't present that evidence previously, the programmer's efforts to reopen its discrimination complaint against Comcast should be denied, the FCC said in a brief filed Wednesday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Tennis Channel's original 2010 carriage complaint initially was held up by the FCC, but then vacated by the D.C. Circuit. After Tennis Channel re-petitioned the FCC, the agency in January issued an order denying both the original complaint and the re-petition (see 1501280059), and Tennis Channel in response petitioned for to vacate that order and remand the case. "Although the FCC claims that the Comcast decision left it no other choice, nothing in that opinion permits, let alone requires, the FCC to turn a blind eye to swaths of record evidence bearing directly on what have now become the dispositive factual issues in this case," Tennis Channel said in its own brief filed Sept. 21. The D.C. Circuit reversed the agency "because the evidence the agency relied upon was insufficient to support its decision. The Court did not -- and, under basic principles of administrative law, could not -- make definitive findings on factual issues the FCC never considered." However, in its brief, the FCC said it "faithfully adhered" to the appellate court's decision when it made its January decision, and "nothing in the Court's decision suggests that the Court anticipated or intended for the FCC to conduct further proceedings on remand." Meanwhile, the agency said, Tennis Channel "already received a full and fair opportunity to prosecute its program-carriage complaint, and it has not shown that the FCC in any way misled it or prevented it from submitting any relevant evidence. The interest in bringing this proceeding to a close outweighs any interest in giving Tennis Channel a second opportunity to litigate its complaint." No oral argument was scheduled in the petition, according to court paperwork.