Government Defends FCC in Indian Peak Antenna Case
The federal government defended the FCC’s decision denying petitions for declaratory ruling on the agency’s over-the-air reception device (OTARD) rules in response to Indian Peak Properties' challenge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (see 2405060035). The…
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!
FCC declined to step in following a dispute between the company and Rancho Palos Verdes, California (see 2410290011). “The Commission correctly construed the Rule to require a regular human presence at an antenna’s location,” the government said. “This requirement is evident from the Rule’s text and the Commission’s historic treatment of the Rule, and is consistent with Congress’s original purpose of protecting viewers’ access to video programming.” The pleading discussed the dispute's long history. After a city inspection revealed at least 11 antennas on the property in question, “plus other equipment on the roof, the City ordered Indian Peak to remove all but five antennas, and the parties began several years of discussions,” the pleading said, noting that in 2020, after suing the city, Indian Peak sought FCC review. The pleading said the commission’s determination “that Indian Peak failed to adequately allege that its antenna use fell within the Rule’s scope was supported by substantial evidence: Indian Peak repeatedly told the Commission that no one lived at the Property, emphasized the importance of remote access, and offered vague and inconsistent descriptions of how the Property was used.” From its origins protecting viewers’ access to satellite video at their homes, the OTARD rule “has always contemplated that a protected antenna serve a human end user at the antenna’s location,” the government said. “Indeed, if the Rule did not contain a human-presence requirement, it would necessarily extend to antennas on unoccupied buildings -- a result which nothing in the Rule’s history supports.”