Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-12-10 Action in Docket Case FCC Opens Second Round of Proceedings to Implement 1992 Cable Act�'g4 I\ 10,2 `News, media Infortnatton 202 / 632-5050 P� •Or lief 1O`ded listing of Morias and texts eKK�`1���, y \,))\• •ti , 202 / 632-0002. ',1,,' QAC 21 \952- • ' FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONS \ • 1919 M STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 ThIs .s an unotl,clal announcement 01 CommiSsior action Releaa'a he tuts teat of a Commiss.on order constitutes on mai act,on See MCI FCC 515 F 2d 385 ID C C,rc 1974) Report No. DC - ACTION IN DOCKET CASE December 10, 1992 FCC OPENS SECOND ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS TO INPL,ENENT 1992 CABLE ACT; EEO POLICIES AND PRACTICES ADDRESSED (NiM DOCKET NO. 92-///) In accordance with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, the Commission has initiated its second round of proceedings to implement the 1992 Act. This proceeding expands Commission regulation of equal employment opportunity policy and practices in the cable and broadcast television industries. The 1992 Act requires the Commission to collect specific employment data from cable entities, including designation of full and part-time employees, collecting data by each job title within each category, and expanding the "officials and managers" job category into six new job categories. In addition, the 1992 Act raises the penalty for rule violation flow $200 for each violation to $500. The Commission is directed to conduct a mid-term review of television broadcast station licensees' employment practices, and to inform licensees of necessary improvements in recruitment practices identified as a result of the review. The 1992 Act also expands the definition of "cable operator" to include "any multichannel video programming distributor." • It defines multichannel video programming distributor as a cable operator, a multichannel multipoint distribution service (M►)S) , a direct broadest satellite service (DES) , or a television receive -only satellite program distributor who make available for purchase, by subscribers or customers, multiple channels of video programming. Thus, distributors of DBS or NNDS systems would now be subject to the Commission's cable EEO rules and regulations by statutory requirement. Comments are requested on these rule changes and commenters are encouraged to submit comments with respect to any other changes within the 1992 Act that they believe may affect the Commission's EEO rules and regulations. Action by the Commission December 10, 1992, by Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 92-///). Chairman Sikes, Commissioners -FCC- News Media contact: Patricia A. Chew at (202) 632-5050. Mass Media Bureau contact: Lisa M. Higginbotham,, at (202) 632-7069. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 1919 M STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 News media Information 202 / 632.5050 Recorded listing o1 releases and texts 202 /632-0002 Trn,s .s an uno'I,c,at announcement of Comm,ss,on act.on Release o1 the lint teRI of a Commission woe, consotoes off,c.ai act.on See MCI v FCC 515 F 20 385 10 C Coc 1974) Report No. DC - ACTION IN DOCKET. CASE December 10, 1992 FCC PROPOSES PROHIBITING TIER "BUY -THROUGH" FOR CABLE TV (MM DOCKET 92-262) In response to Section 3 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, the FCC has proposed to adopt implementing regulations to prohibit cable operators from requiring subscribers to purchase any tier of service --other than the basic service tier --in order to obtain video programming that is offered on a per channel or per program basis such as, for example, Home Box Office or Showtime. This is commonly referred to as the "buy -through" prohibition. In addition, systems .will not be permitted to discriminate between subscribers to the basic service tier and other subscribers with regard to the rates charged for video programming offered on a per channel or per program basis. Cable systems that, due to the "lack of addressable converter boxes or other technological limitations" are not capable of complying with the requirement, will be exempt from this requirement for a period of 10 years or until they are modified to eliminate technological impediments. The Commission sought comment on how specifically to define those systems not presently capable of c omp lianc e. The act further provides that the Commission may extend this exception by waiver in certain circumstances., including where compliance would require the cable operator to increase its rates. Comment was requested on what standards might be employed in the waiver process as well as on other issues regarding administration and enforcement of the buy -through and nondiscrimination requirements. Action by the Commission December 10, 1992, by Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 92-///). Chairman Sikes, Commissioners -FCC- News Media contact: Audrey Spivack at (202) 632-5050 Mass Media Bureau contacts: Barrett Brick at (202) 632-7480 or John Wong at (202) 254-3420 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 1919 M STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 News media Information 202 / 632-5050 .. Recorded Hating o1 releases -and texts .. • • 202 / 632-0002 Tries o co sesan tu es no f action n c ael uce en of FCC Commisseon n action ID C'Cue o19rq lull text of a Commission order o 15 2 Report No. DC - ACTION IN DOCKET CASE December 10, 1992 CcM-ISSION INITIATES PROCEEDINGS TO IMPLEMENT 1992 CABLE ACT; CABLE CONSUMER PROTECTION AND CUSTOMER SERVICE ISSUES ADDRESSED (t14 DOCKET NO. 92-1//) In accordance with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Carpetition Act of 1992, the FCC today initiated proceedings to implement the 1992 Act. In this proceeding, the Commission is asking for comment on issues concerning cable consumer protection and customer service. The 1992 Act requires the Commission to establish cable customer service standards. Such standards must govern, at a minimum, cable System office hours, telephone availability, installations, outages, service calls and communications between the cable operator and subscriber, including billing and refund policies. The Act permits franchising authorities to either enact and enforce the Commission's standards or other consumer protection requirements. It also permits cable operators and franchising authorities to negotiate and to agree to customer service requirements that exceed the Commission's standards. Further, 'State or franchising authorities are permitted to enact consumer protection laws that exceed the Federal standards, or address issues not addressed by the Commission, if not preempted by the Act. The FCC asks a series of questions concerning implementation and enforcement of the standards and it seeks comment on what specific substantive standards should be adopted. First, the FCC seeks comment as to whether the Federal standards are self-executing, becoming effective automatically, or whether they .should take effect only if State or local authorities act to implement them. Second, since the 1992 Cable Act appears,to provide local enforcement authority, comments are requested on what role, if any, the FCC should play once it establishes the Federal standards. Next, the FCC seeks commit on what particular customer service standards the Commission should adopt. It asks whether the National Cable Television Association's (NC:TA) "Recommended Industry Customer Service Standards", as suggested in the legislative history, should be used as a guide in developing Federal standards, or whether there are other standards, developed by various cable, government or consumer groups, that could be used in some fashion. The NCTA standards, in particular, address each of the areas which the 1992 Cable Act requires be included in the Federal standards. By way of example, the NCTA standards propose that, generally: the telephone be answered by a service representative within 30 seconds or by an automated service in four rings; installations be performed within seven days; service interruptions be responded to within 24 hours; cable bills be "clear, concise and understandable"; and, 30 days' notice be given for rate increases or channel changes. (over) -2- Finally, Congress has directed the Commission to adopt "flexible" standards and to allow a local franchising authority to tailor the require:rents to met the needs of the local community. Accordingly, the FCC seeks comment on the approach it should take in establishing Federal standards in order to take into account the needs arra resources of various size systems without imposing undo compliance costs that could lead to rate increases. It proposed three approaches upon which comment is sought: 1) adopt a single set of standards; 2) establish a series of standards based upon size or other characteristics of the cable system or community; or, 3) set a range within which a franchising authority and cable system could negotiate. Action by the Commission December 10, 1992, by Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 92-///). Chairman Sikes, Commissioners -FCC- News Media contact: Patricia P.L. chew at (202) 632-5050. Office of Legislative Affairs contact: Ellen Schned at (202) 632-6405; Mass Media Bureau contact: Alan Aronovitz at (202) 632-7792. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 1919 M STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 News media Information 202 / 632-5050 Recorded listing of releases and texts 202 / 632-0002 Th,s ,s an unon.c,ai announcement of Commission acaon Release of the lull textof a Commiss,on prow const,tules on,cfat act,on See MCI v FCC 515 F 2d 385 10 C Circ 1974) Report No. ACTION IN.DOCKET CASE December 10, 1992 NEW CABLE OWNERSHIP RULES PROPOSED; INQUIRY BEGUN (MM DOCKET 92 - As part of its implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (1992 Act), the Commission is seeking comment on the interpretation and implementation of the cross -ownership and anti- trafficking provisions of that Act as well as on the adoption of limits on horizontal concentration and vertical integration in the cable industry. Section 13 of the 1992 Act added a new Section 617 to the Communications Act that established an anti -trafficking rule which prohibits the sale 'or transfer of ownership in a cable system within three years of its acquisition or initial construction. Section 13 also establishes a 120 day limit on the ammount of time local franchise authorities have to act on requests to transfer cable systems owned for three years or longer. Section 11 of the 1992 Act amended Section 613 -of the Communications Act by requiring the establishment of several restrictions on the ownership of cable systems. One of these new provisions prohibits common ownership of a cable system and multichannel multipoint distribution service (MMDS) or a cable system and a satellite master antenna television service (SMATV), apart from the franchised cable service. within a franchise area. Section 11 also requires the Commission to conduct a proceeding within one year to: (1) prescribe reasonable limits on the number of cable subscribers a person can reach through cable systems owned by such person (subscriber limits); (2). prescribe reasonable limits on the number of cable channels that can be occupied by a video programmer in which a cable operator has an ownership interest (channel occupancy limits); and (3) consider the necessity and appropriateness of imposing limitations on the degree to which "multichannel video programming distributors" may participate' in the creation or production of video programming. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry adopted today addresses these issues. ANTI -TRAFFICKING The Commission said that, although the anti -trafficking restriction set forth in the 1992 Act is largely self executing, it was requesting comments on: (1) the jurisdiction and enforcement of the provision; (2) the question of what constitutes a transfer of ownership in a cable system; (3) clarification of three specified exceptions to this prohibition; and (4) the implementation of the waiver authority given to the FCC in the 1992 Act. The Commission also asked for comments on what information it should require to be submitted to local franchise authorities in connection with requests for transfer of cable systems owned for at least three years. (over) Itt - 2 CROSS -OWNERSHIP The Commission noted that while the 1992 Act generally prohibits cross - ownership between a cable system and either an MMDS or SMATV system serving the same franchise area, it did not specify what would constitute ownership or control for this purpose. Therefore, the Commission asked for comments on this matter. The Commission pointed out that it already has a cable/MMDS cross - ownership prohibition and a public interest waiver standard for such situations in its rules, which appears to be consistent with and to effectively implement the statutory restriction. It asked commenters to address this conclusion and whether the existing criteria should also be applied to cable/SMATV situations. It also asked for comments on a proposal to enforce this provision through a complaint process and whether reporting requirements were needed. SUBSCRIBER LIMITS The 1992 Act requires the Commission to prescribe subscriber limits consistent with a number of public interest objectives. The Commission asked for information regarding whether such limits should be based on the share of subscribers served or the number of homes passed and what the appropriate limits are to prevent undue concentration in the cable industry. The Commission also asked for comment on enforcement and monitoring of the subscriber limits which are ultimately adopted. CHANNEL OCCUPANCY LIMITS The 1992 Act requires the Commission to prescribe reasonable limits on the number of channels that can be occupied by a video programmer in which the cable operator has an attributable interest. The Commission, therefore, requested comment on: (1) the use of the existing broadcast station attribution criteria for this purpose; (2) the relevant procedures for calculating cable channel occupancy limits; and (3) information regarding what' constitutes reasonable occupancy limits and how they should be enforced. RESTRICTIONS ON VIDEO PROGRAPMMING DISTRIBUTORS The 1992 Act requires the Commission to determine whether limits should be imposed on the degree that multichannel video programming distributors engage ,n the creation or production of video programming. The Commission noted that the 1992 Act established structural and behavioral restrictions on multichannel video providers intended to further the development of diversity and competition in the video marketplace. The Commission asked whether additional restrictions were warranted. It also asked commenters to consider whether any benefits would be derived from additional restrictions or whether such additional restrictions would limit the ability of cable operators to finance the development of new programing services. News Media contact: Rosemary Kimball at (202) 632-5050. Mass Media contact: Jacqueline E. Chorney at (202) 632-7792. int 1w r ;!.,•••,.:.1 IN.Ingn lug:ANL.. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 1919 M STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 News media Information 202 / 632.5050 Recorded listing of releases and texts• 202 / 632-0002 Tn.s .5 an unott.C,al announCement 01 Commission action Release of Inc lull tett of a Commtss.on order cons:lwles o".aal action See MCI v FCC S15 F 2d 385 ID C Circ 1e74) Report No. DC - ACTION IN DOCKET CASE December 10, 1992 CcMttSSION INITIATES PROCEEDINGS TO IMPLEMENT 1992 CABLE ACT; PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION AND CARRIAGE AGREEMENTS ADDRESSED (NIT'S DOCKET NO. 92-1//) In_ accordance with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, the FCC today initiated proceedings to implement the 1992 Act. The Commission invited comment on provisions that will govern access to multichannel video prograrzning., as well as program carriage agreements. The 1992 Act prohibits unfair or discriminatory practices in the sale of programming in order to foster the development of competition to cable systems by increasing access to programming by other multichannel video programming distributors. The 1992 Act also addresses carriage agreements between cable systems and the programming services that they distribute as a means of preventing cable systems flout coercing certain terms flow program vendors in exchange for carriage. The program access provisions of the 1992 Act require the Commission to adopt regulations to prohibit: 1) undue. influence by cable operators upon actions by affiliated program vendors; 2) price discrimination by vertically integrated satellite cable programming vendors and satellite broadcast programming vendors; and, 3) certain exclusive contracting practices that the Commission finds not in the public interest. The Commission observed that based on the structure of the 1992 Act as well as the legislative history, Congress was apparently especially concerned with the consequences of vertical ownership relationships between large multiple system operators and satellite cable programming vendors. Although Congress also recognized that common ownership of cable systems and prograrcaning suppliers could benefit the public, the FCC stated that the 1992 Act reflects a fundamental concern that vertically integrated- cable firms could have incentives to favor their own affiliated entities and to unfairly discriminate against alternative distributors. Therefore, the Commission proposed to develop regulations, that prevent unfair and anticompetitive corduct in the sale of satellite distributed cable programming by vertically integrated programmers. In accordance with the Act's provisions, the regulations would also address unfair and anticompetitive conduct by satellite broadczat programming vendors. The FCC also seeks ccmrent on various issues pertaining to the intended Objectives and scope of the 1992 Act, as well as whether the regulations should only implicate those "unfair," "deceptive," or "discriminatory," practices that significantly hinder the access of programing distributors to programming. As a related issue, the Commission asked for comment on the geographic market that would be relevant to determi nine whether a practice causes anticompetitive harm in that market. (over) -2 - Concerning undue influence by cable operators upon affiliated programming vendors' sales practices, the FCC asked ca;rrenters to address the particular activities that should constitute "undue influence." The Commission also sought comment on how to distinguish such practices frau other activities that could occur during the normal course of negotiation. Next, the 1992 Act prohibits a programming 'ng vendor affiliated with a cable operator frau discriminating in rates arra sales practices among multichannel video programming distributors. Therefore, the FCC is asking for comment to identify pricing practices that it should consider "discriminatory." The Commission Observed that the statute clearly permits programming vendors to impose certain requirements to account for different characteristics among program distributors. Thus, the Commission's proposal acknowledges the specific cost and volume -related factors for justifiable price differentials that the statute mentions, and inquires whether other legitimate economic factors may exist that explain pricing differentials and are consistent with the statute. The Commission also seeks convent on whether its standards for evaluating price differentials could be guided by other laws that address price discrimination issues. With respect to exclusive progtau contracts, the 1992 Act directs the Commission to develop rules that prohibit exclusive arrangements for programming between a multichannel video •distributor and an affiliated programming vendor in areas not serviced by a cable operator. In areas served by cable, the statute' requires -the Commission to prohibit such exclusive arrangements unless it determines that the exclusive contract would be in the public interest. Ccxrarents are sought on the appropriate determination of whether an area is served by a cable operator as well as how to identify the specific arrangements that should be prohibited. The FCC also asked parties to consider the necessary factors for determining whether a particular arrangement serves the public interest. • According to the Act, parties that are aggrieved by conduct alleged to violate the program access provisions are required to have the right to commence an adjudicatory proceeding before the Commission. The Commission proposed to adopt a streamlined " complaint procedure that would expeditiously resolve complaints while still affording all parties due process. These procedures would require complainants to establish a prima facie case of a statutory violation with respect to pracrarrming access, and the Commission sought comment on the factors that should constitute a prima facie showing. Finally, with respect to carriage agreements, the 1992 Act prohibits multichannel programming distributors fLau conditioning carriage of a vendor's programming on particular concessions in the carriage agreement. For example, the statute prohibits a multichannel distributor flOu requiring a vendor to concede a financial interest or exclusive rights in the vendor's programming service in return for carrying the program service on its system. The Commission is asking for comment on specific practices that should be prohibited and on appropriate complaint procedures for conduct that would violate the implementing regulations. -3 - Action by the Commission Decesber 10, 1992, by Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 92-///). Chairman Sikes, Commissioners -FCC- News Media contact: Patricia A. Chew at (202) 632-5050. Mass Media Bureau contact: James Coltharp at (202) 632-6302, Jane Hinckley Halprin at (202) 632-7792; Office of the General Counsel contact: Diane L. Hofbauer at (202) 632-6990. • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 1919 M STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 News media Information 202 / 632-5050 Recorded listing of releases and texts 202 / 632-0002 TMs .s an unoII.C,al announcement of Comm,sston acl.on Release 01 the lull te.t oI a Comm,sston oroer commutes olt.c.a, action See MCI FCC 515 F 2a 385 t0 C C,rc 1974) Report No. ACTION IN DOCKET CASE December 10, 1992 CABLE RATE REGULATIONS PROPOSED (MM DOCKET 92-266) As part of its implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (1992 Act), the Commission has proposed and solicited comment on procedural and substantive alternatives for rate regulation of basic tier service, cable programming services, equipment -offered to subscribers, and commercial leased access offered to programmers. Thestatute provides .that the. "basic service" tier must include: (1) .all "must -carry" channels; (2) any public, educational and governmental access channels the system franchise requires; and (3) any television broadcast signal provided, unless it is a non -local signal secondarily transmitted by satellite. "Cable programming service" is defined in the 1992 Act as any video programming provided, regardless of service tier, including installation or rental of equipment other than basic service programming or video programming offered on a per -channel or per -program basis. The 1992 Act permits regulation of a cable system's basic service and cable programming service 'rates only if the FCC finds that a cable system is "not subject to effective competition.." The statute appears to establish three separate tests for the presence of effective competition: -_-(1) The households subscribing to a cable system constitute fewer than 30 percent of the _households in its franchise area; (2) (a) There are at least two unaffiliated multichannel video programming distributors (one of which may be the cable system in question) , each of which offers comparable video programming to at least 50 percent of the householdsin the franchise area, and (b) the households subscribing to all but the largest multichannel video programming distributor exceed 15 ,percent of the households in the franchise area; and (3) The franchising authority is itself a multichannel video programming distributor offering video programming to at least 50 percent of the households `in that franchise area. If the Commission finds that a cable system is not subject to effective competition, rates for "basic cable service" are regulated by the local franchising authority, or by the Commission in certain circumstances discussed in more detail below. Rates for "cable programming sources" are subject to regulation only by the FCC. By analyzing the comments received in this proceeding, the Commission will be able to implement the 1992 Act's mandate that it establish regulations that produce reasonable rates and that are simple to administer. The Commission identified two general approaches to rate regulation that would satisfy congressional objectives - benchmarking and individual sys.em cost -based regulation. (over) Under a benchmarking approach, the Commission would establish a benchmark rate, or a simple formula which could be used to derive such a rate. Rates below the benchmark would be presumed reasonable. Cable systems with rates above the benchmark price would be required to reduce their rates to the benchmark level unless they could justify higher rates under standards established by the Commission. The Commission proposed to include as a component of any benchmark a price cap formula to control how quickly systems with rates below the benchmark could raise their rates to the benchmark level. The Commission also proposed establishing mechanisms to adjust the benchmark itself over time. The adjustment mechanism might be a formula. or, if the benchmark is itself calculated pursuant to, a formula, the latter might• incorporate,adjustment factors among its components. The Commission could also review the benchmark price and adjust it periodically as needed. The Commission identified several alternative methods for setting benchmarks: Rates charged by systems facing effective competition; Past regulated rates; Average rates of cable systems; Cost -of -service, based on an "ideal" or "typical" system; and Price caps • Under a cost -based _approach to rate regulation, the reasonableness of a cable system's rates would be determined by examination of the particular costs of the individual cable system using ratemaking 'principles set by the Commission. The Commission proposed the following alternative methods for individual system cost -based regulation: - - Direct costs of signals plus nominal contribution to joint and common costs; and - - Cost of service, whereby a cable system's rates would be reviewed using the established standards of cost -of -service regulation as traditionally applied to public utilities, including common carriers providing interstate communications services. An advantage of a cost -based alternative is that it would permit close supervision of rates. The Commission noted several disadvantages with traditional cost -of -service regulation including that it is neither simple nor inexpensive to administer. Because the 1992 Act directed the Commission to craft rules that reduce burdens on cable operators, franchising authorities, the Commission and consumers, the Commission tentatively concluded that it should not select a cost -of -service alternative as the primary mode of cable rate regulation when it is unable to gather the information necessary to implement other alternatives. - 3 - Concerning equipment. the Commission observed that the 1992 Act requires that rates for equipment used to receive basic tier service be based on actual costs. The Commission tentatively concluded that equipment subject to rate regulation would include the converter box, remote control unit, connections for additional television receivers, and the inside cabling. The Commission tentatively proposed to require that cable systems unbundle charges for equipment from other charges for cable service. The Commission solicited comment on requiring that charges for equipment recover any direct costs, an allocation of indirect costs and overhead, and a reasonable profit. The Commission also solicited comment on the appropriate treatment of equipment used to receive both basic tier service and cable programming services. For provision of leased commercial access, in addition to use of benchmarks and cost -of -service ratemaking. the Commission solicited comments on reliance on marketplace rates, and use of a formula to compute rates based on subscriber rates for cable service. The Commission also solicited comments on whether the Commission should establish special rates for not-for-profit programmers. Because the issues concerning leased commercial access are related to but slightly different from those concerning regulation of basic cable and cable programming rates, the Commission asked interested parties to segregate their comments on regulation of leased access from those on the regulation of the other two types' of service. The Commission also proposed cost accounting and cost allocation standards that could be used.if the Commission adopts cost -based regulatory alternatives. Depending on the alternative selected by the Commission, it may not be necessary to adopt any or all of these proposed requirements. In order to regulate basic cable rates, local franchising authorities must submit a three-part certification to the Commission. The Commission interpreted Section 623 of the Communications Act, as amended by the 1992 Cable Act, to permit local franchising authorities to regulate the rates for basic cable service in areas that are not subject to effective competition unless the FCC disallows o.r revokes an authority's certification. An initial issue is the scope of the FCC's authority to regulate basic cable service rates under the statute, however. The Commission tentatively concluded that it has the power to regulate basic cable rates only if it has disallowed or revoked the franchise authority's certification. The Commission sought comment on other alternatives. The Commission proposed to have franchising authorities submit an initial finding of lack of effective competition and the basis therefor as part of the certification process, and to consider that initial finding in making the Commission's determination regarding effective competition. (over) - 4 - The Commission asked for comments on the procedures for filing, approving and revoking certification, including whether it should adopt a standardized for for certification. It also wanted comments on the procedures that should govern regulation of basic service, cable programming services and leased access rates. Among the numerous other issues on which the Commission sought comment were how to reduce rate regulation burdens on small systems, how to prevent evasions, and how to implement reporting and information collection requirements. Another issue on which the Commission asked for comment was negative option billing. The 1992 Cable Act provides that an operator may not charge a subscriber for "any service or equipment that the subscriber has not affirmatively requested by name." The Commission tentatively concluded that an operator should not be permitted to charge for any service or equipment provided in violation of this provision. The legislative history indicates that Congress intended to exempt from this provision changes in the.mix of programming services in a tier. Thus, the Commission sought comment on what the scope of the negative option billing provision should be. The FCC also asked for comments on whether any dispute between the operator and subscriber arising under this provision was essentially contractual in nature, subject to resolution in the local courts. 'In order to.facilitate review of comments, the Commission directed that all comments concerning leased or special access be placed in separate sections of comments. News Media contact: Rosemary Kimball at (202) 632-5050. Mass Media Bureau contact: Regina Harrison at (202) 632-7792 Common Carrier Bureau contact: Patrick Donovan at (202) 632-1295; Nancy Boocker at (202) 632-6917; Dan Gonzalez at (202) 632-1299; or Jay Atkinson or Hugh Boyle at (202) 632-1861. Office of Plans and Policy contact: Florence Setzer at (202) 653-5940. • `�� MEWS FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 1919 M STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 News media Information 202 / 632-5050 Recorded listing of releases and texts 202 / 632-0002 This is an unotiiciai announcement of Commission action Release of Ire tuft tett 01 a Commission oroer constitutes ott,cial action See MCI FCC 515 F 20 385 ID C C,rc 1974) Report No. CERTAI?: CABLE SYSTEMS DIRECitll TO PROVIDE RATE AND OTHER INFORI-MATION (Iu1 DOCKET 92-266) The Commission has directed a sample of cable .systems to provide rate and other information to permit the Commission to carry out the mandate of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (1992 Act). In a separate action taken today. the Commission proposed various methods for regulating rates of cable systems not subject to effective competition. The rate and other data to be collected will enable the Commission to ascertain. rates of cable systems that are subject to effective competition. The data also will permit the Commission to establish "benchmarks" to govern rates for cable service based on representative industry data should the Commission adopt one of the benchmark alternatives presented in the Notice. The cable systems identified by the Commission must complete and return a" questionnaire in which they will state whether they are subject to effective competition under the statutory standards and provide the additional requested information. • ACTION IN DOCKET CASE News Media contact: Rosemary Kimball at (202) 632-5050. Office of Plans and Policy contact: Florence Setzer at (202) 653-5940. Common Carrier Bureau contact: Jay Atkinson at (202) 634-1861.