From: tweek@tweekco.uucp (Michael D. Maxfield)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: S.12 (The Senate Act - part 1)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 16:03:36 PDT
Organization: Tweek-Com Systems, Moraga, CA

(part 1 of ?)

   February 27 (legislative day, January 30), 1992
           Ordered to be printed as passed


   102D CONGRESS
      2D SESSION

                       S.12
                  _____________

                      AN ACT


To amend title VI of the Communications Act of 1934 to
ensure carriage on cable television of local news and
other programming and to restore the right of local
regulatory authorities to regulate cable television rates,
and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

		SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1.  This Act may be cited as the "Cable Television
Consumer Protection Act of 1992".

SEC. 2. The Congress finds and declares the following:

(1) Pursuant to the Cable Communications Policy 
Act of 1984, rates for cable television services
have been deregulated in approximately 97 percent
of all franchises since December 29, 1986.  Since
rate deregulation, monthly rates for the lowest
priced basic cable service have increased by 40 
percent or more for 28 percent of cable television
subscribers.  Although the average number of basic
channels has increased from about 24 to 30, average
monthly rates have increased by 29 percent during
the same period.  The average monthly cable rate has
increased almost three times as much as the
Consumer Price Index since rate deregulation.

(2) For a variety of reasons, including local
franchising requirements and the extrodinary expense 
of constructing more than one cable television
system to serve a particular geographic area, most
cable television subscribers have no opportunity to
select between competing cable systems.  Without a
sufficient number of local television broadcast
signals and without the presence of another 
multichannel video programming distributor, a cable
system faces no local competition.  The result is undue
market power for the cable operator as compared to
that of consumers and video programmers.

(3) There is a substantial governmental and
First Ammendment interest in promoting a diversity
of views provided through multiple technology media.

(4) There has been a substantial increase in the
penetration of cable television systems over the past
decade, with cable television services now available to
71.3 million of the 92.1 million households with
televisions.  Nearly 54 million households, over 58
percent of the households with televisions, subscribe to
cable television, and this percentage is almost certain
to increase.  As a result of this growth, the cable
television industry has become a dominant nationwide
video medium.

(5) The cable industry has become highly 
concentrated.  The potential effects of such 
concentration are barriers to entry for new programmers
and a reduction in the number of media voices
available to consumers.

(6) Cable television rates for video programming
provided on other than basic service tier
should not be governmentally regulated except in
extraordinary circumstances, which may include the
need to control undue market power.

(7) The cable television industry has become
vertically integrated; cable operators and cable
programmers often have common ownership.  As a result,
cable operators have the incentive and ability to
favor their affiliated programmers.  This could make
it more difficult for non-cable-affiliated programmers
to secure carriage on cable systems.  Vertically 
integrated program suppliers also have the incentive and
ability to favor their affiliated cable operators over
non-affiliated cable operators and programming
distributors using other technologies.

(8) There is a substantial governmental and
First Amendment interest in ensuring that cable
subscribers have access to local noncommercial
educational stations which Congress has authorized,
as expressed in section 396(a)(5) of the Communications
Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 396(a)(5)).  The distribution
of unique noncommercial, educational programming
services, including those transmitted by
noncommercial educational television stations serving
local communities or markets, advances that interest
in providing for the further education of our
citizens and encouraging "public telecommunications
services which will be responsive to the interests of
people both in particular localities and throughout
the United States, which will constitute an expression
of diversity and excellence, and which will constitute
a source of alternative telecommunications
services for all the citizens of the Nation.

(9) The Federal Government has a substantial
interest in making all nonduplicative local public
television services available on cable systems because--

(A) public television provides educational
and informational programming to the Nation's
citizens, thereby advancing the Government's
compelling interest in educating its citizens;

(B) public television is a local community
institution, supported through local tax dollars
and voluntary citizen contributions in excess of
$10,800,000,000 since 1972, that provides public 
service programming that is responsive to
the needs and interests of the local community;

(C) the Federal Government, in recognition
of public televisions integral role in serving the
educational and informational needs of local
communities, has invested more than
$3,000,000,000 in public broadcasting since
1969; and

(D) absent carriage requirements there is
a substantial likelihood that citizens, who have
supported local public television services, will be
deprived of these services.

(10) A primary objective and benefit of our Nation's
system of regulation of television and radio
broadcasting is the local origination of programming.
There is a substantial governmental interest
in ensuring its continuation.

(11) Broadcast television stations continue to
be an important source of local news and public
affairs programming and other local broadcast services
critical to an informed electorate.

(12) Broadcast television programming is supported
by revenues generated from advertising
broadcast over stations.  Such programming is otherwise
free to those who own television sets and do not
require cable transmission to receive broadcast signals.  
There is a substantial governmental interest in
promoting the continued availability of such free
television programming, especially for viewers who are
unable to afford other means of receiving programming.

(13) As a result of the growth of cable television,
there has been a marked shift in market
share from broadcast television to cable
television services.

(14) Cable television systems and broadcast television
stations increasingly compete for television
advertising revenues.  As the proportion of households
subscribing to cable television increases,
proportionately more advertising revenues will be
reallocated from broadcast to cable television systems.

(15) A cable television system which carries the
signal of a local television broadcaster is assisting
the broadcaster to increase its viewership, and thereby
attract additional advertising revenues that otherwise
might be earned by the cable system operator.
As a result, there is an economic incentive for cable
systems to terminate the retransmission of the
broadcast signal, refuse to carry new signals, or
reposition a broadcast signal to a disadvantageous
channel position.  There is a substantial likelihood
that absent the reimposition of such a requirement,
additional local broadcast signals will be deleted,
repositioned, or not carried.

(16) As a result of the economic incentive that
cable systems have to delete, reposition, or not carry
local broadcast signals, coupled with the absence of
a requirement that such systems carry local broadcast
signals, the economic viability of free local
broadcast television and its ability to originate 
quality local programming will be seriously jeapardized.

(17) Consumers who subscribe to cable television
often do so to obtain local broadcast signals
which they otherwise would not be able to receive,
or to obtain improved signals. Most subscribers to
cable televisions do not or cannot maintain
antennas to receive broadcast television services, do
not have input selector switches to convert from a
cable to antenna reception system, or cannot otherwise
receive broadcast television services.  The regulatory
system created by the Cable Communications
Policy Act of 1984 was premised upon the continued
existence of mandatory carriage obligations for cable
systems, ensuring that local stations would be 
protected from anticompetitive conduct by cable
systems.

(18) Cable television systems often are the single
most efficient distribution system for television
programing. A government mandate for a substantial
societal investment in alternative distribution
systems for cable subscribers, such as the A/B
input selector antenna system, is not an enduring or
feasible method of distribution and is not in the 
public interest.

(19) At the same time, broadcast programming
that is carried remains the most popular programming
on cable systems, and a substantial portion of
the benefits for which consumers pay cable systems
is derived from carriage of the signals of network
affiliates, independent televisions stations, and public
television stations.  Also, cable programming placed
on channels adjacent to popular off-the-air signals
obtains a larger audience than on other channel 
positions.  Cable systems, therefore, obtain great
benefits from local broadcast signals which, until now,
they have been able to obtain without the consent of
the broadcaster or any copyright liability.  This has
resulted in an effective subsidy of the development
of cable systems by local broadcasters.  While at one
time, when cable systems did not attempt to compete
with local broadcasters for programming, audience,
and advertising, this subsidy may have been appropriate,
it is so no longer and results in a competitive
imbalance between the two industries.

(20) The Cable Communications Policy Act of 
1984, in its amendments to the Communications Act
of 1934, limited the regulatory authority of franchising
authorities over cable operators.  Franchising 
authorities are finding it difficult under the current
regulatory scheme to deny renewals to cable systems
that are not adequately serving cable subscribers.

(21) Given the lack of clear guidelines in applying
the First Amendment to cable franchise decisions,
cities are unreasonably exposed to liability for
monetary damages under the Civil Rights Acts.

(22) Cable systems should be encouraged to
carry low power television stations licensed to the
communities served by those systems where the low
power station creates and broadcasts, as a substantial
part of its programming day, local programming.


****************** END OF PART 1 **************

      tweek@netcom.netcom.com tweek@tweekco.uucp  WWIVNet 5@5058 4@5056
           I'd rather get my cable service from the phone company,
                than my phone service from the cable company.
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate