From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield)
Subject: Re: Question pertaining to the Cable Bill
Summary: Very long rebuke
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:24:45 GMT


Before I get on my soapbox,  I notice that you, Necromancer, stated that you
have a copy of the Bill.  Is the copy that you refer to, the Sept 92 re-write,
or is it the S12 version prior to the re-write.  If it is the re-write, and
if you have it available as an ascii file, would it be possible for me to
obtain a copy?  I will tell you that the copy I am using, is the pre-rewrite
version of S12 and although it is not the version which became law, I do 
believe that the parts I pulled out are in essence, the same.  If I am wrong,
feel free to point out the differences between the references I have used and
what the re-write which became law states.


In article <1992Dec15.003454.18745@selway.umt.edu> rjh@selway.umt.edu (The Necromancer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.180445.15195@netcom.com> tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec14.153048.10974@rock.concert.net> cole@concert.net (Derrick C. Cole) writes:
>>>I received a card in the mail last week notifying me of rate changes to my
>>>cable service AS A DIRECT RESULT OF the recent legislation effective 1/1/93.
>>>They graciously informed me my rates would increase by no more than 5 percent
>>>AS A DIRECT RESULT OF the recent legislation.
>>
>>Yow,  Do you have the exact wording of this notice?  Did they hint that
>>the rate increase was due to the bill, or did they come right out and say it?
>>It is still too early for them to know what the effects of the bill will be
>>since the FCC is still working out most of the details.  Sounds like they are
>>just trying to stuff their pockets in a last attempt to make money without
>>any regulation.
>
>YES!!!  this is a direct result of the Cable Act!  

Please explain how it can be a direct result, since you have stated that
no-one knows what the formulas will look like.  

>The Act requires that all
>systems must carry local broadcast stations, these stations may make up one
>third of the cable companies programming.  

Congratulations, you are correct here!
"CARRIAGE OF LOCAL COMMERCIAL TELEVISION SIGNALS

"SEC. 614. (a) Each cable operator shall carry, on
the cable system of that operator, the signals of local
commercial television stations and qualified low power stations
as provided by this section.  Carriage of additional broadcast
television signals on such system shall be at the discretion
of such operator, subject to section 325(b).

"(b)(1)(A) A cable operator of a cable system with
12 or fewer usable activated channels shall carry the signals 
of at least three local commercial television stations,
except that if such a system has 300 or fewer subscribers,
it shall not be subject to any requirements under this section
so long as such system does not delete from carriage
by that system any signal of a broadcast television station.

"(B) A cable operator of a cable system with more
than 12 usable activated channels shall carry the signals
of local commercial television stations, up to a maximum
of one-third of the aggregate number of usable activated
channels of such system.



>The bill also states that these 
>broadcast stations may request payment for their signal.  

Wrong,  Payment is NOT mentioned.  What is mentioned is RETRANSMISSION
CONSENT, which yes, may include payment.

RETRANSMISSION CONSENT FOR CABLE SYSTEMS

SEC. 15.(a) Section 325 of the Communications Act
of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 325) is amended by redesignating
subsections (b) and (c) as subsections (c) and (d), 
respectively, and by inserting immediately after subsection (a)
the following subsection:

"(b)(1) Following the date that is one year after the
date of enactment of this subsection, no cable system or
other multichannel video programming distributor shall
retransmit the signal of a broadcasting station, or any
part thereof, without the express authority of the
originating station, except as permitted by section 614.

[...]
"(3)(A) Within 45 days after the date of enactment
of this subsection, the Commission shall commence a 
rulemaking proceeding to establish regulations to govern the
exercise by television broadcast stations of the right to
grant retransmission consent under this subsection and of
the right to signal carriage under section 614, and such
other regulations as are necessary to administer the 
limitations contained in paragraph (2).  The Commisiion shall
consider in such proceeding the impact that the grant of
retransmission consent by television stations may have on
the rates for basic cable service, and shall ensure that rates
for basic cable service are reasonable.  Such rulemaking
proceeding shall be completed within six months after its
commencement.

"(B) The regulations required by subparagraph (A)
shall require that television stations, within one year after
the the date of enactment of this subsection and every three
years thereafter, make an election between the right to
grant retransmission consent under this subsection and
the right of signal carriage under section 614.  If there 
is more than one cable system which services the same
geographic area, a station's election shall apply to all such
cable systems.


>The cable company 
>cannot refuse to carry the station, no matter their price.  

WRONG!  If the station opts to demand RETRANSMISSION CONSENT, then all
bets are off.

"(4) If an originating television station elects under
paragraph (3)(B) to exercise its right to grant
retransmission consent under this subsection with respect
to a cable system, the provisions of section 614 shall not
apply to the carriage of the signal of such station by such
cable system.


>This issue is
>currently in court, as it is viewed as unconstitutional by most cable operators. 
>>>My question:  Without knowing the details of the bill, is this action...
>>>1) Expected?
>>Yes,  I would expent nothing less from the cable industry.
>>>2) Legal?
>>Yes, except for the lying.  But it should have no effect once the regulation
>>happens.
>Lying? Not at all.  The Bill was wrongly named a consumer protection act.  get
>a copy of the act. read it.  you would be suprised at what it says.

Oh, but I have.  I was very much involved in the re-regulation battle and
have fully read the text of the bill.  I am so familiar with the arguments
presented by the cable industry that I must believe that you either fell
hook line and sinker for what they were saying, or else that you must work
for a cable company or one of their organizations.  Maybe you don't, but it
certainly appears that way to me.

>>>3) Premature?
>>Yes, if they claim it is due to the re-regulation.
>No, The broadcast stations may already be demanding payment.  This cost will be
>passed on to the subscriber.

You use the words "May already be demanding payment."  You don't know for
sure.  Sorry, it is pure speculation on your part, and not any sort of valid
argument.

>>>4) Necessary?
>>?  Maybe.  IMO, probably not.
>IMHO, yes. absolutly.  few americans have taken a look at how business at a
>cable company is conducted.  They are merely trying to make a reasonable amount
>of money just as any other business.  They too must pay for the items they sell. 

Sorry, but I don't buy that.  They have no idea what the prices will be yet,
and what the effect will be.  Sure, they must pay for what they sell.  (You
said it, not me)  I don't see how it is necessary at this time though, when
it is even unknown if the stations will even charge them, and if so, how much?

>>>5) Justified?
>>Depends on answer to #4
>>>Another aside:  They also are not even considering adding any new channels
>>>(namely the Sci-Fi Channel and the Cartoon Network) until April 93.  They're
>>>"waiting to see just what will result from it [the Cable Bill] besides the
>>>rate increase."  I didn't realize the rate increase was part of the recent
>>>legislation...
>>
>>It's not... They (no-one) knows what the effects will be, and thus the
>>cable companies are LYING when they say it is.  It is the same BULL that
>>they were spreading before the congress voted on the bill.
>>
>
>No, No, No!  In your case the effect IS making itself known.  I know MANY cable
>operators, and trust me, the last thing they want is flames from the subscribersNowhere in the bill does it make mention of a rate decrease of any sort.  Only
>regulation, which will be another 16 months before the FCC comes up with their
>formulas.  These formulas are giving the FCC a very difficult time!  They must
>allow for such things as inflation, cost of rebuilds, cost of new equipment 
>required by the Bill, etc.  No one knows what this formula will look like yet.
>Having grown up with the cable industry around me, I cannot think of any way
>to regulate the rates of every cable system in the US in a manner that is fair
>to customers and cable operators alike.

That 16 months fiqure is wrong for the formulas you speak of.  There are
some parts of the law that may take that long, but the formulas you speak
of should be done within 9 months.  The following are some samples of the 
many time restraints imposed on the FCC in these decisions.  They are not 
presented here in the full context of how they appear in the bill, but
rather, they are presented here to give you an example of the types of
timeframes involved.

"(4) Within 120 days after the date of enactment of
the Cable Television Consumer Protection Act of 1992,
the Commission shall prescribe by rule procedures, 
standards, requirements, and guidelines for the establishment
of reasonable rates charged for basic cable service by a
cable operator not subject to effective competition.


"(2) Within 180 days after the date of enactment of
the Cable Television Consumer Protection Act of 1992,
the Commission shall prescribe by rule---

"(A) the criteria for determining whether rates
for cable programming service are reasonable, and

"(B) criteria for determining that (i) a complaint
described under paragraph (1) is filed within
a reasonable period after a rate increase and (ii) the
compaint establishes a prima facia case that rates
for cable programming service are unreasonable.


"AGREEMENTS BETWEEN CABLE OPERATORS AND VIDEO
PROGRAMMERS

"SEC. 642. Within one year after the date of enactment
of this section, the Commission shall establish regulations
governing program carriage agreements and related
practices between cable operators and video programmers.
Such regulations shall---


"(B) Within 180 days after the date of enactment
of this paragraph, the Commission shall establish rules for
determining the maximum reasonable rate under subparagraph 
(A)(i) and for establishing terms and conditions
under subparagraph (A)(ii).".


"(f)(1) In order to enhance effective competition, the
Commission shall, within one year after the date of
enactment of the Cable Television Consumer Protection Act of
1992, conduct a rulemaking proceeding to prescribe rules
and regulations establishing---


"(3)(A) Within 45 days after the date of enactment
of this subsection, the Commission shall commence a 
rulemaking proceeding to establish regulations to govern the
exercise by television broadcast stations of the right to
grant retransmission consent under this subsection and of
the right to signal carriage under section 614, and such
other regulations as are necessary to administer the 
limitations contained in paragraph (2).  The Commisiion shall
consider in such proceeding the impact that the grant of
retransmission consent by television stations may have on
the rates for basic cable service, and shall ensure that rates
for basic cable service are reasonable.  Such rulemaking
proceeding shall be completed within six months after its
commencement.


>
>I have a copy of the bill, and an interpretation of the bill in plain english
>by the Washington DC law firm Cole, Rawid & Braverman.  I would be more than
>happy to discuss various aspects of what the bill requires cable ops to do and
>what effect it will have on the subscribers.

I would be very interested in who commisioned the interpretation of the bill.
My first thought would be that it was The National Cable Television 
Association, and if that is the case,  I really doubt it's validity.  They
are the same organization who have been said to have quoted their own 
statistics as US Dept of Commerce statistic.


>Ryan Hilliard
>rjh@selway.umt.edu


       tweek@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