FCC Web Documents citing 76.1603

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 07 01

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1960A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1960A1.pdf
  • ) ) File Number EB-07-SE-352 NAL/Acct. No. 200832100074 FRN 0018049841 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 22, 2008 Released: August 22, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Oceanic Time Warner Cable (``Oceanic''), a subsidiary of Time Warner Cable, Inc. (collectively, ``TWC'') apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(c) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). Specifically, Oceanic failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) day advanced written notice to the Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Cable Television Division, which serves as the local franchise authority (``LFA'') for the State of Hawaii, before implementing a service change caused by the migration of certain channels to its Switched Digital Video
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2299A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2299A1.pdf
  • provided relevant excerpts and identifying information for those complaints in Attachment A. Because these complaints were not filed in a public Commission docket, we will treat the complainants' names as confidential for privacy reasons. The LOI described an investigation into possible violations of Section 629 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 549, and Sections 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603. See Plug and Play Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20885 n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Gary S. Lutzker, Esq., Dow Lohnes PLLC, Counsel for Cox Communications, Inc., (Sept. 5, 2008) (``Supplemental
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2300A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2300A1.pdf
  • for those complaints in Attachment A. Unlike the Flatt Complaint, these complaints were not filed in a public Commission docket, so we will treat the complainants' names as confidential for privacy reasons. The Nov. 8 LOI stated we were investigating possible violations of Section 629 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 549, and Sections 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603. See Plug and Play Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20885 n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2301A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2301A1.pdf
  • for those complaints in Attachment A. Unlike the Flatt Complaint, these complaints were not filed in a public Commission docket, so we will treat the complainants' names as confidential for privacy reasons. The Nov. 8 LOI stated we were investigating possible violations of Section 629 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 549, and Sections 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603. See Plug and Play Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20885 n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2488A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2488A1.pdf
  • 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') sent a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Bend Cable Communications, Inc. d/b/a Bend Broadband (``Bend Broadband'' or ``Company'') seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and the Commission's rules (``Rules''), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. �543 and 47 C.F.R. ��76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an ``analog-to-digital channel change''), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. Question 8.b. of the LOI
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2489A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2489A1.pdf
  • Bureau: On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') sent a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Bright House Networks, LLC (``Bright House'' or ``Company'') seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and the Commission's rules (``Rules''), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. �543 and 47 C.F.R. ��76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an ``analog-to-digital channel change''), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. Question 8.b. of the LOI
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2490A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2490A1.pdf
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') sent a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Cablevision Systems Corp. (``Cablevision'' or ``Company'') seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and the Commission's rules (``Rules''), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. �543 and 47 C.F.R. ��76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an ``analog-to-digital channel change''), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. Question 8.b. of the LOI
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2491A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2491A1.pdf
  • the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') sent a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Comcast Corporation (``Comcast'' or ``Company'') seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and the Commission's rules (``Rules''), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. �543 and 47 C.F.R. ��76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an ``analog-to-digital channel change''), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. Question 8.b. of the LOI
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2492A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2492A1.pdf
  • the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') sent a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Cox Communications (``Cox'' or ``Company'') seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and the Commission's rules (``Rules''), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. �543 and 47 C.F.R. ��76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an ``analog-to-digital channel change''), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. Question 8.b. of the LOI
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2493A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2493A1.pdf
  • the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') sent a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to GCI, Inc. (``GCI'' or ``Company'') seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and the Commission's rules (``Rules''), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. �543 and 47 C.F.R. ��76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an ``analog-to-digital channel change''), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. Question 8.b. of the LOI
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2494A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2494A1.pdf
  • By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') sent a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Harron Entertainment Company (``Company'') seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and the Commission's rules (``Rules''), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. �543 and 47 C.F.R. ��76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an ``analog-to-digital channel change''), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. Question 8.b. of the LOI
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2495A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2495A1.pdf
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') sent a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Midcontinent Communications, Inc. (``Midcontinent'' or ``Company'') seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and the Commission's rules (``Rules''), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. �543 and 47 C.F.R. ��76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an ``analog-to-digital channel change''), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. Question 8.b. of the LOI
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2496A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2496A1.pdf
  • the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') sent a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to RCN Corporation (``RCN'' or ``Company'') seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and the Commission's rules (``Rules''), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. �543 and 47 C.F.R. ��76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an ``analog-to-digital channel change''), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. Question 8.b. of the LOI
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2497A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2497A1.pdf
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') sent a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Suddenlink Communications, Inc. (``Suddenlink'' or ``Company'') seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and the Commission's rules (``Rules''), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. �543 and 47 C.F.R. ��76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an ``analog-to-digital channel change''), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. Question 8.b. of the LOI
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2498A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2498A1.pdf
  • Enforcement Bureau: On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') sent a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Time Warner Cable, Inc. (``TWC'' or ``Company'') seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and the Commission's rules (``Rules''), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. �543 and 47 C.F.R. ��76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an ``analog-to-digital channel change''), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. Question 8.b. of the LOI
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2499A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2499A1.pdf
  • the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') sent a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Verizon Communications (``Verizon'' or ``Company'') seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and the Commission's rules (``Rules''), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. �543 and 47 C.F.R. ��76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an ``analog-to-digital channel change''), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. Question 8.b. of the LOI
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2500A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2500A1.pdf
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') sent a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Charter Communications, Inc. (``Charter'' or ``Company'') seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and the Commission's rules (``Rules''), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. �543 and 47 C.F.R. ��76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an ``analog-to-digital channel change''), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. Question 8.b. of the LOI
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-120A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-120A1.pdf
  • 14981 (Enf. Bur. 2008) (``TWC NAL and Order''). Unlike the Flatt Complaint, these complaints were not filed in a public Commission docket, so we will treat the complainants' names as confidential for privacy reasons. The LOI stated we were investigating possible violations of Section 629 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 549, and Sections 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603. See Plug and Play Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20885 n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-122A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-122A1.pdf
  • provided relevant excerpts and identifying information for those complaints in Attachment A. Because these complaints were not filed in a public Commission docket, we will treat the complainants' names as confidential for privacy reasons. The LOI described an investigation into possible violations of Section 629 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 549, and Sections 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603. See Plug and Play Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20885 n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Gary S. Lutzker, Esq., Dow Lohnes PLLC, Counsel for Cox Communications, Inc., (Sept. 5, 2008) (``Supplemental
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-123A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-123A1.pdf
  • 14962 (Enf. Bur. 2008) (``TWC NAL and Order''). Unlike the Flatt Complaint, these complaints were not filed in a public Commission docket, so we will treat the complainants' names as confidential for privacy reasons. The LOI stated we were investigating possible violations of Section 629 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 549, and Sections 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603. See Plug and Play Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20885 n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-124A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-124A1.pdf
  • \pnrnfc0\pnrnfc0\pnrstop18\pnrstart3\pnrpnbr1\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrstop36\rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 In this }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order}{ \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 (\'93}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 NAL and Order}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 \'94), we find that Comcast Corporation\rquote s cable system serving Delray Beach, Florida (\'93Comcast\'94) apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b)}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \b\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 of the Commission's Rules (\'93Rules\'94).}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs33\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s28\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\faauto\ rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs33\super \chftn }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 47 C.F.R. \'a7 76.1603(b).}}}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 Specifically, Comcast fail}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24 ed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-125A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-125A1.pdf
  • ) File Number EB-09-SE-004 NAL/Acct. No. 200932100026 FRN 0015401581 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (``NAL and Order''), we find that Comcast Corporation's cable system serving Rancho Cordova, California (``Comcast'') apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). Specifically, Comcast failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), that Comcast is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-126A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-126A1.pdf
  • \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrstop36\rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 In this }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order}{ \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 (\'93}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 NAL and Order}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 \'94), we find that the Time Warner Cable Inc.\rquote s cable system, serving San Diego, California (\'93Time Warner\'94) apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b)}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \b\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 of the Commission's Rules (\'93Rules\'94).}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs33\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s28\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\faauto\ rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs33\super \chftn }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 47 C.F.R. \'a7 76.1603(b).}}}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 Specifically, Time Warner fail}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24 ed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-127A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-127A1.pdf
  • EB-09-SE-006 NAL/Acct. No. 2009332100028 FRN 0016618670 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (``NAL and Order''), we find that the Time Warner Cable Inc.'s cable system, serving Placentia, California (``Time Warner'') apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). Specifically, Time Warner failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) day advance written notice to its customer, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), that Time Warner is apparently liable for
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-128A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-128A1.pdf
  • \pnrnfc0\pnrnfc0\pnrstop18\pnrstart3\pnrpnbr1\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrstop36\rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 In this }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order}{ \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 (\'93}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 NAL and Order}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 \'94), we find that Charter Communications, Inc.\rquote s cable system serving Norco, California (\'93Charter\'94) apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b)}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \b\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 of the Commission's Rules (\'93Rules\'94).}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs33\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s28\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\faauto\ rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs33\super \chftn }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 47 C.F.R. \'a7 76.1603(b).}}}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 Specifically, Charter fail}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24 ed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-129A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-129A1.pdf
  • ) File Number EB-09-SE-008 NAL/Acct. No. 200932100030 FRN 0016642761 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (``NAL and Order''), we find that Harron Communications, L.P.'s cable system serving Amory, Mississippi (``Harron'') apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). Specifically, Harron failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), that Harron is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-130A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-130A1.pdf
  • \pnrnfc0\pnrnfc0\pnrnfc0\pnrnfc0\pnrnfc1\pnrnfc0\pnrnfc0\pnrnfc0\pnrnfc0 \pnrnfc0\pnrnfc0\pnrstop18\pnrstart3\pnrpnbr1\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrstop36\rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 In this }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order}{ \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 (\'93}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 NAL and Order}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 \'94), we find that Comcast Corporation\rquote s cable system serving Fairfax, Vermont (\'93Comcast\'94) apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b)}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \b\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 of the Commission's Rules (\'93Rules\'94).}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs33\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s28\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\faauto\ rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs33\super \chftn }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 47 C.F.R. \'a7 76.1603(b).}}}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 Specifically, Comcast fail}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24 ed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-131A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-131A1.pdf
  • File Number EB-09-SE-010 NAL/Acct. No.200932100032 FRN 0016034050 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (``NAL and Order''), we find that Cox Communications, Inc.'s cable system serving Phoenix, Arizona (``Cox'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). Specifically, Cox failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), that Cox is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-132A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-132A1.pdf
  • ) ) File Number EB-09-SE-011 NAL/Acct. No.200932100033 FRN 0016034050 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (``NAL and Order''), we find that Cox Communications, Inc.'s cable systems serving Surprise, Arizona (``Cox'') apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). Specifically, Cox failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), that Cox is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-133A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-133A1.pdf
  • ) File Number EB-09-SE-012 NAL/Acct. No.200932100034 FRN 0009725276 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (``NAL and Order''), we find that Cablevision Systems Corp.'s cable systems serving Randolph, New Jersey (``Cablevision'') apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). Specifically, Cablevision failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-134A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-134A1.pdf
  • Number EB-09-SE-013 NAL/Acct. No. 200932100035 FRN 0009725276 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (``NAL and Order''), we find that Cablevision Systems Corp.'s cable systems serving Cortlandt Manor, New York (``Cablevision'') apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). Specifically, Cablevision failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-135A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-135A1.pdf
  • Number EB-09-SE-014 NAL/Acct. No. 200932100036 FRN 0009725276 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (``NAL and Order''), we find that Cablevision Systems Corp.'s cable systems serving Oakville, Connecticut (``Cablevision'' or ``Cablevision'') apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). Specifically, Cablevision failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-136A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-136A1.pdf
  • ) File Number EB-09-SE-015 NAL/Acct. No. 200932100037 FRN 0009725276 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (``NAL and Order''), we find that Cablevision Systems Corp's cable systems serving Darien, Connecticut (``Cablevision'') apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). Specifically, Cablevision failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-137A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-137A1.pdf
  • File Number EB-09-SE-016 NAL/Acct. No. 200932100038 FRN 0009725276 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (``NAL and Order''), we find that Cablevision Systems Corp.'s cable systems serving Orient, New York (``Cablevision'') apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). Specifically, Cablevision failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-138A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-138A1.pdf
  • File Number EB-09-SE-017 NAL/Acct. No. 200932100039 FRN 0017179383 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (``NAL and Order''), we find that Charter Communications, Inc.'s cable system serving Long Beach, California (``Charter'') apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). Specifically, Charter failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), that Charter is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2136A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2136A1.pdf
  • No. EB-07-SE-352 Acct. No. 200832100074 FRN No. 0018049841 order Adopted: September 29, 2009 Released: September 29, 2009 By the Deputy Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') and Time Warner Cable, Inc. (``TWC''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau into TWC's possible violations of Section 76.1603(c) of the Commission's Rules, regarding provision of advanced written notice to subscribers and local franchise authorities prior to implementing any service change. The Bureau and TWC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-411A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-411A1.pdf
  • No. 201032100021 Cablevision Systems Corporation ) ) FRN No. 0003511649 order Adopted: March 12, 2010 Released: March 12, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') and Cablevision Systems Corporation (``Cablevision''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau into Cablevision's possible violations of Section 76.1603(c) of the Commission's Rules, regarding provision of advanced written notice to subscribers and local franchise authorities prior to implementing any service change. The Bureau and Cablevision have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolves this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-825A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-825A1.pdf
  • 4, 2011 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, which follows upon a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (``NAL'') issued in each of the above captioned cases on January 19, 2009, we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed in these cases. In each NAL, we found a cable operator apparently liable for violating section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's rules, because complaints submitted to the Commission indicated that the operator had not provided adequate notice of changes in rates, programming services, or channel positions to its subscribers. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-953A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-953A1.pdf
  • that identifies all or substantially all of Comcast's Broadband Internet Access Services, provided that Rate Change Notifications that include only Broadband Internet Access Services that are undergoing rate changes shall not constitute Product Lists. ``Rate Cards'' means notices that Comcast sends pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 76.1602(b). ``Rate Change Notifications'' means notices that Comcast sends pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 76.1603. ``Rules'' means the Commission's regulations found in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. ``Standalone Broadband Internet Access Service Condition'' or ``Condition'' means Section IV.D (1)-(3) of Appendix A of the Comcast-NBCU Order. II. BACKGROUND In the Comcast-NBCU Order, released on January 20, 2011, the Commission identified potential concerns associated with Comcast's post-transaction incentives to require its customers interested
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-52A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-52A1.pdf
  • the potential consumer benefits of SDV deployment, and other factors that limit the potential scope of consumer disruption. We affirm, however, the Forfeiture Order against TWC relating to the Bureau's finding that the migration of programming to an SDV platform constitutes a ``change in service'' requiring 30-day advanced written notice to the relevant local franchise authority (``LFA'') pursuant to Section 76.1603 of our rules. BACKGROUND The Bureau's prior decisions discuss the facts of these cases in depth; therefore, we will provide only a brief summary here. In late 2007, based on consumer complaints, the Bureau initiated investigations of TWC and Cox regarding their movement of certain cable channels that previously had been viewable by subscribers using CableCARD-equipped unidirectional digital cable products
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-52A2.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-52A2.pdf
  • only concur, however, with respect to the determination that the SDV deployment requires notification to local franchising authorities and customers. Whether the SDV deployment here - because of its effect on the channels accessible to certain subscribers who purchased unidirectional digital cable devices on their own in the retail market - constitutes a ``change in service'' requiring notice under Section 76.1603(c) is not without some doubt. Nevertheless, the broader ramifications of our decision here for the industry's deployment of SDV technology, which has largely been on hold since the enforcement proceedings became public, justify resolution of these issues now. Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-52 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-52 F F & F F
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2239A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2239A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2239A1.txt
  • context; and channel positioning for digital signals. The new and amended rule sections contained information collection requirements that required approval from the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') before they could become effective. OMB approved the information collection requirements on September 14, 2001 (see OMB No. 3060-0844). Accordingly, the revised provisions of Sections 76.5(b), 76.56(e), 76.57, 76.62, 76.64, 76.922, and 76.1603(c) became effective upon publication of the notice of OMB approval in the Federal Register on September 25, 2001 (66 FR 48981). Media Contact: Michelle Russo 202-418-2358 Cable Services Bureau Contact: Eloise Gore 202-418-7200, TTY 202-418-7172. -- FCC -- PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202 / 418-2830
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-967A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-967A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-967A1.txt
  • subsequently issues a written decision disapproving any portion of such rates'' (emphasis added)); Thirteenth Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd at 392 � 9; id. � 7 (``[o]perators would not lose the right to make a rate increase at a later date if they choose not to implement a rate adjustment at the beginning of the next rate year''). See also section 76.1603(b) - (d) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 76.1603(b) - (d) (notice requirement); section 76.933(g)(3) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 76.933(g)(3) (``[a]dditional advanced notice is only required in the unlikely event that the rate exceeds the previously noticed rate''). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 02-967 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-XXX � �@��� �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1151A1.txt
  • Rcd 6055, 6056 (1995). 47 C.F.R. � 76.936(b). See Falcon Classic Cable v. McCreary City, KY, 15 FCC Rcd 57171, 57178 (2000) (public notice under section 76.936(b) should be given in a manner consistent with applicable local law or regulations governing a franchising authority's rate review). 47 C.F.R. � 76.932 (1996). The current notice requirement is in 47 C.F.R. � 76.1603. 47 C.F.R. � 76.964 (1996). Section 76.964 provided a similar notice requirement as section 76.932. The current notice requirement is in 47 C.F.R. � 76.1603. 47 C.F.R. � 76.932 (1996). The current notice requirement is in 47 C.F.R. � 76.1603. Opposition at 4-5, Rate Order at 5712-5713 (1993). TCI Cablevision of Dallas, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd 9535 (2000). 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3127A1.txt
  • See supra note 34. 47 C.F.R. � 76.922(e)(2)(iii)(B). 47 C.F.R. � 76.922(e)(2)(iii)(C). 47 C.F.R. � 76.923(o). TCI Cablevision of Dallas, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd 7379, 7381 (2000) � 8; Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection & Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, 11 FCC Rcd 388, 427 (1995) � 95. 47 C.F.R. � 76.933(g). 47 C.F.R. � 76.1603(b). See supra �� 11-12. See supra nn.20, 29. 47 C.F.R. � 76.922(e). Exceptions to this rule are discussed in paragraph 13 in the text above. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 03-3127 Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-XXX �@��� �@��� �@��� ! " ( ) < L \ d e f l y � � � � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1587A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1587A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1587A1.txt
  • ORDER Adopted: August 3, 2006 Released: August 3, 2006 By the Chief, Media Bureau: introduction NFL Enterprises LLC (``the NFL''), operator of the NFL Network, has filed an Emergency Petition for Declaratory Ruling and Enforcement Order, or in the Alternative, for Immediate Injunctive Relief (``Petition''). In its Petition, the NFL alleges that Time Warner Cable (``Time Warner'') has violated section 76.1603 of the Commission's rules by dropping the NFL Network from cable systems that Time Warner recently acquired from Adelphia Communications and Comcast Corporation without providing subscribers thirty-days notice. For the reasons stated herein, we order Time Warner, on a temporary basis, to reinstate carriage of the NFL Network on all of its newly acquired systems on previously applicable terms until
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1594A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1594A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1594A1.txt
  • NFL Network on systems that it recently acquired from Adelphia Communications and Comcast Corporation until the Commission is able to resolve on the merits the Emergency Petition for Declaratory Ruling (``Petition'') filed by NFL Enterprises LLC (``NFL''). The NFL's Petition alleges that Time Warner discontinued carriage of the NFL Network without providing customers with the 30-days notice mandated by section 76.1603 of the Commission's rules. For the reasons set forth herein, we deny Time Warner's Application for Stay and Petition for Reconsideration and Request for Referral to the Full Commission (``Petition for Reconsideration''). background This controversy stems from Time Warner's action on August 1, 2006, to discontinue carriage of the NFL Network on cable systems that Time Warner had just acquired
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1974A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1974A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1974A1.txt
  • Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MB Docket No. 06-151 Adopted: October 5, 2006 Released: October 6, 2006 By the Chief, Media Bureau: In this Order, we adopt a Consent Decree that terminates the captioned proceeding before the Media Bureau (the ``Bureau'') looking into the possible violation by Time Warner Cable Inc. (``TWC'') of Section 76.1603 of the Commission's Rules. The Bureau and TWC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. We have reviewed the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluated the facts before us. We believe that the public interest would be served by approving the Consent Decree and terminating the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1264A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1264A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1264A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit DA 07-1264 Released: March 13, 2007 Jorge L. Bauermeister Counsel for Choice Cable T.V. VIG Tower 1225 Ponce de Leon Ave. Suite 1505 Santurce, PR 00907 Re: CSR No. 7059-C Dear Mr. Bauermeister: WLII/WSUR Licensee Partnership, G.P. (``WLII/WSUR'') filed an Emergency Petition Seeking Enforcement Order for Violation of Sections 76.65, 76.1601, and 76.1603 of the Commission's Rules and for Immediate Injunctive Relief (``Petition'') against your client, Choice Cable T.V. (``Choice''). Among other allegations, WLII/WSUR asserts that Choice has failed to negotiate in good faith in the context of retransmission consent negotiations in violation of the Commission's rules. Section 76.65 of the Commission's rules imposes a duty on television broadcast stations and multi-channel video
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1149A1.txt
  • 14, 2008 Released: May 14, 2008 By the Chief, Media Bureau: introduction In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we find that Northland Cable Television, Inc. (``Northland'') apparently violated Section 614(b)(9) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act''), Section 76.1601 of the Commission's rules, Note 1 to Section 76.1601, and Section 76.1603(c), by willfully repositioning KMVU-TV, Medford, Oregon (``KMVU'') to a new channel on its Mt. Shasta, California cable system during the national Nielsen sweeps period of April 26 - May 23, 2007, by willfully failing to provide thirty (30) days' advance notice of this repositioning to KMVU and its cable subscribers, and by willfully failing to provide thirty (30) days' advance
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1150A1.txt
  • 14, 2008 Released: May 14, 2008 By the Chief, Media Bureau: introduction In this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we find that Northland Cable Television, Inc. (``Northland'') apparently violated Section 614(b)(9) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the ``Act''), Section 76.1601 of the Commission's rules, Note 1 to Section 76.1601, and Section 76.1603(c), by willfully repositioning KMVU-TV, Medford, Oregon (``KMVU'') to a new channel on its Yreka, California cable system during the national Nielsen sweeps period of April 26 - May 23, 2007, by willfully failing to provide thirty (30) days' advance notice of this repositioning to KMVU and its cable subscribers, and by willfully failing to provide thirty (30) days' advance notice
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1212A1.txt
  • Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce, Florida Designated Market Area (``DMA''). WHDT asks that the Commission order Comcast to reinstate WHDT's carriage and impose a forfeiture on Comcast for violations of the mandatory carriage (``must-carry'') rules, signal deletion notice rules, and customer service provisions found in Section 614 of the Communications Act, as amended (the ``Act''), and Sections 76.7, 76.61(a), 76.56(b), 76.1601, and 76.1603 of the Commission's rules. To clarify certain matters concerning WHDT's operating history, the Commission sent WHDT a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') on March 18, 2008. After considering WHDT's response to the LOI, we order Comcast to reinstate carriage of WHDT conditioned upon WHDT's proof of its authorized operations. We decline to impose the requested forfeiture on Comcast. In addition, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1960A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1960A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1960A1.txt
  • ) ) File Number EB-07-SE-352 NAL/Acct. No. 200832100074 FRN 0018049841 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 22, 2008 Released: August 22, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find that Oceanic Time Warner Cable (``Oceanic''), a subsidiary of Time Warner Cable, Inc. (collectively, ``TWC'') apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(c) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). Specifically, Oceanic failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) day advanced written notice to the Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Cable Television Division, which serves as the local franchise authority (``LFA'') for the State of Hawaii, before implementing a service change caused by the migration of certain channels to its Switched Digital Video
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2299A1.txt
  • provided relevant excerpts and identifying information for those complaints in Attachment A. Because these complaints were not filed in a public Commission docket, we will treat the complainants' names as confidential for privacy reasons. The LOI described an investigation into possible violations of Section 629 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 549, and Sections 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603. See Plug and Play Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20885 n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Gary S. Lutzker, Esq., Dow Lohnes PLLC, Counsel for Cox Communications, Inc., (Sept. 5, 2008) (``Supplemental
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2300A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2300A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2300A1.txt
  • for those complaints in Attachment A. Unlike the Flatt Complaint, these complaints were not filed in a public Commission docket, so we will treat the complainants' names as confidential for privacy reasons. The Nov. 8 LOI stated we were investigating possible violations of Section 629 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 549, and Sections 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603. See Plug and Play Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20885 n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2301A1.txt
  • for those complaints in Attachment A. Unlike the Flatt Complaint, these complaints were not filed in a public Commission docket, so we will treat the complainants' names as confidential for privacy reasons. The Nov. 8 LOI stated we were investigating possible violations of Section 629 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 549, and Sections 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603. See Plug and Play Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20885 n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2488A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2488A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2488A1.txt
  • 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') sent a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Bend Cable Communications, Inc. d/b/a Bend Broadband (``Bend Broadband'' or ``Company'') seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and the Commission's rules (``Rules''), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. �543 and 47 C.F.R. ��76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an ``analog-to-digital channel change''), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. Question 8.b. of the LOI
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2489A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2489A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2489A1.txt
  • Bureau: On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') sent a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Bright House Networks, LLC (``Bright House'' or ``Company'') seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and the Commission's rules (``Rules''), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. �543 and 47 C.F.R. ��76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an ``analog-to-digital channel change''), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. Question 8.b. of the LOI
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2490A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2490A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2490A1.txt
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') sent a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Cablevision Systems Corp. (``Cablevision'' or ``Company'') seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and the Commission's rules (``Rules''), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. �543 and 47 C.F.R. ��76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an ``analog-to-digital channel change''), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. Question 8.b. of the LOI
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2491A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2491A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2491A1.txt
  • the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') sent a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Comcast Corporation (``Comcast'' or ``Company'') seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and the Commission's rules (``Rules''), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. �543 and 47 C.F.R. ��76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an ``analog-to-digital channel change''), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. Question 8.b. of the LOI
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2492A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2492A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2492A1.txt
  • the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') sent a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Cox Communications (``Cox'' or ``Company'') seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and the Commission's rules (``Rules''), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. �543 and 47 C.F.R. ��76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an ``analog-to-digital channel change''), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. Question 8.b. of the LOI
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2493A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2493A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2493A1.txt
  • the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') sent a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to GCI, Inc. (``GCI'' or ``Company'') seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and the Commission's rules (``Rules''), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. �543 and 47 C.F.R. ��76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an ``analog-to-digital channel change''), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. Question 8.b. of the LOI
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2494A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2494A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2494A1.txt
  • By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') sent a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Harron Entertainment Company (``Company'') seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and the Commission's rules (``Rules''), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. �543 and 47 C.F.R. ��76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an ``analog-to-digital channel change''), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. Question 8.b. of the LOI
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2495A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2495A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2495A1.txt
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') sent a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Midcontinent Communications, Inc. (``Midcontinent'' or ``Company'') seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and the Commission's rules (``Rules''), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. �543 and 47 C.F.R. ��76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an ``analog-to-digital channel change''), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. Question 8.b. of the LOI
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2496A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2496A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2496A1.txt
  • the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') sent a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to RCN Corporation (``RCN'' or ``Company'') seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and the Commission's rules (``Rules''), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. �543 and 47 C.F.R. ��76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an ``analog-to-digital channel change''), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. Question 8.b. of the LOI
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2497A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2497A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2497A1.txt
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') sent a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Suddenlink Communications, Inc. (``Suddenlink'' or ``Company'') seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and the Commission's rules (``Rules''), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. �543 and 47 C.F.R. ��76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an ``analog-to-digital channel change''), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. Question 8.b. of the LOI
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2498A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2498A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2498A1.txt
  • Enforcement Bureau: On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') sent a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Time Warner Cable, Inc. (``TWC'' or ``Company'') seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and the Commission's rules (``Rules''), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. �543 and 47 C.F.R. ��76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an ``analog-to-digital channel change''), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. Question 8.b. of the LOI
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2499A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2499A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2499A1.txt
  • the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') sent a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Verizon Communications (``Verizon'' or ``Company'') seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and the Commission's rules (``Rules''), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. �543 and 47 C.F.R. ��76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an ``analog-to-digital channel change''), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. Question 8.b. of the LOI
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2500A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2500A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2500A1.txt
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') sent a Letter of Inquiry (``LOI'') to Charter Communications, Inc. (``Charter'' or ``Company'') seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'') and the Commission's rules (``Rules''), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. �543 and 47 C.F.R. ��76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an ``analog-to-digital channel change''), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. Question 8.b. of the LOI
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-268A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-268A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-268A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit � Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Time Warner Cable Request for Waiver of Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: January 31, 2008 Released: January 31, 2008 By the Chief, Media Bureau: INTRODUCTION On January 24, 2008, Time Warner Cable (``Time Warner'') filed with the Chief of the Media Bureau the above-captioned waiver request seeking an expedited waiver of Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-120A1.txt
  • 14981 (Enf. Bur. 2008) (``TWC NAL and Order''). Unlike the Flatt Complaint, these complaints were not filed in a public Commission docket, so we will treat the complainants' names as confidential for privacy reasons. The LOI stated we were investigating possible violations of Section 629 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 549, and Sections 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603. See Plug and Play Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20885 n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-122A1.txt
  • provided relevant excerpts and identifying information for those complaints in Attachment A. Because these complaints were not filed in a public Commission docket, we will treat the complainants' names as confidential for privacy reasons. The LOI described an investigation into possible violations of Section 629 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 549, and Sections 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603. See Plug and Play Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20885 n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Gary S. Lutzker, Esq., Dow Lohnes PLLC, Counsel for Cox Communications, Inc., (Sept. 5, 2008) (``Supplemental
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-123A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-123A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-123A1.txt
  • 14962 (Enf. Bur. 2008) (``TWC NAL and Order''). Unlike the Flatt Complaint, these complaints were not filed in a public Commission docket, so we will treat the complainants' names as confidential for privacy reasons. The LOI stated we were investigating possible violations of Section 629 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 549, and Sections 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603. See Plug and Play Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20885 n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-124A1.txt
  • \pnrnfc0\pnrnfc0\pnrstop18\pnrstart3\pnrpnbr1\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrstop36\rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 In this }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order}{ \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 (\'93}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 NAL and Order}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 \'94), we find that Comcast Corporation\rquote s cable system serving Delray Beach, Florida (\'93Comcast\'94) apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b)}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \b\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 of the Commission's Rules (\'93Rules\'94).}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs33\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s28\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\faauto\ rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs33\super \chftn }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 47 C.F.R. \'a7 76.1603(b).}}}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 Specifically, Comcast fail}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24 ed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-125A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-125A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-125A1.txt
  • ) File Number EB-09-SE-004 NAL/Acct. No. 200932100026 FRN 0015401581 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (``NAL and Order''), we find that Comcast Corporation's cable system serving Rancho Cordova, California (``Comcast'') apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). Specifically, Comcast failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), that Comcast is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-126A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-126A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-126A1.txt
  • \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrstop36\rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 In this }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order}{ \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 (\'93}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 NAL and Order}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 \'94), we find that the Time Warner Cable Inc.\rquote s cable system, serving San Diego, California (\'93Time Warner\'94) apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b)}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \b\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 of the Commission's Rules (\'93Rules\'94).}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs33\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s28\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\faauto\ rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs33\super \chftn }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 47 C.F.R. \'a7 76.1603(b).}}}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 Specifically, Time Warner fail}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24 ed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-127A1.txt
  • EB-09-SE-006 NAL/Acct. No. 2009332100028 FRN 0016618670 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (``NAL and Order''), we find that the Time Warner Cable Inc.'s cable system, serving Placentia, California (``Time Warner'') apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). Specifically, Time Warner failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) day advance written notice to its customer, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), that Time Warner is apparently liable for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-128A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-128A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-128A1.txt
  • \pnrnfc0\pnrnfc0\pnrstop18\pnrstart3\pnrpnbr1\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrstop36\rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 In this }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order}{ \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 (\'93}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 NAL and Order}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 \'94), we find that Charter Communications, Inc.\rquote s cable system serving Norco, California (\'93Charter\'94) apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b)}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \b\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 of the Commission's Rules (\'93Rules\'94).}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs33\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s28\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\faauto\ rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs33\super \chftn }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 47 C.F.R. \'a7 76.1603(b).}}}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 Specifically, Charter fail}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24 ed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-129A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-129A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-129A1.txt
  • ) File Number EB-09-SE-008 NAL/Acct. No. 200932100030 FRN 0016642761 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (``NAL and Order''), we find that Harron Communications, L.P.'s cable system serving Amory, Mississippi (``Harron'') apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). Specifically, Harron failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), that Harron is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-130A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-130A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-130A1.txt
  • \pnrnfc0\pnrnfc0\pnrnfc0\pnrnfc0\pnrnfc1\pnrnfc0\pnrnfc0\pnrnfc0\pnrnfc0 \pnrnfc0\pnrnfc0\pnrstop18\pnrstart3\pnrpnbr1\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0 \pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrpnbr0\pnrstop36\rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 In this }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order}{ \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 (\'93}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 NAL and Order}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 \'94), we find that Comcast Corporation\rquote s cable system serving Fairfax, Vermont (\'93Comcast\'94) apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b)}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \b\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 of the Commission's Rules (\'93Rules\'94).}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs33\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s28\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\tx180\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\wrapdefault\faauto\ rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs33\super \chftn }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 47 C.F.R. \'a7 76.1603(b).}}}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2 Specifically, Comcast fail}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24 ed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-131A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-131A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-131A1.txt
  • File Number EB-09-SE-010 NAL/Acct. No.200932100032 FRN 0016034050 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (``NAL and Order''), we find that Cox Communications, Inc.'s cable system serving Phoenix, Arizona (``Cox'' or ``Company'') apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). Specifically, Cox failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), that Cox is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-132A1.txt
  • ) ) File Number EB-09-SE-011 NAL/Acct. No.200932100033 FRN 0016034050 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (``NAL and Order''), we find that Cox Communications, Inc.'s cable systems serving Surprise, Arizona (``Cox'') apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). Specifically, Cox failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), that Cox is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-133A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-133A1.txt
  • Cablevision Systems Corp. ))))))File Number EB-09-SE-012 NAL/Acct. No.200932100034 FRN 0009725276 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. Inthis Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeitureand Order ("NAL and Order"), we find that Cablevision Systems Corp.'s cable systems serving Randolph,New Jersey ("Cablevision") apparentlywillfully violated Section 76.1603(b)of the Commission's Rules ("Rules").1Specifically, Cablevision failed to provide the requisite thirty(30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"),2that Cablevision is apparentlyliable for a forfeiture in the amount of twenty-two
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-134A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-134A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-134A1.txt
  • Number EB-09-SE-013 NAL/Acct. No. 200932100035 FRN 0009725276 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (``NAL and Order''), we find that Cablevision Systems Corp.'s cable systems serving Cortlandt Manor, New York (``Cablevision'') apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). Specifically, Cablevision failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-135A1.txt
  • Number EB-09-SE-014 NAL/Acct. No. 200932100036 FRN 0009725276 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (``NAL and Order''), we find that Cablevision Systems Corp.'s cable systems serving Oakville, Connecticut (``Cablevision'' or ``Cablevision'') apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). Specifically, Cablevision failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-136A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-136A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-136A1.txt
  • ) File Number EB-09-SE-015 NAL/Acct. No. 200932100037 FRN 0009725276 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (``NAL and Order''), we find that Cablevision Systems Corp's cable systems serving Darien, Connecticut (``Cablevision'') apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). Specifically, Cablevision failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-137A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-137A1.txt
  • File Number EB-09-SE-016 NAL/Acct. No. 200932100038 FRN 0009725276 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (``NAL and Order''), we find that Cablevision Systems Corp.'s cable systems serving Orient, New York (``Cablevision'') apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). Specifically, Cablevision failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-138A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-138A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-138A1.txt
  • File Number EB-09-SE-017 NAL/Acct. No. 200932100039 FRN 0017179383 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: INTRODUCTION In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (``NAL and Order''), we find that Charter Communications, Inc.'s cable system serving Long Beach, California (``Charter'') apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules''). Specifically, Charter failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), that Charter is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1735A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1735A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1735A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit d Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Media General Communications Holdings, LLC Request for Waiver of Sections 76.1601 and 76.1603 of the Commission's Rules Request for Withdrawal of Emergency Enforcement Complaints ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR-8198-M CSR-8202-M CSR-8201-M MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: September 17, 2009 Released: September 18, 2009 By the Chief, Media Bureau: INTRODUCTION On September 11, 2009, Time Warner Cable Inc. (``Time Warner'') filed with the Chief of the Media Bureau the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2136A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2136A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2136A1.txt
  • No. EB-07-SE-352 Acct. No. 200832100074 FRN No. 0018049841 order Adopted: September 29, 2009 Released: September 29, 2009 By the Deputy Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') and Time Warner Cable, Inc. (``TWC''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau into TWC's possible violations of Section 76.1603(c) of the Commission's Rules, regarding provision of advanced written notice to subscribers and local franchise authorities prior to implementing any service change. The Bureau and TWC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-411A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-411A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-411A1.txt
  • No. 201032100021 Cablevision Systems Corporation ) ) FRN No. 0003511649 order Adopted: March 12, 2010 Released: March 12, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') and Cablevision Systems Corporation (``Cablevision''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau into Cablevision's possible violations of Section 76.1603(c) of the Commission's Rules, regarding provision of advanced written notice to subscribers and local franchise authorities prior to implementing any service change. The Bureau and Cablevision have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolves this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1333A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1333A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1333A1.txt
  • Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 503, 521, 522, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572 and 573. Section Number and Title: 76.1601 Deletion or repositioning of broadcast signals. 76.1602 Customer service-general information. 76.1603 Customer service-rate and service changes. 76.1604 Charges for customer service changes. 76.1605 New product tier. 76.1606 Rate change while complaint pending. 76.1607 Principal headend. 76.1608 System technical integration requiring uniform election of must- carry or retransmission of consent status. 76.1609 Non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity. 76.1610 Change of operational information. 76.1611 Political cable rates classes of time. 76.1612 Personal attack. 76.1613
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-825A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-825A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-825A1.txt
  • 4, 2011 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this Order, which follows upon a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (``NAL'') issued in each of the above captioned cases on January 19, 2009, we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed in these cases. In each NAL, we found a cable operator apparently liable for violating section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's rules, because complaints submitted to the Commission indicated that the operator had not provided adequate notice of changes in rates, programming services, or channel positions to its subscribers. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-953A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-953A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-953A1.txt
  • that identifies all or substantially all of Comcast's Broadband Internet Access Services, provided that Rate Change Notifications that include only Broadband Internet Access Services that are undergoing rate changes shall not constitute Product Lists. ``Rate Cards'' means notices that Comcast sends pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 76.1602(b). ``Rate Change Notifications'' means notices that Comcast sends pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 76.1603. ``Rules'' means the Commission's regulations found in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. ``Standalone Broadband Internet Access Service Condition'' or ``Condition'' means Section IV.D (1)-(3) of Appendix A of the Comcast-NBCU Order. II. BACKGROUND In the Comcast-NBCU Order, released on January 20, 2011, the Commission identified potential concerns associated with Comcast's post-transaction incentives to require its customers interested
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-210293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-210293A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-210293A1.txt
  • of digital broadcast signals. * * * * * (j) Network upgrade rate increase. (1) Cable operators that undertake significant network upgrades requiring added capital investment may justify an increase in rates for regulated services by demonstrating that the capital investment will benefit subscribers, including providing television broadcast programming in a digital format. * * * * * 8. Section 76.1603 is revised to read as follows: �76.1603 Customer service -- rate and service changes. * * * * * (c) In addition to the requirement of paragraph (b) of this section regarding advance notification to customers of any changes in rates, programming services or channel positions, cable systems shall give 30 days written notice to both subscribers and local franchising
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254432A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254432A1.txt
  • other services. 47 C.F.R. $9 76.309; 76.1602. The standards also provide that customers will be notified of any changes in rates . . . as soon as possible in writing. Notice must be given to subscribers a minimum of thirty (30) days in advance of such changes if the change is within the control of the cable operator. 47 C.F.R. 76.1603(b). THE REPORT 41 \ / increase the complexity and volume of calls handled by CSRS.'~~ Moreover, existing CSRs would have to be retrained to handle the increased complexity of a la carte.'9s Customers likely would become frustrated by the length and complexity of an a la carte subscription process. Charter states that it has already witnessed an increase in the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-314A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-314A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-314A1.txt
  • comply with the notification requirements pertaining to the waiver of the prohibition against scrambling and encryption, and must comply with the public file requirements in connection with such waiver. Section 76.309 removed provisions in (c)(3)(i) and (c)(3)(ii) governing notification with regard to subscriber services, rate and service changes, and subscriber billing information. These notification provisions are relocated to Sections 76.1602, 76.1603, and 76.1619, respectively. To ensure that the public is aware of the existence and location of these notification requirements an additional Note is added to the end of Section 76.309 and reads as follows: NOTE 2 TO � 76.309: Section 76.1602 contains notification requirements for cable operators with regard to operator obligations to subscribers and general information to be provided
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-77A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-77A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-77A1.txt
  • Florida, Petitions for Declaratory Ruling on Franchise Fee Issues, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 7678 (1999). Henrico County, 257 F.3d at 365. See NATOA Comments at 20-21; National League of Cities, et al. Comments at 13-14. See Communications Act � 632(a), 47 U.S.C. � 552(a). See 47 U.S.C. � 552(d)(1), (2); see also 47 C.F.R. �� 76.309, 76.1602, 76.1603. Communications Act � 224, 47 U.S.C. � 224. Gulf Power, 112 S.Ct. at 786, 787-88, 789. Id. at 787-88. See 47 U.S.C. � 224(d), (e). See Implementation of Section 703(e) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Amendment of the Commission's Rules and Policies Governing Pole Attachments, CS Docket No. 97-151, Report and Order (``Pole Attachment Order''), 13 FCC Rcd 6777,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-259A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-259A1.txt
  • Competition Act of 1992, 8 FCC Rcd. 2965 (1993) 55 Fed. Reg. 12154, 12156 (1990). (OMB's list of MSAs) 8 FCC Rcd 2965 (1993), Section 76.58(a) was renumbered as 47 CFR 76.1601. Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104 �� 301, 302, 110 Stat 56, 114-124 approved Feb. 8, 1996. Section 76.964 (a) was renumbered as 47 CFR � 76.1603(b) of the Commission's rules. See also Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 14 FCC Rcd. 5296, 5363 (1999). Even if we had concluded that a violation had occurred, whether to issue an NAL is within the Commission's discretion. See 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(3)(A) (at the discretion of the Commission a forfeiture penalty may be
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-333A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-333A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-333A1.txt
  • Third, WOW could file a claim at the Commission under the uniform price provisions of the Communications Act and the Commission's rules. ordering clause ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 601, and 632 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 151, 154(i), 154(j), 521, and 552, and sections 76.6, 76.7, 76.1602, and 76.1603 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 76.6-76.7, and 76.1602-1603, that the Complaint filed by WideOpen West Holdings, LLC against Comcast Corporation for systemic abuse of customer service standards established by the Federal Communications Commission pursuant to Section 632(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, IS DISMISSED in its entirety with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-72A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-72A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-72A1.txt
  • Rcd 17424, 17431-32 � 22 (1997), review granted in part and denied in part, 16 FCC Rcd 15617 (2001) (review granted on procedural point); section 76.933(g) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 76.933(g); Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Thirteenth Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 388, 392 � 9; section 76.1603(b) - (d) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 76.1603(b) - (d); section 76.933(g)(3) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 76.933(g)(3). Federal Communications Commission FCC 03-72 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03-72 � ( �� �� ( �� �� �� �@��� (
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-264A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-264A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-264A1.txt
  • one hand, and ``clear that the actual rate being implemented was'' not changing on the other hand. Application at 4 (internal quotation marks deleted). Application at 4, quoting CoxCom, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 7931, 7936-37 (2002) � 14, application for review denied, 18 FCC Rcd 6941 (2003). CoxCom, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd at 7937 n.45, citing 47 C.F.R. �� 76.933(g)(3), 76.1603(b-d). Opposition at 3 n.6; Appeal of Mt. Sterling Local Rate Order, Attachment 3, Draft City of Mt. Sterling Order at 1-2; Appeal of Winchester Local Rate Order, Attachment 3, Draft City of Winchester Order at 1-2. Application at 5. 47 C.F.R. � 76.933(g), cited in Order � 15. Application at 5. Id. at 3. 47 C.F.R. � 76.922(e)(1). 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-170A1.txt
  • are assured of being able to view all must-carry stations carried on the system. Comments of Comcast at 34, n. 102, Comments of Time Warner at 23-4, and Comments of NCTA at 1-2; but see Reply of Americans for Prosperity, et al., at 2 (recognizing that the decision to become an all-digital system rests with the operator). 47 C.F.R. �� 76.1603, 76.1622. Comments of Entravision at 3-4. Id. at 4-5. Id. at 2. Second Further Notice at para. 17. Comments of CEA at 1; see also Reply of Chris Llana. Comments of CEA at 4-5. Id. at 6-10. Id. at 7-8. As discussed in note 93, supra, the ``viewability'' language in 615(h) expressly refers to carriage on the ``lowest priced tier.''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-206A1.txt
  • 9016 (MB 2006). See Time Warner Cable, A Division of Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P., 21 FCC Rcd 8808 (MB 2006). In the absence of material new evidence relating to this matter, based on the record before us, in particular Time Warner's acknowledgement that its discontinuation of its carriage of the NFL Network without notification of its subscribers violated Section 76.1603, the Media Bureau concluded that there were no substantial or material questions of fact as to whether Time Warner possessed the basic qualifications to be or remain a Commission licensee. See Comcast, For Declaratory Ruling That The America Channel is Not a Regional Sports Network as That Term Is Defined in the Commission's Adelphia Order, CSR-7108 (filed Jan. 24, 2007).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-208A1.txt
  • 5936; Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 5309. See Campbell v. TW Cable - St. Augustine, CSR 5234-L (CSB 1998). See Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 5323 Id. See id. See United Productions v. Mediacom Communications Corporation, CSR 6336-L, Order, 22 FCC Rcd 1224 (MB 2007). See RMI Comments at 4. See 47 C.F.R. �� 76.1603(b), (c); see also NCTA Reply Comments at 12 (noting that cable operators must have sufficient time to provide franchising authorities and customers of changes in channel line-ups). CaribeVH argues for time limits for launch dates, such as no later than thirty-five (35) days after the execution of a contract in the event there is a thirty (30) day customer notice
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-56A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-56A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-56A1.txt
  • local broadcast signals via satellite. This additional notice would explain the steps that these subscribers would need to take to continue receiving broadcast signals, in particular the necessary steps if the subscriber relies on a tuner integrated into the DBS carrier's set-top box. These regulations do not supersede existing notice requirements that govern cable, such as 47 C.F.R. �� 76.1601, 76.1603, and 76.1622. Letter at 3. Comments of New York State Consumer Protection Board at 2. Comments of Benton at 16-17; see also Comments of CAC at 22; Comments of Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology (COAT) at 10. Comments of NCTA at 2. See also, Comments of Verizon at 7; Reply of NTCA at 6. Id. at 6. Specifically, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-52A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-52A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-52A1.txt
  • the potential consumer benefits of SDV deployment, and other factors that limit the potential scope of consumer disruption. We affirm, however, the Forfeiture Order against TWC relating to the Bureau's finding that the migration of programming to an SDV platform constitutes a ``change in service'' requiring 30-day advanced written notice to the relevant local franchise authority (``LFA'') pursuant to Section 76.1603 of our rules. BACKGROUND The Bureau's prior decisions discuss the facts of these cases in depth; therefore, we will provide only a brief summary here. In late 2007, based on consumer complaints, the Bureau initiated investigations of TWC and Cox regarding their movement of certain cable channels that previously had been viewable by subscribers using CableCARD-equipped unidirectional digital cable products
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-52A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-52A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-52A2.txt
  • only concur, however, with respect to the determination that the SDV deployment requires notification to local franchising authorities and customers. Whether the SDV deployment here - because of its effect on the channels accessible to certain subscribers who purchased unidirectional digital cable devices on their own in the retail market - constitutes a ``change in service'' requiring notice under Section 76.1603(c) is not without some doubt. Nevertheless, the broader ramifications of our decision here for the industry's deployment of SDV technology, which has largely been on hold since the enforcement proceedings became public, justify resolution of these issues now. Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-52 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-52 F F & F F
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-84A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-84A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-84A1.txt
  • whether Cox's deployment of SDV made certain channels inaccessible without a Cox set top receiver and thus inaccessible by non-Cox unidirectional products such as CableCARD. These include 47 C.F.R. � 1.1206, which requires separate charges for services and equipment, and the more general requirements regarding customer charges set forth in 47 C.F.R. �� 76.980 and 76.984. See 47 C.F.R. � 76.1603 (requiring written notice of service changes). See Request at 1. Wein had obtained a copy of a supplemental response to the LOI when that document was mistakenly made publicly available. See Wein, FCC Investigation of Switched Digital Video Began in November, Comm. Daily (Apr. 7, 2008) (Wein Article) at 7. See Letter from Gary S. Lutzker, Cox Communications, Inc., to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-31A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-31A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-31A1.txt
  • L. Bauermeister, 22 FCC Rcd 4933. See id. at 4933-34. We note that the Commission previously provided examples of bargaining proposals that are presumptively consistent and presumptively inconsistent with competitive marketplace considerations and the good faith negotiation requirement. See Good Faith Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 5469-70, �� 56-58. 47 U.S.C. � 534(b)(9). 47 C.F.R. � 76.1601. Sections 76.1602 and 76.1603 of our rules contain additional requirements for notifying subscribers and cable franchise authorities. 47 C.F.R. �� 76.1602, 76.1603. We note that, notwithstanding the fact that the Commission may not have enforced the current notice requirements in all instances in which a station is deleted without notice, it reserves the right to do so in its discretion. See Heckler v. Chaney,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-59A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-59A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-59A1.txt
  • a particular hybrid cable operator, that operator could not terminate analog carriage of the must-carry stations. See 47 C.F.R. �76.1601 (requiring cable operators to ``provide written notice to any broadcast television station at least 30 days prior to either deleting from carriage or repositioning that station. Such notification shall also be provided to subscribers of the cable system.''); 47 C.F.R. �76.1603(b) (requiring cable operators (i) to notify customers of any changes in rates, programming services or channel positions ``as soon as possible in writing''; (ii) to give customers notice at least 30 days in advance of such changes if the change is within the control of the cable operator; and (iii) to notify subscribers 30 days in advance of any significant
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-03-333A1.html
  • Third, WOW could file a claim at the Commission under the uniform price provisions of the Communications Act and the Commission's rules.40 IV. ORDERING CLAUSE ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 601, and 632 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 521, and 552, and sections 76.6, 76.7, 76.1602, and 76.1603 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 76.6-76.7, and 76.1602-1603, that the Complaint filed by WideOpen West Holdings, LLC against Comcast Corporation for systemic abuse of customer service standards established by the Federal Communications Commission pursuant to Section 632(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, IS DISMISSED in its entirety with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1960A1.html
  • Warner Cable, ) Inc. FRN 0018049841 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 22, 2008 Released: August 22, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Oceanic Time Warner Cable ("Oceanic"), a subsidiary of Time Warner Cable, Inc. (collectively, "TWC") apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(c) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). Specifically, Oceanic failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) day advanced written notice to the Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Cable Television Division, which serves as the local franchise authority ("LFA") for the State of Hawaii, before implementing a service change caused by the migration of certain channels to its Switched Digital Video
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2299A1.html
  • provided relevant excerpts and identifying information for those complaints in Attachment A. Because these complaints were not filed in a public Commission docket, we will treat the complainants' names as confidential for privacy reasons. The LOI described an investigation into possible violations of Section 629 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 549, and Sections 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603. See Plug and Play Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20885 n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Gary S. Lutzker, Esq., Dow Lohnes PLLC, Counsel for Cox Communications, Inc., (Sept. 5, 2008) ("Supplemental
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2300A1.html
  • for those complaints in Attachment A. Unlike the Flatt Complaint, these complaints were not filed in a public Commission docket, so we will treat the complainants' names as confidential for privacy reasons. The Nov. 8 LOI stated we were investigating possible violations of Section 629 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 549, and Sections 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603. See Plug and Play Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20885 n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2301A1.html
  • for those complaints in Attachment A. Unlike the Flatt Complaint, these complaints were not filed in a public Commission docket, so we will treat the complainants' names as confidential for privacy reasons. The Nov. 8 LOI stated we were investigating possible violations of Section 629 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 549, and Sections 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603. See Plug and Play Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20885 n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2488A1.html
  • 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Bend Cable Communications, Inc. d/b/a Bend Broadband ("Bend Broadband" or "Company") seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and the Commission's rules ("Rules"), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. S:543 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an "analog-to-digital channel change"), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. 2. Question 8.b. of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2489A1.html
  • 1. On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Bright House Networks, LLC ("Bright House" or "Company") seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and the Commission's rules ("Rules"), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. S:543 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an "analog-to-digital channel change"), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. 2. Question 8.b. of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2490A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Cablevision Systems Corp. ("Cablevision" or "Company") seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and the Commission's rules ("Rules"), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. S:543 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an "analog-to-digital channel change"), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. 2. Question 8.b. of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2491A1.html
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Comcast Corporation ("Comcast" or "Company") seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and the Commission's rules ("Rules"), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. S:543 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an "analog-to-digital channel change"), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. 2. Question 8.b. of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2492A1.html
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Cox Communications ("Cox" or "Company") seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and the Commission's rules ("Rules"), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. S:543 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an "analog-to-digital channel change"), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. 2. Question 8.b. of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2493A1.html
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to GCI, Inc. ("GCI" or "Company") seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and the Commission's rules ("Rules"), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. S:543 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an "analog-to-digital channel change"), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. 2. Question 8.b. of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2494A1.html
  • the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Harron Entertainment Company ("Company") seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and the Commission's rules ("Rules"), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. S:543 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an "analog-to-digital channel change"), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. 2. Question 8.b. of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2495A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Midcontinent Communications, Inc. ("Midcontinent" or "Company") seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and the Commission's rules ("Rules"), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. S:543 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an "analog-to-digital channel change"), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. 2. Question 8.b. of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2496A1.html
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to RCN Corporation ("RCN" or "Company") seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and the Commission's rules ("Rules"), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. S:543 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an "analog-to-digital channel change"), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. 2. Question 8.b. of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2497A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Suddenlink Communications, Inc. ("Suddenlink" or "Company") seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and the Commission's rules ("Rules"), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. S:543 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an "analog-to-digital channel change"), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. 2. Question 8.b. of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2498A1.html
  • Bureau: 1. On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Time Warner Cable, Inc. ("TWC" or "Company") seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and the Commission's rules ("Rules"), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. S:543 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an "analog-to-digital channel change"), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. 2. Question 8.b. of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2499A1.html
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Verizon Communications ("Verizon" or "Company") seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and the Commission's rules ("Rules"), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. S:543 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an "analog-to-digital channel change"), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. 2. Question 8.b. of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2500A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Charter Communications, Inc. ("Charter" or "Company") seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and the Commission's rules ("Rules"), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. S:543 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an "analog-to-digital channel change"), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. 2. Question 8.b. of the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-120A1.html
  • 14981 (Enf. Bur. 2008) ("TWC NAL and Order"). Unlike the Flatt Complaint, these complaints were not filed in a public Commission docket, so we will treat the complainants' names as confidential for privacy reasons. The LOI stated we were investigating possible violations of Section 629 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 549, and Sections 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603. See Plug and Play Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20885 n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-122A1.html
  • provided relevant excerpts and identifying information for those complaints in Attachment A. Because these complaints were not filed in a public Commission docket, we will treat the complainants' names as confidential for privacy reasons. The LOI described an investigation into possible violations of Section 629 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 549, and Sections 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603. See Plug and Play Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20885 n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Gary S. Lutzker, Esq., Dow Lohnes PLLC, Counsel for Cox Communications, Inc., (Sept. 5, 2008) ("Supplemental
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-123A1.html
  • 14962 (Enf. Bur. 2008) ("TWC NAL and Order"). Unlike the Flatt Complaint, these complaints were not filed in a public Commission docket, so we will treat the complainants' names as confidential for privacy reasons. The LOI stated we were investigating possible violations of Section 629 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 549, and Sections 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603. See Plug and Play Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20885 n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-124A1.html
  • Comcast Corporation ) FRN 0015401581 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order ("NAL and Order"), we find that Comcast Corporation's cable system serving Delray Beach, Florida ("Comcast") apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). Specifically, Comcast failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), that Comcast is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-125A1.html
  • Comcast Corporation ) FRN 0015401581 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order ("NAL and Order"), we find that Comcast Corporation's cable system serving Rancho Cordova, California ("Comcast") apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). Specifically, Comcast failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), that Comcast is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-126A1.html
  • 0016618670 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order ("NAL and Order"), we find that the Time Warner Cable Inc.'s cable system, serving San Diego, California ("Time Warner") apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). Specifically, Time Warner failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), that Time Warner is apparently liable for
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-127A1.html
  • FRN 0016618670 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order ("NAL and Order"), we find that the Time Warner Cable Inc.'s cable system, serving Placentia, California ("Time Warner") apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). Specifically, Time Warner failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) day advance written notice to its customer, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), that Time Warner is apparently liable for
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-128A1.html
  • Communications, Inc. ) FRN 0017179383 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order ("NAL and Order"), we find that Charter Communications, Inc.'s cable system serving Norco, California ("Charter") apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). Specifically, Charter failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), that Charter is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-129A1.html
  • Communications, LP ) FRN 0016642761 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order ("NAL and Order"), we find that Harron Communications, L.P.'s cable system serving Amory, Mississippi ("Harron") apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). Specifically, Harron failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), that Harron is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-130A1.html
  • 200932100031 Comcast Corporation ) FRN 0015401581 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order ("NAL and Order"), we find that Comcast Corporation's cable system serving Fairfax, Vermont ("Comcast") apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). Specifically, Comcast failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), that Comcast is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-131A1.html
  • ) FRN 0016034050 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order ("NAL and Order"), we find that Cox Communications, Inc.'s cable system serving Phoenix, Arizona ("Cox" or "Company") apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). Specifically, Cox failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), that Cox is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-132A1.html
  • Communications, Inc. ) FRN 0016034050 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order ("NAL and Order"), we find that Cox Communications, Inc.'s cable systems serving Surprise, Arizona ("Cox") apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). Specifically, Cox failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), that Cox is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-133A1.html
  • Corp. ) FRN 0009725276 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order ("NAL and Order"), we find that Cablevision Systems Corp.'s cable systems serving Randolph, New Jersey ("Cablevision") apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). Specifically, Cablevision failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-134A1.html
  • ) FRN 0009725276 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order ("NAL and Order"), we find that Cablevision Systems Corp.'s cable systems serving Cortlandt Manor, New York ("Cablevision") apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). Specifically, Cablevision failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-135A1.html
  • ) FRN 0009725276 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order ("NAL and Order"), we find that Cablevision Systems Corp.'s cable systems serving Oakville, Connecticut ("Cablevision" or "Cablevision") apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). Specifically, Cablevision failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-136A1.html
  • Systems Corp. ) FRN 0009725276 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order ("NAL and Order"), we find that Cablevision Systems Corp's cable systems serving Darien, Connecticut ("Cablevision") apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). Specifically, Cablevision failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-137A1.html
  • Corp. ) FRN 0009725276 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order ("NAL and Order"), we find that Cablevision Systems Corp.'s cable systems serving Orient, New York ("Cablevision") apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). Specifically, Cablevision failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), that Cablevision is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-138A1.html
  • Inc. ) FRN 0017179383 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER Adopted: January 19, 2009 Released: January 19, 2009 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order ("NAL and Order"), we find that Charter Communications, Inc.'s cable system serving Long Beach, California ("Charter") apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). Specifically, Charter failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) days advance written notice to its customers, before implementing a change in rates, programming services or channel positions as required under the Rules. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), that Charter is apparently liable for a forfeiture
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-2136A1.html
  • Cable, Inc. ) FRN No. 0018049841 ) order Adopted: September 29, 2009 Released: September 29, 2009 By the Deputy Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") and Time Warner Cable, Inc. ("TWC"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau into TWC's possible violations of Section 76.1603(c) of the Commission's Rules, regarding provision of advanced written notice to subscribers and local franchise authorities prior to implementing any service change. 2. The Bureau and TWC have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolve this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-52A1.html
  • the potential consumer benefits of SDV deployment, and other factors that limit the potential scope of consumer disruption. We affirm, however, the Forfeiture Order against TWC relating to the Bureau's finding that the migration of programming to an SDV platform constitutes a "change in service" requiring 30-day advanced written notice to the relevant local franchise authority ("LFA") pursuant to Section 76.1603 of our rules. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Bureau's prior decisions discuss the facts of these cases in depth; therefore, we will provide only a brief summary here. In late 2007, based on consumer complaints, the Bureau initiated investigations of TWC and Cox regarding their movement of certain cable channels that previously had been viewable by subscribers using CableCARD-equipped unidirectional digital
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-52A2.html
  • only concur, however, with respect to the determination that the SDV deployment requires notification to local franchising authorities and customers. Whether the SDV deployment here - because of its effect on the channels accessible to certain subscribers who purchased unidirectional digital cable devices on their own in the retail market - constitutes a "change in service" requiring notice under Section 76.1603(c) is not without some doubt. Nevertheless, the broader ramifications of our decision here for the industry's deployment of SDV technology, which has largely been on hold since the enforcement proceedings became public, justify resolution of these issues now. Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-52 13 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-52 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-52A2.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-52A2.doc
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-411A1.html
  • 201032100021 Cablevision Systems Corporation ) ) FRN No. 0003511649 order Adopted: March 12, 2010 Released: March 12, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") and Cablevision Systems Corporation ("Cablevision"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau into Cablevision's possible violations of Section 76.1603(c) of the Commission's Rules, regarding provision of advanced written notice to subscribers and local franchise authorities prior to implementing any service change. 2. The Bureau and Cablevision have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolves this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-825A1.html
  • By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, which follows upon a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order ("NAL") issued in each of the above captioned cases on January 19, 2009, we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed in these cases. 2. In each NAL, we found a cable operator apparently liable for violating section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's rules, because complaints submitted to the Commission indicated that the operator had not provided adequate notice of changes in rates, programming services, or channel positions to its subscribers. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-953A1.html
  • all or substantially all of Comcast's Broadband Internet Access Services, provided that Rate Change Notifications that include only Broadband Internet Access Services that are undergoing rate changes shall not constitute Product Lists. s. "Rate Cards" means notices that Comcast sends pursuant to 47 C.F.R. S: 76.1602(b). t. "Rate Change Notifications" means notices that Comcast sends pursuant to 47 C.F.R. S: 76.1603. u. "Rules" means the Commission's regulations found in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. v. "Standalone Broadband Internet Access Service Condition" or "Condition" means Section IV.D (1)-(3) of Appendix A of the Comcast-NBCU Order. II. BACKGROUND 2. In the Comcast-NBCU Order, released on January 20, 2011, the Commission identified potential concerns associated with Comcast's post-transaction incentives to require
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2008/dd080201.html
  • CONSUMER EDUCATION WORKSHOP [79]DOC-279904A1.doc [80]DOC-279904A1.pdf [81]DOC-279904A1.txt ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- ERRATUM - COMPLAINT AGAINST VARIOUS TV LICENSEES CONCERNING THEIR FEBRUARY 25, 2003 BROADCAST OF THE PROGRAM "NYPD BLUE". Issued an Erratum correcting Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture FCC 08-25 released January 25, 2008 by ERRATUM. EB [82]DOC-279905A1.doc [83]DOC-279905A1.pdf [84]DOC-279905A1.txt TIME WARNER CABLE. Granted request for waiver of Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules. Action by: Chief, Media Bureau. Adopted: 01/31/2008 by MO&O. (DA No. 08-268). MB [85]DA-08-268A1.doc [86]DA-08-268A1.pdf [87]DA-08-268A1.txt PETITION OF BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. (BELLSOUTH) FOR PRICING FLEXIBILITY UNDER 69.727 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES FOR THE SPECIFIC MSAS. Issued an Protective Order and an agreement between the Reviewing Party, executing the attached Declaration, and the Submitting Party. Action by:
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2009/dd090121.html
  • PROCEEDINGS (2 OF 2). OMD. Contact: Jason Lewis at (202) 418-0310 [15]DOC-287968A1.pdf [16]DOC-287968A1.txt * * * * * ADDENDA: THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, RELEASED JANUARY 19, 2009, DID NOT APPEAR IN DIGEST NO. 12: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- COMCAST CORP. Notified Comcast Corp. of its Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order in the amount of $7,500 for violation of Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules. by ORDER. Action by: Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 01/19/2009 by NALF. (DA No. 09-125). EB [17]DA-09-125A1.doc [18]DA-09-125A1.pdf [19]DA-09-125A1.txt COMCAST CORP. Notified Comcast Corp. of its Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order in the amount of $7,500 for violation of Section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's Rules. by ORDER. Action by: Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 01/19/2009 by NALF.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2009/dd090918.html
  • SERVICE INFORMATION ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. WTB [43]DOC-293549A1.pdf [44]DOC-293549A1.txt ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- CARBON COUNTY. Issued a $250 forfeiture to Translator Station K285AB(FX) Price, Utah. Action by: Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. Adopted: 09/17/2009 by Forfeiture Order. (DA No. 09-2078). MB [45]DA-09-2078A1.doc [46]DA-09-2078A1.pdf [47]DA-09-2078A1.txt MEDIA GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, LLC. Granted Time Warner Cable Inc.'s request for waiver of Sections 76.1601 and 76.1603 of the Commission's rules. Granted Media General's requests for withdrawal of Emergency Enforcement Complaints. (Dkt No. 09-138 ). Action by: Chief, Media Bureau. Adopted: 09/17/2009 by MO&O. (DA No. 09-1735). MB [48]DA-09-1735A1.doc [49]DA-09-1735A1.pdf [50]DA-09-1735A1.txt KALISPELL CHRISTIAN RADIO FELLOWSHIP, INC. Issued a $7,500 forfeiture to Station KALS(FM), Kalispell, Montana, and FM Translator Station K257BR, Polson, Montana. Action by: Chief, Audio Division,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-03-333A1.html
  • Third, WOW could file a claim at the Commission under the uniform price provisions of the Communications Act and the Commission's rules.40 IV. ORDERING CLAUSE ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 601, and 632 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 521, and 552, and sections 76.6, 76.7, 76.1602, and 76.1603 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 76.6-76.7, and 76.1602-1603, that the Complaint filed by WideOpen West Holdings, LLC against Comcast Corporation for systemic abuse of customer service standards established by the Federal Communications Commission pursuant to Section 632(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, IS DISMISSED in its entirety with prejudice. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1960A1.html
  • Warner Cable, ) Inc. FRN 0018049841 ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: August 22, 2008 Released: August 22, 2008 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Oceanic Time Warner Cable ("Oceanic"), a subsidiary of Time Warner Cable, Inc. (collectively, "TWC") apparently willfully violated Section 76.1603(c) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). Specifically, Oceanic failed to provide the requisite thirty (30) day advanced written notice to the Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Cable Television Division, which serves as the local franchise authority ("LFA") for the State of Hawaii, before implementing a service change caused by the migration of certain channels to its Switched Digital Video
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2299A1.html
  • provided relevant excerpts and identifying information for those complaints in Attachment A. Because these complaints were not filed in a public Commission docket, we will treat the complainants' names as confidential for privacy reasons. The LOI described an investigation into possible violations of Section 629 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 549, and Sections 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603. See Plug and Play Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20885 n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Gary S. Lutzker, Esq., Dow Lohnes PLLC, Counsel for Cox Communications, Inc., (Sept. 5, 2008) ("Supplemental
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2300A1.html
  • for those complaints in Attachment A. Unlike the Flatt Complaint, these complaints were not filed in a public Commission docket, so we will treat the complainants' names as confidential for privacy reasons. The Nov. 8 LOI stated we were investigating possible violations of Section 629 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 549, and Sections 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603. See Plug and Play Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20885 n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2301A1.html
  • for those complaints in Attachment A. Unlike the Flatt Complaint, these complaints were not filed in a public Commission docket, so we will treat the complainants' names as confidential for privacy reasons. The Nov. 8 LOI stated we were investigating possible violations of Section 629 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 549, and Sections 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S:S: 76.640, 76.980(f), 76.984, 76.1204, 76.1206, and 76.1603. See Plug and Play Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20885 n.3. Id. at 20885. See Letter from JoAnn Lucanik, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Arthur H. Harding, Fleischman and Harding LLP and Matthew A. Brill, Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2488A1.html
  • 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Bend Cable Communications, Inc. d/b/a Bend Broadband ("Bend Broadband" or "Company") seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and the Commission's rules ("Rules"), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. S:543 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an "analog-to-digital channel change"), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. 2. Question 8.b. of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2489A1.html
  • 1. On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Bright House Networks, LLC ("Bright House" or "Company") seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and the Commission's rules ("Rules"), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. S:543 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an "analog-to-digital channel change"), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. 2. Question 8.b. of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2490A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Cablevision Systems Corp. ("Cablevision" or "Company") seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and the Commission's rules ("Rules"), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. S:543 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an "analog-to-digital channel change"), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. 2. Question 8.b. of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2491A1.html
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Comcast Corporation ("Comcast" or "Company") seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and the Commission's rules ("Rules"), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. S:543 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an "analog-to-digital channel change"), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. 2. Question 8.b. of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2492A1.html
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Cox Communications ("Cox" or "Company") seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and the Commission's rules ("Rules"), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. S:543 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an "analog-to-digital channel change"), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. 2. Question 8.b. of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2493A1.html
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to GCI, Inc. ("GCI" or "Company") seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and the Commission's rules ("Rules"), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. S:543 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an "analog-to-digital channel change"), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. 2. Question 8.b. of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2494A1.html
  • the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Harron Entertainment Company ("Company") seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and the Commission's rules ("Rules"), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. S:543 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an "analog-to-digital channel change"), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. 2. Question 8.b. of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2495A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Midcontinent Communications, Inc. ("Midcontinent" or "Company") seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and the Commission's rules ("Rules"), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. S:543 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an "analog-to-digital channel change"), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. 2. Question 8.b. of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2496A1.html
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to RCN Corporation ("RCN" or "Company") seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and the Commission's rules ("Rules"), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. S:543 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an "analog-to-digital channel change"), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. 2. Question 8.b. of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2497A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Suddenlink Communications, Inc. ("Suddenlink" or "Company") seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and the Commission's rules ("Rules"), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. S:543 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an "analog-to-digital channel change"), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. 2. Question 8.b. of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2498A1.html
  • Bureau: 1. On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Time Warner Cable, Inc. ("TWC" or "Company") seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and the Commission's rules ("Rules"), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. S:543 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an "analog-to-digital channel change"), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. 2. Question 8.b. of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2499A1.html
  • Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Verizon Communications ("Verizon" or "Company") seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and the Commission's rules ("Rules"), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. S:543 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an "analog-to-digital channel change"), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. 2. Question 8.b. of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2500A1.html
  • Enforcement Bureau: 1. On October 30, 2008, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") sent a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to Charter Communications, Inc. ("Charter" or "Company") seeking information concerning potential violations of various requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and the Commission's rules ("Rules"), including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. S:543 and 47 C.F.R. S:S:76.630, 76.980, and 76.1603. The LOI sought information from Company concerning whether Company may have moved certain analog basic or expanded basic channels to a digital tier (herein referred to as an "analog-to-digital channel change"), making such channels unavailable to analog subscribers unless they obtained a Company-supplied digital set top box and/or subscribed separately to Company's digital programming tier. 2. Question 8.b. of the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-52A1.html
  • the potential consumer benefits of SDV deployment, and other factors that limit the potential scope of consumer disruption. We affirm, however, the Forfeiture Order against TWC relating to the Bureau's finding that the migration of programming to an SDV platform constitutes a "change in service" requiring 30-day advanced written notice to the relevant local franchise authority ("LFA") pursuant to Section 76.1603 of our rules. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Bureau's prior decisions discuss the facts of these cases in depth; therefore, we will provide only a brief summary here. In late 2007, based on consumer complaints, the Bureau initiated investigations of TWC and Cox regarding their movement of certain cable channels that previously had been viewable by subscribers using CableCARD-equipped unidirectional digital
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-52A2.html
  • only concur, however, with respect to the determination that the SDV deployment requires notification to local franchising authorities and customers. Whether the SDV deployment here - because of its effect on the channels accessible to certain subscribers who purchased unidirectional digital cable devices on their own in the retail market - constitutes a "change in service" requiring notice under Section 76.1603(c) is not without some doubt. Nevertheless, the broader ramifications of our decision here for the industry's deployment of SDV technology, which has largely been on hold since the enforcement proceedings became public, justify resolution of these issues now. Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-52 13 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-52 References 1. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-52A2.pdf 2. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-52A2.doc
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-411A1.html
  • 201032100021 Cablevision Systems Corporation ) ) FRN No. 0003511649 order Adopted: March 12, 2010 Released: March 12, 2010 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") and Cablevision Systems Corporation ("Cablevision"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation by the Bureau into Cablevision's possible violations of Section 76.1603(c) of the Commission's Rules, regarding provision of advanced written notice to subscribers and local franchise authorities prior to implementing any service change. 2. The Bureau and Cablevision have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree that resolves this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-825A1.html
  • By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this Order, which follows upon a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order ("NAL") issued in each of the above captioned cases on January 19, 2009, we determine that no forfeiture penalties should be imposed in these cases. 2. In each NAL, we found a cable operator apparently liable for violating section 76.1603(b) of the Commission's rules, because complaints submitted to the Commission indicated that the operator had not provided adequate notice of changes in rates, programming services, or channel positions to its subscribers. Consistent with section 503(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, each of these companies was granted an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture should
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-953A1.html
  • all or substantially all of Comcast's Broadband Internet Access Services, provided that Rate Change Notifications that include only Broadband Internet Access Services that are undergoing rate changes shall not constitute Product Lists. s. "Rate Cards" means notices that Comcast sends pursuant to 47 C.F.R. S: 76.1602(b). t. "Rate Change Notifications" means notices that Comcast sends pursuant to 47 C.F.R. S: 76.1603. u. "Rules" means the Commission's regulations found in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. v. "Standalone Broadband Internet Access Service Condition" or "Condition" means Section IV.D (1)-(3) of Appendix A of the Comcast-NBCU Order. II. BACKGROUND 2. In the Comcast-NBCU Order, released on January 20, 2011, the Commission identified potential concerns associated with Comcast's post-transaction incentives to require
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/76print.html
  • of television broadcast signals. [175]76.1507 Competitive access to satellite cable programming. [176]76.1508 Network non-duplication. [177]76.1509 Syndicated program exclusivity. [178]76.1510 Application of certain Title VI provisions. [179]76.1511 Fees. [180]76.1512 Programming information. [181]76.1513 Open video dispute resolution. [182]76.1514 Bundling of video and local exchange services. Subpart T -- Notices [183]76.1601 Deletion or repositioning of broadcast signals. [184]76.1602 Customer service -- general information. [185]76.1603 Customer service -- rate and service changes. [186]76.1604 Charges for customer service changes. [187]76.1605 New product tier. [188]76.1606 Rate change while complaint pending. [189]76.1607 Principal headend. [190]76.1608 System technical integration requiring uniform election of must-carry or retransmission consent status. [191]76.1609 Non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity. [192]76.1610 Change of operational information. [193]76.1611 Political cable rates and classes of time. [194]76.1612 Personal attack.
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/part76.pdf
  • access to satellite cable programming. � 76.1508 Network non-duplication. � 76.1509 Syndicated program exclusivity. � 76.1510 Application of certain Title VI provisions. � 76.1511 Fees. � 76.1512 Programming information. � 76.1513 Open video dispute resolution. � 76.1514 Bundling of video and local exchange services. Subpart T-Notices � 76.1601 Deletion or repositioning of broadcast signals. � 76.1602 Customer service-general information. � 76.1603 Customer service-rate and service changes. � 76.1604 Charges for customer service changes. � 76.1605 New product tier. � 76.1606 Rate change while complaint pending. � 76.1607 Principal headend. � 76.1608 System technical integration requiring uniform election of must-carry or retransmission consent status. � 76.1609 Non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity. � 76.1610 Change of operational information. � 76.1611 Political cable rates and
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/filings/2004/BrandX.pet.app.final.pdf
  • regulations" that exceed Commission standards or address matters not addressed by Commission standards under section 632, apply to cable modem service?382 2. Pole Attachments 380See NATOA Comments at 20-21; National League of Cities, et al. Comments at 13-14. 381See Communications Act � 632(a), 47 U.S.C. � 552(a) 382See 47 U.S.C. � 552(d)(1), (2); see also 47 C.F.R. �� 76.309, 76.1602, 76.1603. 165a 109.The Pole Attachment Act gives cable television systems and providers of telecommunications service the right to attach to poles of power and telephone companies at regulated rates.383 In Gulf Power, the United States Supreme Court held that the Pole At- tachment Act applies to attachments by cable television systems that provide Internet service in addition to traditional cable service,