FCC Web Documents citing 76.984

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

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2299A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2299A1.pdf
  • cable system. We have 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.,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2300A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2300A1.pdf
  • excerpts and identifying information 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
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2301A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2301A1.pdf
  • excerpts and identifying information 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
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-120A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-120A1.pdf
  • Order, 23 FCC Rcd 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
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-122A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-122A1.pdf
  • cable system. We have 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.,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-123A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-123A1.pdf
  • Order, 23 FCC Rcd 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1350A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1350A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1350A1.txt
  • ) ) ) ) ) ) CSR No. 5034 Adopted: June 1, 2001 Released: June 5, 2001 By the Chief, Consumer Protection and Competition Division, Cable Services Bureau: Philadelphia Choice Television, Inc. d/b/a Popvision (``Popvision'') filed a Petition for Special Relief asserting that Comcast Cablevision of Philadelphia (``Comcast'') violated the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act'') and Section 76.984 of the Commission's rules by engaging in predatory pricing practices. By letter dated May 31, 2001, Popvision moved to dismiss its Petition for Special Relief. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Special Relief filed by Philadelphia Choice Television, Inc. d/b/a Popvision in the above-captioned proceeding is HEREBY DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Deborah E. Klein Chief, Consumer Protection and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-142A1.txt
  • the Commission direct Armstrong Utilities, Inc. (``Armstrong''), a franchised cable operator serving the Township, to charge uniform rates for its basic and cable programming service throughout the Township and to make whole those subscribers who have paid a higher rate for the same service. The Township cites to section 623(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 76.984 of the Commission's rules. Armstrong opposes the petition, arguing that it is subject to effective competition from a local exchange carrier (``LEC'') and, therefore, exempt from any uniform rate requirement. The Township filed reply comments disagreeing with Armstrong's position. Citizens Cable Communications, Inc. (``Citizens Cable''), which provides cable service to parts of the Township, filed an ex parte presentation in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1459A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1459A1.txt
  • to order refunds if it disapproves any portion of the rates after they take effect, the franchising authority must issue a written accounting order before the end of the tolling period. 47 C.F.R. � 76.933(a)-(c). FrontierVision states it is not aware of any tolling order, accounting order, or rate decision from the City. FrontierVision Opposition at 9. 47 C.F.R. � 76.984(a). See Communications Act � 632(d), 47 U.S.C. � 543(d). 47 C.F.R. � 76.984(b). See 47 C.F.R. � 76.923. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 01-1459 Federal Communications Commission DA 01-1459 � � @& �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� ��� � � � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2439A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2439A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2439A1.txt
  • Partners and Expedited Request for Declaratory Ruling at 2-8 (Everest Response). See 47 U.S.C. � 543(l)(1)(B). See Time Warner Reply at 2. Id. at 3; compare 47 U.S.C. � 251(h) (definition of incumbent local exchange carrier) with 47 U.S.C. � 541(l)(1)(D) (LEC test provision). See Everest Response at 10. See Time Warner Reply at 5. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 76.984(a), (c)(2). 47 C.F.R. � 0.321. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 01-2439 Federal Communications Commission DA 01-2439 � � � � @& �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� ��� l H W n
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3172A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3172A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3172A1.txt
  • AND ORDER Adopted: November 8, 2002 Released: November 15, 2002 By the Deputy Chief, Media Bureau: introduction Altrio Communications, Inc. (``Altrio''), a cable operator in the Arcadia, California, filed a complaint against Adelphia Communications Corporation (``Adelphia'') alleging that Adelphia violated the geographic rate uniformity requirement of Section 623(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act''), and Section 76.984 of the Commission's rules which require that cable operators maintain a uniform rate structure throughout their franchise area. Adelphia filed an opposition to the complaint. Altrio filed a reply. In addition, Adelphia filed a surreply and in response Altrio filed a motion to strike Adelphia's surreply, to which Adelphia opposed. background Section 623(d) of the Communications Act requires cable operators
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-596A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-596A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-596A1.txt
  • ftp.fcc.gov CABLE SERVICES BUREAU ACTION March 13, 2002 Complaint alleging violations of the uniform rate structure rule and statute, including predatory pricing CSR-5862-R Altrio Communications, Inc. (``Altrio''), a cable overbuilder serving Arcadia, California, has filed a complaint against Adelphia Communications Corporation (``Adelphia'') alleging that Adelphia has violated Section 623(d) of the Communications Act, as amended (47 U.S.C. �543(d)), and Section 76.984 of the Commission's rules (47 C.F.R. �76.984). Specifically, Altrio alleges that Adelphia has adopted a non-uniform pricing policy for cable services it offers in its Arcadia, California franchise area in violation of the Communications Act and the Commission's rules. Altrio's complaint appeared on the Cable Services Bureau's March 8, 2002 ``Special Relief and Show Cause Petitions'' Public Notice, Report No.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-353A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-353A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-353A1.txt
  • KCCP's Overland Park franchise area. Petition at 8 and Exhibit A, F, and G. Reply at 7. Id. at 9, Exhibit A. Id. Everest Response at 8. Id. If Everest believes that KCCP, or any other cable operator not subject to effective competition, is illegally offering non-uniform rates, it can file a complaint with the Comission. See 47 C.F.R. � 76.984. Indeed, Everest has filed such a complaint involving another franchise area. See Everest Midwest Licensee, LLC d/b/a Everests Connections Corp. v. Kansas City Cable Partners d/b/a Time Warner of Kansas City, CSR No. 5845 (pending). See Cable Reform Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 5305. 47 C.F.R. � 0.283. (...continued from previous page) (continued...) Federal Communications Commission DA 03-353 Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-213A1.txt
  • at 9, Exhibit G. KCCP Petition at 4. Id. Id. at 7, Exhibit C. KCCP Reply at 2. Everest Response at 3-4. Id. at 5. Id. at 6. KCCP Petition at 5. We note that Everest has filed with the Commission a separate complaint against KCCP regarding the incumbent's alleged lack of compliance with the geographic uniformity requirement of Section 76.984. We will address Everest's geographic uniformity complaint in a separate order. 47 C.F.R. � 0.283. (...continued from previous page) (continued...) Federal Communications Commission DA 04-213 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-213 �@��� �@��� �@��� � `` ' ( 8 N O � @& � ` @ � � � � � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.txt
  • rate reductions. 76.961 Refunds. 76.962 Implementation and certification of compliance. 76.963 Forfeiture. 76.970 Commercial leased access rates. 76.971 Commercial leased access terms and conditions. 76.975 Commercial leased access dispute resolution. 76.977 Minority and educational programming used in lieu of designated commercial leased access capacity. 76.980 Charges for customer changes. 76.981 Negative option billing. 76.982 Continuation of rate agreements. 76.983 Discrimination. 76.984 Geographically uniform rate structure. 76.985 Subscriber bill itemization. 76.986 "A la carte" offerings. 76.987 New product tiers. 76.990 Small cable operators. SUBPART O -- COMPETITIVE ACCESS TO CABLE PROGRAMMING Brief Description: These rules prescribe regulations that govern the access by competing multichannel video programming distributors to satellite cable and satellite broadcast programming. Need: These rules implement section 19 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1251A1.txt
  • operator and Grande's service does not substantially overlap Time Warner's. According to the City, Grande offers service to less than five percent of Austin households while Time Warner's service passes all Austin households. Finally, Austin alleges that while Grande's service offering is not widespread, it has caused Time Warner to target former customers with anti-competitive pricing in violation of Section 76.984(a) of the Commission's rules and is intended to prevent Grande's competitive presence. Therefore, Austin argues that it is premature to declare Austin subject to effective competition. In reply, Time Warner notes that the City concedes that Time Warner has met the LEC-affiliation and comparable programming prongs of the LEC test and that there is no minimum homes passed or penetration
• 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
  • cable system. We have 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.,
• 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
  • excerpts and identifying information 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
• 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
  • excerpts and identifying information 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
• 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
  • Order, 23 FCC Rcd 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
• 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
  • cable system. We have 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.,
• 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
  • Order, 23 FCC Rcd 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.txt
  • Commission's role in regulating rates on the cable service programming tier. 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: 76.984(c)(3) Geographically uniform rate structure. Brief Description: This rule sets forth the standards for small cable operators to claim exemption from rate regulation. Need: This rule implements provisions of the 1996 Telecommunications Act which exempt small cable operators meeting certain criteria from some rate regulation. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-117A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-117A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-117A1.txt
  • and would be consistent with the uniform rate requirement. We are not persuaded that the 1996 Act amendment requires us to depart from this characterization and, accordingly, we continue to believe that exemptions to the uniform rate requirement should apply in situations such as those addressed in the Rate Order. Predatory Pricing. WCA also asks the Commission to reword section 76.984(c)(3) of our rules to clarify that the statutory prohibition on predatory pricing applies regardless of whether a cable operator is subject to effective competition. Section 76.984(c)(3) exempts bulk discounts for MDUs from the uniform rate requirement, ``except that a cable operator of a cable system that is not subject to effective competition may not charge predatory prices to a multiple
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-310A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-310A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-310A1.txt
  • member operates in an AT&T or Comcast service area. Id. at 59-60. ACA Reply Comments at 5. Applicants' Reply at 59. Id. Id. at 58. Id. at 60. Id. Id. at 61. Applicants allege that OlympuSAT and TVN offer a variety of digital programming packages to MVPDs. See Applicants' Reply, Braden Decl. at � 18. Everest Comments at 1. Section 76.984 of the Commission's rules prohibit incumbent cable operators from engaging in geographic price discrimination with respect to programming in the basic tier, in the absence of effective competition. Everest Comments at 5. RCN Comments at 23. Letter from L. Elise Dieterich, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, (Aug. 14, 2002) (``RCN Aug. 14, 2002 Ex Parte''). RCN Comments at 34.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-338A1.txt
  • pricing. See Altrio Communications, Inc. v. Adelphia Communications Corp., DA 02-3172 (MB rel. Nov. 15, 2002) (dismissing Altrio's uniform pricing and predatory pricing complaint to the presence of effective competition); and Everest Midwest License, LLC d/b/a Everest Connections Corporation v. Kansas City Cable Partners d/b/a Time Warner of Kansas City, CSR 5845 (pending complaint for violation of 47 C.F.R. Section 76.984). Reports of alleged predatory pricing have also been made in the press. See, e.g., Kirk Ladendorf, Time Warner Cable Discounts Draw Fire From City, Competitor, Austin American-Statesman, Feb. 7, 2002, at A-1; Comm. Daily, Localities Accuse Cable On `Predatory Pricing' Strategy, Mar. 4, 2002, at 3-4. Press reports also indicate that the Department of Justice is investigating allegations of incumbent
• 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
  • time frames for installation and the telephone answering services provided by the operator to handle consumer complaints.'') See, e.g., Complaint at 1 (the ``sole purpose'' of Comcast's conduct is ``an effort to drive WideOpen West from those markets in which it competes directly with Comcast.''); id. at 2, 6; Reply at 2, 7. 47 U.S.C. � 543(d); 47 C.F.R. � 76.984. We note that, by describing potential avenues for WOW to seek relief, we express no view on the ultimate validity of such claims on the merits. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) hg hg hg hg hg hg hg hg hg hg hg hg hg hg hg hg u v w  � � � � � � hg hg hg
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-335A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-335A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-335A1.txt
  • A number of new competitors have complained that, when they enter a new market with services including competitive video, telephony and broadband, the local incumbent cable provider targets discounts that are so deep that the new entrant cannot effectively compete for customers. Such tactics normally would violate the uniform pricing requirements of Section 623(d) of the Communications Act and Section 76.984(a) of the Commission's Rules; however, if an MVPD is determined by the FCC to be subject to effective competition, the uniform pricing requirements no longer apply to that operator in the franchise area. Because the attempted market entry of the would-be competitor may form the predicate for an effective competition finding, relief under existing statutory regulations often is unavailable. Lacking
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-105A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-105A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-105A1.txt
  • Home Wiring Second Report and Order'')). Id. at 86. Id. Id. at 86-87. Id. at 84-85. Id. at 85-86. Id. at 85 n.290 (citing Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 226-27 (1993)) and at 86 n.292. Cable Home Wiring Second Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 1364-72 �� 59-77. See 47 C.F.R. � 76.984. Comcast-AT&T Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 23293 � 120. Complaints regarding any removal of inside wiring in violation of our cable inside wiring rules also may be filed with the Commission or in court. MIC Comments at 2. Letter from Martha E. Heller, Wiley Rein & Fielding, LLP, Counsel for Comcast Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (Jan. 13,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-154A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-154A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-154A1.txt
  • at 2595-6 � 204. Id. at 2596 � 205. MDUs may include rental apartments, as well as condominiums and co-operatives. For example, last year, we reported that DIRECTV had developed a distribution system simplifying service to MDUs. 2005 Report, 21 FCC Rcd at 2597 � 207. See 47 C.F.R. � 76.800-806 et seq. 47 C.F.R. � 1.4000. 47 C.F.R. � 76.984(c)(3). See Closed Captioning of Video Programming, Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc. Petition for Rulemaking, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 13211 (2005) (Closed Captioning NPRM). 47 C.F.R. � 79.1(b)(1) (phase-in schedule for captioning ``new'' English language programming, which is defined as programming first published or exhibited on or after January 1, 1998). Video programming first published or exhibited for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-207A1.txt
  • our program access rules. See also 47 C.F.R. �� 76.1000-1004, 76.1507. 47 U.S.C. � 548(i). The program access rules only apply to satellite cable programming and satellite broadcast programming. See also 47 U.S.C. � 605(d). MDUs may include rental apartments, as well as condominiums and co-operatives. See 47 C.F.R. � 76.800-806 et seq. 47 C.F.R. � 1.4000. 47 C.F.R. � 76.984(c)(3). 47 C.F.R. � 79.1(b)(1) (phase-in schedule for captioning ``new'' English language programming, which is defined as programming first published or exhibited on or after January 1, 1998). Video programming first published or exhibited for display on television receivers equipped for display of digital transmissions or formatted for such transmission is defined as ``new'' as of July 1, 2002. 47 C.F.R.
• 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
  • cable products. EB is investigating 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.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99024.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99024.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99024.wp
  • within its franchise area (c)(c) already enjoys �equivalent market power. Nevertheless, we have not been asked to impose a blanket rule prohibiting the N ԍFor example, in theory TCI might have profited from an anticompetitive bundling of its cable services and �Sprint PCS services. Although the Commission's rules require operators to offer the basic service tier (generally, � 76.901, � 76.984), neither rule prohibits the �bundling of cable and other services as long as the basic service tier can be purchased separately. Further, a �subscriber of a cable system must subscribe to the basic service tier in order to subscribe to any other tier of video ԍFor one concrete example, we cannot conclude (c)(c) and none of the parties offers us
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99057.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99057.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99057.wp
  • cable system and any public, educational, and Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-57 947 U.S.C. � 543(b)(7). 1047 U.S.C. � 543(l)(2). 1147 U.S.C. � 543(a)(2). 12A cable operator not subject to effective competition must maintain a rate structure that is uniform throughout its franchise area but may offer bulk discounts to multiple dwelling units. 47 U.S.C. � 543(d); 47 C.F.R. � 76.984. 1347 U.S.C. � 543(c)(4). 1447 U.S.C. � 543(l)(1)(A)-(C). 15Id. The test in paragraph A is referred to as the "low penetration test"; the test in paragraph B, as the "competing provider test"; the test in paragraph C, as the "municipal provider test." These tests were implemented in the Commission's rules at 47 C.F.R. � 76.905(b)(1)-(3). 161996 Act � 301(b)(3), 110
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc98335.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc98335.txt
  • not so much in their individual effect, but in their pervasive and repetitious pattern. The company urges the Commission to play a more active role in fostering competition by establishing and enforcing ground rules that Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-335 607Id. at fn. 45. 608Cox Comments at 15. 609Price discounts to MDUs are permitted under Commission rules. 47 C.F.R. � 76.984(c)(2); see also 47 U.S.C. � 543(d). 610RCN Comments at 7-8. 611Telephone interview with George Callard of Ameritech New Media (Oct. 1, 1998). 612Id. 613Ameritech Comments at 47. Ameritech states that two recent examples of such problems have occurred in the City of Elgin and in the Village of Oak Lawn, Illinois. 614See App. C, Tbl. C-1. 615SBCA Comments at 4-5;
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc99418.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc99418.txt
  • Id. CableDay, July 20, 1999, at 1. OpTel Comments at 9; Futuretrak International to Purchase DirecTV MDU License, Comm. Daily, August 27, 1999, at 9. Private Cable & Wireless Cable, December 1998, at 18. OpTel Comments at 4. Id. 1998 Report, 13 FCC Rcd at 24369 �141. Price discounts to MDUs are permitted under the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.F. � 76.984(c)(2); see also 47 U.S.C. � 543(d). RCN Comments at 7. 1998 Report, 13 FCC Rcd at 24369 �142. Id. RCN Comments at 5. Id. Id. at 4. Id. at 7. Id. Schaeffler, August 1999, at 22. Schaeffler, February 1999, at 28. Id. Cathy Stephens, DBS vs. C-Band: A Business Model Comparison, Private Cable & Wireless Cable, October 1999, at 18.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-03-333A1.html
  • time frames for installation and the telephone answering services provided by the operator to handle consumer complaints.'') 39 See, e.g., Complaint at 1 (the ``sole purpose'' of Comcast's conduct is ``an effort to drive WideOpen West from those markets in which it competes directly with Comcast.''); id. at 2, 6; Reply at 2, 7. 40 47 U.S.C. 543(d); 47 C.F.R. 76.984. We note that, by describing potential avenues for WOW to seek relief, we express no view on the ultimate validity of such claims on the merits. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-333A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-333A1.doc
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2299A1.html
  • cable system. We have 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.,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2300A1.html
  • excerpts and identifying information 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
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2301A1.html
  • excerpts and identifying information 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
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-120A1.html
  • Order, 23 FCC Rcd 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
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-122A1.html
  • cable system. We have 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.,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-123A1.html
  • Order, 23 FCC Rcd 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/da992227.doc
  • would necessarily be the same group of subscribers who lease converters. Summary of Findings at 5. Thus, under TCI's pricing structure, there may not be a correlation between the leased converter users charged for the traps and subscribers using traps under TCI's pricing structure. This raises a question as to whether TCI's pricing structure is consistent with 47 C.F.R. � 76.984(a), which requires uniform pricing of equipment associated with the basic service tier. See generally Motorola's HomeClearTM System, 12 FCC Rcd 20505, 20509 para. 9 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1997), in which the operator was precluded from charging for its broadband descrambler equipment in instances where the subscriber wanted only the basic service tier. In that case, the descrambler equipment was not
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99024.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99024.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99024.wp
  • within its franchise area (c)(c) already enjoys �equivalent market power. Nevertheless, we have not been asked to impose a blanket rule prohibiting the N ԍFor example, in theory TCI might have profited from an anticompetitive bundling of its cable services and �Sprint PCS services. Although the Commission's rules require operators to offer the basic service tier (generally, � 76.901, � 76.984), neither rule prohibits the �bundling of cable and other services as long as the basic service tier can be purchased separately. Further, a �subscriber of a cable system must subscribe to the basic service tier in order to subscribe to any other tier of video ԍFor one concrete example, we cannot conclude (c)(c) and none of the parties offers us
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99057.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99057.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1999/fcc99057.wp
  • cable system and any public, educational, and Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-57 947 U.S.C. � 543(b)(7). 1047 U.S.C. � 543(l)(2). 1147 U.S.C. � 543(a)(2). 12A cable operator not subject to effective competition must maintain a rate structure that is uniform throughout its franchise area but may offer bulk discounts to multiple dwelling units. 47 U.S.C. � 543(d); 47 C.F.R. � 76.984. 1347 U.S.C. � 543(c)(4). 1447 U.S.C. � 543(l)(1)(A)-(C). 15Id. The test in paragraph A is referred to as the "low penetration test"; the test in paragraph B, as the "competing provider test"; the test in paragraph C, as the "municipal provider test." These tests were implemented in the Commission's rules at 47 C.F.R. � 76.905(b)(1)-(3). 161996 Act � 301(b)(3), 110
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da001166.doc
  • 2000 Released: May 26, 2000 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: The Board of County Commissioners of Citrus County, Florida (``Citrus County'') has asked whether their franchised cable operator could offer a cable rate to a portion of the franchise area that differed from the rate offered in the remainder of the franchise area. Citrus County notes that Section 76.984(a) of our rules requires that rates be uniform throughout a franchise area. However, Section 76.984(c)(1) states that the uniform rate requirement does not apply to a cable operator in any geographic area in which it is subject to effective competition. On May 12, 2000, we determined that effective competition was present in Citrus County, Florida. Therefore, pursuant to Section 76.984(c)(1)
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Public_Notices/2000/da000258.doc
  • REGULATORY RULES The Commission has received a request for clarification of our rules from the Board of County Commissioners of Citrus County, Florida (`Citrus County'). Citrus County asks whether a group of homes within an unincorporated subdivision of the county would be considered a multiple dwelling unit (`MDU') that is exempt from the uniform rate requirement pursuant to 47 C.F.R. �76.984(c)(2). For purposes of our ex parte rules, this proceeding will be considered as non-restricted pursuant to Section 1.1206 of the Commission's rules ("Permit-but-disclose proceeding"). Parties may file responses to the Petition on or before February 25, 2000, and replies on or before March 3, 2000. Please place the case identifier, CSR-5514, on all filings. The petition is available for public
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc98335.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc98335.txt
  • not so much in their individual effect, but in their pervasive and repetitious pattern. The company urges the Commission to play a more active role in fostering competition by establishing and enforcing ground rules that Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-335 607Id. at fn. 45. 608Cox Comments at 15. 609Price discounts to MDUs are permitted under Commission rules. 47 C.F.R. � 76.984(c)(2); see also 47 U.S.C. � 543(d). 610RCN Comments at 7-8. 611Telephone interview with George Callard of Ameritech New Media (Oct. 1, 1998). 612Id. 613Ameritech Comments at 47. Ameritech states that two recent examples of such problems have occurred in the City of Elgin and in the Village of Oak Lawn, Illinois. 614See App. C, Tbl. C-1. 615SBCA Comments at 4-5;
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc99418.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/fcc99418.txt
  • Id. CableDay, July 20, 1999, at 1. OpTel Comments at 9; Futuretrak International to Purchase DirecTV MDU License, Comm. Daily, August 27, 1999, at 9. Private Cable & Wireless Cable, December 1998, at 18. OpTel Comments at 4. Id. 1998 Report, 13 FCC Rcd at 24369 �141. Price discounts to MDUs are permitted under the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.F. � 76.984(c)(2); see also 47 U.S.C. � 543(d). RCN Comments at 7. 1998 Report, 13 FCC Rcd at 24369 �142. Id. RCN Comments at 5. Id. Id. at 4. Id. at 7. Id. Schaeffler, August 1999, at 22. Schaeffler, February 1999, at 28. Id. Cathy Stephens, DBS vs. C-Band: A Business Model Comparison, Private Cable & Wireless Cable, October 1999, at 18.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/1996/dd960829.html
  • Released: August 29, 1996. EX PARTE PRESENTATIONS AND POST-REPLY COMMENT PERIOD FILINGS IN NON-RESTRICTED PROCEEDINGS [TWO PUBLIC NOTICES]. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- AMERICAN CABLE COMPANY. Denied complaint filed against TeleCable of Columbus, Inc. alleging violations of the geographic rate uniformity requirement and the program access provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 623(d) and 628(b) and Sections 76.984 and 76.1001 of the Commission's rules. Action by Chief, Cable Services Bureau. Adopted: August 27, 1996. by Order. (DA No. 96-1457). CSB Internet URL: [1]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1996_TXT/da961457 DANIELS CABLEVISION INC. Granted Daniels's Petition for Revocation of the Certification of San Diego County, California to regulate its Basic Cable Service Rates. Action by Chief, Cable Services Bureau. Adopted: August 19, 1996. by MO&O.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-03-333A1.html
  • time frames for installation and the telephone answering services provided by the operator to handle consumer complaints.'') 39 See, e.g., Complaint at 1 (the ``sole purpose'' of Comcast's conduct is ``an effort to drive WideOpen West from those markets in which it competes directly with Comcast.''); id. at 2, 6; Reply at 2, 7. 40 47 U.S.C. 543(d); 47 C.F.R. 76.984. We note that, by describing potential avenues for WOW to seek relief, we express no view on the ultimate validity of such claims on the merits. References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-333A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-333A1.doc
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2299A1.html
  • cable system. We have 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.,
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2300A1.html
  • excerpts and identifying information 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-2301A1.html
  • excerpts and identifying information 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
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/76print.html
  • rate reductions. [128]76.961 Refunds. [129]76.962 Implementation and certification of compliance. [130]76.963 Forfeiture. [131]76.970 Commercial leased access rates. [132]76.971 Commercial leased access terms and conditions. [133]76.975 Commercial leased access dispute resolution. [134]76.977 Minority and educational programming used in lieu of designated commercial leased access capacity. [135]76.980 Charges for customer changes. [136]76.981 Negative option billing. [137]76.982 Continuation of rate agreements. [138]76.983 Discrimination. [139]76.984 Geographically uniform rate structure. [140]76.985 Subscriber bill itemization. [141]76.986 "A la carte" offerings. [142]76.987 New product tiers. [143]76.990 Small cable operators. Subpart O -- Competitive Access to Cable Programming [144]76.1000 Definitions. [145]76.1001 Unfair practices generally. [146]76.1002 Specific unfair practices prohibited. [147]76.1003 Program access proceedings. [148]76.1004 Applicability of program access rules to common carriers and affiliates. [149]76.100576.1010 [Reserved] Subpart P --
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/part76.pdf
  • leased access terms and conditions. � 76.972 Customer service standards. � 76.975 Commercial leased access dispute resolution. � 76.977 Minority and educational programming used in lieu of designated commercial leased access capacity. � 76.978 Leased access annual reporting requirement. � 76.980 Charges for customer changes. � 76.981 Negative option billing. � 76.982 Continuation of rate agreements. � 76.983 Discrimination. � 76.984 Geographically uniform rate structure. � 76.985 Subscriber bill itemization. � 76.986 "A la carte" offerings. � 76.987 New product tiers. � 76.990 Small cable operators. Subpart O-Competitive Access to Cable Programming � 76.1000 Definitions. � 76.1001 Unfair practices generally. � 76.1002 Specific unfair practices prohibited. � 76.1003 Program access proceedings. � 76.1004 Applicability of program access rules to common carriers