[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 22 (Thursday, February 1, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3657-3666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2169]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[CS Docket No. 95-184; FCC 95-504]
Telecommunications Inside Wiring, Customer Premises Equipment
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission invites comments on whether certain telephone
and cable inside wiring rules should be harmonized or otherwise changed
in light of the evolving and converging telecommunications
marketplaces. This item will assist the Commission in creating a record
necessary to its ultimate design of rules in this area.
DATES: Comments are due on or before March 18, 1996 and reply comments
are due on or before April 17, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Walke, (202) 416-0847, or Rick
Chessen, (202) 416-1166.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of this document is available for
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20554,
and may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,
International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street NW.,
Washington DC 20037.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
I. Introduction
1. The Commission issues this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(``NPRM'') to consider changes in our telephone and cable inside wiring
rules and policies in light of today's evolving and converging
telecommunications marketplace. Because this proceeding will consider
the issue of parity between our telephone and cable inside wiring
rules, we are granting a petition for rulemaking (RM 8380) filed
jointly by the Media Access Project, the United States Telephone
Association and Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation (collectively,
``MAP''), to the extent that MAP urges the Commission to establish a
proceeding to consider making cable home wiring rules the same as those
governing telephone inside wiring. We also note that, concurrently with
the adoption of this NPRM, we issue a First Order on Reconsideration
and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket No. 92-260
regarding our cable home wiring rules under Section 16(d) of the Cable
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (``1992
Cable Act''), Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992), 47 U.S.C.
521, et seq. We incorporate the record in MM Docket No. 92-260 herein
by reference.
2. We expect that at least some consumers may soon have a choice of
two or more telecommunications service companies providing telephony,
data, video programming and other services. Through this NPRM, we seek
comment on whether and how we should revise our current telephone and
cable inside wiring rules to reflect these new realities and promote
competition, by ensuring that the Commission's inside wiring rules
continue to facilitate the development of new and diverse services for
the American public. In particular, and as described more fully below,
we seek comment on whether it is technically and competitively
desirable to create a uniform set of inside wiring rules that would
apply to telephone companies and cable operators alike, or, in the
alternative, that would apply according to the technical
characteristics of the service--e.g., broadband or narrowband--or the
type of wiring used--e.g., fiber optics, coaxial cable or twisted-pair
wiring.
II. Inside Wiring Issues
A. Demarcation Point
1. Background. 3. Section 16(d) of the 1992 Cable Act directs the
Commission to ``prescribe rules concerning the disposition, after a
subscriber to a cable system terminates service, of any cable installed
by the cable operator within the premises of such subscriber.'' The
Commission's regulations implementing Section 16(d) provide that, when
a customer voluntarily terminates service, the cable operator must give
that subscriber the opportunity to acquire the wiring before the
operator removes it. The subscriber may purchase the wiring inside his
or her premises up to the demarcation point. The cable wiring
demarcation point serves such multiple purposes as defining (1) the
location at which the subscriber may control the internal home wiring
if he or she owns it; (2) the point at which an alternative
multichannel video programming service provider would attach its wiring
to the subscriber's wiring in order to provide service; and (3) the
point from which the customer has the right to purchase cable home
wiring upon termination of service. The demarcation point for cable
home wiring in single unit installations is set at (or about) 12 inches
outside of where the cable wire enters the subscriber's premises. The
demarcation point for multiple dwelling units is set at (or about) 12
inches outside of where the cable wire enters the subscriber's
individual dwelling unit.
4. In multiple dwelling unit buildings, cable wiring configurations
fall into two categories: loop-through and non-loop-through. In a loop-
through cable wiring system, a single cable provides service to
multiple subscribers such that every subscriber on the loop must
receive the same cable service. Generally, in a non-loop-through
configuration, each subscriber has a dedicated line (a ``drop'')
running to his or her premises from a common ``feeder line.'' Only the
wiring extending from the demarcation point to inside the subscriber's
premises constitutes home wiring; thus, the drop wiring from the
demarcation point out to the feeder line does not constitute home
wiring. The feeder line is the source of video programming signals for
everyone in the multiple dwelling unit building. A ``tap'' or ``multi-
tap'' is a passive device, installed where the drop meets the feeder,
that extracts portions of the signal strength in the feeder and
distributes individual portions to subscribers. The strength of the
signals within the feeder decreases each time the signals encounter a
tap. In addition, the cable's electrical characteristics cause the
strength of the signals to diminish as the signals pass through the
coaxial cable. As a result of the signal strength lost through taps and
its passage through coaxial cable, periodic amplification is often
required within
[[Page 3658]]
the multiple dwelling unit building to maintain good picture quality.
Amplification is accomplished by installing amplifiers at pre-designed
intervals along the feeder based upon the number of taps and the length
of coaxial cable within the multiple dwelling unit building.
5. With respect to telephone wiring, in 1990, the Commission
amended the definition of the telephone demarcation point for simple
inside wiring, inter alia, to ``assure that it [would] not be at a
significant distance from where [the] wiring enters the customer's
premises.'' Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making
in CC Docket No. 88-57, 5 FCC Rcd 4686, 4692 (1990) 53 FR 9952 (March
28, 1988) (``Telephone Inside Wiring Report and Order''), recon.
pending. Accordingly, the Commission's rules set the telephone wiring
demarcation point for new and existing single unit installations (where
there is no protector) at a point within 12 inches of where the
telephone wire enters the customer's premises--i.e., up to 12 inches
inside the home. The telephone demarcation point in existing multiple
dwelling unit buildings is determined in accordance with the carrier's
reasonable and nondiscriminatory standard operating practices. For new
multiple dwelling unit buildings, including additions, modifications
and rearrangements of existing wiring, the telephone company may
establish a standard operating practice of placing the demarcation
point at the minimum point of entry (usually the basement of the
building). If the telephone company does not establish such a practice,
the owner of a multiple dwelling unit building may determine the
location of the demarcation point or points. Finally, in contrast with
cable inside wiring, individual telephone lines typically run from the
basement in multiple dwelling unit buildings (where the demarcation
point is usually located) to each individual subscriber's dwelling
unit.
6. In another Commission proceeding involving the setting of the
cable network demarcation point, some alternative multichannel video
programming providers argue that the demarcation point in multiple
dwelling unit buildings should be located ``at that point outside a
subscriber's premises and within the common areas of the multiple
dwelling unit where existing wiring is first readily accessible'' for
increased access and subscriber convenience. On the other hand, some
cable operators argue that these proposals to move the demarcation
point for multiple dwelling units are not precise enough because such a
point could vary from building to building, and that such proposals are
contrary to the plain language of the statute. Cable operators in the
same proceeding argued that moving the cable demarcation point would
severely restrict their ability to compete to provide telephony and
advanced telecommunications services even if a subscriber chose a
competitor's video services. Moreover, the cable operators asserted
that consumers would benefit from additional broadband wires to their
premises, since they could then have the flexibility of receiving
different broadband services from different providers, rather than
simply choosing which single provider's package to receive.
2. Request for Comment. 7. We seek comment on whether we should
establish a common demarcation point for wireline communications
networks--regardless of whether such networks are broadband or
narrowband, or cable or telephony services. Sound reasons for creating
a common demarcation point may exist. For example, in a world in which
cable and telephony services are provided over a single broadband wire,
a common demarcation point could make logical and technical sense. On
the other hand, there may be technical and practical constraints on
setting a common demarcation point. For example, if we set the
demarcation point for multiple dwelling units at the minimum point of
entry (usually in the basement), there may be concerns about the
expense, disruption, and additional space required to install
individual broadband wires and amplifiers to each unit, as well as the
removal of any existing common wiring. Moreover, it also raises the
issue of who the ``customer'' is--the landlord or the tenant--who is
entitled to control the wiring. Altering the cable demarcation point so
that it is farther away from the subscriber's individual unit would
also raise questions about compensation for the wire between the
current cable demarcation point and any amended demarcation point. For
instance, if a subscriber already owns the cable home wiring up to the
current demarcation point, and the Commission moves the demarcation
point to the minimum point of entry, how would the cable operator be
compensated for the additional wiring if the subscriber wished to
purchase it? On the other hand, if the subscriber elected not to
purchase the additional wiring in this scenario, would the cable
operator then have the right to remove that portion of the wiring?
Alternatively, if we require a common demarcation point that is closer
to each subscriber, such as where the existing cable wiring demarcation
point is located, this could subject the currently unregulated
telephone wiring between the minimum point of entry and the customer's
premises to regulation. We seek comment on where, if we establish a
common demarcation point for cable and telephony services, we should
establish such a common demarcation point. We also seek comment on
whether, if we do not create a common demarcation point, we should
continue to establish demarcation points based on the services provided
over facilities (i.e. telephony or cable), or whether we should create
demarcation points based upon the nature of the ultimate facilities
used to deliver the service (i.e. narrowband termination facilities or
broadband termination facilities).
8. We seek comment on whether and how our wiring rules can be
structured to promote competition both in the markets for multichannel
video programming delivery and in the market for telephony and advanced
telecommunications services, and if it will affect our goal of
promoting the development of advanced telecommunications services and
competition for those services. In addition, we seek comment on
whether, and if so, how, the selection of a demarcation point for
either network should depend upon the technical characteristics of the
wiring and the current design considerations for telephone and cable
services.
9. Single Dwelling Units. We seek comment on the effect of changing
the telephone demarcation point to mirror the cable demarcation point,
and on the effect of changing the demarcation point for cable, which
presently does not employ protectors, to mirror the telephone
demarcation point. Finally, we seek comment on the consequences of
permitting broadband service providers to choose where to locate the
network demarcation point, within a range of 12 inches outside the
customer's premises and 12 inches inside the customer's premises.
10. Multiple Dwelling Units. We seek comment on the effect of
changing the telephone network demarcation point to mirror the cable
demarcation point, and on whether the current cable and telephony
demarcation points give reasonable access to competitive providers of
either narrowband or broadband services, or whether it would better
promote competition and otherwise be in the public interest to require
that the demarcation points for broadband and narrowband networks be
placed at a common point or at the point at which the broadband or
[[Page 3659]]
narrowband line becomes dedicated to an individual subscriber's use.
11. We seek additional comment on the competitive effect and
consumer impact of keeping or changing the current cable demarcation
point--not only on the video programming delivery marketplace, but on
the broader telecommunications services market. Because we are
concerned, however, that the current cable demarcation point may be
impeding competition in the video services delivery marketplace, we
intend to resolve this issue expeditiously.
12. We recognize that numerous other factors may affect the proper
location of the cable network's demarcation point, as well as one's
control over cable inside wiring and cable service generally. For
example, single-family row units in condominiums or other residential
settings may be provided cable service via a single, central access
point, which may generate many of the same issues concerning the
network demarcation point as are present in vertical multiple dwelling
unit buildings. We seek comment on other factors related to the
architecture of multiple dwelling unit premises that can affect the
location of the demarcation point. We also seek comment on the
consequences of changing the demarcation point or points, under one of
the approaches described above, in light of the many various
architectural settings in which subscribers may reside. The Commission
also seeks information on any technical constraints on moving either
network's demarcation point.
B. Connections
1. Background. a. Cable Service Wiring. 13. An important technical
consideration in the delivery of cable service and the connections
employed in the technology used to deliver service, is the risk of
cable signal leakage. Cable systems often deliver cable signals over
the same frequencies as many over-the-air licensees, including air
traffic control and police and fire safety communications. The
Commission has established specific restrictions on cable operators'
use of radio frequencies in order to reduce the potential for
interference caused by cable leakage. Another important technical
consideration is the quality of the signal delivered to the
subscriber's terminal. Our rules require a minimum signal level at the
subscriber's terminal to ensure that adequate levels are delivered to
the television set or video cassette recorder and that a good quality
picture is delivered. Signal strength can be lessened by the use of
poor cable, signal splitting for additional television sets, improper
termination and improper attachments of and to customer-owned premises
equipment.
b. Telephone Connection. 14. By contrast, signal leakage
interfering with over-the-air communications has not been a regulatory
concern for telephone service because the transmission of telephony
requires only a fraction of the signal power used to transmit video
programming, and telephone signals are carried over a much narrower, as
well as a different, portion of frequency spectrum than aeronautical
communications. Rather, the overall purpose of our telephone wiring
regulations is to ensure that equipment connected to the telephone
network and the methods used to make those connections do not cause
harm to the telephone network or telephone company employees. Harm, as
defined in our rules, includes: electrical hazards to telephone company
personnel, damage to telephone company equipment, malfunction of
telephone company billing equipment, and degradation of service to
persons other than the user of the subject terminal equipment, his
calling or called party. 47 CFR 68.3. The Commission has determined
that allowing customers access to carrier-installed wiring on their
premises for the purpose of connecting simple inside wiring will not
impair the ability of carriers to provide adequate service to the
public. The Commission has found little inherent risk that a plug/jack
arrangement will be installed incorrectly, or if actually installed
incorrectly, will cause harm to the network.
2. Request for Comment. 15. We expect that broadband common carrier
services will be delivered over the same aeronautical and public safety
frequencies, and at similar levels of power, as are current cable
television signals. Therefore, the same concerns regarding interference
with over-the-air communications that we currently encounter only with
traditional cable service may be implicated. We seek comment on the
best method of extending our signal leakage limits that are currently
applied only to traditional cable service to others who provide service
over broadband facilities. Our cable signal leakage limits are based on
individual leakage levels as well as maximum allowable cumulative
leakage levels and frequency separations from over-the-air users. We
solicit comment on whether these requirements are sufficient or should
be changed to safeguard against interference by any broadband service
provider. We also request comment on whether our cable signal quality
standards should be extended to other broadband video signal providers
or whether, in a future competitive environment, quality standards may
be unnecessary because signal quality will be one of the factors
highlighted by broadband providers in competing for business.
16. Finally, we note that underlying all of the discussion and
proposals outlined in this item is a concern for system integrity,
including any increased risk of signal leakage or decrease in signal
quality. We thus seek comment generally on how any new or revised
regulatory approaches proposed in this NPRM may impact upon these
considerations.
3. Means of Connection. a. Background. 17. The Commission's common
carrier rules define the technical specifications for any jacks that
interface with the telephone network. The rules state that ``any jack
installed by the telephone company at, or constituting, the demarcation
point shall conform to Subpart F of 47 CFR Part 68. Subject to the
requirements of section 68.213 of our rules, connection of wiring and
terminal equipment to the telephone network may be through a jack
conforming to Subpart F or by direct attachment to carrier installed
wiring.*.*.*.'' This standardization ensures that network integrity is
maintained and protects telephone company employees, facilitates the
installation of equipment by non-telephone company employees, and
promotes competition for inside wiring services and telephone customer
premises equipment.
18. Even though the Commission does not have specific rules
governing the type of connectors used by the cable industry, operators
almost exclusively employ ``F-type connectors'' for connection between
coaxial wire and equipment, which, in part, are designed to prevent
signal leakage. These F-type connectors are installed at the ends of
coaxial cable in order to attach the wiring to customer premises
equipment such as televisions, videocassette recorders and set-top
boxes.
b. Request for Comment. 19. We seek comment on whether the
Commission should adopt technical requirements for standard jacks and
connectors for broadband or narrowband networks. If standards are
necessary, how should factors such as electronics and the physical
features of the jack or connector be addressed in designing such
standards? All responses to this and the above inquiries should address
the relative need for standards for protectors, jacks and connectors
that
[[Page 3660]]
will maintain system integrity (i.e., picture and audio quality, signal
reliability, minimal signal leakage), while giving other providers ease
of connection and thus facilitate competition among telecommunications
services providers.
20. We solicit comment on whether the Commission should establish
technical standards for connections to cable networks or broadband
services, where multiple services are delivered over a single wire. We
note that a single standard may facilitate competition among providers
by standardizing and simplifying the type of connection all providers
must use. In the alternative, we seek comment on whether we should
require that all connections to either the telephone network or cable
systems use only the jacks meeting Commission standards or their
technical equivalent.
C. Regulation of Simple and Complex, and Residential and Non-
Residential Wiring
1. Background. a. Telephone Provisions: Simple vs. Complex Wiring.
21. The degree to which the Commission regulates telephone inside
wiring depends largely on whether the subscriber requires simple wiring
or complex wiring to receive service. Simple inside wiring includes all
one and two line telephone wiring on the customer's side of the
demarcation point, and is often called ``non-system premise wiring'' or
``customer premise wiring.'' Complex wiring, also called ``intrasystem
wiring,'' includes all wiring of three or more twisted pairs and its
associated components (e.g., connecting blocks, terminal boxes,
conduit) located on the customer's side of the demarcation point that
connects telephones, facsimile machines, modems, and other devices to
each other or to the common equipment of a private branch exchange
(``PBX'') or key system, when this wiring is inside a building or
between a customer's buildings located on the same or contiguous
property not separated by public property.
22. Most single dwelling units require only simple wiring, while
multiple dwelling units and commercial settings require complex
intrasystem wiring. We have not allowed customers to connect to the
public telephone network with complex wiring other than through a
telephone company-provided jack. In the interstate jurisdiction, we
have deregulated the installation and maintenance of both simple and
complex inside wire. In the intrastate jurisdiction, however, we have
allowed the states to regulate the prices, terms and conditions on
which simple inside wire services are offered to the public.
b. Cable Service Provisions. 23. As described above, our cable
inside wiring rules address three primary areas: (1) technical
standards; (2) the disposition of wiring after termination of service;
and (3) rates for the wiring installation and maintenance. First, the
Commission's technical standards apply only to wiring that a cable
operator installs and maintains. This caveat does not affect the
Commission's standards concerning signal leakage, however, because
these requirements must be met regardless of who provides the final
service link to the individual subscriber or who actually receives
payment from subscribers for cable service.
24. Second, rules adopted pursuant to Section 16(d) of the 1992
Cable Act governing the disposition of wiring upon termination of
service apply only to cable wiring installed by cable operators in
residential dwelling units. Both the House and Senate Reports and the
1992 Cable Act clearly identify Section 16(d) as applying to home
wiring--i.e., wiring ``inside the home.'' Third, rates for equipment
used to receive residential cable service, including inside wiring, are
regulated by the local franchising authority pursuant to rules the
Commission has promulgated under the 1992 Cable Act.
2. Request for Comment. 25. We anticipate that telecommunications
service providers in the future will provide both telephony and video
programming services, as well as other services. These services may be
delivered over multiple wires or over a single broadband wire. We
believe that separate regulatory regimes for telephone and cable inside
wiring may impede the delivery and possibly development, of broadband
and other services to the public because the differing schemes may
cause needless confusion for providers and consumers. Therefore, we
seek comment on whether the Commission can and should harmonize the
definitions within the common carrier and cable rules with regard to
simple versus complex wiring; and residential versus non-residential
wiring.
26. We also seek comment on whether the complex telephone wiring
configurations and cable inside wiring configurations employed in
multiple dwelling unit buildings or non-residential settings,
respectively, are similar, and if so, whether this similarity means
that complex telephone wiring and similarly employed cable inside
wiring should be subject to similar rules. Would our telephone wiring
rules, cable wiring rules, or some combination of both, be most
appropriate? We seek comment on the optimal regulatory regime for
wiring used to deliver both telephony and video programming as well as
other services, i.e., the complex versus simple dichotomy, our cable
wiring regulations, or some other approach. For example, would it be
sensible to explore treating different types of cable inside wiring
differently based on their technical characteristics, similar to the
complex versus simple distinction in the regulation of telephone
wiring? In addition, we seek comment on regulating wiring based on some
other approach, such as the type of wiring used (i.e., twisted copper
pair, coaxial or fiber optic). In this vein, would it be appropriate to
establish individual simple and complex wiring definitions for each
type of wiring? Finally, we seek comment on how any changes in our
rules concerning the above aspects of wiring may affect system
integrity and reliability.
27. We seek comment on how any changes in our rules concerning
these aspects of wiring may affect signal leakage and signal quality.
We also seek comment on how any of the above changes to our rules may
affect competition in the telephone and cable markets.
D. Customer Access to Wiring
1. Cable Wiring Provisions. 28. Section 16(d) of the 1992 Cable Act
requires the Commission to ``prescribe rules concerning the
disposition, after a subscriber to a cable system terminates service,
of any cable installed by the cable operator within the premises of
such subscriber.'' The Commission's regulations implementing Section
16(d) provide that, when a customer voluntarily terminates cable
service, the cable operator may not remove the cable home wiring unless
it has first given that subscriber the opportunity to acquire the
wiring at its per-foot replacement cost and the subscriber declines. If
the subscriber declines to purchase the wiring, the operator must
remove the wiring within 30 days (now seven business days) or make no
subsequent attempt to remove it or restrict its use. This rule does not
apply where the subscriber already owns the home wiring. The current
cable home wiring rules do not require cable operators to permit
subscribers to provide and install their own cable home wiring, or to
move or rearrange operator-owned cable home wiring.
2. Telephone Provisions. 29. The Commission has deregulated the
installation and maintenance of both complex and simple telephone
inside
[[Page 3661]]
wire. As explained above, we first acted with regard to the
installation of complex wiring, which is ``new intrasystem wiring
installed with new CPE systems.'' Since we had deregulated the
installation of new CPE systems in Computer II, Amendment of Section
64.702 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, Final Decision, 77
FCC2d 384, 45 FR 31319 (May 13, 1980) (``Computer II''), modified on
reconsideration, 84 FCC2d 50 (1980), further modified on
reconsideration, 88 FCC2d 512 (1981) it was inconsistent to have
complex wiring installed under tariff. Therefore, to foster competition
in complex wiring installation, we deregulated the installation of
complex wiring in the same way and on the same basis as we had
deregulated CPE in Computer II. We subsequently deregulated the
installation of simple inside wiring and maintenance of all inside
wiring, effective January 1, 1987. Through these actions, we intended
to make the cost-causative customer bear the costs of connecting CPE,
including inside wiring, to the telephone network and, thus, to produce
immediate cost savings that would be passed on to ratepayers.
30. To complete the deregulation of inside wire, the Commission
prohibited telephone companies from imposing restrictions on inside
wire that would prevent customers from removing, replacing, rearranging
or maintaining inside wire using sources of their own choosing. In
addition, we precluded the telephone companies from requiring customers
to purchase or to pay a charge for using inside wire that had been
previously installed or maintained under tariff.
3. Request for Comment. 31. We tentatively conclude that there is
no reason to change our rules giving consumers the right to access
their narrowband wiring inside the demarcation point, whether that
wiring is used to provide voice, video or data services. We seek
comment on this tentative conclusion. We also seek comment on whether
the Commission should establish rules that give consumers the right to
provide and to install their own broadband inside wiring and to access
broadband wiring (for purposes of, for example, installing additional
outlets, performing maintenance or reconfiguring existing wiring) on
their premises which has been installed and is owned by the broadband
service provider. In particular, we seek comment on whether consumers
should have such a right if: (a) the broadband wire carries both cable
and common carrier services (``joint use''); or (b) the broadband wire
carries cable services only.
32. Access to broadband inside wiring prior to termination of
service would allow consumers to select who will install and maintain
their broadband wire (e.g., someone other than the cable operator, such
as a commercial contractor, or the consumer himself or herself). The
resulting competition in the wiring marketplace might also reduce the
amount of maintenance fees and service charges a subscriber pays to the
broadband service provider.
33. In this context, we ask whether and how broadening the cable
rules to establish the subscribers' right to provide and to install
their own cable inside wiring and to access cable operator-owned inside
wiring would (a) promote consumer choice; (b) foster competition among
multichannel video programming service providers, thus lowering prices
and encouraging technological innovation; and (c) facilitate the
provision of more than one type of telecommunications service (e.g.,
telephone and video) by different types of companies. We also request
comment generally on how to protect against signal leakage and to
maintain the signal quality delivered over the coaxial cable if
subscribers are given pretermination access to broadband cable inside
wiring.
34. We seek comment on whether the Commission has authority under
the Communications Act to promulgate cable inside wiring rules
requiring pretermination access, both when the wiring is used jointly
by cable and common carrier services and when the wiring is used solely
for cable services. In particular, we ask whether, in the joint use
context, the inside wiring used to transmit interstate
telecommunications services is so inseparable from the wiring used to
transmit the cable services that consumers should have the right to
access the wiring under the Commission's current telephone rules. We
note that, while the telephone rules may provide a useful model for
broadband wiring, cable operators may not be regulated as common
carriers ``by reason of providing any cable service.'' We believe,
however, that simply applying rules to cable that are the same as, or
similar to, the telephone inside wiring rules is not tantamount to
treating cable operators as common carriers. We nevertheless request
comment on this interpretation of the statute. We also ask commenters
to address the issue of whether permitting pretermination access would
constitute an impermissible ``taking'' of property without just
compensation, in violation of cable operators' Fifth Amendment rights.
35. We also ask whether the best way to ensure that subscribers are
permitted to own and to access cable inside wiring, whether by buying
it or installing it prior to termination of service, might be to
deregulate cable inside wiring rates, much the same as telephone inside
wiring has been deregulated. We ask whether the introduction of
competition in the markets for cable inside wiring would force cable
operators to permit pretermination access where there is subscriber
demand. We seek comment on whether we have the statutory authority to
deregulate cable home wiring rates. We direct the parties to Section
16(d) of the 1992 Cable Act and Section 623(b) of the Communications
Act, as amended, and note that Congress specifically expressed a
``[p]reference for competition'' over regulation in setting rates for
cable services. In addition, we seek comment on whether and on what
basis the Commission should establish a transition period, during which
rates would remain regulated, while the market for cable home wiring
becomes competitive. We also ask for comment on whether, if the
Commission is statutorily required to regulate cable inside wiring
rates, we should provide incentives to cable operators to permit
pretermination access, for example, by providing that, if an operator
allows subscribers to access the home wiring prior to termination of
service, or sells the wiring to the subscriber (upon installation or
any time thereafter), the operator may then charge the subscriber
whatever rate it wishes to reconfigure or perform maintenance on the
wiring.
36. In order to promote the efficient transfer of service, we thus
seek comment on establishing a requirement that subscribers own their
inside wiring upon installation of cable service, on a going-forward
basis. We note that our current rules, as Title VI requires, already
permit cable operators to recover the costs of inside wiring
installation. We solicit comment on whether we should require cable
operators to sell the wiring upon installation of cable service. We
seek comment on the best way to achieve this. For example, should we
require cable operators to include the cost of the wiring as well as
the cost of labor to install the wiring in the cost of installation of
cable service? We seek comment on whether it is necessary for the
Commission to detail how these costs are to be recovered, e.g., in a
one-time initial payment, or on a monthly basis for some maximum number
of
[[Page 3662]]
months. Under the latter approach, we would intend for full ownership
of the wiring to be vested in the subscriber once the subscriber pays
any portion of the costs associated with the wiring. We understand that
cable operators would need time to implement this approach; therefore,
we seek comment on requiring cable operators to adopt this approach as
of some date certain in the future, e.g., six, 12 or 18 months
following adoption of the requirement.
37. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether the Commission can
and should create a presumption that the subscriber owns his or her
cable inside wiring. As we noted in the Cable Wiring Order, the
subscriber often already owns the home wiring, such as where the
subscriber was charged for the wiring upon installation, or, at least
in the case of single family dwellings, where the applicable state or
local law treats the wire as a ``fixture,'' or the previous occupant
already owned the home wiring, either by purchasing the wiring upon
voluntary termination of service or because the operator failed to
remove it within the time allowable under our rules. We seek comment on
whether this presumption could be rebutted by the cable operator or be
an irrebuttable presumption. If rebuttable, we seek comment on what
kind of showing cable operators would have to make to overcome a
presumption that the subscriber owns his or her home wiring, what type
of records operators would be required to keep, any constitutional or
statutory impediments to such a presumption, and when such a process
would occur. We also seek comment on our concern that, at least for
existing wiring, operators may possess inadequate records to
demonstrate ownership. If irrebuttable, we seek comment on how such a
relinquishment of ownership rights could be structured consistent with
constitutional and statutory requirements, and what deadlines should be
imposed in order to permit cable operators to obtain full compensation
for their inside wiring costs.
4. Compensation for Wiring.--a. Background. 38. The Commission's
rules compensate cable operators for their costs of installing the
subscriber's cable home wiring. With respect to telephone wiring, as
previously noted, the Commission deregulated the installation of simple
inside wiring and the maintenance of all inside wiring, effective
January 1, 1987. We then precluded carriers from imposing restrictions
upon the removal, replacement, rearrangement or maintenance of inside
wiring.
39. Currently, cable operators must elect a uniform installation
charge that is based upon either the product of the hourly service
charge and the person hours of the visit, or the product of the hourly
service charge and the average hours spent per installation visit.
Further, the rules prescribe a per-foot replacement cost upon
termination of service. We stated in the Cable Wiring Order that the
per-foot charge should be based on the replacement cost of coaxial
cable in the community, and gave as an example for which the cost was
approximately six cents per foot.
b. Request for Comment. 40. We seek comment on whether our current
rules for compensation of broadband cable should change if, for
example, we move the demarcation point for cable systems to the minimum
point of entry in multiple dwelling unit buildings or some other point,
including some point farther than 12 inches from the subscriber's
premises. We also seek comment on providing compensation to telephone
companies for the cost of an additional segment of what is now a
customer's narrowband telephone loop, if it is determined that the
demarcation point for the telephone network will be placed 12 inches
outside the customer's premises, or at some point inside of the minimum
point of entry.
E. Dual Regulation
1. Background. 41. As described above, the Commission has
established rules to govern the technical performance of cable systems,
the disposition of wiring upon termination of service, and subscriber
rates for the installation, maintenance and sale of equipment necessary
to receive cable service generally, including inside wiring. The local
franchising authority generally is the first line of enforcement of all
such rules, while the Commission will, either informally or by rule,
resolve disputes that may arise between a cable operator and the local
franchising authority.
42. Because most local telephone exchange facilities are used
jointly to provide interstate and intrastate telephone services, they
are regulated by both federal and state regulatory authorities. The
extent of dual regulation depends generally on whether the Commission
has preempted state authority to regulate exclusively a particular
aspect of telephone service rates.
43. With respect to simple wiring services, however, we have
maintained certain federal standards with which state regulations must
comply. For example, if a state chooses to regulate the rates under
which telephone companies provide simple inside wiring, the state
regulations must require the telephone companies to unbundle the inside
wiring charges from the charges for basic transmission services.
Moreover, a state may not establish rules that will impede the
competitive provision of telephone inside wiring. In addition, any
state regulations governing the terms or conditions under which inside
wire services are provided must be consistent with the technical
standards set forth in Part 68 of our rules.
44. In addition, the Commission has instituted a system to monitor
state regulatory programs for inside wire to assess their impact on our
goal of achieving full competition in the market for inside wire
services. We require a telephone company with annual operating revenues
of $100 million or more to file with the Commission a copy of any state
or local statute, rule, order, or other document that regulates, or
proposes to regulate, the price or prices the telephone companies
charge for inside wire services.
2. Request for Comment. 45. We first solicit comment on whether it
may be necessary to harmonize these respective disparate systems of
regulation as the similarity increases between the technology employed
to deliver telephony and video programming. For example, as stated
previously, it is possible that in the future both telephony and video
programming will be delivered over a single wire; thus, an issue may
arise over which dual system regulation should govern, i.e, Commission-
local franchising authority (cable service) or Commission-state public
utility commission (telephone service). We seek comment on whether the
Commission has legal authority to change or harmonize these dual
systems of regulation to accommodate the situation where broadband or
multiple services are provided over a single wire or multiple wires,
and how this could be accomplished. Similarly, if we were to adopt a
common demarcation point for both cable and telephone networks,
confusion also might arise over which relationship between local and
federal authorities should govern. Therefore, we also seek comment
generally on any conflicts that may arise from unifying these disparate
systems of dual regulation between cable and telephone service for
inside wiring, in light of the definition of the network or system
demarcation points as well as the other standard technical requirements
for the two services.
46. We also ask commenters to discuss the role of non-federal
regulation in setting the prices, terms
[[Page 3663]]
and conditions for telecommunications services inside wiring.
Currently, many local regulators regulate cable wiring. We seek comment
on whether the non-federal regulation of telephone wiring should be
altered if the delivery systems for telephony and video programming
become more similar. With respect to federal involvement, difficulties
also may arise in determining the proper level of our involvement in
the oversight of wiring as telephone and video programming technologies
advance. In this context, we seek comment on whether we should expand
or decrease our monitoring of charges for inside wiring used to provide
video service, or increase or decrease our oversight of telephone
inside wiring.
F. Service Provider Access to Private Property
1. Background. 47. We also wish to examine the right of various
service providers to obtain access to private property, such as
multiple dwelling unit buildings, private housing developments, and
office buildings. If, in the interest of competitive parity, we
ultimately were to adopt a uniform demarcation point for the networks
of all companies providing similar services, that goal may not be
achieved if all providers do not have equal access to the customer's
wiring at the demarcation point.
48. Telephone companies traditionally have gained access to private
property through private easements and contracts with the property
owners. As common carriers, they also have the use of public right-of-
ways and can exercise the power of eminent domain. Thus, when they seek
to provide telephone service, there has been little objection to their
right to access private property.
49. Cable operators' right to gain access to private property has
been less clear. Currently, approximately thirteen states have passed
some form of cable mandatory access statute, including Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.
2. Request for Comment. 50. Parity of access rights to private
property may be a necessary predicate for any attempt to achieve parity
in the rules governing cable and telephone network inside wiring,
because without access to the premises, the inside wiring rules and
proposals discussed in this NPRM will not even be implicated. An
inequality in access can unfairly benefit one provider over another. In
addition, we have received conflicting information about the ability of
alternative service providers to obtain the permission of multiple
dwelling unit building owners: (a) to enter the building at all; (b) to
run a common feeder line up a stairwell, for example, to a security
closet or lockbox; and (c) to run individual wiring down hallways from
the lockbox to individual units. We seek comment on the legal and
practical impediments faced by telecommunications service providers in
gaining access to subscribers. For instance, as discussed above, moving
the cable demarcation point farther away from the subscriber, such as
back to the lockbox, could alleviate much of the access problem if
building owners primarily objected to running additional wiring down
the hallways; on the other hand, moving the demarcation point may have
little impact if building owners have been denying alternative
providers access to the property altogether.
51. We seek comment on the above discussion and several other
specific issues related to provider access. First, we seek comment on
the current status of the law regarding access to private property by
cable operators and telephone companies. For instance, what type(s) of
access do state statutes granting mandatory access for cable operators
provide? Who qualifies for such mandatory access (e.g., only franchised
cable operators)? Have cable operators been successful in obtaining
access to private property under any other statutory or common law
theories? Similarly, what type(s) of access to private property do the
states grant to telephone companies? Is such access related to the type
of service provided or to the identity of the company? Do the statutes
permit telephone companies to obtain access to private residences, such
as multiple dwelling units, or simply to run their lines across private
property? In other words, can an individual resident in a multiple
dwelling unit obtain telephone service over the property owner's
objection?
52. We also seek comment on whether and how the rules governing
access to customers' premises should be harmonized in a world in which
the cable operator, the telephone company and possibly others may be
offering telephony, video and other services over a single wire. Can
and should cable operators that offer telephony be permitted to use the
telephone companies' easements to obtain access to private property?
Can and should cable operators or telephone companies, if they have an
easement to provide telephony, also be permitted to provide video or
other services using the same easement? Should it make a difference
whether the services are provided over one wire or two? We seek comment
on whether allowing a company that possesses an easement for one
service to rely on that easement in providing another service would
constitute an impermissible ``taking'' without just compensation, in
contravention of the property owner's Fifth Amendment rights.
53. Finally, we request comment on whether the Commission can and
should attempt to create access parity among service providers, and
what our rules should say regarding the terms of such access. We also
seek comment on any statutory or constitutional impediments to this
goal. In particular, we ask commenters to address the concern that any
right of access to private property may constitute an impermissible
``taking'' in violation of the property owner's Fifth Amendment rights.
We realize that a number of these potential service providers are not
common carriers and their right to access is not well established in
state or federal law. We seek comment on the potential constraints this
lack of common carrier status will have on the rules we prescribe.
G. Customer Premises Equipment
1. Background. 54. Telephone-related customer premises equipment
(CPE) constitutes all telephone equipment located on the customer's
side of the demarcation point, including private branch exchanges
(PBXs), key systems, modems, and telephone handsets. In the Computer II
Final Decision, we concluded that Title II regulation of CPE was no
longer warranted. We found that deregulation ``fosters a regulatory
scheme which separates the provision of regulated common carrier
services from competitive activities that are independent of, but
related to, the underlying utility service.'' Earlier decisions removed
tariff provisions that restricted customers' rights to attach non-
carrier provided CPE to the telephone network. Those earlier efforts
culminated in a registration program that allows consumers to connect
their own equipment to the network if the equipment conforms to certain
technical standards and is properly registered with the Commission
under Part 68 of our rules. These decisions confirmed the existence of
broad consumer right under Sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act.
55. In Computer II, we were also concerned that carriers' practices
of bundling CPE charges with charges for basic services could undermine
our efforts to ensure that regulated service rates accurately reflected
the costs of providing the associated service. Given
[[Page 3664]]
the variety of CPE products and suppliers, we were confident that our
unbundling and detariffing of CPE would not adversely affect consumers.
56. Cable-related CPE, regulated under Part 15 of the Commissions
rules for emission and interference, generally includes equipment
located on the customer's side of the demarcation point, such as
television receivers (``TVs''), video cassette recorders (``VCRs''),
remote control units, and set-top converter descramblers (``set-top
boxes''). We note that most of the current cable-related CPE mentioned,
such as TVs and VCRs, were designed and can function without connection
to cable systems, whereas practically all telephone-related equipment
is specifically designed to be connected to telephone networks. As
such, a number of issues may exist regarding the connection of
customer-owned CPE to cable system equipment, including loss of CPE
features and requiring a set-top box to receive cable service. While
set-top boxes are generally provided by the cable operator, TVs and
VCRs are generally provided by the subscriber. In addition, we
anticipate that future CPE used by cable and telephone subscribers may
include computers, component decoders and tuning devices, and
facilities used for interactive services. Often, cable operators
protect their extended basic and premium services with proprietary
scrambling techniques. In these cases, the subscriber must obtain the
descrambler converters from the cable operator. Our current cable
regulations do not specifically address the rights of cable subscribers
to connect CPE to cable operators' facilities. Therefore, unlike
equipment used to receive common carrier telephone service, there is
some ambiguity as to whether cable operators may prohibit or limit
subscribers' ability to connect CPE to operators' facilities for
services other than cable service.
57. The 1992 Cable Act directed the Commission to establish
standards that relied upon actual cost to set the rates charged to
lease equipment used by subscribers to receive basic cable service.
Only some cable-related CPE are subject to this statutory provision,
including set-top boxes, remote control units, connections for
additional outlets, and inside wiring. We note that the 1992 Cable Act
also directed the Commission to ensure compatibility between consumer
equipment and cable systems, consistent with the need to prevent theft
of cable service, so that cable subscribers will be able to enjoy the
full benefits of both the programming available on cable systems and
the functions available on their television receivers and VCRs.
58. What is more, and as stated previously, we anticipate that the
technologies used to deliver and receive cable and telephone service
may become more similar. For example, future video programming and
telephony may not only be delivered over a single broadband wire, but
future subscribers may receive both services using a single piece of
equipment, such as a computer modem or a ``videophone.'' It is also
possible that the subscriber may only need one piece of customer
premises equipment to interact with both services, such as an enhanced
set-top box or stand-alone interface unit. In addition, multi-use
devices may be developed that allow subscribers to receive video, data
and voice services, akin to the present functions of a telephone modem
used to reach computer networks. In such cases, the disparate
regulatory schemes for cable-related CPE and telephone-related
equipment could cause confusion for service providers as well as
subscribers and regulators. For example, service providers may be
uncertain whether rates for such equipment are subject to regulation.
Similarly, subscribers may be uncertain of their rights to connect CPE
to the network(s) over which they receive service.
2. Request for Comment. 59. Interconnection. Since the Commission
deregulated telephone CPE, the Commission's goals of promoting
marketplace entry by communications equipment vendors, increasing
competition among these vendors, and producing cost savings for both
consumers and common carriers have largely been fulfilled. We believe
that exploring and possibly establishing the rights of consumers to
provide and connect unregulated CPE to cable operator facilities can
similarly benefit cable subscribers. We also believe that creating a
record on these and other related issues will enable the Commission to
establish simple and pro-competitive rules setting forth the rights and
responsibilities of both service providers and subscribers with respect
to CPE.
60. We therefore seek comment on the costs and benefits of
harmonizing or revising our rules to accommodate better the possible
convergence of technologies used to receive and to interact with
network-delivered video programming and telephony. We seek comment on
whether to allow customers to use and connect their cable-related CPE,
such as set-top boxes, to cable facilities while allowing cable
operators to protect their legitimate security interests and to provide
new and innovative services without inhibiting the use of existing
customer CPE. We recognize that new and innovative services often
require proprietary equipment which may not be compatible with existing
CPE. We seek comment on the technical and economic impediments to
requiring new services to be compatible with existing CPE. We also
solicit comment on whether we should establish a common regulatory
scheme to govern both cable and telephone network CPE.
61. We also understand that the technology of future CPE may take a
variety of forms (e.g., component decoders, computer modems). We note
that technologies to deliver voice and video service on an integrated
basis continue to evolve. We seek comment on whether we should tailor
our rules to accommodate different types of CPE technologies and
functions. For example, perhaps there should be a different set of
rules for cable-related equipment that is designed to both transmit and
receive, than for equipment that is designed only to receive. We
tentatively conclude that consumers should be able to connect cable-
related equipment, as well as purchase this equipment, and seek comment
on how the Commission may best achieve this goal. We note that in the
1992 Cable Act, Congress recognized that there are a number of
compatibility problems between cable service and consumer electronics
equipment. Congress was particularly concerned about the inability of
cable subscribers to use the special features and functions of their TV
sets and VCRs when receiving cable signals which are most often
precluded by the use of a cable supplied set-top box. These features
include picture-in-picture, timed recordings and the ability to view
one channel while recording another. Presently, the Commission is
awaiting finalization of a standard for a Decoder Interface connector.
This standard is being developed by the Cable-Consumer Electronics
Compatibility Advisory Group in conjunction with the Joint Engineering
Committee of the Electronics Industry Association and NCTA. We believe
that special rules must govern subscribers' access to and connection of
CPE with access control functions that are consistent with these
efforts. In this context, we seek comment on how best to protect
against theft of cable service or other damage to cable operators'
facilities if we were to change our rules to accommodate the possible
convergence of technology used to deliver and receive cable and
[[Page 3665]]
telephone service. We also note that the Commission has taken steps to
ensure enhanced compatibility between consumer electronics equipment
and cable operators' facilities. See In the Matter of Implementation of
Section 17 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition
Act of 1992: Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer
Electronics Equipment, ET Docket 93-7, 9 FCC Rcd 1981 (1994), 58 FR
7205 (Feb. 2, 1993). The regulations adopted in the equipment
compatibility proceeding will allow consumers to utilize customer
premises equipment offered by a variety of suppliers, including the
cable operator, in a competitive market.
62. We are not proposing to change our Computer II framework for
equipment connected to narrowband facilities, or for equipment used in
conjunction with Title II services but not Title VI services. We
tentatively conclude that CPE used in conjunction with Title VI
services provided over narrowband facilities should also be governed by
Computer II, and seek comment on this tentative conclusion, including
any security concerns that are raised by such a conclusion.
63. We note that Part 68 of the Commission's rules establishes
standards for telephone-related CPE and an equipment registration
program that are designed to ensure the reliability of telephone
networks. Network reliability and safety must be maintained as entities
other than traditional telephone companies begin to offer both voice
and video services that use or interconnect with the public switched
network. We thus seek comment on whether the Commission should enlarge
the current registration program to cover cable-related CPE that use or
interconnect with the public switched network, if such interconnection
is to occur. We further seek comment on whether an equipment
registration program similar to the existing Part 68 program should be
established for manufacturers of equipment used with future services,
both broadband and narrowband, to ensure the integrity and reliability
of these networks. Finally, we seek comment on how such a program
should be structured to define the rights of both the service providers
and the network subscribers, while ensuring the development and
maintenance of a competitive CPE market. Such policies might include
adoption of standards, for example, such as the Commission has adopted
for telephone equipment in Part 68 of its rules.
64. Equipment Rates. We believe that improving cable subscribers'
rights to acquire and provide their own cable-related CPE would benefit
subscribers. Such rules would give subscribers the choice of
purchasing, installing or maintaining CPE themselves, or having a
vendor other than the cable operator do so. This should promote
marketplace entry by communications equipment vendors and facilitate
competition among these vendors, as we have seen in the telephone
context. A competitive marketplace should lead to the development of
innovative types of CPE, improved performance of existing and new CPE,
and improved maintenance of CPE.
65. As previously stated with respect to equipment rates, the 1992
Cable Act directed the Commission to establish a rate-setting
methodology for equipment used to receive basic cable service,
including set-top boxes, remote control units, wiring, and additional
cable outlets. In response, the Commission's regulations link maximum
permitted rates for regulated equipment to operators' actual costs of
providing the equipment. We note, however, that Congress exhibited a
clear preference for competition over regulation in the setting of
rates for cable service and equipment.\1\ We believe that deregulating
rates for currently regulated CPE would be in the public interest if
the marketplace for CPE becomes competitive, and seek comment on this
tentative conclusion. We wish to make clear that we are not proposing
to re-regulate currently deregulated telephone CPE rates. We also seek
comment on whether the Commission has authority to deregulate cable CPE
rates under the Communications Act, and specifically whether the
Commission possesses such authority under Sections 623(b), 632(b),
4(i), and 1. We further seek comment on whether specifically
deregulating rates for currently regulated CPE would be inconsistent
with the 1992 Cable Act, given that market forces in the resulting
marketplace should determine rates. Finally, we seek comment on whether
it would be necessary to establish a transition period prior to the
deregulation of currently regulated CPE rates, until a competitive
marketplace for CPE exists.
\1\ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 543(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
66. Pursuant to Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the
Commission has prepared the following initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (``IRFA'') of the expected impact of these proposed policies
and rules on small entities. Written public comments are requested on
the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same
filing deadlines as comments on the rest of the NPRM, but they must
have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to
the IRFA. The Secretary shall cause a copy of the NPRM, including the
IRFA, to be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration in accordance with Section 603(a) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C.
Sec. 601 et seq. (1981).
67. The Commission issues this NPRM to consider changes in our
telephone and cable inside wiring rules and policies in light of
today's evolving and converging telecommunications marketplace.
68. Objectives. To explore the development of new cable and
telephony service rules in the following areas in light of converging
technology: demarcation point, means of connection, simple and complex
residential and non-residential wiring, installation, maintenance,
access and ownership of inside wiring, compensation, dual regulation
and service provider access.
69. Legal Basis. Action as proposed for this rulemaking is
contained in Section 1, 4(i), 201-205, 214-215, 220, 623, and 632 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 151,
154(i), 201-205, 214-215, 220, 543 and 552.
70. Description, Potential Impact and Number of Small Entities
Affected. The proposals, if adopted, will not have a significant effect
on a substantial number of small entities.
71. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements.
None.
72. Federal Rules which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict with these
Rules. None.
73. Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing Impact on Small
Entities and Consistent with Stated Objectives. None.
IV. Procedural Provisions
74. Ex parte Rules--Non-Restricted Proceeding. This is a non-
restricted notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte
presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period,
provided that they are disclosed as provided in Commission's rules. See
generally 47 CFR Secs. 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).
75. To file formally in this proceeding, you must file an original
plus four copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting
comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of
your comments and
[[Page 3666]]
reply comments, you must file an original plus nine copies. Comments
are due on March 18, 1996, and reply comments are due on April 17,
1996. You should send comments and reply comments to Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available
for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC
Reference Center, Room 239, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M
Street N.W., Washington D.C. 20554.
V. Ordering Clauses
76. It is ordered that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 201-205, 214-
215, 220, 623, and 632 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. Secs. 151, 154(i), 201-205, 214-215, 220, 543 and 552, NOTICE
IS HEREBY GIVEN of proposed amendments to Part 76, in accordance with
the proposals, discussions, and statement of issues in this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, and that COMMENT IS SOUGHT regarding such
proposals, discussion, and statement of issues.
77. It is further ordered that the Secretary shall send a copy of
this NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5
U.S.C. Secs. 601 et seq. (1981).
78. It is further ordered that the Petition for Rulemaking filed by
the Media Access Project, et al., to the extent it concerns making
cable home wiring rules the same as those governing telephone inside
wiring, is Hereby granted.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76
Cable television.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-2169 Filed 1-31-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
