[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 40 (Friday, February 28, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9153-9154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5090]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[MM Docket No. 93-25] [FCC 97-24]
DBS Public Interest Rulemaking
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule; additional comments sought.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission solicits updated comments in this proceeding to
reflect changed circumstances in the DBS industry since the release in
1993 of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making to implement section 25 of
the 1992 Cable Act. Among the issues on which the Commission seeks
revised public comment are how sections 312(a)(7) and 315 of the
Communications Act should be applied to DBS providers, how the
requirement to reserve 4-7 percent of channel capacity for non-
commercial programming should be implemented, and what public interest
or other requirements, if any, should be imposed on DBS providers in
addition to the minimum specified requirements.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 31, 1997. Replies
must be submitted on or before April 30, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Stern, International Bureau,
(202) 418-0746 or Brian Carter, International Bureau, (202) 418-2119.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Section 25 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1992 (``1992 Cable Act'') added a new Section 335 to
the Communications Act of 1934 that directed the Commission to initiate
a rulemaking to impose public interest or other requirements for
providing video programming on direct broadcast satellite (``DBS'')
service providers. On March 2, 1993, the Commission released a Notice
of Proposed Rule Making seeking comment on its proposals to implement
the different provisions of section 25 (``DBS Public Interest
NPRM'').1 On September 16, 1993, after the Commission had received
comments and reply comments in this proceeding, the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia held that section 25 of the
1992 Cable Act was unconstitutional.2 This ruling effectively
froze the DBS Public Interest NPRM pending the Commission's appeal of
the decision. Nearly three years later, on August 30, 1996, the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed
the District Court and held that section 25 was constitutional.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 58 FR 12917 (Mar. 8, 1993); 8 FCC Rcd 1589 (1993).
\2\ Daniels Cablevision, Inc. v. United States, 835 F. Supp. 1
(D.D.C. 1993).
\3\ Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. v. FCC, 93 F.3d 957
(D.C. Cir. 1996); petition for rehearing pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. In light of the relatively long interval between release of the
DBS Public Interest NPRM and the Court's recent decision upholding
section 25, the Commission, by this public notice, seeks to update and
refresh the record in this proceeding. The DBS industry has grown and
changed dramatically over the last four years. Accordingly, the
Commission requests new and revised comments on each of the issues
raised in the DBS Public Interest Rulemaking and on any other issues
relevant to implementation of section 25.
Section 25(a) of the 1992 Cable Act (47 U.S.C. 335(a)) states:
The Commission shall, within 180 days after the date of
enactment of this section, initiate a rulemaking proceeding to
impose, on providers of direct broadcast satellite service, public
interest or other requirements for providing video programming. Any
regulations prescribed pursuant to such rulemaking shall, at a
minimum, apply the access to broadcast time requirement of section
312(a)(7) and the use of facilities requirements of section 315 to
providers of direct broadcast satellite service providing video
programming. Such proceeding also shall examine the opportunities
that the establishment of direct broadcast satellite service
provides for the principle of localism under this Act, and the
methods by which such principle may be served through technological
and other developments in, or regulation of, such service.
3. With respect to this section of the statute we seek updated
comments on issues that include but are not limited to the following:
How should the requirements of sections 312(a)(7) and 315 of the
Communications Act be applied to DBS providers? 4 What ``public
interest or other requirements'', if any, should be imposed on DBS
providers in addition to the minimum requirements described above? In
the 1993 DBS Public Interest NPRM we tentatively proposed not to adopt
additional public service requirements, based on ``the flexible
regulatory approach taken for DBS and its early stage of development.''
5 Should the rapid deployment of the DBS industry over the last
several years, including technological advances that may in the near
future allow DBS providers to offer some local programming alter this
conclusion? If so, how?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See DBS Public Interest NPRM, 8 FCC Rcd 1589 at Paras. 21-
28.
\5\ Id. at para. 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. We also seek updated comments on how we should apply the
separate requirements imposed by section 25(b) of the 1992 Cable Act.
Section 25(b)(1) mandates that a DBS provider ``reserve a portion of
its channel capacity, equal to not less than 4 percent nor more than
[[Page 9154]]
7 percent, exclusively for noncommercial programming of an educational
or informational nature.'' Among the questions we asked in our NPRM on
this section were whether, and if so how, we should define the term
``noncommercial'' programming.6 Pursuant to section 25(b)(3), this
channel capacity must be made available, to ``national educational
programming suppliers, upon reasonable prices, terms, and conditions.''
What other entities, if any, must be afforded access to channel
capacity under this provision? 7 How should the term ``reasonable
prices, terms, and conditions'' be defined? How should these section
25(b) provisions be interpreted and implemented? 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id. at para. 44.
\7\ Id. at para. 43.
\8\ See Id. at Paras. 37-51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Because DBS, as a satellite service, is likely to be delivered
on a regional rather than national basis, we seek comment on the
international ramifications of any public interest obligations we may
adopt. Finally, we seek comment on any other issues relevant to the
implementation of section 25.
6. Comments filed in response to this Public Notice should be filed
on or before March 31, 1997 and replies should be filed on or before
April 30, 1997. Commenters should note that while this Public Notice
references the original docket number (MM Docket No. 93-25), this
proceeding will be handled by the International Bureau. Copies of
relevant documents can be obtained in the FCC Reference Center, 1919 M
Street, NW., Room 239, Washington, DC, and also may be purchased from
the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service,
(202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
For further information contact John Stern at (202) 418-0746 or Brian
Carter at (202) 418-2119.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76
Equal employment opportunity, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
William S. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-5090 Filed 2-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
